In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

2 “Agriculture is not the Whole of Country Life” At the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States was undergoing a marked transformation; moving toward being an industrial and urbanized society.1 Characterized as “a complete and fundamental change in our whole economic system” (Commission on Country Life 1917, 37), concerns grew surrounding a wide range of issues. For rural areas, two were particularly prominent: concern over the ability of agriculture to keep pace with the needs of urbanization, and the causes and consequences of rural outmigration.2 Although land values and agricultural prices were rebounding in the next decade, the agricultural depression of the 1890s had revealed the poor market position of farmers. And, despite the apparent recovery, rural out-migration persisted. As a result, views began to emerge that conditions in rural areas involved more than profitability and agricultural production.3 While industrialization treated farming as a business and 1. The chapter title, “Agriculture is not the whole of country life,” is from Roosevelt’s letter to Liberty Hyde Bailey appointing the Country Life Commission. The letter is included in the Commission’s final report (Commission on Country Life 1917, 42). 2. Of these, concerns over a rural exodus played out in particular, prompting much press coverage. For some, rural migration to urban areas was seen as adding to the already existing concerns about immigrants in urban areas (see, e.g., Lobao 2007, 465–66). For statements and overviews surrounding rural out-migration at the time, see, for example, Kinley (1909), Gillette (1910, 1911a, 1911b), and “Exodus of Farmers” (1908). This era has also generated a voluminous literature. For more of the rural details, see, for example, Bowers (1974) and Danbom (1979). For an extensive listing of the literature on U.S. rural history, see Danbom (2006). 3. For Liberty Hyde Bailey, a leader in the Country Life Movement, concerns about the limits of a productionist approach to understanding what was going on for rural families and the broader impacts of events in agriculture began to emerge in response to the agricultural depression of the 1890s. As Ellsworth noted about Bailey, “[he] was badly shaken when he discovered that his previous preliminary study ... on the scientific aspects of orcharding, gave not even a single clue to the hard times among the fruit growers” (1960, 158). The importance of social aspects of country life is evident in Bailey’s writings. See, for example, Bailey (1911). See also Larson (1958). In addition to Bailey, other public figures who played similarly important roles included Sir Horace Plunket, Gifford Pinchot, and Walter Hines Page, among many others. See, for example, Galpin (1938a), Nelson (1965, 1969a, 1969b). “agriCuLture iS not the WhoLe of Country Life” 11 defined the rural problem as solvable through economics, an alternative approach emerged. Challenging the primacy of economic relations, this view posited that understanding the deficits facing rural areas required examining the social aspects of agriculture and country life—its organization , its institutions, and its people.4 Moreover, the view that farming was more than a business was also consistent with the long-standing tradition of agrarian sentimentalism and romanticism, which many drew on in making their appeals.5 In asserting the importance of social relations, the holistic view of rural life that emerged opened the possibility of considering aspects “beyond economics.”6 It opened conceptual space for seeing the importance of the social organization of the countryside, agriculture, farming, institutions , and communities. In its breadth, it opened room for considering the role of women (e.g., Knowles 1988).7 And, with the Progressive era’s prescribed role for experts, it opened room for the development of the rural social sciences and, in particular, the establishment of the USDA’s Division of Farm Population and Rural Life. the progressive era and rural holism Fueled by concerns over the effects of industrialization, during the Progressive era many and varied movements sought to find remedies for its ills.8 Shifting coalitions pursued a diverse array of reforms, from politics to corporate taxes to the settlement house movement. Even though these 4. These two opposing views concerning the best way to deal with rural issues are clearly laid out and discussed at length in Sanderson et al. (1927). A collaboration of the American Country Life Association and the American Farm Economics Association, the inquiry was prompted by Kenyon Butterfield and included prominent voices in both organizations and from both viewpoints. These two opposing views also played out in the development...

Share