Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 143–150 | Cite as

The cultural model of “the good farmer” and the environmental question in Finland

  • Tiina Silvasti


Farmers' relationship with nature isdetermined by the significance of agriculturefor human beings. When agriculture is definedas human activity that uses renewable naturalresources and aims to produce usable food andfiber products, agriculture is explicitlydefined as production. Farmers' relationshipwith nature is based on the principle ofproduction. This article discusses thecontradiction between the peasant values ofprotection of nature that many farmers inFinland still have and the environmental harmtheir production-oriented farming style causes.When farmers interpret their farming practicesas harmonious co-operation with nature, it isdifficult for them to see the polluting effectsof their work. Paul B. Thompson's suggestionthat three religious–philosophical doctrines(hard work, the doctrine of grace, and the mythof garden) have made it easy for farmers toadopt productionist farming strategy is used asa framework to interpret farmers' narrativesconcerning their relationship with nature. Theresearch is qualitative and biographical. Thedata include life stories and biographicaltexts farmers wrote for a competition in1997.

Christianity Environment Farming Finland Peasant values Productionist farming strategy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allardt, E. (1987). Sosiologia I. Juva, Finland: WSOY.Google Scholar
  2. Almås, R., K. H. Karlsen, and I. Thorland (1995). Fra pliktsamfunn til munlighetstorg. Tre genegasjoner skriver sin Ungdom. [From the society of duty to the market place of opportunity. Three generations write about their youth.] Report No. 5/1995. Trondheim: Senter for Bygdeforskning.Google Scholar
  3. Attfield, R. (1983). “Western attitudes and environmental ethics.” In R. Elliot and A. Gare (eds.), Environmental Philosophy: A Collection of Readings (pp. 201–230). St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
  4. Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive Biography. Qualitative Research Methods 7. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Gray, I. and E. Phillips (1997). “Sustainability and the restructuring of tradition: A comparative analysis of three rural localities.” In G. Lawrence, K. Lyons, and S. Momtaz (eds.), Social Change in Rural Australia (pp. 276–289). Central Queensland University: University Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. de Haan, H. (1994). In the Shadow of the Tree. Kinship. Property and Inheritance among Farm Families. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.Google Scholar
  7. Heinonen, V. (1998). Taloppoikainen etiikka ja kulutuksen henki: kotitalousneuvonnasta kuluttajapolitiikkaan 1900-luvun Suomessa. [Peasant ethic and the spirit of consumption. From household advising to consumer policy in 20th century Finland.] Helsinki: Suomen Historiallinen Seura.Google Scholar
  8. Holmila, M. (2000). Social Bonds in Rural Life. Regulating the Dangerous. Research report 113. Stakes. National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health in Finland.Google Scholar
  9. Hietaniemi, T. (1991). “Protestanttinen ja katolinen etiikka, kapitalismin henki ja muoto.” [Protestant and catholic ethic, the spirit and the form of capitalism.] Sosiologia 28(3): 161–176.Google Scholar
  10. Jokinen, P. (1995a). Tuotannon muutokset ja ympäristöpolitiikka. [Changes in production and the environmental policy.] Turku: Turun Yliopiston Julkaisuja, Sarja C 116.Google Scholar
  11. Jokinen, P. (1995b). “The development of agricultural pollution control in Finland.” Sociologia Ruralis 35(2): 206–226.Google Scholar
  12. Kvale, Steinar (1996). InterViews. An Introduction to a Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Lakoff, G. and M. Turner (1989). More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphors. Chicago / London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Luoto, I., P. Ruuskanen, and H. Susiluoma (1996). Risupartoja vai markkinamiehia? Tapaustutkimus Etelä-Pohjanmaan luomutuottajista. [Hippies or yuppies? A case study of organic farmers in southern Ostrobothnia.] Kokkola: Jyväskylän Yliopisto. Chydenius-Instituutin Tutkimuksia 5/1996.Google Scholar
