Tolkien and agrarianism

We face real problems, whether climate change or something else, that we may be able to do little about, but I believe that much good could be done if lots of people opted out of the mainstream economy to a degree and lived a little more like hobbits.
Yeah,you won't find many people arguing about that...it would be lovely! But meanwhile we have to live in the horrible ugly real world. As I said,go live in an Aboriginal community for a month and you'll know all anyone needs to know about poverty...it's definitely real,it's ugly and it's not getting any better. And that's just one of the most obvious examples of it,the third world existing alongside the western rich world in Australia etc.,but look at what's been happening in England. Sure,a lot of those kids are not even poor and they are just opportunistic thieves etc etc. I hate violence and thuggery as much as anyone,more than most in fact...but they have exactly the same problem there,these kids have been told every day of their lives by the popular media that they are total losers unless they have the latest toys,iPhones,games,fashions,everything...like,since they were babies. Of course their parents need to have the $5000 tv and the McMansion,the new car etc etc...or the teens are losers...it's no surprise to me that the item of choice for looters is a plasma tv,you know?
Here's a quote from some English guy that I just saw on Facebook...(from 2007 though)

Neil Lawson of the Labour think-tank Compass bleakly admitted: “Society is hollowing out, but not just in the rotting boroughs of south London. The middle classes are anxious too. Many are richer but few seem happier. Mental illness abounds. White-collar jobs are outsourced to India. Everyone looks for meaning in their lives – but all they find is shopping.” “The reason our children’s lives are the worst among economically advanced countries is because we are a poor version of the USA,” he said. “So the USA comes second from bottom and we follow behind. The age of neo-liberalism, even with the human face that New Labour has given it, cannot stem the tide of the social recession capitalism creates.”

It's from this article...

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/71/generation-fcked.html

Australia is a million times more like a lame version of USA,so where does that leave us?? Bloody hell!!
Call me a Misanthropist if you like,that's pretty close to what I've become in my old age! But I can't be a real Misanthropist because I have a grand daughter...right? And I actually still have a sort of vaque hope that evolution may sort of 'save' us yet...in other words we may grow a better brain one day and stop treating 90% of the population of the planet as slaves.
Meanwhile,Tolkien...I can't think of anything else. ;)
 
"Lord of the Rings" always struck me as presenting a rose tinted view of pre-industrialised societies and a (whatever the opposite of rose tinted is) view of industrialisation.

When I read John Wyndham's "Midwhich Cuckoos", I was struck by the contrast in world view expounded there, in contrast to Tolkien's. In this book, nature is something that can be harsh and brutal, to be feared, if we are not in control of it. Industrialisation and civilization are something we desperately strived for in order to distance and protect ourselves from the vagaries of nature.

Personally, I sympathise with Tolkien's view, but I think it is easy to have an unrealistic notion of how great life was before industrialisation, and to forget how much it has made (for most of us) life more bareable. There's definitely a balance to be found here and I wouldn't say that we (generally) have got the balance right.
 
'...but I think it is easy to have an unrealistic notion of how great life was before industrialisation, and to forget how much it has made (for most of us) life more bareable. There's definitely a balance to be found here and I wouldn't say that we (generally) have got the balance right.
Despite what I said before,I totally agree with this! I understand where Extollager is coming from too,but I'm on the side of progress and there's no way I'm giving up my tv and internet and everything,all that. But the progress and wealth should be shared out a bit somehow,it's just obscene that we have people who earn million dollar salaries while others go hungry in Somalia...etc etc.
But this is not a politics or philosophy forum and I have no idea how to change the world,so I suppose I better just shut up now! ;)
 
Just a random thought: my take on Tolkien is that he loved peace and quiet, and hated stress and noise (and having been in the trenches, who can blame him?), and his apparently agrarian anti-machine philosophy was driven by that as much as anything. As someone who's often been struck by the beauty of a landscape and then had it ruined by a plane flying overhead, I know where he's coming from.

