Book Review:

Lawn People: How Grasses, Weeds, and Chemicals Make Us Who We Are

Tiffany Tong

December 10, 2008

The author, Paul Robbins, starts the book off with a strange observation about himself when he moved into a new home with a lawn: “I was becoming a … ‘lawn person.’” (Robbins 2007, xii) The rising population of a lawn person, someone whose life is influenced or dictated by the lawn, is arguably a very American middle class phenomenon (Thompson 2008). This book seeks to unravel the complex relationships behind humans, lawns, and the larger political economy to seek an answer to this persuasive trend. In this book, Robbins tries to apply “political ecology to the fresh topic of the suburban middle classes (Ginn 2007).”

Robbins’ basic premise is that it is impossible to use apolitical ecology to explain this phenomenon (Robbins 2007, p.4). Instead he uses both political ecology and actor network theory as the theoretical framework. The majority of the book is evidence, ranging from the ecology of lawns to the legalities of patents, to support his thesis. My contention is that Robbins makes a very convincing argument that is built upon sound social sciences theory. It is controversial yet fits into many recent political debates. Also, although the book advances understanding about the ‘lawn people network,’ there are some holes in the argument that need filling.

The book starts off with a story about a normal suburbanite who caused harm to her beloved dog because of the chemicals put on the lawn (Robbins 2007, p.1). Her solution was not to stop using lawn chemicals, but to put booties on her dog’s feet for the few days the chemicals are applied. Robbins suggests that this irrational behaviour is not just an isolated incident (Robbins 2007, xv). According to a national survey he conducted, the results showed that those who apply chemicals to their lawns are more likely to believe that “home lawn-care practices generally have a negative impact on local water quality (Robbins 2007, xii).” In order words, People who use chemicals tend to think they are worse for the environment than those who do not (Robbins 2007, xii). How is that possible?

According to traditional apolitical theory, people have individual freedom to choose their actions; the only driving force in group actions is culture; firms only respond to consumer demand; and there are no influences by non-human actors in any relationship (Robbins 2007, p.4). Robbins questions all these assumptions because they do not explain these strange behaviours as revealed by the national survey. Instead, he states that political ecology, as opposed to apolitical ecology, can provide the answers.

Thus, political ecology, which “is a field of interdisciplinary research which connects economics and politics to problems of ecological change and management (Thompson 2008),” states that choices people make are dictated by tradition, cultural aesthetics, and the ecology of the lawns. The driving force behind group actions is not only cultural, but also economical and political. Firms have to deal with the pressures from the larger economy and government regulations, in additional to consumer demand. The largest non-human actor, the lawns, dictates the actions of humans because of historical evolution. Robbins also evokes a theory called actor network theory.

Robbins supports his argument by first tracing the history of the lawn aesthetic and the development of how grasses turned to lawns. The appreciation of lawns started in aristocratic Europe, as an upper class status symbol (Robbins 2007, p.21). But as it gradually spread to North America, it became a “vehicle for creating certain kinds of cultural subjects (Robbins 2007, xviii),” more specifically, “responsible domestic American citizens (Robbins 2007, p.32).” The lawn had become not only an aesthetic, but also a political and moral statement about the household. In the focus group interviews, one woman said that she would not let her house (including her lawn) “run down” because if “you let it go downhill, the neighbourhood changes (Robbins 2007, p.111).” Choices are a “consequence of social processes rather than a cause of them (Guthman 2008).”

The biological nature of lawns also contributes to this coercion. Since grasses do not naturally grow or look like lawns, additional inputs in both chemicals and labour are required to maintain the “velvet carpet” look our culture desires. As the lawn people see the needs of the lawns, they comply: the rhythm of grasses become the rhythms of the communities (Robbins 2007, p.43). Therefore, if one wants to ‘fit in’ in a suburban neighbourhood, one would have to choose, not freely out of rationality, to maintain a good lawn with high inputs.

In addition, the driving force behind these group actions is not only culture, it is also economical and political. The desires for a good community and lawns are reinforced by the advertising industry, which shows advertisements where happy families frolic on think, lush lawns (Robbins 2007, p.92). Many instances, when the up keep of the lawn is lessened, the property price of that house and the neighbourhood also suffers (Robbins 2007, p.98). Therefore, there is great economic incentive for neighbours to peer pressure each other into maintaining their property in tip-top condition. The political side of the driving force is that lawn chemicals are under scrutiny by the law enforcement of the government. Many of the chemicals used on lawns may be potentially hazardous, therefore, the actions of individuals are confined within the legal boundaries (Robbins 2007, p.71). The author also argues that since many of the chemicals do not yet have concrete evidence of their toxicity, many lawn chemical users act with anxiety, thus altering their behaviour (Robbins 2007, p.75). For example, many tend to hire professionals to take care of their lawns because they believe the professionals would know the right amount of chemicals to use (Robbins 2007, p.82).

The firms have many other pressures other than consumer demand. One important driving force is that the competitive economy means that firms have to continually cut costs to survive (Robbins 2007, p.10). In order to do this, firms have to continually externalize their costs to the environment or customers (Robbins 2007, p.11). Also, to supplement the large amount of research and development dollars invested, production companies have to actively search for expanding market opportunities (Robbins 2007, p.57). While maybe the chemical was developed for the agriculture industry, the seasonality of sales means that companies will try to expand into the consumer market for lawns to gain more revenue (Robbins 2007, p.77). Since patents eventually expire, research and development companies have to push the product out into the market to earn as much money as soon as possible (Robbins 2007, p.89).

