TEDx Summary:

I watched a TEDX talk given by Dean Carlson about why sustainable farming matters. He is the owner of Wyebrook farm in Honey Brook, Pennsylvania. Carlson went to school to be a businessman and says that he was trained to make rash decisions about heavy economic deals. His education taught him all about how to handle economics, business, and finance, and at the beginning, he mentions that if you would’ve asked his family a few years ago, they would have said he was the least-likely person to be standing, talking about sustainability in farming because he didn’t used to know anything about it. The interesting thing about this particular TED talk, he is able to use the knowledge and education that he has, and he’s able to apply this to the farm. He uses many graphs and statistics and numbers, just the way an economist, businessman-turned-farm-lover would. I think that an important part of sustainable farming is getting the point out to the public that it is available for average Americans.

He uses a metaphor of a bottle filling up with bacteria and a time restraint to show that the world is decaying. There is so much life on the earth that is taking up much of the earth’s resources, and the only solution is to stop growing. Stop creating. Stop contributing. His point is that we need to find a way to grow more food without using up any more of our fossil fuels. Carlson says that people who know how to grow sustainable foods will become very popular in the coming years because they’ll be the only ones who’ll know how to survive. He has the idea that he can grow food on a very personal level, and he tells how he did that. He doesn’t like to use oil and he feels that the earth is, like the bottle of rapidly filling bacteria, running out of room.

I agree with parts of Carlson’s argument, but I don’t agree with the entire thing. I think that it’s important to be mindful of local farming and preserving the resources that we do have, but there’s more to it. We do still have to use the resources because that’s what they’re there for. We should be cautious, sure, but we don’t need to go overboard, the way he suggests. 

Food! Farming! Festivity!

I think that like anything, food is a very necessary part of the cultural celebration of a big event. In shivarees, where the community comes together to give approval of a marriage, it would make sense that food would be such a large part of the celebration. I like the part on page 242 that said "food is extraordinary in its ordinariness" because I think that is very relatable. This makes me think of the state fair. In my family, the state fair is a very big deal. It is the first event of many to welcome Autumn. At the state fair, we don't ride any of the rides, we go to eat the food. I can get a corn dog any day of the week from a fast food restaurant, but it is the cultural identity of the state fair that is associated with corn dogs, the familiarity that comes to mind when I think of being at the state fair with my family and friends eating corn on the cob, smothered in fresh butter and cheese. Each of these foods are ordinary in nature, but it is the sense of community, just like in the shivarees, that makes them extraordinary. 

I think there is also something important about the way the essay mentions that in farming culture, the woman could've called authorities when the boys broke in and slaughtered the chickens, but the authorities were a few hours away and it was more important to preserve the relationship with the boys. There would be more celebrations, she would see them often, so it was important for her to preserve that sense of community. Ultimately, I think this is what farming and festivity is all about, preserving a strong sense of community. 

Farm Related Research Project: Women in Farming

American Farming: Not a One-(Wo)Man-Job

When one types the phrase “American farmer” into an online search engine, they find a list of different websites that lead to a variety of cultural interpretations of farming in America. The first, of course, matches the search word for word: Americanfarmers.com. Consider the page the beginner’s guide to American farming, which is worthwhile to me since I know very little about the American farm… or farming at all. At the top of the home page, there are four tabs that lead to different areas of the website. The researcher can click on the farm blog where they will find unique stories centered around agriculture, the latest about an Iowa farmer, a woman, April Hemmes, who has temporarily uprooted herself and is having unexpected experiences in China with a group of other ag-enthusiast women from Iowa. Most of them are the care takers of American farms and are interested in bringing their knowledge of agriculture to a plethora of other countries. April’s story is particularly interesting because unlike what is typically thought to be a man’s job, April does on her own. Her husband does not run the farm with her. The article mentions that he has another job downtown. The small difference is noted in the article because it is not typical of the culture. For centuries, American farmers have been men, but April’s experiences in China remind her that there are far more avenues for women in farming, not only in American culture, but there are international changes being made, as well. Hemme’s first describes

Rogers and Hammerstein’s Oklahoma!, written in 1943, set in forty years earlier at the beginning of the Midwest land rush follows a plethora of typical American farmers. While the story is mostly framed by the relationship of Curly McClain and Laurey Williams, it is extremely telling of what life was like before the establishment of the western portion of the United States. Perhaps the most telling piece of the production happens in a disagreement between farmers and cowmen within the town.