It might also be that because of his army experiences, he associated the predominance of machines with war and horror.
 
It seems that what folks are taking away from their reading of Tolkien is that he didn't like machines and noise, and selected for artistic presentation the attractive but not the unattractive elements of an agrarian way of life.

I'd like to shift the focus a little in this posting. Let's look at what we know about the Shire and see if we can make any applications.

The main thing that sticks out is that the hobbits have been there for centuries -- (a) without depleting the land and (b) without fighting wars.

(b) They haven't had to fight wars because, unknown to them, people like the "Rangers" have defended them. Although the hobbits are "pacifistic," Tolkien isn't. He clearly believed that defensive wars have to be fought. The good hobbits do have to engage in a little armed resistance, at the end, to expel Saruman's occupiers.

(a) The hobbits evidently have a sustainable economy. The soil remains fertile. I suspect that two easy indications of land health (are there lots of earthworms and are there lots of bees?) would show up in the Shire. The hobbits have enough that everyone seems to be well fed.

Last year -- talk about book hauls -- I found an interesting free discard at my university library. It is the first edition, with the author's wife listed as publisher on the title page, of F. H. King's 1911 classic of permaculture, Farmers of Forty Centuries. It is largely a study of Chinese farmers. But I suspect one could draw from it some principles that would line up with the probabilities of hobbit farming.

Tolkien wasn't a farmer. His brother, Hilary, was, and Tolkien had other contacts with farming (fruit farming) as well (e.g. his Aunt Jane Neave). I'm not going to get up to check my authorities for this right now but I should get back here later on this topic.

But I don't mean to suggest that we can derive from Tolkien's writings and his personal background all the knowledge needed for a restructuring of agriculture. Rather, I'm saying that his writings and even a little bit his life are legitimate inspirations and nudges in good directions. Conservative or anarchist-socialist, we should be able to respond to that. The people who should find little support in Tolkien would be doctrinaire Big Government/Agribusiness flacks of the right or the left!
 
My problem is it's easy to write a book where everything is perfect. Whilst I'd love to live in the shire would I be prepared to go without the healthcare I currently enjoy? As we are now we're far too overpopulated to live any sort of 'sustainable' lifestyle on a large scale (i.e. for a large percentage of the population. An author doesn't have to deal with these problems - population can remain handily static; enough to maintain a labour base without taxing resources - no GM crops to the rescue here. The Shire can't be totally agrarian either as mining must occur in order to produce steel tools or they must trade with the outside world - don't a lot of characters have familiarity with shire pipe weed?

I don't think Tolkiens principles are flawed - I'm sure I could build up a community somewhat similar to the Shire but how long it would remain is another matter. I also get a bit conflicted:
Is a society with no drive or imagination - which isn't changing in some degree, a good thing? Discuss...
 
Woodsman wrote, "As we are now we're far too overpopulated to live any sort of 'sustainable' lifestyle on a large scale (i.e. for a large percentage of the population)."

Do you have access to Wendell Berry's essays, e.g. "What Are People For?"

I think that a great deal of labor for a sustainable economy would become available if people were not tied up with the unsustainable one instead.

A sustainable economy wouldn't mean that everyone is digging and hoeing -- though more people would be doing that, than at present. It would include adapting technology for uses that promote health of soil and produce. It would include more jobs relating to animal care. It would greatly increase opportunities for small businesses and would be conducive for the revitalization of small-city downtowns. It would open up many jobs involving repair work -- a kind of work that many young men and women enjoy. (See Matthew Crawford's Shop Class as Soulcraft.) Reversing the trend towards school consolidation, it would lead to reopening of many schools in towns and that would mean additional teaching jobs. I'm just listing some things that occur to me.

There would be less demand for corporate lawyers and maintenance crews for jet airplanes. Truckers would be needed but they would not drive such long distances. Many American air bases in foreign countries would shut down.
 
Re: calories.

