THE MYTH OF AUTONOMY IN FAMILY FARM PRODUCTION

Bonnie Ward

Agricultural practice on family farms throughout Ontario history

provides an example of independent commodity production. According to

this description, farm producers own, operate and control the means of

production (Hedley, 1976:415; Johnson, 1979:91). The autonomy of farm

producers is derived from their ability to determine the conditions of

production, for example, the type and quantity of commodity produced and

application of technological innovation. The capacity of producers to

influence the conditions of the sale and purchase of agricultural goods

significantly influences the degree of productive autonomy character-

istic of farming. In a capitalist society where private ownership

prevails, and the autonomy of owners is seen as providing scope for the

expansion of production and innovation, the real relation between

ownership and autonomy mi_st be made explicit. It will be argued that

the real relationship between ownership and autonomy in farm practice is

an historical relationship which is determined and conditioned by: 1.

the transformation of the mode of production in society, 2. the trans-

formation of the relations of production immediate to farming, 3. the

role of the state in these transformations. Through the examination of

these historical processes it appears that the autonomy of small farm

producers at present is a myth. Farm production seems to be

increasingly characterized not by autonomy but by dependency; dependency

among members of farm families and of small farmers on the state.

The transformation of the mode of production may be more precisely

described as the process by which a particular mode of production

emerges as dominant in a society. In Ontario history, the most

significant transformation in this regard is the emergence of the

* Revised version of a paper presented to the Canadian Sociology and

Anthropology Association, Saskatoon, June, 1979.



capitalist mode of production. The rise of capitalism has two effects:

capitalist relations may replace previously existing relations of

production, or previously existing relations of production may be

retained but in a new relation to the capitalist market. In Ontario

farm history both effects can be observed. At present, in Ontario,

there is evidence that the production of agricultural commodities is

increasingly organized by capitalist relations (Warnock:123; Johnson,

1979:94). The replacement of the family farm by corporate (capitalist)

farming occurs after the incorporation of family farm production into

the capitalist market. In fact, it is incorporation of the family farm

into capitalist market relations which results in the eventual

elimination of increasing numbers of small farms. The process by which

family farm production is transformed by the emergence of capitalism is

the context for the analysis of the relation between ownership and

autonomy.

H. Saffioti, describing the emergence to dominance of the

capitalist mode of production, states:

A mode of production is dominant insofar as it interferes
vertically in other modes of production thus provoking the
latter's loss of autonomy and redefining their specific
activities . . . Hence they are only able to survive thanks to

a process of redefinition governed by the capitalist mode of
production ... what remains are precapitalist work relations
which now have new connotations.

(1977:30)

Vertical interference by the capitalist mode of production describes the

process which has transformed independent commodity production in

agriculture. The family farm persists but under conditions substantially

altered by the capitalist market. Competitive conditions for marketing

agricultural produce confront the farmer as pressure for specialization,

with consequent risks of overproduction, and loss in real income in

addition to the natural/biological risks of agricultural production

50



(Smith, 1978:19-23; Mitchell, .1975:18-21; Hedley, 1976:417). What is

clearly suggested by the vertical interference of capitalism is the

possibility of retaining individual ownership while experiencing

significant alteration in other conditions of production. The

alteration of market conditions and pressure for specialization with its

concomitant risks, result in risk minimizing practices which may in

themselves limit productivity (Hedley, 1976:418). The double bind that

emerges with transformed productive conditions limits the autonomy of

the farmer in terms of the type and quantity of goods produced, the

scale of operation and the necessity of adopting technological

innovations in order to remain competitive.

Vertical interference of the capitalist mode of production limits

autonomy further in the sphere of ownership of the means of production.

The necessity of greater investment in land and machinery in order to

maintain competitive levels of production leads to ever increasing

dependence on credit and corporate controlled production and marketing

of farm machinery, fertilizer and fuel. That is, there emerges a

dependence of the farmer on capitalist relations for the necessities of

productive consumption. The increasing determination by capitalist

market relations of not only the type and quantity of product but also

the costs of production continually narrows the sphere of autonomy of

agricultural producers.

