IMPACT OF ~CHNOLOGICAL CHANGE ON FARM PEOPLE1 DARWIN SOLOMON2

HIS paper is far from an exhaustive treatment of the topic, “The T Impact (or, more correctly, ‘impacts’) of Technololigcal Change on Farm People”. The ramifications of technological change on farm people are so diverse as to prevent detailed treatment of more than a few of the resultant changes in such a limited time. Therefore, I have assumed the intent of the topic was to point up a greater number of the most important aspects rather than go into detailed analysis of a few.

The plan of this paper, is to first present a brief outline of premises on social causation in general, and the part of technology as cause of social phenomenon in particular. Secondly, to briefly outline the major inno- vating forces both outside and within the rural segment of society. Thirdly, their most significant impacts on the lives of rural people will be discussed. Finally, a few summary comments will be made as to their meaning for the future.

Technology and Social Causation Causation, an important concept in science, has many limitations when

applied to the social sciences. In the application of a theory of social causation, the choice of any social phenomenon as “cause” should recognize the possiblity that, from other standpoints, the phenomenon may logically be considered as social effect. There is often reciprocal interaction between social phenomena, and they change concurrently. A cause and effect analysis in one direction may be logical for particular purposes, but it has no necessary outside standard of logic. A theory which singles out the technological aspect of culture as the cause of cultural or social change is a useful analytical tool. But the fact that technological innovation itself may arise from social need cannot be overlooked.3 Technological innovation has social causes and has many effects on social outcomes, depending upon the social context into which it is introduced or in which it occurs.4

That the technological tail does not necessarily wag the sociological dog however is evident by the resistances encountered by world-wide development agencies in recent years. In India, for example, a well- developed technology existed, even before independence, but, until re-

IPaper presented to the Annual Meeting of the C a n a d i ~ Agricultural Economica Society, Winnipeg. June, 1959.

2Chief Trainiug 05cer. Cenbe for Community Studies, Saskatoon. 3W. F. Ogbum’s recent thiukin on his original theory of “cultural lag” has given more

recognition to thia point. See W. F. &burn, “Introduction” in Rosen and Rosen. Technology and Society (New York: Macmillan Co., 1941).

4See Green’s *‘Explanation of Social Change” in h o l d W. Green, SocioZogOgy (Toronto: McCraw-Hill, 1956).

44

45

cently, and to some extent still, has remained largely in technical journals, research stations, and technical schools. Social values and organization limit diffusion and application.

For purposes of this paper, however, the argument for technology as the cause of major changes in rural life has considerable relevance, as the major innovating forces have come from outside of rural life.5

Limited Social Barriers to Change In North American society in general and perhaps Canadian society

in particular, the lack of unity in social values prevents effective resistance to change. Not that there has not been, and still are, pockets of resistance. They are not, however, unified or general throughout a laroe enough geographic or social area to block the application of technological know- ledge to the promotion of special interests6

In such a secularized society, with its multiplicity of special group- ings, the individual is not bound by loyalty to any one group or set of values as against all others. He is therefore more free to rationalize particular innovations which give him an advantage. It is obvious that this lack of over-all social rationalization causes problems for us. As Morris Miller, in a talk here earlier in the year to a Welfare Conference, stated:

Our society is prone to be single-tracked, riding the rails to “more and more” over the bodies of those in the way and leaving behind those that can*t keep up.7

A major premise of this paper is that the type of society in which we live will not permit the stopping of the train of progress as it rushes on to “more and more’, abundance of consumer goods. Whether or not we have rational social planning, farmers and rural people themselves will continue, through their individual decisions, to promote technical progress on the one hand while protesting its effects on the other. They will protest, perhaps to a lessening degree, planned changes in their institutions and service agencies on the one hand, but make individual decisions which force these or similar changes on the other. They will continue demand- ing changes incompatible with the status quo they defend. A crucial social problem lies in the need to develop more rational directions of change and the easing of the impact of adjustment for those who might otherwise be “ridden over” by progress. With these observations on the

?

