Studies In The Transformation Of U.S. Agriculture

A. Eugene Havens, Gregory Hooks, Patrick H Mooney, Max Pfeffer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000313468
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

In recent years, the consensual view of rural society has been challenged by theorists identifying the conflict, exploitation, and power relations in rural society. Beyond this theoretical challenge, empirical studies of the sociology of agriculture have provided a fresh understanding of the dynamics of U.S. agriculture. This book contributes to the growing literature by providing a historical perspective. The contributors explore historical developments in U.S. agriculture within the context of the larger political economy. The book opens with a review of the similarities and differences between the critical rural sociology of today with that of the 1930s and moves on to a study of the accumulation process in U.S. agriculture. Other issues covered include the erosion of the southern class structure during and after the 1930s, the landed aristocracy's reassertion in the post-bellum south, changes in the class structure and locus of agriculture in the midwest, and historical developments in the labor process and in capitalist agriculture in California. The concluding chapter provides a framework for studying both the origins and the consequences of state agriculture policies.

1
Critical Rural Sociology of Yesterday and Today

Gregory Hooks

The first section of this chapter offers an historical account of the emergence of critical rural sociology during the 1930s, and a content analysis of the literature of the period.¹ In parallel fashion, the second section of this chapter explores the political and material conditions that nurtured the emergence of today’s critical rural sociological research and literature.

In discussing the changes in the context of the discipline, I emphasize the identification of the proximate causes of the emergence of critical rural sociology. For neither the 1930s nor the present generation of critical rural sociology am I seeking to explain the major changes in the political economy, or how and why the U.S. state was transformed. Rather, the emphasis is on the changing options for social scientists during these two periods—especially for rural sociologists. Particularly important in the development of new research and career options for rural sociologists were changes in the administration of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and of academia.

Though the context and the content of the literature of the 1930s and the present are very different, both exhibit the emergence of a critical approach to the subdiscipline. The emphasis on “critical” research means that the literature of present generation and that of the 1930s share several features. First, the term “critical” refers to a movement away from a “condition which anthropologists refer to as ‘capture’—adopting a wholly uncritical stance towards the structure and institutions of rural society” (Newby and Buttel, 1980:2). Second, critical rural sociology provides a theoretically and “historically informed critique of the status quo—both in rural sociology and rural society” (Newby and Buttel, 1980:2). In both generations the emphasis is on exposing social inequalities and inequities, not on obscuring them. Though the practitioners of the 1930s and those of the present generation differ in their theoretical grounding, an emphasis on social inequality is shared. A third and closely related shared trait is the link between social research and social reform. That is, critical rural social research is not conducted merely to advance scientific knowledge: it is done to guide and promote significant social reform. On one point, critical rural sociologists of the 1930s and those of today part company. While both generations argue that the state is powerful and that rural society cannot be understood without reference to it, they differ in their view of the state. Practitioners of the 1930s viewed the state as a vehicle for reforming inequalities in civil society. However, the present generation of critical rural sociologists—whether Marxist or Weberian—tend to see the state as integral to the social structure and reproductive of social inequalities.

Part 1 of this paper concentrates on the 1930s. There the basic features of the critical rural sociology that emerged are identified and content analysis is used to explore the changes in the literature over time and across institutional settings. Part 2 explores the present generation of critical rural sociologists in an essentially parallel manner. While the emphasis in the exploration of the present generation of critical rural sociology is similar to that offered in the discussion of the 1930s, no content analysis is used to clarify the arguments made. Instead, the papers in this volume are summarized to emphasize trends in recent critical research. Further, a brief interview with the contributors is used to highlight the authors’ own views on the practice of critical rural sociology. Thus, the clarification of the arguments about the emergence of critical rural sociology also introduces the papers to follow.²

Critical Rural Sociology of the Past

Critical rural sociology of the 1930s did not emerge simply because of an intellectual dissatisfaction with pre-Depression approaches; rather, the rethinking of those years was made possible by changes in the political context of the subdiscipline. Roosevelt’s election in 1932 and associated political changes played the most important role in providing the space for rethinking rural sociology. FDR not only enjoyed a sizeable majority in the Congress, but his ability to secure reelection in 1936 and the crisis conditions of the 1930s provided an opportunity to restructure the U.S. government. These changes included important (if limited) social reform legislation, the Agricultural Adjustment, Social Security, and Labor Relations Acts being particularly important. Roosevelt’s policies also brought about a change in the organization of the state, i.e., an aggrandizement of the Federal government at the expense of the states and an enhanced role for the Executive at the expense of the Congress and the courts (Egger, 1975).

