This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
I would suggest that even that even if one does not follow Berry into the religious domain here, his critique of any society that is predicated on the concept of limitless resources, knowledge, etc. has some merit and deserves careful consideration.
He lists those failures on pp. 61 and 62.
I would be remiss if I did not point out Berry’s discussion in a footnote (p. 67), of an op-ed piece by Adam Shriver, published by the New York Times on February 19, 2010, in which Mr. Shriver “proposes genetically engineering the brains of animals painfully confined in animal factories so they cannot feel pain.” This practice, Berry says, “is indefensible morally, ecologically, agriculturally, and (if all the costs were accounted), economically.” Berry writes, “The idea that science can be used to shortcut the actual complexity of actual problems has become conventional with some scientists. This dishonors and abuses everything involved, including science.”
The same phenomenon applies to the mining of coal. Communities from which coal is mined suffer the losses and the profits are siphoned off to the cities. “The cost of soil erosion is not deducted from the profit on a packaged beefsteak, just as the loss of forest, topsoil, and human homes on a Kentucky mountainside does not reduce the profit on a ton of coal.”
He illustrates his point with a description of a radio program in which a university economist explained the benefits of off-farm work for farm women. The employment of these women off the farm, he said, “has made them ‘full partners’ in the farm’s economy.” But Berry notes that the fact that women have to seek employment off the farm is more indicative of desperation and unhappiness on the farm, and it ignores their previous contribution on the farm to the farm family’s life and economy. The error here is that the manner of thinking illustrated by the economist focuses on the economic value of individuals instead of thinking in terms of the “economic functions of communities and households.” (77)
Berry makes it clear that he is not against competition per se, and says that competition within limits is a useful and necessary part of any community. His point, however, is that no individual can live “a good or satisfying life under the rule of competition” and that communities must somehow limit the competitiveness of its members. How else, he asks, are we to help others if competition is the rule?
An example of the latter is the system of slavery. in which some people thought it pleasant “to have the most onerous tasks of their economy performed by black slaves.” (96) Such a pleasure, he says, proved to be temporary and dangerous.
Berry goes on to cite, as proponents of this same theme, Virgil, Edmund Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, and Alexander Pope who enjoined that we never forget Nature and to “Consult the Genius of the Place in all.” (111) He also cites Thomas Jefferson, J. Russell Smith, and Sir Albert Howard, all of whom encourage us to look to nature as a guide for our agricultural practices.
The characteristics of the Great Economy are discussed in the following pages, but space does not allow me to go into them here.
Berry points out that it is virtually impossible for any smaller competitors to really compete with Wal-Mart, for example. When Wal-Mart moves into an area, many smaller, local businesses are driven out of business.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seale, D. Wendell Berry: What Matters? Economics for a Renewed Commonwealth. J Agric Environ Ethics 26, 889–903 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9402-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9402-2