6Schultz has emphasized the economic dependence of agriculture upon the rest pf the economy. See T. W. Schultz, Agriculture in an UnrtabIe Economy (New York: McCraw-Hill, 1945), chap. v i e and Saskatchewan Royal Commission on Agrimlture and Rural Life, Report ’ Number IS ( R e b a : Queen’s Pxinter. 1955). p. 28, Table 2.

uestion.” A paper delivered \o a Welfare Council Conference on Indian and Metis. Winnipeg, Ranitoba,

6Rosen and Roren, op. cit., p. 74. 7Morris Miller ‘‘Economics and Experience M Background for a Cultural Change

46

social setting of innovation and social change, let us now turn to the major forces for innovation.

Major Forces for Innovation For purposes of analysis, one may recognize two sources of hnovat-

ing forces: One originates primarily in the nature of rural life itself, and the other arises primarily outside of rural life.

Complementing the lack of unity of social values in the greater society, there have been innovating forces in our rural setting. The first, a dis- persed settlement pattern, left each rural family a relatively independent entity, emphasized individualism, and placed much responsibility for social control and social and economic decisions on the family. Secondly, the high man-to-land ratio and the challenge of vast unsettled territories encouraged or forced innovations in agriculture and rural life. At the same time, the agricultural expansion concealed the long-range effects of the resulting innovations.8 Large manpower resources were required in competition with expanding transportation and industrial empires, thus giving impetus to the adoption of labor-saving technologies.

Major innovating forces outside of rural life have also had far- reaching effects. Their origins have been mainly in industrialization and the application of new sources of power to increase the productivity of labor. Mechanization of agriculture provided new opportunities for industrial expansion and made possible undreamed-of increases in farm manpower produ~tivity.~ Along with increases in farm size, this has enabled, or even necessitated, the specialization and commercialization of production. Thus agriculture is being transformed from a way of life to a way of making a living. The most recent development in this rationalization of the production and marketing process, dictated by the search of an afluent society for greater efficiency and abundance, is that of vertical integration. It could eliminate the small producer in selected lines of production, as has been true in industry.10

Developments in communication and transportation ended the isola- tion of rural life and its insulation from urban ideas and values. The transfer of labor out of agriculture, once necessary just to replace city populations, was speeded up by the rapid expansion of industry on the one hand, with its ever higher wages and standards of living. On the other hand, the mechanization of agriculture increased the labor surplus on the farm. Rising urban standards of living were both an attraction for rural

8Report No. 2, Saskatchewan Royal Commission on Agriculture and Rural Life, p. 8. February 26, 1959, p. 11.

B T h i r potential. aided by other technolo cal applicationa to agriculture. has made it possible in the United Stat- to increase the number of!penons supported b one worker in agriculture from about 7 in 1900 to 11 in 1940 15 in 1950, and 21 by 1957. dconomisb predict that it can go up to 45 without additional tebological developments.

1OVertical integration in agriculture on any large rcnle ia 10 new on the Canadian scene that it Was not mentioned Sither by the reporb of the Saskatchewan Royal Commkrion on Agriculture and Rural Life or by the Cordon Commiasion.

47

people to migrate and a stimulus to emulation. Innovations in transpor- tation and communication and commercialization of the mass media have undoubtedly increased the impact of these factors on rural life.”

Impads on Rural People The innovating factors are rapidly changing the rural way of life.

Among their effects are the increasing spread in farm incomes and the associated “low income” farm problem. The rural family’s strength and influence on the lives of its members have diminished. Trade centres are shifting, resulting in the growth of the larger ones and the shrinking or elimination of many smaller ones. Governmental units developed for the era of the horse and buggy have not been adequately or uniformly adapted to modern conditions. Community relationships were once of a very personal nature. They are now taking on a specialized and secondary character, shifting to larger areas, and tending toward segmentation, stratification, and secondary relationships. The loyalties of rural people and their thinking on community problems have not kept up with the expansion in areas of interdependence. Certainly, their institutional and problem-solving machinery has lagged.

