What do you think of Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture? Would you consider him reactionary (opposing the new/modern) or progressive (seeking something that improves on the status quo)?
What do you think of Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture? Would you consider him reactionary (opposing the new/modern) or progressive (seeking something that improves on the status quo)?
congo96, 
eddietastic, 
phoebe, and 26 others are discussing.
natashap 10:37 am on February 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think it’s a bit of both – reactionary and progressive. His ideas are progressive, the idea of returning to non-monoculture agriculture and smaller scale farmer is reasonable. But his way of approaching it, that there would need to be a new way or organizing people/political system seems reactionary.
jonl 1:52 pm on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agreethat it is a bit of both. The idea of “going back” can somehow be progressive may be hard to understand but he does make a point on how to have a better future.It is quite reactionary at the same time which is what can happen when one’s eyes are suddenly opened by their research. I don’t really know how anyone can take on his ideas though. It sounds all well and good but the question is sort of “who will cast the first stone?” and “Will everyone follow?”
jenniefrench 3:38 pm on February 10, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture – or agriculture of his time. He was forward thinking, in that he saw how industrialization would pan out to be more detrimental that helpful for society and the environment we rely on. However, at the time he would have been considered backward or even feudal- reminiscing of a time without machines, but also in some people’s opinions, with out the technology that was a marker of a democratic and modern society. To me, I believe he was very progressive, not reactionary. While he embraced a more traditional style of farming and agriculture, he was looking forward to a sustainable future. He was seeking to not only improve the status quo but ensure a healthy standard of living.
kimzzzy 8:11 am on February 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I enjoy reading Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture. We are producing so much food, we see mounds of food being thrown out by supermarkets, restaurants and households in developed countries.
We have gotten to this situation because we were so used to believing that the world is becoming more food secure from the amount of food we are producing. So many countries are afraid to decrease production thinking that it will make them more vulnerable in the global market. As a result, we see countries spending large some of money into subsidizing these farms to keep up with production.
msmith92 7:07 pm on February 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I definitely agree with Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture. I also think it is pretty remarkable that, even during the 1930’s, he was able to foresee how agriculture that is based on mass production would become problematic in the long run. I think that his critique is both reactionary and progressive. His ideas are progressive in that, during a time when most people were focused on expansion in agriculture, he was looking beyond that and seeing the consequences of these practices and wanting to return to smaller farms. However, i think his ideas are reactionary. Particularly in the way that he sought a rearrangement of society. As he argued, “Healthy organic farming would be the foundation for a (morally and physically) healthy society”.
bgibson 10:42 pm on February 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I view Wrench’s critique as progressive since by the time of his publications the use of artificial fertilizers would have become the status quo as had the industrialization of agriculture in the first world. Furthermore, his argument against a “finance-based civilization” can also be see as progressive as international capitalism was certainly status quo in the western world. I think Wrench’s critique was exceptionally accurate in predicting the course of industrialization and the quest for further growth and productivity. I would hazard to guess that the use of gene modification in this quest would raise further alarm bells for Wrench.
erikaw 1:24 am on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
His ideas at the time were reactionary – as all of these changes to agriculture were new and forthcoming (although i suppose some nations never lived as well as others…. ex. Hunza vs. Europeans.) Looking back at Wrench’s critique, his ideas have become progressive – It seems that the Organic Empire is new and forthcoming – a growing market and a growing interest, although still expensive. It’s funny because really we are just reverting back to the way food used to be grown (hopefully it continues to move in this direction…) but it still seems so trendy and modern to be eating Organic/Sustainable/Fair Trade – like these are new ideas!
emilym 10:45 am on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I absolutely agree with Wrench’s critique of industrial and chemically based agriculture. I think he was both progressive and reactionary in his views. He was progressive in the sense that he was thinking ahead and trying to improve on the status quo of agricultural production by viewing the end results and the effects that chemically produced agriculture had on human health. However, he was also reactionary in his opposition of new agricultural techniques and support of the more traditional and small-scale approaches to farming. I think Wrench would be appalled at the state of our agricultural industry now, though the organic movement is slowly becoming more popular.
katehaxt 1:43 pm on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Definately progressive. I think he would like the Polygot animal farm that Pollan talks about. Returning to small scale diverse farming and acknowledging the complex benifits that rich natural soil produces vs chemical fertilizers is what the todays local farmers market revolution is all about.
hannahepperson 6:30 pm on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Certainly Wrench was a progressive thinker, with his capacity for correlative innovation! The fact that, with a presumable scientific medical background, Wrench incorporated the spiritual principles of the mandala into his more or less ‘scientific’ discourse is impressive enough. I wish his kind of integrated thinking WAS the status quo! I also think his criticism of “finance-based civilization” – which he claimed was destroying the earth and its peoples – is the kind of criticism that has been picked up by TODAY’s progressives who are trying to raise awareness about the (never ending list of) problems associated with our present capitalism.