The Context

Administering the quickly expanding Federal government posed an important challenge to FDR and the Democrats. In response, they strove for closer coordination among the agencies of the Federal government and relied on social scientists to staff the government to a degree unmatched before or since. During FDR’s first administration social scientists provided an analysis of social problems and suggestions for reforms. Further, they were called on to staff the reform agencies—including those in the USDA (Egger, 1975). During the second Roosevelt administration the emphasis shifted to closer coordination among the numerous Federal agencies (Berman, 1979) and to an improvement in the management of each (Egger, 1975). On both counts the goal was to create a powerful and centralized state capable of implementing far reaching social and economic reforms; social scientists were among the most ardent supporters of these changes and dominated the staffing of key agencies.

These same tendencies were in evidence in the arena of agricultural politics. In fact, the USDA of the 1930s was in the vanguard of New Deal agencies. Henry Wallace, Jr., served as the Secretary of Agriculture from 1932 to 1940 and relied on social scientists in the administration, planning and implementation of agricultural policies. In this realm of policy, New Deal reforms represented a direct challenge to the power of the Extension Service and of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). Though these regional and state based institutions ultimately emerged victorious in the 1940s (McConnell, 1969), the 1930s witnessed an enhancement of the Federal government and of social scientists therein. Wallace’s closest administrative assistants played a key role in restructuring the USDA and in the professionalization of public administration in the U.S. The views of one of them on the role of the state and of social scientists gives a sense of the context in which critical rural sociology emerged in the 1930s. Paul Appleby was Wallace’s Under Secretary and principal advisor on administration (Kirkendall, 1966:199). In his book, Big Democracy (1945), Appleby argues in Hegelian fashion that public and private administration are distinct because private organizations are dominated by shortsighted and particularistic interests while the government serves a broader and more balanced public interest: “It goes without saying that it is to the interest of the public that the powers exercised by government officials be superior within their fields to those of all other parties. For all others would be less representative and less responsible” (Appleby, 1945:38). Not only is government the bearer of the society’s broader interest, but it “must be big enough and powerful enough to be definitely superior to any and all special-irtterest groups” (1945:38).

These public administrators explained the expansion of the U.S. government under Roosevelt in normative and prescriptive terms. J.M. Gaus, a sympathetic student of the social scientists’ approach to administering the USD A, argued that the causes of governmental expansion are changes in the “people, place, physical technology, social technology, wishes and ideas, catastrophe, and personality” of society (Gaus, 1947:9). As these factors change, and especially if they become more complex, government must assume a larger role or risk destructive conflict among particularistic private interest groups. These public administrators were not exceptional for the period; they shared with other intellectual descendants of the Progressives a belief that “the study of man and society must become scientific and must tackle pressing social problems. They rejected the theory that man could not control evolution and argued that government action, based upon scientific knowledge, could shape the evolutionary process and promote the general welfare” (Kir-kendall, 1966:3). These arguments are important because they were shared by Wallace, and hence guided a systematic restructuring of the USDA, its staffing, and the definition of its role.

One of the most important consequences of the ascendancy of public administrators under Wallace was the emphasis on scientific management of the USDA. These New Dealers made repeated attempts to subordinate the Extension Service and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) to the policies of the central USDA (Gaus and Wolcott, 1940:79). Similarly, they resisted the penetration of a public agency (i.e., the USDA) by particularistic interests (i.e., the AFBF). In the same vein, they recruited a staff that was knowledgeable, experienced, and willing to serve the “public interest” (Kirkendall, 1966:199). As a result, social scientists were hired in record numbers to manage existing and newly created agencies. Agricultural economists—especially those reformist and program oriented in the Iowa State tradition—were given key positions in the USDA (Hardin, 1967:227–30). Similarly, the power of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE) waxed throughout the 1930s. By 1939, the BAE was given responsibility for planning and coordinating the activities of the various USDA action agencies and for national coordination of a county level land-use planning program (Benedict, 1953; Gaus and Wolcott, 1940; Kirkendall, 1966). This broadened role gave social scientists a powerful influence over agencies that were once autonomous while creating a field staff and contacts with farmers that threatened the hegemony of the Extension Service and AAA in the field.

As noted, the expansion of planning and reform and the influence of social scientists depended upon a sympathetic Congress and a President willing to nurture the effort. Within the USDA, Wallace’s enthusiastic support during the 1930s was a major factor. These preconditions evaporated in the 1940s—and with their disappearance New Dealer social scientists came under a powerful attack. That attack was led by the AFBF and a conservative coalition composed of Republicans and Dixiecrats in the Congress, and ultimately proved successful (Kirkendall, 1966; McConnell, 1969). By the late 1940s, the role of social scientists was no longer planning and policy making; rather, it was the implementation of policies chosen by others and technical assistance (see Hardin, 1955 and 1967 for the views of a disappointed agricultural economist).

Table 1. Agricultural Economists and Rural Sociologists in the Federal Government and Land Grant System, 1929–30 and 1939–40*

Rural sociologists were not the most powerful of social scientists in the arena of agricultural politics, but a group of them did support and participate in New Deal reform efforts. In other words, though the subdiscipline of rural sociology was not at the forefront of New Deal reforms, the events of the period did provide the “space” for a rethinking of rural sociology. This opportunity is reflected most directly in employment opportunities. Table 1 shows the location of rural sociologists and agricultural economists in 1929–30 and 1939–40.