In the case of the non-human actor, the lawn, actor network theory provides an explanation (Robbins 2007, p.135). We often think of relationships only between human actors, for example, we only think about how the economy and the people working within the society created the phenomena of lawns. However, we should also consider the power and role of the grass itself in affecting the outcome of this relationship. Actor network theory suggests that “power is made in relationships rather than located in particular actors (Guthman 2008).” For example, if lawns did not evolve along with cattle, they would not have become so proficient at growing sideways with their rhizomes (Robbins 2007, p.36). If the grass did not require such constant mowing to maintain the green outlook we desire, then a whole section of the lawn economy (the lawn mowers) would not have happened. Even if humans had the same aesthetic for the modern lawn, without accounting for the equal participation of the grasses in this relationship, we cannot come up with a rational explanation for why the current lawn people and the economy is the way it is. However, some reviewers criticize Robbins for assigning roles for certain actors, rather than focusing on the inter-relationships of the network (Ginn 2007).

I find that the author has conducted a lot of good quality research. The overall tone of the book is very theoretical; the author intended it to be part of a larger body of research, such as other books which have dealt more with the history of lawns. This book tries to explain the phenomena of lawns by doing research and finding a theory to fit the data. The household survey, the aerial photo research, and focus groups provide a good foundation of research to support the theory that Robbins proposes. However, I find it disappointing that Robbins failed to apply his theory to other non-human actors to provide more credibility. Although the explanation is convincing, I cannot fully believe it until the principles can be applied to other objects and achieve the same results.

It would also have been more convincing if the history of the lawn in the USA was explained more clearly. He mentioned that different states had different lawn cultures; some did not even have lawns at all (Robbins 2007, p.136). Why the differences? If the actors in the network he described are really so omnipresent and such a fundamental to the American culture, politics, and economics of the lawn, then why have some states been exempt? What do those states have in place of the lawn? Is what the lawn provides something that is replaceable by any object?

In addition, although he utilizes a wide range of research tools, he only does eight individual interviews in one cul-de-sac (Robbins 2007, p.100). He mentions that he chose this circumstance because it represents a homogeneous suburban culture that would be useful to study. However, I think it is a bit of a stretch to think that self-contained culture in one of so many American suburbs could represent the lawn culture of the whole country. It certainly provides some insight to the workings of the lawn people network, but to claim to provide a definite profile of lawn people based on those focus groups would biased.

It could also be more convincing if he provided an historical account of how lawns, not grasses, spread across the USA geographically. If the phenomenon was imported from Europe, wouldn’t the states closer to ports or other kinds of communication centre erected lawns before the other states? How fast does this cultural phenomena spread? Does it spread in neighbourhoods that are more tightly linked? Is it really related to how your neighbours act? These questions have to be answered before the explanations can fully stand on their own.

The issues discussed in the book relate well to current political debates. Many propose that the correct solution to environmental problems would be a market based solution. However, Robbins’ opinion seems to be that these solutions usually fail to take into account the non-human subjects and therefore cannot actually solve the underlying problem (Robbins 2007, p.136). An example is how companies sell chemicals which kill nematodes, and then sell nematodes again citing their benefits. It would have been better to not have added chemicals in the first place (Robbins 2007, p.68). Cost externalization is another important debate. Can all non-monetary costs (externalities) be factored into a tax or quota? Similar to how the carbon tax is taking so much effort and time to implement; is it possible to have a tax for every kind of pollution? Lastly, should the state have more responsibility in controlling chemicals and health standards? Would te deregulation of lawn chemicals undermine the safety of the environment and inhabitants?

I think the book brings a very new and interesting perspective; I have never thought of how powerful nonhuman actors can be in such a relationship. It seems like humans and non-humans are co-evolving, instead of an object-subject power dynamic which is the dominant paradigm. Other book reviews seem to agree that Lawn People highlights important topics, however, some reviewers are sceptical of how important the lawn is to influence the outcome of human actions (Thompson 2008). I think whether or not the relationship can be proved, there is definitely a way to advance collective understanding of similar networks because the theory can be applied to many other relationships. As one reviewer said, “the major theoretical contribution of this book is the integration of a theory of the subject (Guthman 2008).” The holes of the argument, which I have discussed before, are not an attack to the fundamental theory, but rather suggestions to make the theory more convincing and applicable to a variety of places.

Works Cited

Ginn, Franklin. “Lawn people: how grasses, weeds and chemicals make us who we are.” Environment and Planning A, volume 39, pages 3028 ^ 3036 39 (2007): 3031-3033.

Guthman, Julie. “Lawn People: How Grasses, Weeds, and Chemicals Make Us Who We Are.” The Professional, 2008: 60:3,425 — 426.

Robbins, Paul. Lawn People: How Grasses, Weeds, and Chemicals Make Us Who We Are. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2007.

Thompson, Ian. “Book Reviews.” Landscape Research 33, no. 4 (August 2008): 503–507.