Is the integration of independent commodity production in

agriculture into capitalist market relations simply a precursor to the

eventual demise of all "family farm" production? Evidence of the

increasing corporatization of agriculture and the decrease in small

farms have led some to conclude that this is the case (Johnson, 1979:98).

There are, however, factors and conditions which mediate the tendency to

corporatization and the erosion of small farm production.

51



It appears that certain types of agricultural production (e.g.

fruit, tobacco) are particularly amenable to organization on capitalist

lines, whereas other sectors retain more traditional forms of productive

organization. Region also appears to be a mediating factor in the

corporatization process. The comparison of the rate of corporatization

of agriculture in Ontario and Quebec reveals that Quebec agricultural

practice may be more resistant to change (Johnson, 1979:98). Protective

legislation and tax concessions which benefit individual farmers may be

understood as legitimating activities of the state which affect the

corporatization process. To the extent that tradition, region and

ideology may influence the rate of corporatization of agriculture, their

relationship to the transformation of the mode of production needs

clarification.

Saffioti, in her analysis of the process of vertical interference

with precapitalist forms of productive organization by the capitalist

mode of production, postulates that this process has the effect of

retaining only the economic aspect of precapitalist work, relations and

eliminating their ideological aspect, which it replaces with bourgeois

ideology (Saf fioti :30) . Such a hypothesized replacement of one ideology

with another does not appear to adequately reflect the way in which

world views change. While it seems likely that new productive relations

generate new ideological counterparts, some aspects of traditional world

views persist and continue to be reproduced. If Ideas are viewed as

singularly determined by productive relations, then the transformation

of productive relations ought to lead directly to the transformation of

ideas. However, this appears not necessarily to be the case. In the

preceding discussion it was suggested that the conditions of farming have

been significantly transformed such that the margin of autonomy of the

small producer is increasingly reduced. In spite of the altered

52



conditions of production, autonomy persists ideologically as the counter-

part of private ownership. Belief in the autonomy of individual owners

may persist as a result of the reluctance of individuals to alter their

beliefs in accordance with changes in the world. Alternately, this

belief may be reproduced ideologically and serve to justify practices

related to capitalist expansion. (Owners of capitalist enterprises may

have considerable autonomy) . Ideological reproduction of the relation

of ownership to autonomy in the context of capitalist development

mystifies the real effects of that development for small agricultural

producers. The latter explanation can be examined by reference to the

degree of autonomy which existed in family farming historically.

The myth of autonomy in agricultural production has its historical

origins in the notion of the self sufficient agriculture of pioneer

families. V. Fowke has argued that self sufficiency is itself a myth

"which is an integral part of Canadian folklore" (Fowke, 1962:23). Far

from self sufficiency, pioneer agriculture was characterized by the need

for capital as a precondition for settlement, barter and the extension

of credit as a means to provide for domestic and productive consumption,

and the need for markets for surplus products (Fowke, 1962). Settlement

of the Canadian frontier was not the culmination of the pioneering

dream of daring individuals. It was rather, a means to escape

industrial labour, famine and political revolution (Loyalists) and for

some, the chance to acquire greater wealth and position.

Ontario pioneer settlements were not located by chance but were a

product of British interest in providing defense for trade routes and

for the provisioning of military personnel and traders (Fowke, 1946:118).

From the outset, it became apparent that settlement provided an excellent

investment opportunity, not through agricultural production but in the

movement of settlers. "There were profitable investment opportunities

53



associated with the original transfer and installation of prospective

farm populations" (Fowke, 1946:118). This relation is further

evidenced by the responsibility of the Bureau of Agriculture estab-

lished in 1852, for immigration policy (Fowke, 1946:121). The combina-

tion of the dependence of farmers on market conditions (capital, barter,

credit) and on the state for acquiring land is evidence of the inter-

connectedness of agricultural production with political and economic

interests from its inception. While this interconnectedness does not

necessarily imply a lack of autonomy, it does create a basis from which

historical relations of dependence may be seen to emerge. V. Fowke, in

identifying the historical pattern in Canadian agricultural policy

states:

The clearest and most significant uniformity regarding Canadian
agriculture for more than three hundred years has been its
deliberate and consistent use as a basis for economic and
political empire.

(1978:3)

While economic and political interests are significant in the

determination of agricultural settlement, it would appear that at least

for a time, a period of relative autonomy of agricultural producers

could be said to have existed. This is in part due to periods of

favourable market conditions and minimally due to the protective actions

of the state (Jones: 196, 307). In addition, it could be argued that

productive relations organized on the basi6 of collective labours of

family members contributed to the possibility of a relative degree of

autonomy in agricultural production.

The family constitutes a basis for production from which a con-

siderable number of benefits can be derived. The division of labour

among family members facilitated the diversification of production which

contributed both to domestic consumption and to the production of

commodities. The work of women, often associated with production closer

54



to the home, could be drawn upon at times when additional labour was

required in the fields. The contribution of children to agricultural

production beginning at an early age provided additional necessary

labour (Johnson, 1974:17). When inadequate resources were available

for establishing a farm, family members worked for wages before or

during the early years of settlement (Fowke, 1962:32-33). The intense

labour required and the need for financial resources in agriculture

prior to 1850 necessitated a co-operative productive unit like the family

for survival (Johnson, 1974:15-22). However, these conditions would

change.

The introduction of mass education and use of technology in

agricultural production were significant in the change in participation

of family members (Johnson, 1974:23). With increasing specialization

and transformation of productive relations, women (and children) became

increasingly separated from the production of commodities. This

separation was enhanced ideologically by the emergent role of

'chatelaine 1 , the wife of the 'better class' of entrepreneur. The

agricultural practice of the wealthiest settlers was thus set up as the

model for all agricultural practice. This point is illustrated by the

tendency for the wealthiest settlers to be the organizers of agricultural

societies and the initiators of technological innovation (Jones :157, 174).

Similarly, the separation of the "chatelaine" from the production of

commodities may have exerted ideological pre-eminence over relations of

interdependence of family members which characterized most farming.

At this point I would like to note that I am somewhat skeptical

about historical accounts of the time and degree of separation of women

from agricultural commodity production. It is unclear whether the

productive relations described are those of the majority of farmers or

of "ideal" (affluent) farmers. For the moment, this question must be

55



suspended pending further investigation. What is clear however, is

that while there may be evidence of the decreasing role of women in

commodity production (Hedley, 1977:6; Johnson, 1974:24) the work of

women in creating conditions for continued commodity production is

significant. Women have often taken on tasks of bookkeeping and

business management (Kohl, 1978:52). Women's role in reproduction and

domestic work also provides the basis for long and short run production

of labour power required by the enterprise. Further, the efforts of the

family, particularly of women, toward decreasing consumption of

commodities and the production of use value offers a measure of

protection in "lean" times.

More relevant in recent times would be the contribution by family

members of wages. As input of capital comes to have ever increasing

importance, family members more frequently have off-farm employment.

It may be argued that the shift from interdependence of family members

in agricultural labour to dependence on family members for wage inputs

is a qualitative change. Analysis of the significance of wage inputs

to the persistence of many family farm operations in Ontario warrants

further investigation and evidence.

In all of the above ways, the productive interdependence of family

members has contributed greatly to creating conditions of flexibility in

an enterprise vulnerable to "Acts of God", of the market and of the

state. This flexibility could be said to account for the relative degree

of autonomy differentially experienced by farm producers historically.