1. Low-Income Farms: A Growing Concern A major impact of technology on the farm family and on rural insti-

tutions has been the persistent and ever growing income inequalities, both between agriculture and other occupations, and within agriculture itself.12

Chronic areas of low farm income continue even in times of relative agricultural prospe~ity.’~ Also, many farmers in good farming areas have relatively low incomes associated with special social characteristics, as pointed out by Lionberger in Missouri.l4 This latter problem is probably less serious in the long run and less likely to become chronic.15 -

11 For further details. see especially Report No. 2. Saskatchewan Royal Commission on Agricul- ture and Rural Life.

12That agricultural incomes have persistently lagged behind those of the rest of the opulation in Canada and the United States has been well established. This.lag has averaged. for 5-year periods in Canada since 1926. from 23% to 43% of the non-farm mcomes. See T. W. Schultz, op. crt.; John S. Burton, “Sharing Saskatchewan’s Dollar.” Saskatchewan Occupational Group Council (1955). p. 12ff.; Report No. 13. Saskatchewan Royal Commission on Agriculture and Rural Life p. 27. John Kenneth Galbraith. “Inequality in Agriculhue-Problem and Program,” J. J. Momdon MeAorial Lecture. Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph. No. 16. 1956. Distributed by Dept. of Agnc. Econ.. Ontano Agric. College.

13For descriptions of such areas and their causes, see T. W. Schulk, op. cit., p. 1971.; 0. F. Larson. “Sociological Aspects of the Low-Income Farm Problems,” Journal of Farm Economics. XXXVII. No. 5 (December, 1955); and Deoelopment of Agriculture’s Human Resources. House Document No. 149. 84th Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1955.

14H. F. Lionberger. “Law Income Farmers,” University of MLrouri College of Agriculture Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 668, March, 1956.

1 S A rough indication of the magnitude of the problem in Canada may be seen in statistics on farm incomes, both gross and net. Non-farm incomes were up 58% in 1942-53 over the 1926-28 period, while farm incomes were up about 55% (based on Report No. 13, Saskatchewan Royal Commission on Agriculture and Rural Life, p. 27. Table 1 ) . Even during this relative prosperity in agriculture, 52% of the “commercal” farms had a gross value of product sold of less than $2500. and 18% were under $1200. Only 25% of the low-income famrs are in the Prairie Provinces. which contam 40% of the commercial farms. indicating a greater concenkation of low-income farms in some other areas. “Commercial” farms exclude “smallacale,” “part-time,” and “institutional” farms from the total (calculated from data in C- of C a d , 1951. Vol. VI, Agric., Part I. Table 25 1.

48

Lower incomes in agriculture compared to other sectors of the economy undoubtedly prevent farmers from enjoying comparable stand- ards of living (in material and social terms) to those of urban people. This is particularly crucial in those areas of life depending upon local support in time and material goods-health and educational facilities, social activities, electricity, sewage, running water, and household conveniences. It also places barriers to increasing social and technical competence, needed for adequate adjustment, for both youth and adults in our rapidly chang- ing society. In any case, low-income farms and’ families represent, from an economic standpoint, an underdevelopment of human resources, and, from the social standpoint, varying degrees of limitations to the democratic ideal of equal opportunities. Such families and areas are also problems for urban areas for two reasons: First, low income farm families are generally larger than the average, and since opportunities in low-income areas are more limited, migration to the cities is proportionately higher. Secondly, the lower level of technical and social skills and knowledge of this group, then, limits their potential participation and contributions to urban economic and social life. It often accentuates serious individual and social problems, such as those common to urban slums.