I actually was thinking earlier today about the hobbits' food needs. They are typically 2-3 feet tall, as I recall from my Tolkien. Moreover they do not mature rapidly but rather more slowly than humans. I would think that their calorie needs would be much lower than ours.

As for calories and nutrition in the Primary World -- Well, I'm an English teacher and I don't suppose I can make the call where "experts" disagree. But authorities do disagree. There are those who say we can't feed the world without agribusiness methods. But there are those who do or who think at least we could phase in a much greater degree of sustainability and still feed people. Indeed it is argued that sustainable farming may be more productive. Apparently one key issue is outputs vs. productivity. The agribusiness/monocultural model can point to its methods of raising, say, ten thousand acres of wheat and compare that with the "output" of small farmers raising soy beans. But the small farmer may actually be more productive in that while (s)he raises less wheat per acre, his/her land also produces other things too: e.g. animals are also raised. See Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture ed. Andrew Kimbrell (Island Press; (c) 2002 Foundation for Deep Ecology) and its discussion of seven myths of agribusiness including "Industrial Agriculture Will Feed the World," "Industrial Food Is Cheap," etc.
 
.... I realize that at present many people would not want to work on the land, but that a more sustainable and beautiful form of agriculture would require that.

In response to that, I would say that government should shift away from its present support for monocultural industrial agriculture towards support for a more wholesome agrarianism. Government should decouple from its present close relationship with agribusiness. If it does, I think to a significant degree people will respond to the new possibilities.

In America, from the time of the Cold War at least, taxpayers supported huge expenditures for the military. They continue to do so even though the Cold War is over. Surely national security would be served by agricultural practices that reduce our present dependency on imported oil, on practices that appear to be harmful to land and rivers, etc. (Here I refrain from attempting to summarize the writings of Andrew Bacevich on America's policy of "permanent war." But I love the guy. He's the kind of conservative who writes for The Nation -- the "flagship of the Left.") If people were convinced for so long that they needed to "bear any burden" for the sake of national security and promotion of democracy overseas (and was that really our business?), surely they can learn to support sustainable agriculture.

On the small scale, I love to see what is happening in some cities, in which derelict properties are used for gardens. The value of these efforts is out of proportion to the literal yield of the gardens, I am sure.

http://www.alternet.org/environment...dening_and_green_economy_flourish_in_detroit/

Yes, I do see something Tolkienian in the spirit of such enterprises.
 
.... I realize that at present many people would not want to work on the land, but that a more sustainable and beautiful form of agriculture would require that.
Well,you deserve 10 points for your passion with this! The thing is,from what I can observe of human behaviour in general,we basically all want an easier,more comfortable life...with the least possible work. We seem to be just basically selfish and greedy as far as I can see. Down here it's known as the 'I'm alright Jack' mentality. This is human nature apparently. And I wouldn't have a clue about this stuff really,but it seems to me that this greed is exactly the thing that has driven all the human race's 'progress'. No one would argue that the majority of people are more 'wealthy' and our standard of living is better now than say,100 years ago. But obviously that's all relative and the fact that we have such ridiculous inequalities everywhere is just horrible and wrong. But what can you do? All the people in China,India,Indonesia etc want a tv just like us,they want one in Somalia too,but they can't have one...nor can they have a fridge,or any food to put in it. In the face of this ugly reality I personally see absolutely no way that what you're talking about can ever happen,except at a local level for a few passionate individuals like yourself and the people who do this sort of thing already,the organic farmers etc. Of course the world would be better if we could all live like this,but I for one am not going back to work in the fields for MY food!! I grew up on a farm...never again!!! No way! It's hard work and it ain't fun! ;)
 
And I, Elflock, did not grow up on a farm and have never worked on one, yet I am the one urging a social arrangement that would involve more people working on farms. So I see that I'm vulnerable.