            Susan D. Blum explores the differences of men and women in farming. She starts the piece out by discussing typical thoughts about American farmers and later dives into the importance of women farmers in sustainable farms.

            “When people think of farmers, they usually think of men. Iconic images of

farming might include rough, burly guys using heavy equipment. But nowadays, more women have become farmers, especially in contexts of sustainable food. Using the life stories of three such women, I show how they came to this work and what it means. It is much more of a calling than a conventional form of work, precipitated by crises, illuminated by epiphanies, and benefiting from skills accumulated in these women’s

previous work life. Their work may be summed up as redemptive” (Blum, 315).

            With this piece of literature, it is important to note that the author discusses different types of agriculture. This piece reads like a journal or an exposé of women in farming and there is a great emphasis put on the local context of the women being examined. When thinking about farming, it is very important to think about the context in which piece was written. Blum’s piece in particular talks about specific areas of the United States that need help in being built up. She talks about how American women are so needed in this task. Blum also talks about the importance of the consumer having face-to-face contact with the distributor. In this case, the distributor is the farmer. It makes sense that women would be the perfect candidates for this face-to-face contact because when thinking about stereotypes, women are typically found to be more understanding, more comfortable, and more hospitable in these types of situations. Blum also says that farm tours are popular, and who is a better tour guide than the woman of the farm, who knows the ins and outs of the land both behind the scenes as well as what is on the surface. The author talks about her interaction between a few different women on separate farms and highlights all of their strengths. Every detail that she gives about each woman shows that farming culture that is typically remembered by the general public is a valid one (the cook, the mother) but she makes very valid points to show that a woman’s domestic qualities can also be used as assets on the business side of the farm. This is a different perspective than literature typically portrays.

To understand male and female roles within the American farm, however, it is important to first understand the American farm as the living, breathing unit that it is. In class a few weeks ago, we talked about the difference between farmers and ranchers. Not knowing the difference, I asked. Someone in the class turned around, looked at me, and told me “Ranchers work with animals. Farmers work with everything else” and the lyrics to this song immediately entered my mind.

“The farmer and the cowman should be friends.

Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends.

One man likes to push a plough, the other likes to chase a cow,

But that's no reason why they can't be friends.”

I found it so interesting that I was able to make that sort of cultural tie to something I have heard in a piece of literature. The lyrics suggest exactly what I was told in class: the rancher (cowman) works with animals while the farmer handles everything else. As I read these words, I was led to wonder about ranches and farms and whether or not the two could ever be one. If a ranch is involved in the production of grown goods, was it a farm, too? If cattle is raised by a farmer, is he also a rancher?         

In the AgEcon search engine, I found a piece of writing that defines the two. I learned that, not only do ranchers specialize in the reproduction and raising of animals, most of them are also specialized with certain varieties. For instance, some ranches are in the business of raising cattle specifically for beef, and some are only in the market for sheep to sheer, skin, and use for meat. Something that I found interesting in the journal was that  farmers and ranchers who are coming into the business late are not able to keep their farms alive unless their specializations are general, and just the way ranchers will be less likely to specialize in specific livestock, farmers late to the game are less likely to specialize in the production of certain crops and will most likely grow an entire variety of things (Ahearn, 2).This answered the question I had about farmers and ranchers working with each other to incorporate the different goods in their specialties. There is a line in the same song that mentions that the rancher ropes the cattle and then the farmer steals milk and cheese from the cow. This stuck out to me because it means that the two of them need each other. The farmer needs the rancher to grow the cattle and keep it healthy until it’s ready for milking. Both parties benefit from the cattle’s production. There are profits on both sides.