In both the c&es of the low-income family -in good farming areas, but particularly in the low income areas as such- there are social and economic barriers to adjustment, referred to by Larson as a “bundle of barriers” because so consistently linked together.ls Many of them tend to be self-perpetuating.l? Low levels of education, local values, work habits, vested interests of local leakis, inadequate knowledge of outside opportunities, inadequate personal requisites to compete in a strange en- vironment, and cultural and social barriers are some of the obstacles pre- venting or limiting adjustment through migration.’* Even when people are dissatisfied, they are unable to make the necessary adjustments. In many cases, only desperation can take such people from a shack in the open country, be it ever so humble, to a city slum and a janitor’s salary.

2. Shifting Trade Centres and Enlarging Trade Areas Increasing rural depopulation, greater mobility made possible by im-

proved transportation facilities, rising technical standards and fixed costs of services desired by rural people, and increasing specialization in both commercial and public services have all assisted a rapid increase in size of service areas and location of their centres. This shift, perhaps most rapid in the southern plains area of Canada, under the double impact of drought and mechanization, in the last half century, has led to a continuing

16 Lanon. 17See Sch&&. . cfi., p. 197ff.; h o n , op. cit.; Galbraith. op. cit.; and DeoelopmsnL of 18Abell has pointed out aome of theae in a atudy in Manitoba in h a report mtftled “Some

Agriculture** ~ u m n %em-.

Reasons for the Persistence of Small F m . ” The Econ~mic Annalbt, XXVI (October. 1958).

49

decline of many rural towns and villages.lD Of course, alternative em- ployment opportunities in an area may limit the decline of population generally, and even slow down the process of farm consolidation by providing part-time employment to supplement farm income. In much of the Great Plains area, such opportunities are scattered and affect only the areas within 50 or 75 miles at the most. Cutthroat competition and a trend away from specialization are typical reactions of the small-town businessman caught in the squeeze. Like the small farmer caught in the technological squeeze, he often continues to exist while using up his capital. A few see the handwriting on the wall and move to larger centres before it is too late.

This increase in service area is accompanied by a continuing “transfer of functions” (already taken from the home to the village), which is t o some extent selective. Groceries, church services, and primary schools, for instance, tend to remain in rural villages. Building supplies, machinery repairs, and health, legal, and professional services tend to be transferred to larger centres,

3. Administrative Units of Governments Slow to Adapt That problems of inadequate administrative areas are not primarily

in the context of sprawling urbanization and suburbanization is revealed by studies such as that of the Saskatchewan Royal Commission on Agri- culture and Rural Life.’O Important economic and social factors, largely results of technological developments, have a direct impact on local governments. These factors include changes in the land base, farm size, farm capital and cost structure, depopulation, and population mobility.

Of the economic factors, differential development potential in land has resulted in a growing disparity of support potential as between local government areas. Where farm incomes remain low (which may or may not be due to land potential), ability to finance local improvements is impaired. On the other hand, increasing farm size may increase to pro- hibitive levels the expense per farm family for local services. Up to a point, however, larger farms have increased incomes and the farmers’ ability to pay for services, if administrative units are of optimum size. T h e shifting emphasis from land to its substitutes in production has led to inequalities in local taxation burdens and ability of local governments to compete with other cost factors for the farmer’s dollar.

Just as a series of individual decisions force some adjustment in social institutions, so in the absence of co-ordinated planing, separate admini- strative services may make their individual adjustments t o the require- ments of a larger area. Too often, the lack of co-ordination results in

l9See Saskatchewan Royal Commission Re~ort No. 21. Service Centres. ?Osee Saskatchewan Royal Commission Report No. 4.

50

overlapping jurisdictions. This may be seen in Saskatchewan in the inde- pendent adjustments of the Agricultural Representative Service, the larger school unit, and the Health Unit and Hospital areas.

Two important social factors affecting local government administra- tive units are depopulation and mobility, Depopulation has probably had the most impact on Saskatchewan’s local government units to date. As population falls off, the increasing cost of space rapidly increases the costs of certain services.

With increasing mobility, many individuals adjust residence patterns to existing facilities. This may be accomplished by moving homes closer to existing roads or by moving to a town or village. In Saskatchewan, an increasing number of families live in town in winter and move to the farm in summer. Increased mobility also allows short-distance migrants to become acquainted with the problems and possibilities of the new location over a period of time before making the move. As already indicated, however, social barriers to social mobility may be greater than those to phyn’cul mobility for people on low-income farms.

4. Changing Community Relationehip8 The increase in service area is accompanied by a continuing “transfer

of functions”21 already taken from the home to the village, and now to larger centres. However, the transfer is a selective one. Grocery and Church Services, for instance, tend to remain, even in rural neighborhoods. As business patronage is transferred, organizational memberships tend to follow, and even, finally, to a change of residence.

The resulting shifts in trade and service patterns must necessarily affect the rural community relationships. The impact is felt on both the intra-community relationships of individuals and families and those between communities. Road and school finance and control, for example, tend to be centered more in provincial administrative offices. Increas- ingly, aspects of law enforcement and the financing of needed services are taken over by federal and provincial governments. Community areas for problem solving become more complex. Once-satisfactory administrative areas can no longer meet the needs of their clients and constituents. Co- ordinated community efforts in planning and action require new me- chanisms.

T h e increasing secularization of rural life and the dserential ability of farmers to.take advantage of technological developments tend to change, and probably increase, socio-economic status differences within the com- munity. Thus its social unity is decreased and primary relationships are

ZlSee Harland W. Gilmore. Transportation and the Cnnoth of C i t h (Glmcoe, IU.: Tho Free Press, 1953) for a gwd dIacuMion of thb procesr.

51

stratified. Lines of communication become restricted within certain groups, further complicating community problem solving eff om.

The “feeling of belonging,” an important socio-psychological aspect of the community, has lagged behind the transfer of functions to larger areas. This lag, in the face of changing community realities, is a barrier to adequate organization for meeting local needs. The resulting frustra- tion of local citizen efforts becomes a threat to democratic government. The ineffectiveness of local organization tempts local leaders to surrender responsibilities to provincial and federal governments, and tempts govern- ment functionaries to assume local responsibilities, becoming, in effect, directors, not advisors. There are two extreme alternatives: (1) Succumb to the temptation and lose our democracy and its potential for the develop- ment of human resources, or ( 2 ) An alternative to the loss of democracy may be to bring more scientific effort to bear on these problems; then utilize the new knowledge and proven methods so derived through prac- tical community adult education programs designed to make people more effective in solving their own problems.

5. Diminishing Strength and Influence of the Rural Family Reduction in the number of farming opportunities and the con-

comitant necessity for children of farming families to seek other occupa- tions in increasing numbers have tended increasingly to divide the interests of the farm family and to reduce its social and economic unity. The prolonged period of study and training for non-farm occupations neces- sarily points the younger generation toward urban ideas and values. An ever growing variety of urban-trained professional educators influence youth in the same direction. The increasing number of special interest organizations, made easier by modern means of transportation and en- couraged by better communications and urban ideas, has speeded up the secularization of rural life and the rural family itself. Thus the rural family is taking on many urban characteristics. From the standpoint of overcoming barriers for needed migration, this diminishing influence might be seen as an advantage. In terms of other aspects of social control, this may not be the case.

6. Changing Values of Rural People The settlement of the farms of North America, and the West in par-

ticular, with widely divergent cultural groups, and in a dispersed settle- ment pattern, has undoubtedly encouraged individuality and secularization of large areas of social life. Under this pattern, the family was a primary unit of social control.