I'd respond that (1) a school of thought that seems at least plausible, and perhaps pretty compelling, to me says that like it or not, more people are going to have to work on farms eventually because our present agricultural arrangements can't be sustained (but this school could be mistaken, I grant); (2) you grew up on a farm and it was hard work and not fun; very well, how many of us would say that what we are doing at present for a living is such fun that we would keep doing it if we didn't have to? I personally would be happy to be able to walk away from about 80% of what I do for a living. And I believe I have a much better job than many people do since I live in a nice, safe town and can walk to work every day, etc. Furthermore, you had experience of working on that particular farm (and maybe you'd like to tell about that), but whether it was great or awful or something in between it was just one possible farm; it seems from Brende's Better Off that some people are capable of imagining themselves doing something else but prefer to keep on farming (in a sustainable way).

Tolkien's hobbits evidently are mostly reasonably content with their agrarianism. Does the book provide any plausible reasons why? Well, I think it does. (a) They either own their own land or work as tenants on the land of people who treat them decently. (b) Farmers and agricultural laborers are respected and appreciated. (c) Government is not intrusive. I believe that government can and in some cases must "intrude," but in general I think most of what makes for personal happiness does not come about thanks to government agencies. (d) Obviously, they have good land. They did not make it that way. But, on the other hand, they don't take good land and strip-mine it of nutrients and then move on when it is ruined. They clearly practice some form of low-tech sustainable agriculture. (e) They do not seem to have to deal much with pests, bacteria, etc. We can simply say this is wish-fulfillment on Tolkien's part and is nothing but a weakness of his imagination that throws his whole work into disrepute. Alternatively, we can consider the possibility that Middle-earth in the Third Age is closer, as Tolkien imagines it, to the primordial perfection than our world is. This would imply that, if we are going to be "inspired" by Tolkien's writings for our own efforts, we recognize there are great differences between his fantasy world and ours.
Well, duh! No Elves, orcs, trolls, Istari, etc.
 
On happy frugal peasants (see earlier postings):

It happens that my bedtime reading recently has been the great engraver Thomas Bewick's Memoir (written 1820s). His father was a farmer and tenant collier, according to my Oxford paperback edition. I will quote at some length (the book is available online) -- see if this doesn't sound like hobbits to you.

