Skip to main content
Log in

Sector as personality: The case of farm protest movements

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

the personality of the farm sector is basically healthy and has many of the favorable attributes embodied in the image of the family farmer as self-reliant and independent; and as committed to fair play, due process, and democratic ideals. But a darker side of the farm personality traits has emerged in the course of American history. Social scientists for the most part have given little attention to negative personality traits of farmers and the goals, values, and beliefs that underlie these negative traits. The purpose of this essay is to address the issue. The conclusion is that social scientists must confront myths that may have made life tolerable for many farmers but also have provided a psychological and ideological climate where paranoia, scapegoating, violence, armed confrontation, intimidation, and fear reflect the dark side of the farm personaility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Authors

Additional information

1. A version of this paper was presented as a lecture at the E. T. York Distinguished Lecturer Series, University of Florida, Gainesville, March 1986. Comments by Christina Gladwin, Daryll Ray, and Larry Sanders are much appreciated, but the author is solely responsible for any shortcomings of this paper.

Luther Tweeten is Regents Professor of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University. He has published widely in the area of farm policy, including his 1979 bookFoundation of Farm Policy. Another book,Farm Policy Analysis, is forthcoming.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tweeten, L. Sector as personality: The case of farm protest movements. Agric Hum Values 4, 66–74 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01535216

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01535216

Keywords

Navigation