As is implicit in the foregoing discussion, the capacity of

internal relations of family farm production to offer protection from

transformed market conditions is limited. M. Hedley states, "The

significance of the involvement of domestic producers in commodity

production is that reproduction of the mode of production is unavoidably

56



dependent on the process of exchange" (Hedley, 1977: A). This

dependency is at present mediated by the state through agricultural

policy, trade policy, supervision of marketing boards, and tax,

succession and zoning laws, to name a few examples. Fowkes' thesis of

the dependence of farm producers on dominant economic and political

interests, extended into the present, suggests there is little basis for

believing that small producers will, in the long run, be offered any

measure of protection. This skepticism is well founded, as an examina-

tion of the Report of the Task Force on Agriculture, (1967) reveals.

The recommendations of this report include

:

1. Reduction of the number of farms with about 2/3 of farm

families removed.

2. Increase in farm size.

3# Greater rationalization of farming with an increase in
"backward, forward, horizontal integration" with
agricultural business Interests.

4. "a clearcut separation of welfare and commercial farm
policy".

(Summarized from Warnock, 1971:126)
- my emphasis

The government disowned this report without providing a substitute

policy (Cayley, 19.73:8). However, a detailed analysis of the historical

conditions which give rise to recommendations of this sort is required.

Points like the emergence of an overlap in "welfare and commercial

policy" obviously need to be examined. These recommendations are

indicative of the extensive involvement of the state in the reproduction

and transformation of agricultural production and certainly suggest the

emergence of dependency and the almost complete erosion of the autonomy

of small producers.

Some further, and perhaps less obvious, characteristics of the role

of the state may be suggested. If in fact an appropriation of ideologies

of pre-capitalist modes of production occurs, what is the concrete

57



character of that appropriation? One example would be the continued

affirmation of individual patriarchal ownership (see Hedley, 1977:7).

This clearly denies the history of productive interdependence of family

members in favour of a definition which reproduces an individualistic

ideology and the legal subordination of women. At the interpersonal

level, this relation is reproduced in the reluctance of Federal and

Provincial bureaucratic agents to deal with farmers' wives in business

matters (Kohl, 1978:51). Kohl states: "The formal definition of the

male role as the official 'producer' in North American society is based

on and reinforced by the embodiment of that status in Law" (1978:51).

In marketing, the state has played a primary mediating role in the

establishment and control of production quotas through marketing boards.

The protection offered to farmers through these agencies is useful only

insofar as increases in productivity and conditions of the purchase of

quota facilitate the expansion necessary for survival. This places the

small producers in an increasingly vulnerable position (Cayley, 1973:5).

It appears that autonomy in agricultural production has been

progressively eroded by the transformation of market conditions. The

internal relations of production of the family farm offer a limited

amount of protection from these tendencies. The state, while periodi-

cally offering limited protection to individual producers, ultimately

functions to facilitate that development and expansion of capitalist

Interests. In spite of these developmental tendencies, the ideology of

autonomy derived from private ownership of the means of production

persists and is reproduced. In terms of highly visible cultural

tendencies, the "back to nature" movement and the purchase of hobby

farms by members of high income groups reaffirm the myth of autonomy.

Loss of ownership (the final loss of autonomy) is explained in

terms of the "inefficiency" of producers. This explanation serves to

58



transpose a characteristic defined by the mode of production to a

statement of the inadequacy of an individual producer. As long as the

loss of autonomy of individual producers can be explained in terms of

their individual shortcomings, changes at the level of the social

organization of production remain unexamined.

The framework for analysis outlined in the preceding discussion

yields several areas requiring further investigation:

1. The persistence of farm based independent commodity production

in certain sectors delimited by type of production, geography and culture

needs to be examined. To what extent does independent commodity produc-

tion in these sectors serve the interests of capitalist expansion? That

is, to what extent are the risks borne by the producers such that cor-

poratization of that sector would be a poor investment? A further

question raised is the extent that corporatization of agriculture is

impeded by traditional practices and by cultural considerations.