Here and there on this common were to be seen the cottage, or rather hovel, of some labouring man, built at his own expense, and mostly with his own hands; and to this he always added a garth and a garden, upon which great pains and labour were bestowed to make both produc- tive; and for this purpose not a bit of manure was suffered to be wasted away on the "lonnings" or public roads. These various concerns excited the attention and industry of the hardy occupants, which enabled them to prosper, and made them despise being ever numbered with the parish poor. These men, whose children were neither pampered nor spoiled, might truly be called " A bold peasantry, their country's pride ;" and to this day I think I see their broad shoulders and their hardy sun-burnt looks, which altogether bespoke the vigour of their constitutions. These cottagers (at least those of them I knew) were of an honest and independent character, while at the same time they held the neighbouring gentry in the greatest estimation and respect;
and these, again, in return, did not over-look them, but were interested in knowing that they were happy and well. Most of these poor men, from their having little intercourse with the world, were in all their actions and behaviour truly ori- ginal; and, except reading the Bible, local his- tories, and old ballads, their knowledge was gene- rally limited. And yet one of these " Will Bewick" from being much struck with my performances, which he called pictures, became exceedingly kind to me, and was the first person from whom I gathered a sort of general knowledge of astronomy and of the magnitude of the uni- verse. He had, the year through, noticed the appearances of the stars and the planets, and would discourse "largely" on the subject. I think I see him yet, sitting on a mound, or seat, by the hedge of his garden, regardless of the cold, and intent upon viewing the heavenly bodies ; pointing to them with his large hands, and eagerly imparting his knowledge to me with a strong voice such as one now seldom hears. I well remember being much struck with his appearance his stern-looking brows, high cheek bones, quick eye, and longish visage ; and at his resolution (upon another occa- sion) when he determined upon risking his own life to save that of another man. .....
Another of our fell-side neighbours, Anthony Liddell, was a man of a very singular character, and was noticed as such by the whole neighbour- hood ; but a full account of him would far exceed the bounds I wish to set to my narrative. .... The whole cast of his character was formed by the Bible, which he had read with attention, through and through. Acts of Parliament which appeared to him to clash with the laws laid down in it, as the Word of God, he treated with con- tempt. He maintained that the fowls of the air and the fish of the sea were free for all men ; consequently, game laws, or laws to protect the fisheries, had no weight with him. He would not, indeed, take a salmon out of the locks on any account, but what he could catch with his "click-hook," in the river, he deemed his own. ............His deportment and behaviour were generally the reverse of anything like sauciness ; but, except in ability and acquirements, which, indeed, commanded his respect, he treated all men as equals.....
Thomas Forster was a man of a different cha- racter from the last, but singular enough in his way. He was distinguished for his frugality and industry, and always showed a wish to be looked upon in a respectable light. He used to call at our house on a Sunday afternoon, for the purpose of having a bit of chat with my father and mother. He took a liking to me, and would observe that, though I was mischievous enough, yet he never could find that I was " parrentory," that is, impudent or saucy with any one. Besides this part of the good opinion he had formed, he must have had confidence as to my keeping any secrets he might impart to me. He kept a few sheep on the fell ; but his secret and main business there was looking after his bees. He had a great number of hives placed
in very hidden and curious situations. Some of them were concealed under the boundary hedge of the common, and were surrounded by a great extent of whin bushes. Other hives were shel- tered under the branches of old thorns, and almost covered or overhung by brambles, wood- bine, and hip briars, which, when in blossom, looked beautifully picturesque, while at the same time they served to keep the eye from viewing the treasures thus concealed beneath. Others, again, were placed in the midst of a " whin rush" that is, a great extent of old whins, the stems of which were about the thickness of a man's arm. The entrance to these last was always by a "smout hole," or small opening, through which we crept on hands and knees to the hives, and which, on leaving, was stopped up by a bushy- topped whin. By way of taking off the at- tention of the " over-inquisitive" as to his stock of honey, he kept hives in his garden at home, and sold the produce of these to his neighbours ; but the greater part of his stock was sold at distant parts of the country. In this way, and by his industry and good management, he be- came what was accounted very rich .....
Before taking leave of these hardy inhabitants of the fells and wastes, whose cottages were sur- rounded with whins and heather, I must observe that they always appeared to me, notwithstand- ing their apparent poverty, to enjoy health and happiness in a degree surpassing that of most other men. Their daily fare was coarse bread, potatoes, oatmeal porridge, and milk, only varied by their boiling the pot with animal food, cab- bage, or other succulent vegetables, and broth, on Sundays. When tired, at night, with labour, having few cares to perplex them, they lay down and slept soundly, and arose refreshed from their hard beds early in the morning. I have always felt much pleasure in revisiting them, and, over a tankard of ale, in listening to their discourse. It was chiefly upon local biography, in which they sometimes traced the pedigree of their
neighbours a long way back. (etc.)
 
[/QUOTE] 'you grew up on a farm and it was hard work and not fun; very well, how many of us would say that what we are doing at present for a living is such fun that we would keep doing it if we didn't have to?'

Not many...;) I've had a 'career' that probably came closer than most to being fun...rock bands...it was SORT of fun! Better than the farm!

