|
The Politics of Farming-By Jim Muchlinski MARSHALL — Farm activism has a history all its own, one that exists on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Paco van der Louw, a graduate student from Wageningen University in the Netherlands and a Southwest Minnesota State University Rural and Regional Studies fellow, spoke Tuesday at SMSU. He explained his research goals, which are based on a comparison between farm-related economics and politics in the Netherlands and rural Minnesota. He covered a time period between 1865 and 1929, when farmers experienced
massive changes in technology and marketing and said new circumstances
led to new political efforts that aimed to give farmers a better standard
of living. “They saw a need to form their own organizations.” He said an important difference between the United States and the Netherlands involved the political role of farm advocates. In the United States, groups such as the Farmers Union attempted to influence policies from outside the official political structure. He identified Minnesota’s Farmer-Labor Party is one of the closest examples of political organization that reaches directly into the policymaking process. The Netherlands, however, developed a “pillarization” system, in which different parts of society came together to influence policy changes. The pillars included farm groups that were formed based on both economic goals and religion. He said the pillarization system led to less political conflict, but
that in some ways there less opportunity for individual farmers to voice
their concerns. He listed a group of economic trends similar to today’s issues, such as expanded production after World War I that caused price concerns. He added that sometimes farm groups helped in meeting daily economic needs in the form of cooperatives or rural credit banks as well as being a political voice. “People often found that they had to work together,” he said. “It didn’t make sense to do everything alone. A farmer couldn’t do things like driving milk and cream more than six or seven miles.” During the discussion after van der Louw’s presentation, SMSU history professor Jeff Kolnick said it’s interesting to consider how ethnic diversity in the United States may have held back the kind of highly organized pillarization that took shape in the Netherlands. “We never really have seen that kind of influence in the United States,” Kolnick said. “If we’ve had it, there’s a very small number of farmers who’ve done it.” Van der Louw will conclude his fellowship at SMSU in January. He plans to use it as a foundation for further research. SMSU Rural and Regional Studies Director Geoff Cunfer said van der Louw made an important contribution to rural and regional knowledge. “His scholarship has very good comparisons between Minnesota and Europe,” Cunfer said. “He really highlighted the differences, such as how religion could influence agriculture. Just based on the United States, it wouldn’t seem like religion could be an issue.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|