roypat 12:48 am on February 14, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think Wrench’s critiques of industrial and chemically based agriculture are valid. Given the time period in which it was written, I do, however, have sort of a “chicken vs. the egg” conflict in my head. At first I think “well, if we didn’t have such industrialized production, then we wouldn’t be able to feed the huge population that we have on the planet today and there would be widespread famine! But then, I also think that if we didn’t have this industrialized way of producing food, the population may not have gotten so large in the first place and the ones on the planet might be healthier.
jaydee 9:51 pm on February 14, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
While I think it may be a legitimate argument, based on the fact that all plant species have evolved to live and thrive under the “natural” conditions absent from monoculture, it is difficult to say whether there is any truth to the idea. Our understanding of nutrition, ecology, and plant physiology is considerably higher than it was all those years ago, as is our ability to perform and analyze experiments. That being said, I am not claiming that the scientific discoveries of the time are obsolete and untrustworthy, just that experimental results from these times have been proven to not be acceptable by our times standards before, and should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I think that based on the interpretation at the time, Wrench’s ideas would be considered progressive.
sharonshi 12:37 am on February 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I can see where Wrench is coming from with his point, I do believe that the pursuit of economic growth has lead to the rapid development of chemical fertilizers. I see him as progressive because we can not undo what was done through the Green Revolution and the Industrial revolution, if we did, how would we feed the now more than 6 billion population? His point is progressive in that he wants to alleviate the largely industrialized way of farming and replace it with healthy organic farming. In his own words, “healthy organic farming would be the foundation for a healthy society”. I personally believe that Wrench is trying to progress society and in that improve the “status quo”
youngblutt 8:24 am on February 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Wrench’s critique is progressive. He expanded the ideas of McCarrison to a consideration of all human societies, at a time when the poisonous fruits of industrial capitalism were just beginning to bloom. It is unfortunate to think that soil degradation has become exponentially worse than in 1938, when Wrench first noticed it, and we have yet to economically and politically endorse sustainable agriculture on a global scale.
nytsuen 3:50 pm on February 15, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe that Wrench’s critique could be both reactionary and progressive. Wrench believes that to remedy this situation we must activate the ‘restoration of peasantries’ and bring back small scale agriculture. Only with this will we be able to build a healthy society which is the most important and is the basic foundation of any civilization. However, his suggestion to restoring this is to find a way to reorganize the society and the political system which is a progressive movement because he is seeking for a way to improve the status quo. Therefore, I’d conclude that he’s more progressive because even though ideas are very traditional and reactionary-like, he’s trying to implement small scale agriculture that would work for the future. EX) “Healthy organic farming would be the foundation for a healthy society.”
sampethick 1:21 pm on February 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture makes some really convincing points. We know that right now a huge problem is the want for more and more growth and as Wrench points out one of the outcomes of this is an unhealthy environment (for the environment itself and for the people occupying it) due to industrialized agriculture, leading to people being less well off than before. It’s hard to argue with what he is saying here. I’m going to agree with those of you who are saying that Wrench’s argument is both reactionary as well as progressive. Obviously he is in opposition to the modern society’s industrialized economy because he says that it is “destroying the earth and its peoples;” both morally and physically. He is progressive a well in the way that he suggests ways to improve this situation. He suggests that people bring back small scale agriculture and healthy organic farming in order to ensure a healthy society.
alyumam 8:45 pm on February 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with your perspective as I also find Wrench´s critique convincing since considers future into account.
His arguments take into account the damage that land and human beings experience through the increase of production industrial agriculture brings.
At the same time I consider Wrench´s opinion an important and complementary to other perspectives , since Wrench point of view is the one from a physician and for this reason, in my opinion, brings new ways of seeing agriculture with other lenses.
paige 5:50 pm on February 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I would say that his was of thinking is progressive. He is thinking of the future and how to make it better. The method he is proposing is reactionary, wanting to return to the old ways instead of considering newer/better alternatives.
lcoulthard 9:03 pm on February 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I would consider Wrench’s position as progressive. He sees that the popularization of chemical fertilizers is connected to its ability to immediately increase yields in agriculture, which compliments the finance-based capitalist system. However, I also think that part of what drives this system, for one example, is the demand for exotic fruits in industrialized countries. Companies see the potential for profit in their own country and begin to look for cheap ways to fulfill that demand.
brenden 10:00 pm on February 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe that wrench’s position is both reactionary and progressive. He opposes the the modern system of farming that has developed due to our monetary capitalist economy. In a world where the dollar is king, individuals and corporations have industrialized agriculture and have invested a lot into developing new fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modifying crops to increase their yield, shelf life ect. Wrench identifies the link between this process and the way our economy is structured. His position is also progressive as he attempts to create a new system which modifies both the economy and agriculture. By returning to a more artisan system with small yield local crops, Wrench feels that the shift in agriculture would repair society as a whole and return us to system where health and equality were more important then corporate profits and greed. I feel that his views are a little too optimistic however as this shift would be nearly impossible with our rapid population growth and the existing system and institutions in place.
