Jonathan Lee

MLS Science Writing

Berry Conversation Essay
May 25, 2016
Wendell E. Berrys 2012 Jefferson Lecture, It All Turns on Affection, is not your standard
environmentalists call to action. He isnt only asking for stricter government regulation of
corporate pollution. He doesnt simply plea for consumers to be more environmentally conscious.
He wants more than just increased funding for research on environmental remediation technologies.
Hes calling for the complete restructuring of our government and society. Berry condemns
industrialism in the United States and how corporate greed has poisoned both society and the land
we live on. He firmly contends that we must abandon our current way of life and switch to an
agrarian, locality based-society (as opposed to the federalized government we currently have) in
which we care for our land out of affection.
Berry himself brings up the issues I have with his proposal: [n]ave . . . within the context
of our present faith in science, finance, and technology and anachronistic, retrogressive, [and]
nostalgic. He attempts to pre-emptively refute these arguments, but fails to do so convincingly, as I
demonstrate later in this essay. I agree with many of his views on industrialism, but I dont see an
agrarian, locality-based society as a viable solution.
Even before considering the theoretical merits and flaws of an agrarian, locality-based
society vs. our current federalist system, Berrys proposal is unrealistic. Out of the two parts to
Berrys proposal, the idea of an agrarian society is more radical than a locality-based society. Many
before Berry have advocated for a locality-based society within a modern context, but it is unclear
what an agrarian society would look like in the 21st century. Berry does not describe the specifics of
what his ideal society would look like, but from what we do get from Berry, its hard to imagine that

the majority of Americans would ever be in favor of it. According to Berry, an economy genuinely
local and neighborly offers to localities a measure of security that they cannot derive from a national
or a global economy controlled by people who, by principle, have no local commitment. He also
asserts:
Corporate industrialism itself has exposed the falsehood that it ever was inevitable or
that it ever has given precedence to the common good. . . . No amount of fiddling
with capitalism to regulate and humanize it, no pointless rhetoric on the virtues of
capitalism or socialism, no billions or trillions spent on defense of the American
dream, can for long disguise this failure.
Since Berry does not think corporate industrialism can be fixed in any way, it would seem that
Berry is not only in favor of abolishing federalized government (a common tenet of those who
support a localized society), but also abolishing all regional and national corporations entirely. Even
with trade between localities, we would no longer have the same access to certain goods and
services we have come to expect as a part of daily life in this society. Berry also states that the
making of the human household upon the earth[,] the arts of adapting kindly the many human
households to the earths many ecosystems and human neighborhoods[,] . . . is the economy. . . that
is the primary vocation and responsibility of every one of us. From this statement, we may infer
that Berry would like the majority, if not all, people to become farmers. With Berrys proposal, we
would be giving up modern life as we know it.
Of course, the purpose of Berrys lecture is to convince his audience that we should give up
modern life as we know it. The fact that it is unrealistic for many Americans to choose an agrarian,
affection-based life over modern conveniences is something that the argues is part of the problem.
After all, he does say that by economic proxies thoughtlessly given, by thoughtless consumption of
goods ignorantly purchased, now we all are boomers. As such, he mainly sticks to the theoretical,