'Furthermore, you had experience of working on that particular farm (and maybe you'd like to tell about that), but whether it was great or awful or something in between it was just one possible farm'

Actually it was a bloody big sheep station...7,000 hectares. So it was nothing at all like what you're talking about for a start! Ok,it was great in one way to grow up there...my brother and I just ran wild when we were kids,just out in the bush. Our parents didn't make us work like some country kids have to,but we still had to chop the wood,drive tractors with plows etc,herd sheep and cattle on horseback,a hundred other things. I still love the bush and I miss it a bit and it is a good feeling to 'do a good day's work' and all that stuff. So I understand this hardworking frugality thing,don't worry. I do,that's the life they have out there in the bush,that's how we grew up. But getting up in the dark at 4 am to go get sheep out of a blizzard and that wasn't much fun...shearing the bloody things...working in the stinky shearing shed all day...what a pain! I could list a million horrible things...watching my dad slaughter sheep and chickens so we could eat them...etc. Have you ever done stuff like build a fence? :):mad::pNever again!! Not if I can help it!! Someone else can build it!
;)
 
Very interesting account, Elflock, and, as you say, it's a different type of work than what Tolkien is describing -- it's ranching, rather than farming. Which raises the question about hobbit diet. It seems to me that we can say this:

--hobbits are not vegetarians; Sam has no qualms about eating rabbit
--hobbits have dairy animals (since they eat cheese, etc.)
--hobbits presumably raise sheep for wool since Sam's father gets a woolen waistcoat


It isn't clear to me that hobbits raise cattle or sheep for meat. I don't have the impression that they engage in ranching.

I think they probably eat quite a bit of fish. There's no direct statement that the Shire-hobbits eat fish (as far as I know). Gollum/Smeagol was of hobbit-origin or something akin, and obviously was an enthusiastic ichthyophage. I have even less evidence to support my feeling that hobbits ate wildfowl and may have hunted deer.

I suspect that hobbits should be thought of as subsisting largely on plant food that they raise plus animal food that they hunt or fish.

I have the further impression that Tolkien gives us no evidence that clearly supports the idea that any of the Free Peoples routinely raise animals for beef or mutton.

If this slight evidence and much surmise is allowable, then we have further indications of the sustainability of the hobbit food system. The absence of heavy amounts of red meat from their diets might conduce to their longevity despite their tendency towards plumpness.
 
No evidence of cattle ranching, I agree. I think their main meat would be from pigs ("cold meats" as part of the meal at Bree suggests charcuterie to me; also bacon and mushrooms at the Maggots'). And someone mentions a relative of his going up to Northfarthing for "the hunt", though what they were hunting isn't clear. Likely to be deer, though, I would have thought.
 
No evidence of cattle ranching, I agree. I think their main meat would be from pigs ("cold meats" as part of the meal at Bree suggests charcuterie to me; also bacon and mushrooms at the Maggots'). And someone mentions a relative of his going up to Northfarthing for "the hunt", though what they were hunting isn't clear. Likely to be deer, though, I would have thought.


I may need to be corrected, but I think raising pigs for meat would fit in with a sustainable model, since they can be fed largely on leavings from vegetable production -- i.e. they don't require a lot of rangeland like cattle or sheep.

Well, here, let's check: I have a copy of the great John Seymour's illustrated Guide to Self-Sufficiency (American edition published ca. 1976 by Popular Mechanics) and he includes pigs. Seymour writes: "The pig fits so well inot the self-supporter's economy that the animal almost seems designed with that in mind. It is probably the most omnivorous animal in the world and will thrive on practically anything. ... Throw any vegetable matter, of whatever kind, to a pig, and he will either eat it -- converting it within hours to good meat and the best compost in the world -- or he will tread it into the ground, dung on it, and turn it into compost that way." Seymour also recommends goats; and perhaps hobbits raised goats for milk for cheese, etc. I don't have the sense that they ate goat meat.
 
Seymour writes: "The pig fits so well inot the self-supporter's economy that the animal almost seems designed with that in mind. It is probably the most omnivorous animal in the world and will thrive on practically anything. ... Throw any vegetable matter, of whatever kind, to a pig, and he will either eat it -- converting it within hours to good meat and the best compost in the world -- or he will tread it into the ground, dung on it, and turn it into compost that way."
Yep,they will even eat dead pigs...yuk!! I like pork and bacon,just don't like to think about it...:eek:
Goats love marijuana...;)
 

Similar threads


Back
Top