Introduction
As the world developed and new technologies emerged, all areas of society, including agriculture, were transformed. While for an extended period, the main workers on farms were peasants, later they were partly replaced by machine and automatic labor. This process is called the industrial revolution, in other words, the transition from an agricultural economy characterized by manual labor and craft production to an industrial society dominated by machine production. However, in recent decades, an opposite trend can be sighted in the majority of third-world countries, where the agricultural sector is significantly reshaped to establish a more peasant-like manner of production. The repeasantization led to fundamental changes that created a new system of agriculture that is still relevant today.
The Concept of Repeasantization
The tendency to restructure the rural development of specific regions to increase the output of traditional farming has become especially relevant in the last decades of the 19th century, where agricultural workers began to create independent farming units, thus becoming more effective. This approach was especially popular in such countries as China, Cuba, and Argentina, where large-scale farms could not be productively sustained (van der Ploeg 117). Therefore, to avoid potential crises and challenging reforms, the agricultural sector was reshaped to adjust to the various social and environmental characteristics involved in farming. Currently, this phenomenon is defined as a practice of returning to a peasant-like small-scale agricultural production, avoiding the input of governmental authorities and modern banking organizations.
Modern Insights into Repeasantization
The issue of changing the approach to agriculture by returning to peasantries is frequently discussed in the contemporary scientific literature in regard to the process is occurring in several second and third-world countries. Since 1979, agricultural farmers worldwide began to reform their sectors, supporting autonomy diversification and co-production rather than relying on state-funded projects (van der Ploeg 105). Considering how these practices can strengthen created farming units, contributing to the overall advancement of the agricultural sector, repeasantization is often highlighted as a prominent endeavor that should be initiated to ensure sufficient land productivity and farm types diversification. For instance, van der Ploeg, Heiberg and Syse, and Nelson and Stock argue that these practices are highly efficient and sustainable in the contemporary economic and political environment, allowing for changes in the ecological imprint created by modernized agriculture. Altogether, the authors suggest that repeasantization is a viable strategy to establish necessary stability and resilience for small farming enterprises.
Throughout the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries, more nations began to adopt this process of agricultural reformation, popularizing this concept throughout the world. Reports of successful utilization were provided by African, Canadian, and American scholars, who analyzed the impact of agrarian change on the economic and social environment of their respective countries (Martiniello 552). It appears that the value of peasantries, as suggested by van der Ploeg, started to rise considerably, leading to alterations in farming traditions, peasant units, and community practices (139). Overall, the authors note that apart from the influence on the agricultural structure, repeasantization can also initiate social change and create ecological benefits that are especially valuable in the current environmental crisis.
A notable summary on the effects of repeasantization accumulated over the recent decades is presented by van der Ploeg, the scholar who originally suggested the discussed concept. The author examines how a contrary process of depeasantization, evident in European agriculture, can be harmful to the development of the agricultural sector (152). Considering the historical promotion of depeasantization, and new peasants, described by repeasantization, van der Ploeg discusses three types of farmers, evaluating their primary characteristics. As such, while peasants and entrepreneurs appear to be bound to the land or involved in using chemical substances supported by modernization, new peasants consider soil biology and ecological imprint (210). after that, several notable differences can be found in the areas of technology, decision-making, and community relationship, thus suggesting that the advancements in repeasantization can be more beneficial for local and world development.
Additional findings from Canadian agrarian communities primarily support the theoretical propositions established by van der Ploeg. Heiberg and Syse have conducted an experimental study exploring how the farmers’ initiative to return to a peasant-like manner of farming can potentially improve the natural and social environment of the agricultural sector (482). After that, Nelson and Stock reveal that contemporary entrepreneurial farmers, in comparison with conventional industrial and self-styled organic workers, are especially driven towards maintaining the principles of repeasantization (100). Although this evidence contradicts van der Ploeg’s definition of entrepreneurial farmers, it highlights the tendencies towards agricultural change and offers additional insight into the contemporary development of this concept.
These claims are primarily supported by evidence from developing countries that implement the methods of repeasantization to prevent economic and agricultural crises. Although, in some scenarios, such changes can be initiated by the farmers themselves, the overall impact of these practices is reported to be beneficial for the state and the small-scale farms. As such, the establishment of campamentos in Brazil, which resulted in the creation of 400,000 peasant units, significantly enhanced agricultural production (Babin 115). these novel formations were able to cover the area equal to the combined territories of several European countries, becoming a prominent example of repeasantization’s positive influence.
The Critique of Repeasantization
Even though the implementation of repeasantization principles generally appears to be a positive tendency for agricultural development, several scholars report that the disadvantages of this method can be a crucial complication. First of all, the competition between small-scale farms and the modern agro-industrial complex is a relevant limitation to be considered, especially in light of global capitalism (Mariola 159). The importance of the world market for the growth of a nation’s agriculture is a tremendous issue for new peasant units, often critiqued by modern scholars. Considering that the exchange between the agrarian and industrial sectors remains unequal, the switch to peasant-like farming can be remarkably disadvantageous for both small farmers and developing countries.
After that, the authors also debate how efficient can a new peasant movement become. The approach based on farmer autonomy and diversification, although theoretically beneficial, is believed to be less practical in reality, as reclaiming autonomy and establishing an efficient network of production can be especially arduous. Mariola presents a valuable example that considers peasant community locations relative to city centers and transportation between the two points, highlighting that a more stable transfer and transaction strategy is required to alleviate financial loss (163). Furthermore, given the significance of market access, new peasants who lack such possibilities will be compelled to battle low prices and the absence of diversification (164). Therefore, it is evident that several significant complications are yet to be resolved to properly apply repeasantization in the modern context.
Conclusion
To conclude, repeasantization and the current scholarly literature perspective towards this phenomenon were discussed in detail in this paper. Even though this cannot be interpreted as a purely positive process, the return to a peasant-like manner of farming appears to used considerable benefits in the areas of the economy, ecology, and community life, potentially increasing the agricultural output of new peasant units. Prospective findings from the previous century and the recent decades highlight the necessity of repeasantization and its distinctive impact on the country’s output. Nonetheless, major disadvantages of this method are still present and should be addressed in further studies.
Works Cited
Babin, Nicholas. “Class Differentiation, Deagrarianization, and Repeasantization Following the Coffee Crisis in Agua Buena, Costa Rica.” Journal of Agrarian Change, vol. 20, no. 1, 2020, pp. 113–136.
Heiberg, Erika J., and Karen Lykke Syse. “Farming Autonomy: Canadian Beef Farmers Reclaiming the Grass through Management-Intensive Grazing Practices.” Organic Agriculture, vol. 10, no. 4, Dec. 2020, pp. 471–486.
Mariola, Matt J. “Limited Fertility, Limited Land: Barriers to Sustainability in a Chilean Agrarian Community.” Sustainability of Agroecosystems, IntechOpen, 2018.
Martiniello, Giuliano. “Social Conflict and Agrarian Change in Uganda’s Countryside.” Journal of Agrarian Change, vol. 19, no. 3, 2019, pp. 550–568.
Nelson, Jon, and Paul Stock. “Repeasantisation in The United States.” Sociologia Ruralis, vol. 58, no. 1, 2018, pp. 83–103.
Ploeg, Jan Douwe van der. The New Peasantries: Rural Development in Times of Globalization. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2018.