            With my new awareness of real life relationships between farming reality and film, I decided to see what kinds of other films were being made about the American farm.

            In 1926, Alfred Hitchcock directed a silent film called The Farmer’s Wife. This film is interesting because the entire premise of it revolves around the main character, Samuel Sweetland, obtaining a wife after the passing of his first wife. He asks multiple women in the community about being his wife and is rejected multiple times, until, at the end, he decides to marry his housekeeper. This says so much about the typical American farmer in the early years of the twentieth century. Sweetland, a farmer, longs for the companionship of another. It is typical in American culture for the wife to be the cooker, the fixer of whatever it is that the husband grows. This silent film does a very good job of emphasizing that. The housekeeper, who later turns out to be the wife, takes care of Sweetland the entire time. She fusses with the brides that he attempts to marry and takes care of everyone else as well. She, undoubtedly, represents a strong woman in the farm.

            The strong-willed woman in this silent film reminded me of April Hemmes, though the roles are reversed. Both women are extremely strong and extremely good at their jobs, regardless of how different they are. The traditional woman’s role, to cook and prepare goods from the farm, is an extremely important to her family, but it is just as important for April, the woman, the caretaker, to grow and produce the food for the well-being of her family, and even though she is out in the field from dawn until dusk, she is still responsible for putting a prepared meal on the table. I find it so interesting that tradition as we have known it has shifted, but the principle is still the same.

            Allessandra Galié’s academic research, “Empowering Women Farmers” searches through records of women farmers in Syria. Although this is not a piece of literature working around the American farmer, the things that she writes can be applied to the American woman farmer as well. She talks about the importance of empowering the woman farmer. “Empowerment is an elusive concept. It has been conceptualized, for instance, as an ongoing process of change in power relations” (Galié, 60). This quote is taken from an excerpt of Galié’s research that shows the empowerment of women through technological advances in plant science engineering. Galié goes on cites Mary Parker Follet, who discusses the great importance of dualistic power in the type of research that she is doing as well as in the world of farming. In this context, she is talking, specifically about plant-science engineering dualistic power, but the same principle fits nicely into the framework for farming communities.

            “Mary Parker Follett provides an alternative to these empowerment disempowerment dualistic discourses by looking at copower, which focuses on relationships and on individual empowerment as increasing the power of all rather than as a reallocation of the existing power” (60-61).

            The idea of dualistic power is an interesting one to bring up when talking about women. In cultures throughout the world, women are known for creating and maintaining relationships. When I think of my next door neighbor, I remember the eggs she lent my mother when we were baking and ran out of our own eggs. I remember my kindergarten teacher who consistently cared about how well I was learning to write the alphabet more than how inconsistently I held the pencil between my fingers. Women cultivate relationships, and isn’t it interesting that this can be transferred to women in farming? Farmers create relationships with the land, so wouldn’t it empower women farmers to create relationships with each other and create a stronger bond with the land? This excerpt of Galié’s piece makes the most sense to me. Regardless of the kind of farmer a woman is, if the responsibilities of the farm are being carried out by a plethora of other hands, the farm will remain in tact, and that’s important. Women are important to farming technology because women are the ones who stitch together the pieces of community between farms.

            When I think about farming in film, one of the first movies that comes to mind is The Wizard of Oz. I don’t think about Dorothy’s role up front, but the role of Miss Gulch, who turns out to be the Wicked Witch of the West. I find it interesting that Dorothy, the dog, and Aunt Em (though she won’t fully admit it) refuse to get on board with Miss Gulch. The audience is led to believe that Toto is the core of that disagreement, but it the upset is rooted so much deeper. Miss Gulch doesn’t contribute to the community the way Dorothy and Aunt Em do. While it is never said explicitly that Miss Gulch doesn’t contribute, it is hard to believe her character as one who does. In the film, the audience sees Dorothy conversing with the men who feed the pigs and we see Aunt Em feeding the chickens. The only glimpse we get of Miss Gulch is her awful voice and lack of a relationship with any of the Gails. Her coldness reflects her character. The entire black and white scene in Aunt Em’s house, Miss Gulch is trying to take Toto away, but she is also destroying a relationship, possibly, with the town’s egg supply. We, as an audience, are programmed to find this jarring. Women are supposed to be hospitable. Women in farming communities, particularly, are supposed to want to keep relationships with other women around the town because farms are trade and relationship based. More importantly, they are hospitality based, and Miss Almira Gulch knows nothing about hospitality. This relates back to Galié’s empowerment of women. Women should share the responsibility of being important bread-winning faculties because one person, even a woman, is stronger with the relationship and support of others.

            Allen Hall and Veronika Mogyorody take a different approach to gender on the farm. Their research argues that gender norms have a specific place on the American farm and should be kept in that place. They argue that the farm does better when classic cultural gender norms remain in effect. Their research stems from case studies of female and male farmers throughout America. They make it very clear that both genders have their rightful and important roles on the farm, but they also make it clear that research shows that farms are more successful when men and women have their particular places. This article was very interesting to read because it talked about the relationship between men and women in classic farms and how men typically had more success in the field, but how women had more success with organic vegetable farms. “Another link between vegetable farming and female involvement is that many female organic vegetable farmers were often gardeners who had developed a certain skill set and knowledge base that were readily transferable” (Hall; Mogyorody, 15). This statistic is fascinating and makes perfect sense. If a woman has had great success domestically and in the garden, she will absolutely be a better organic farmer than a man would. I think Hall and Mogyorody are valid in all of their research because numbers don’t lie, but I’d also like to expand to it by saying that it’s not necessarily about men or women being better, it’s about who has more experience. At one point in the article, it is said that men are better with labor than they are domestically, and that makes sense. Men don’t typically have much experience in the home as women do. Tending, caring, and cooking is in the very DNA that makes up a woman, so they refine those attributes daily. Men are strong, persistent, and laborious. This is not to say that women are not sometimes this way, that there are no exceptions to the rule of gender, but there is something to be said for men and women having different traits that make them better at certain things than others.

To close this paper, I’d like to discuss women in agriculture across the globe. The United States Agency of International Development, together with The United States Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs put together a pamphlet of women in agriculture throughout the world. This pamphlet discusses the importance of investing in women when it comes to agriculture.

“When women’s productivity and incomes increase, the benefits amplify across families and generations. Women tend to devote a larger fraction of their income to their children’s health and nutrition, laying the foundation for their children’s lifelong cognitive and physical development” (USDS, 2-3).

I like this particular quote because I feel like it makes a very poignant point about women in farming. Not only are female farmers breathing life into the land for the current generation, but they are also making it possible for the next generation to survive and thrive off of the land. Women typically have a larger opportunity to educate the next generation of children, and if they are good farmers, do well with growing and tending to agriculture, not only are they going to produce crops and goods that will be viable for this generation, but they will also produce viable crops for generations to come through their offspring, and that is far more important than just producing for one group of people. This is something I’ve never thought of before, and I think that reading this article opened up my eyes to the great impacts that women farmers can have on communities. Of course men can be the same way. Men can raise their children similarly to the way women raise their children, but as previously discussed, we are dealing with gender norms and the typical culture of female and male farmers. 

            For centuries, women in farming have been thought of in the same way. They have been thought of as nurturing women who stand beside the farmer under all circumstances, good or bad. While this is not a negative view of farmers or women, it is important to recognize that there are also, in the farming culture, plenty of women who carry family farms in times of hardship as well as times of great bounty. Women are strong assets to the farm in terms of domesticity as well as performing hard labor tasks.

Works Cited

Ahearn, Mary Clare. “Beginning Farmers and Ranchers at a Glance 2011

Edition. AgEcon Search. http://purl.umn.edu/146309

Beach, Sarah S. "'Tractorettes' or Partners? Farmers' Views on Women in Kansas

Farming Households." Rural Sociology 1 June 2013: 210-28, 19p. Print.