This table shows two important trends. First, rural sociology was consistently dwarfed, in both the Federal government and the land grant system, by agricultural economics. Second, though the practitioners located in the land grant system remained in the majority throughout, the 1930’s witnessed a dramatic growth in the number of rural sociologists working in reformist Federal agencies. Schultz and Witt (1941) and Taylor (1939) reported that rural sociologists were spread out among a number of welfare and action agencies from 1933 to 1938. However, with the elimination or decline of these agencies and the growth of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare within the BAE, virtually all sociologists working in the Federal government were concentrated in the BAE by 1939. Though exact statistics are unavailable it appears that the absolute number of rural sociologists in the Federal government stayed roughly the same from 1937 to 1940. And these rural sociologists found the necessary funding to conduct social research. “Let us recognize also that action agencies wrestling with rural social problems have supplied more funds for rural social research in the last six years than all the universities, colleges, and foundations combined have supplied in the twenty-five years during which concrete rural research has been in process” (Taylor, 1940:29). The critical rural sociology that emerged in the 1930s was nurtured by the material conditions discussed here—alternative employment and funding options.

The Literature

Those working in the reform agencies of the 1930s did not inherit a rural sociological tradition well suited for research into governmental social reforms. Prior to the Depression, rural sociology had concentrated on “social problems” peculiar to the countryside, but these problems were seen as located in a deficient rural personality and the underdevelopment of rural social institutions as a result of low population density. Exploitive social relations were beyond the conceptual framework (Hooks and Flinn, 1981a and 1981b). In turn, solving these problems hinged upon improving rural people on the one hand and building rural social institutions on the other, i.e., pursuing the Extension tradition. This tendency was reinforced by the Purnell Act of 1926, which funded rural sociological research for the first time but did so in the context of land grant institutions. The prolonged agricultural depression of the 1920s and 1930s did spark self-doubt among practitioners. These were expressed by E.C. Lindeman: “Either the principles of rural sociology are hot-house products, too fragile to stand transplanting to the rugged soil of actual rural community, or the rural sociologists have failed to develop means of rendering their principles intelligible and useable” (quoted in Danborn, 1979:123). However, prior to FDR’s election, the dominant response was to improve the research competence of rural sociologists to overcome the “mania for reform before analysis” (Zimmerman, 1929:260), and to renew the subdiscipline’s commitment to the Extension Service (Burr, 1927; Kumlein, 1927).

Throughout the 1930s the traditional view of rural society and of the role of rural sociologists remained influential, but it was challenged by an alternative and critical approach in the Progressive intellectual tradition. While both traditions within rural sociology reflected the important influence of Sorokin and Zimmerman’s (1929) Principles in Rural-Urban Sociology, they diverged markedly from this common starting point. Dwight Sanderson, who worked in a land grant institution (Cornell University) and was the first president of the Rural Sociological Society (RSS), shaped the thinking of rural sociologists retaining a traditional view. In Sanderson’s view (1932), the community was identified as the key sociological category. Furthermore, the role of the sociologist was to “raise community consciousness” (Sanderson, 1932:583) and to subdue conflict. Implicitly, reformist state interventions were downplayed. Taylor (1933), who was a central figure among reformists, took a markedly different position on each of these points. He argued that class was the key sociological category, and that “class consciousness” and struggle were central to valid social reform (1933:658). Not only were state led reforms of the exploitive social order seen as positive, Taylor called on rural sociologists to be actively involved in these reforms.³

This reasoning was well received in the central USDA offices. Funding for Taylor’s Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare in the BAE tripled in the late 1930s. In fact, most of the increase in rural sociologists employed in the federal government (as reflected in Table 1) were located in this office. This reasoning struck a note among rural sociologists as well. “Taylor was able to … recruit top-flight members of his profession … and produce publications that were highly regarded by sociologists outside the USDA” (Kirkendall, 1966:222).

However, several of these studies were used by enemies of the BAE to justify reducing the influence of social scientists. First, Goldschmidt (1947) studied rural California and co...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• About the Book and Editors
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• 1 Critical Rural Sociology of Yesterday and Today
• 2 Capitalist Development in the United States: State, Accumulation, and Agricultural Production Systems
• 3 The Underdevelopment of the South: State and Agriculture, 1865–1900
• 4 Farmers’ Movements and the Changing Structure of Agriculture
• 5 Local State Structure and the Transformation of Southern Agriculture
• 6 New Deal Farm Policy and Oklahoma Populism
• 7 Class Relations and Class Structure in the Midwest
• 8 Immigration Policy and Class Relations in California Agriculture
• 9 Agriculture and the State: An Analytical Approach
• Index