midara 11:02 pm on February 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I also agree that Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture is both of reactionary and progressive. I totally agree with what he consider is “right” to return to healthy organic farming, which in turns bring a healthier society; however, I think the restoration that he suggests is quite reactionary that his idea is not practical and does not consider with the condition of what the country/world is facing. In my opinion, small scale agriculture may bring healthier lives and society; yet this is only true if the food produced is enough to feed the population. This is the reason why I consider Wrench’s idea not practical and is quite reactionary than pure progressive.
tsung 11:55 pm on February 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I would consider Wrench’s critique to be both reactionary and progressive. Reactionary in that he is calling for the “restoration of the peasantries” in instilling small scale agriculture, and progressive in that drew upon Mandala and tries to improve on the status quo of agriculture by acknowledging the chemical used to produce our food – leading to our own self-destruction. However, today’s society is largely economic and much of what we do and policies that the government comes up with are largely in consideration alongside of the economy. With an increasing global population and demand for food (due to climate change, certain areas are unable to produce anymore), we will see a higher demand therefore the necessity for growth and productivity is undeniable.
jlin 9:45 am on February 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I don’t think Wrench’s critique is reactionary. If we’re considering reactionary as taking opposition against the new/modern, then Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture would be truly reactionary only if he had suggested to go back to old ways. I don’t think that by coming up with solutions that could improve modern agriculture necessarily translates to a way of the past. Restoration of the peasantries in bringing back small scale agriculture, does not have to mean doing things in the old way. Certainly I don’t think Wrench would say the commons, for example, was the ideal method of agriculture. He is only suggesting that we go back to small scale agriculture….and not international capitalism. Why does international capitalism have to be the definition of what is new/modern? In this sense, I think Wrench is progressive. He is merely critiquing the current system and pointing out its flaw (international capitalism) in hope of improvements.
alyumam 8:24 pm on February 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I just simply perceive Wrench as a thoughtful guy. I think his critique in one with an adequate depth of though. Whether he can be considered reactionary or progressive, I think we should try to understand what does this terms should have signified for other scholars at that time. Perhaps as some other have stated, yes a bit of both. But overall, thoughtful.
Keaton Briscoe 10:52 pm on February 17, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I thought Wrench’s critique was very accurate. I think his approach is both reactionary and progressive. He notes the problems that have arose and his proposed ideas of going back to small scaled farming are progressive and his view of chemical fertilizers and it leading us to our own self-destruction is reactionary
yitailiu 9:09 pm on February 20, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Wrench’s critique of modern agriculture makes an interesting link between agriculture and society, that the reduced amount of labour force required in farming has lead to urbanization and industrialization.
I would consider him more of a progressive. It is hard to say if Wrench is exactly opposing the modern system, but it does appear that Wrench wants to find ways to make changes in the modern agricultural system.
hoskinso 10:40 pm on February 20, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In my opinion Wrench’s view is reactionary. It is probably true that the classic system of small-scale, organic agriculture is more in tune with the natural human scale and would result in a happier, healthier populace. However, when a means has been discovered to grow the food supply through mechanization, chemicals and genetic manipulation, it’s very difficult to revert to previous methods of agriculture (with their commensurate decreases in productivity). Modern capital-intensive agriculture is a key element of human society’s incredible blossoming of complexity and potential in the last 100 years. While industrial farming may result in some negative consequences, giving up the benefits of the green revolution would be almost unthinkable within the current global system. I believe it is possible to mitigate the negative consequences of the current system while enjoying its benefits.
phoebe 2:04 pm on February 23, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Wrench’s critique is reactionary. He opposes the industralized urbanization of farming and seeks a return to small-scale organic agriculture. His critique sounds very modern to me and I’m surprised he wrote in the 30/40’s. His view fits very well with the current organic, vegan, self-sufficien,t small-scale farming trend currrent today. However, I’m unsure how practical this viewpoint is. As a society, many of us have become removed from farming, agriculture, and the outdoors in general. The media loves to point out that many of us even choose to spend our time indoors with our computers, tvs, and technology over sports and recreational activities outdoors. If it is difficult enough to convince people to go outdoors to play sports and get exercise, how much harder would it be to convince them to go outdoors to perform agricultural labour?
eddietastic 4:11 pm on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I feel like Wrench’s critique is a mix of both reactionary and progressive because it seeks to improve the ways we farm today. I am unsure how practical this viewpoint is because our society works on the ideals that those who are good at something should do it . If we opened up farming into small scales we would see many problems such as quality control and people farming when they really shouldnt. If we let a smaller amount of farmers make a larger amount of crops then we are more easily able to monitor the quality of crops which leave
congo96 7:36 pm on March 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think Wrench makes a proper assessment of the state of modern day agriculture and politics when he refers to it as finance based. I consider him to be opposing the modern way of doing things because he thinks that we should go back to the old way of doing things because it is healthier for individuals and communities. According to Wrench today’s agricultural and political system does more damage than it does good