Allessandra, Galié. "Empowering Women Farmers." Frontiers: A Journal of Women

Studies 1 Jan. 2013: 58-92, 35 P. Print.

Hall, Allen; Mogyorody, Veronika. "Organic Farming, Gender, and the Labor

Process." Rural Sociology 1 June 2007: 289-316. Print.

Hemmes, April: http://www.americasfarmers.com/2014/09/24/farm-mom/

Shortall, Sally. "Gender, Work & Organization Vol. 8 Issue 2, P164. 18p." Women in the

Field: Women, Farming and Organizations 1 Apr. 2001: 164. Print.

United States Agency for International Development; United States. Department of State.

Bureau of Public Affairs. http://purlfdlp.gov/GPO/gpo14776. Electronic

Resource. 1 December 2014.

The Farmer’s Wife. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. British International Pictures, 1928. Film.

The Wizard of Oz. Perf. Judy Garland Frank Morgan Ray Bolger Bert Lahr

Jack Haley Billie Burke Margaret Hamilton Charley Grapewin Clara

Blandick Pat Walshe. Metro-Goldwin-Mayer, 1939. Film.

Oklahoma! Zinnemann, Fred. Magna Theater Corporation, 1955. Film. 

Extended Reading: The Grapes of Wrath

Farming for the Common Good

The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck, presents a critical look at agricultural society during the time of the Dust Bowl. Farming is the common weave throughout the novel and works as a thread to move the piece along. Steinbeck personifies the land, which allows him to create strong metaphors between the physical terrain and the Joad family. The weather elements work against the land, which can be compared to the societal elements working to destroy the Joad family. Themes of mortal hardship, progression, and individual work for the common good are woven throughout this larger theme.

The title chapter of the novel describes the land as being very barren. Steinbeck personifies nature, making the land a character that contributes to the overall theme of struggle. The way he is able to incorporate the land as an antagonist, rather than just the setting, is a delightfully unexpected component of the story. This struggle is shown at both the beginning as well as the end of the novel.

“In the water-cut gullies the earth dusted down in dry little streams. Gophers and ant lions started small avalanches. And as the sharp sun struck day after day, the leaves of the young corn became less stiff and erect; they bent in a curve at first, and then, as the central ribs of strength grew weak, each leaf tilted downward” (Steinbeck, 3).

The effect of personifying the land in this passage is to help the reader gain an understanding of the elements. Steinbeck gives harsh direction to the nature within the novel to show the unforgiveable way in which the earth plays. Showing farm land in this way provides the reader with a grasp on the reality that Great Depression-era farmers dealt with. Describing the sun as “sharp”, writing that it “struck down day after day” puts the reader into a scene where it is impossible for the land (the corn in this case) to win against the natural elements. Nature is the farm’s antagonist. Similarly, nature also strikes down upon the Joad family, and provides the same sort of antagonist relationship. The most apparent moment of this natural antagonism with regard to the Joads comes at the end of the novel.

“The rain began with gusty showers, pauses and downpours; and then gradually it settled to a single tempo, small drops and a steady beat, rain that was gray to see through, rain that cut midday light to evening. And at first the dry earth sucked the moisture down and blackened. For two days the earth drank the rain, until the earth was full. […] Then the water poured over the highways, and the cars moved slowly, cutting the water ahead, and leaving a boiling muddy wake behind” (433).

The use of personification in this passage is similar to the previous excerpt, though, instead of antagonizing the agriculture, it prevents the Joads from moving forward. Assigning these negative actions to the natural elements allows nature to assume the role of the antagonist and creates a metaphor between agriculture and the Joad family. Both keep moving through the country providing for others, yet neither one of them are able to succeed because the natural elements prohibit them from progression.  

In chapter three, Steinbeck uses the metaphor of the turtle in the middle of the road that gets flipped over by a passing car. He writes the two-and-a-half page scene to show the difficulties of mortal life. “And as the turtle crawled on down the embankment, its shell dragged dirt over the seeds. The turtle entered a dust road and jerked itself along, drawing a wavy shallow trench in the dust with its shell” (16). The metaphor gains focus when, in the next chapter, Steinbeck introduces Tom Joad by highlighting similar characteristics. He juxtaposes these attributes beside the turtle’s to show the lost and beaten down ways in which they wanter.