Since then technological developments have conquered time and space, overcoming the isolation of rural life. Increasing mobility allowed

52

wider and more selective contacts. First the telephone, then the radio, and, finally, television, with increasing impact and speed, brought news from all parts of the nation and the world to remote farmsteads. These same devices bring urban values, standards of conduct, and ways of living more frequently to the attention of farm people. With more time spent at radio and television, and less visiting with neighbors, local influence over ideas and actions inevitably declines.22

The impact of urban ideas, the specialization and rationalization of farming, and the diminishing strength and influence of the urban family on its young people all tend to reinforce each other in changing the values of rural people. Town and country become more directly interdependent. The farm business becomes more a way of making a living. While it may be that rural life will remain distinct from urban in many ways, this is not at all certain. New values are rapidly emerging to challenge the older ways and support modern ways of living that are much nearer to urban patterns.23

As stated earlier, many, if not most, of the trends in rural life as outlined above are undoubtedly irreversible. Some may even be unalter- able. How far the present rates of change can go before the very fabric of society, and perhaps human life itself, is destroyed we do not know. However, if the affluent societies of Europe and North America continue to develop more skill in planning for their needs, one of the alternatives posed by J. Bronowski, noted British scientist, may be rea1i~ed.l~ He maintains that by about the year 2000, if not before, the major reasons for very large concentrations of populations in cities will no longer be necessary, and that people can, if they choose, realize the maximum of cultural values in cities of ten thousand people. Thus the tendency to ever greater concentration and centralization would be reversed on thc urban side of our socio-economic system. However, unless we apply relatively less of our scientific attention to physical technology of produc- tion and relatively more to the improvement of our social machinery, the body of society itself may be among those run over in our headlong rush to more and more.

People in communities everywhere need a more rational method and a more factual basis than they now have to decide (1) which trends are alterable and which are not, (2) what adjustments can best be made to them, and ( 3 ) what and where are the available resources for meeting “the challenge of change,” as Professor Toynbee has put it. Only through

22A recent unpublished survey of a rural area near Suskatoon indicated that hvo-thirds of the rural families were owners of television sets. Something over half of them spent three or more hours per day watching television.

28Nelson believer that, iu spite of this growing similarity in values, the shuggle for income parity will lead to continuing friction between producen and urban consumers. (Lowry Nelson, Rural Sociology (New York: American Book Co., 1952) However, the decrease in the farmers’ share of the consumer food bill and the increasinistare to processors and marketing services may nullify th is potential codict.

524).

24J. Bronowski, ‘Tlanning for the Year 2000.” The NaIion (March 22. lg58).

53

a much greater investment in the development of the social sciences and the application of their findings to the everyday problems of human beings in the communities where they live will this be possible. 111- considered compromises to quiet short-term demands of special interest groups, unguided by basic research in human affairs, will do little to solve basic social problems in the long run.

The Centre for Community Studies is attempting to analyze the very anatomy of social change and discover the best means by which people living in communities can develop their own resources and make the best use of outside resources to better adjust to social and technological change. Our findings and experience will be developed through our consulting and research divisions and communicated through publications and the training division. They should be useful for leaders, local and provincial, who work with people in communities throughout Canada, and perhaps, judging by the inquiries we receive, throughout the world.

DISCUSSION G. ALBERT KRISTJANSONl

Dr. Solomon should be complimented on a very well organized paper. H e sets out early what he plans to do in the paper and then does it. T h e whole area of technological change (or cultural change) is an important and very interesting aspect of sociological study. However, its interest and importance are far exceeded by its difficulty of study. Dr. Solomon has done a fine job of handling a very difficult topic in the limited time available.

The author has briefly but adequately dealt with the general topic of social causation. H e has justified his use of technology as a causal factor for his particular problem. H e has at the same time indicated that under different conditions technology could be considered the effect. I was pleased to find that this topic (which I might add is good for at least a one semester course in any of the social sciences) was handled so briefly and yet adequately.

Dr. Solomon’s section on “Limited Social Barriers to Change” in m y opinion is less than completely adequate. In it he points out that “the lock of unity of social values prevents effective resistance to change”. In my opinion it is not the lack of unity that prevents effective resistance but rather the values themselves. Admittedly many of our closely knit groups (such as the old order Amish) resist technological change. This is not due to the unity of the group but rather their predominant value orientation. As examples of groups with a unity of social values who have accepted technological change in agriculture to an even higher

1 Manitoba Department of Agriculture.