describing what could be if the majority was willing to adopt such a lifestyle. Operating within the
theoretical, I must concede that all nations switching to agrarian localities could very much be a
workable solution to the environmental issues the world faces. I agree with Berry when he says that
we cannot necessarily count on technological advancement to fix the environmental damage caused
by industrialism before the earth can no longer sustain the human population. Berrys proposal
would come at a great sacrifice to global standards of living, but it could feasibly repair the
environment for all I know. However, interestingly enough, Berrys lecture focuses on social and
moral arguments rather than arguments regarding the environment (perhaps because the former
arguments deal with human affection and emotion while the latter is a tired approach). Looking
through a social and moral lens, I still hold that switching to an agrarian, locality-based society
would have an overall detrimental effect.
Again, I go back to the idea that an agrarian, locality-based society would end modern life as
we know it and reduce standards of living. Berry opposes the concentration of power and wealth
within a minority population under industrialism. However, abandoning federal infrastructure and
safety nets would exacerbate issues of disparity, not resolve them. In a locality-based society,
certain localities would have more resources and advantages over others. Localities would end up
competing with each other for trade, much like the thirteen original colonies did, and inevitably,
some localities would not receive resources that they desperately need. Additionally, forcing people
to live agrarian lives and refrain from being mobile is not moral. While Berry, his father, and his
grandfather may love the land they were born on and enjoy farming, this is not true for everyone.
(This is an especially self-centered and privileged view that Berry has and does not take into
account the experiences of immigrants, refugees, and marginalized groups.) A society in which
people are not able to do the things that make them happy, fulfill their personal potentials, or live in
place where they feel safe and comfortable would be a bleak future. Furthermore, in agrarian

society where land is passed down through generations within a family, any person born to a family
with little to no land and money would be extremely disadvantaged and have limited social
mobility. Such a person would be doomed to live a life in poverty simply because of luck. This is a
common criticism of the capitalistic, industrialist society Berry claims to be fixing. Berrys agrarian,
locality-based society is far from the utopia he claims it to be.
Reverting to an agrarian society would also greatly limit the development and distribution of
technologies that increase standards of living. Berry seems content to let this happen:
We have had in only about two centuries a steady and ever-quickening sequence of
industrial revolutions in manufacturing, transportation, war, agriculture, education,
entertainment, homemaking and family life, health care, and so-called
communications. . . . It is true that these revolutions have brought some increase of
convenience and comfort and some easing of pain. It is also true that the
industrialization of everything has incurred liabilities and is running deficits that
have not been adequately accounted. All of these changes have depended upon
industrial technologies, processes, and products, which have depended upon the
fossil fuels . . . which have been . . . unimaginably damaging to land, water, air,
plants, animals, and humans. And the cycle of obsolescence and innovation, goaded
by crazes of fashion, has given the corporate economy a controlling share of
everybodys income.
The social and moral arguments Berry makes about technology is that it is complicit in
industrialism and breeds materialism and corporate greed. As previously demonstrated, an agrarian,
locality-based society would still result in economic disparity, even if it is no longer due to
corporate greed. As for materialism, the positive impacts of technology far outweigh Berrys
concerns about materialism. Berry dismisses the technological advances in manufacturing,

transportation, war, agriculture, education, entertainment, homemaking and family life, health care
and more as just some increase of convenience and comfort and some easing of pain. To say that
this is an understatement would be an understatement in itself. To weigh the single issue of
materialism over the uncountable number of improvements technology has made to the human
condition (including social and moral improvements) is, frankly, ridiculous.
Berry does anticipate this argument about mobility and standard of living:
The cost of [a corporate economy] has been paid also in a social condition which
apologists call mobility, implying that it has been always upward to a higher
standard of living, but which in fact has been an unsettlement of our people, and
the extinction or near-extinction of traditional and necessary communal structures.
However, Berry does not actually demonstrate why mobility is actually morally or socially bad. Just
because social structures are changing does not make them inherently wrong. Berry provides no
reason for why it is immoral to not feel attachment to your local land and community. He simply
creates loose associations between mobility, industrialism, and materialism and corporate greed
when mobility does not necessarily imply materialism and corporate greed. The burden of proof is
on Berry here, and he fails to meet it. Just because people do not feel the same way as him does not
make them immoral.
As Berry brought up, industrialism has very pressing and significant issues especially in
regard to wealth and power disparity, corporations making unethical and environmentally harmful
decisions for the sake of profit, and people prioritizing material wealth and achievement over
human wellbeing. These are large, challenging problems to which I dont have any concrete
solutions beyond making use of policy, conservation actions, and technology. But what I do know
is that adopting an agrarian, locality-based society would only make things socially and morally
worse, not better