“The sun was hot and no wind stirred the sifted dust. The road was cut with furrows where dust had slid and settled back into the wheel tracks. Joad took a few steps, and the flourlike dust spurted up in front of his new yellow shoes, and the yellowness was disappearing under gray dust” (17).

The reason for this comparison is to show that both the turtle and Tom pathetically trudge along the same highway, aimless. While this scene is depressing, it is based on realism and Steinbeck does an excellent job of portraying life in the 1930s. 

Tenant farmers in this story are used as a way to portray the Joads as typical Americans of the time period. Tenant farming was popular in the early thirties, but when the Great Depression hit America, no one could afford to keep their land rented out. Government wiped out small family farms and since crops weren’t producing or selling, farming families were forced to move from the land they rented. In Steinbeck’s story, government suggests farmers pick up their family farms and move to California, promising there will be an abundance of agricultural jobs. The Joads make the decision to move across the country and the conflict of the story arises.

In this book, the government and the state of California are not favorably represented. Throughout the book, the reader realizes that officials closer to California have issues with farmers who come to find better lives for themselves out west. Even when the farmers build shallow markets on the sides of the street, law enforcement sweeps through and removes them. Law Enforcement understands that if the farmers work together to create an uprising, they will win. This part of the book is so interesting because it says so much about the power of working farmers. It is almost as though they are completely unaware of the power they hold.

The Grapes of Wrath puts farming in a very interesting light. It highlights all of the difficulties of the career choice, but it does it in a way that shows how much the world needs farmers. Without farming and agriculture, as a society, we are nothing. 

Thoughts on Sharecropping

Crevecoeur and Jefferson's beliefs of the American farming presented the perspective that everyone was a farmer. This new perspective was probably integral in deciding on making sharecropping an established facet of farming. While it has many noticeable differences, it allows for all of the people do be a part of the farm, however, this does not mean all were included equally in pay or work. I think it is both interesting and very important to look at Sharecropping in the context of its time period. Basically, it was similar to having slaves work the land for the white man, which, as unfair as it might be, they were trying to make progress. It doesn't make it right or equal, but it was better that land owners acknowledged that these people were their workers, not their property. 

Every situation must be looked at on a case-by-case basis because I'm sure there were instances of misuse of the system, but for the most part, it is interesting to look at Sharecropping from a different perspective than what we might be told in history books. Regardless of the effects, were we making progress as society? And how were the crops doing. Again, not the Sharecropping wasn't unfair and bias, but what if we looked at positive outcomes of Sharecropping? What would've happened to the country if we hadn't monitored a new generation of newly freed slaves with land--a bunch of people who had never owned farms before? Sure, they'd worked on them, but is it different to manage a farm? And if so, what are those differences? What would have happened to the land? What would have happened to the economy? Would farms have started and failed in the same season? I'm interested in thinking about the opposite side of things. Thinking critically, how would that affected our nation?

Poetry in John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath

Great crawlers, like insects, 

Diesel tractors puttered, stood idle. 

The rusted, encrusted Oklahoma plains

raised gloved, goggled, rubber dust masked men

who sat in iron seats with muzzled speech

and thundered the snub-nosed monsters

across the flat land for profit.

The men watch the disks behind them,

the blades that dig their elbows into the land, 

as they process a winter of meal. 

(Pg 154, paragraphs 1-3)

I liked Steinbeck's use of adjectives. Gloved, goggled, rubber dust mask was my favorite sentence fragment. It's so unexpected in this book uses a series of dusty-type metaphors to show the grey-ness of the land and the situation in which the Joads were in. This was extremely refreshing. The words used in this passage were actually very beautiful and created an exciting image in my mind, so I wanted to mirror that with my found poem. I tried to use a bunch of unexpected words together and I think it worked really well!