Research into these questions would contribute greatly to an understand-

ing of the transformation of farming which occurs with the emergence of

capitalism in Ontario.

2. The relations of production on the family farm, I have argued,

offer certain limited protection to the enterprise by providing some

flexibility. In the present day, the most significant contribution of

family members residing on small farms may be the income they derive

from other sources. A work-farm pattern is emerging in Canadian

agriculture. In Ontario, it would be worthwhile to look at the wage

contributions of farm wives as I suspect they may be significant for

the persistence of many small farm operations. The transformation from

interdependence in production of family members to dependence on wage

inputs for security of the farm is a phenomenon which remains unexamined.

3. A third area requiring elaboration is the role of the state.

59



Critical analyses of the state are fairly recent and the complexity of

thia task makes it formidable. Such analyses as applied to farming

would have to encompass the mediating role of the state in the market,

the ideological function of the state and political parties* and the

history and impact of agrarian protest movements, to mention only

several aspects. This task is central to work in agricultural history

because of the peculiar relation of political practice to agriculture

from the first settlements.

While the scope of the analytic task here outlined is broad, a

more comprehensive analysis of the determinants of agricultural

production is required. It is essential that analyses cease to focus on

"inefficiency" and "traditionalism" of individual producers and become

recast at the level of explaining individual practice in terms of the

social relations of production. The relation between autonomy and

individual ownership must be demystified in order that the collective

interests of farm producers can be articulated. The realities of

productive organization rather than their ideological representations

are the only adequate basis for political action of farm producers.

Department of Sociology/
Queen's University

60



REFERENCES

Cayley, David
1973 "The Rise of the National Fanners Union." This

Magazine , Vol. 7, No. 3.

Fowke, Vernon C.
1946 Canadian Agricultural Policy - The Historical Pattern .

Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

1962 "The Myth of the Self Sufficient Canadian Pioneer."
Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada , Vol. LVI

,

Series III.

Hedley, Max J.
1976 "Independent Commodity Production and the Dynamics of

Tradition." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology ,
13, 4.

1977 "Transformation of the Domestic Mode of Production."
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Canadian
Sociology and Anthropology Association, Fredericton.

Johnson, Leo.
1972 "The Development of Class in Canada in the Twentieth

Century," in G. Teeple, ed., Capitalism and the National
Question in Canada . Toronto: University of Toroi.to Press.

1974 'The Political Economy of Ontario Women in the Nineteenth
Century," in Women at Work - Ontario 1850-1930 . Toronto:
Canadian Women's Educational Press.

1979 "Precapitalist Economic Formations and the Capitalist
Market in Canada 1911-1971," in J. Curtis and W. G. Scott,
eds., Social Stratification: Canada . Scarborough:
Prentice-Hall.

Jones, Robert L.
1977 The History of Agriculture in Ontario 1613-1880 . Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Kohl, Seena B.
1976 Working Together: Women and the Family in South Western

Saskatchewan . Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

1978 "Women's Participation in the North American Family Farm."
Women's Studies International Quarterly , Vol. 1, No. 1.

Mitchell, Don.
1975 The Politics of Food . Toronto: James Lorimer and Co.

Saffioti, Heleieth I. B.
1977 "Women, Mode of Production and Social Formations." Latin

American Perspectives , Vol. 4, Nos . 1 § 2.

61



Smith, Pamela
1978 "Comments on the Analysis of the Political Economy of

Canadian Agriculture." Paper presented at the Political
Economy Session, Learned Societies Meetings, London, Ont.

Taylor, Norma
1976 '"All this for three and a half a day': The Farm Wife,"

in G. Matheson, ed., Women in the Canadian Mosaic .
Toronto: Peter Martin Associates.

Warnock, John W.
1971 "The Farm Crisis" in L. Lapierre, e_t. al

.
, eds., Essays on

the Left. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

62