  15. Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research Interviewing. Context and Narrative. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Money, J. (1993). Lovemaps. Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transposition in Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  17. Murray, C. I. and G. K. Leigh (1995). “Families and Sexuality.” In D. Day, K. R. Gilbert, B. H. Settles, and W. R. Burr (eds.), Research and Theory in Family Science (pp. 187–192). Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  18. Naples, N. A. and C. Sachs (2000). “Standpoint Epistemology and the Uses of Self-Reflection in Feminist Ethnography: Lessons for Rural Sociology.” Rural Sociology 64(2): 194–214.Google Scholar
  19. Newby, H. (1979). Green and Pleasant Land? Social Change in Rural England. London: Hutchinson of London.Google Scholar
  20. Nieminen, M. (1994). Rantojensuojeluohjelma. Kilpailevia tulkintoja ja vertautumatonta rationaalisuutta. [Protection of shorelines. Competing interpretations and non-comparable rationalities.] Jyväskylän Yliopiston Sosiologian Laitoksen Julkaisuja 59.Google Scholar
  21. Passmore, J. (1980). Man's responsibility for nature. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  22. Peltonen, M. (1992). Talolliset ja torpparit. Vuosisadan vaihteen maatalouskysymys Suomessa. [Landowners and crofters. Agricultural question in Finland at the turn of the century.] Historiallisia tutkimuksia. [Studies in History] 164. Vammala, Finland: Suomen Historiallinen Seura.Google Scholar
  23. Peter, G., M. M. Bell, S. Jarnagin, and D. Bauer (2000). “Coming back across the fence: Masculinity and the transition to sustainable agriculture.” Rural Sociology 65(2): 215–233.Google Scholar
  24. Roos, J. P. (1983). On Way of Life Typologies. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Social Policy. Reprint Series B No. 27.Google Scholar
  25. Salamon, S. (1992). Prairie Patrimony. Family, Farming and Community in the Midwest. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  26. Segalen, M. (1987). “Life-course patterns and peasant culture in France: A critical assessment.” Journal of Family History 12(1-3): 213–224.Google Scholar
  27. Segalen, M. (1983). Love and Power in the Peasant Family. Rural France in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Silvasti, T. (2001). Talonpojan elämä. Tutkimus elämäntapaa jäsentävistä kulttuurisista malleista. [Peasant life. A study of the cultural models organizing the way of life.] Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
  29. Simon, W. and J. H. Gagnon (1984). “Sexual scripts.” Social Science and Modern Society 22(1): 53–60.Google Scholar
  30. Thompson, P. B. (1995). The Spirit of the Soil. Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Thorsen, L. E. (1994). “Reflections on the biographical method.” In M. van der Burgh and M. Endeveld (eds.), Women on Family Farms. Gender Research, EC Policies and New Perspectives (pp. 139–146). Wageningen, The Netherlands: Circle for Rural European Studies / Dutch Network on Farm and Rural Women's Studies.Google Scholar
  32. Vilkko, A. (1994). “Homespun life: Metaphors on the course of life in women's autobiographies.” Cultural Studies 8(2): 269–277.Google Scholar
  33. Ward, N. and R. Munton (1992). Conceptualizing agricultureenvironment relations. combining political economy and socio-cultural approaches to pesticide pollution.” Sociologia Ruralis 32(1): 127–145.Google Scholar
  34. Weber, M. (1970). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Unwin.Google Scholar
  35. White, L. Jr. (1967). “The Historical Roots of our Environmental Crisis.” Science 155: 1203–1204.Google Scholar
  36. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ylöstalo, P. and V. Notkola (1994). “Maatalousyrittäjien työn arvostus ja työtyytyväisyys.” [Farmers' contentment and appreciation of their work.] In P. Susitaival (eds.), Työterveys ja maatalous Suomessa 1992. Tutkimus maatalousyrittäjien työterveyshuollosta, terveydentilasta ja työssä viihtymisestä. [Farming and occupational health in Finland in 1992.] Helsinki: Kelan tutkimus-ja kehitysyksikkö.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social PolicyUniversity of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations