💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-the-theming-of-the-countryside.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:45:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The theming of the countryside Author: Anonymous Date: 2005 Language: en Topics: agriculture, class, England, racism, United Kingdom Source: Retrieved on 16 October 2010 from http://libcom.org/library/theming-countryside
The following article, completed in December 2005, is based on the
experience of a relatively short stint living in the rural West Country.
This will account for some of its limits. For example, conditions in
different areas will vary. It is for others who know what is missing
here to fill the gaps, for themselves and others, in their own ways.
the theming of the countryside...
...coming home to roost...
countryside: the future of rural living
There is an ongoing debate about the future of the countryside; it is
going on both in the media and behind closed doors in the corridors of
power. Vested interests of all kinds have much to say on the way ahead:
Government, property developers, roadbuilders, farmers, conservationists
etc. But for nearly all, the question is framed within the dominant
values of the society that threatens this environment; for them it is
primarily an economic problem with an economic solution.
The Government sees the countryside as another resource or sector ripe
for full privatisation — market forces must be able to fully capitalise;
farming subsidies withdrawn, food production and supply to be sourced
out to wherever it can be done most cheaply in the global economy. This
looks increasingly shortsighted. Global warming and climate change make
other areas of the world far more unpredictable as sites of agricultural
supply. (For the moment — if predictions of melting polar ice diverting
the Gulf Stream come true then the UK will apparently have a climate
similar to northern Canada.) If the price of oil and fuel keeps rising
this may make international transportation costs of some food
uneconomical. It is this rather than the contribution to climate change
of carbon emissions from transporting that may force a rethink of where
best to source food from.
Once agricultural production has been run down to a low level it is no
easy matter to regenerate production on a larger scale, if it becomes
necessary — due to food supply disruption caused by environmental
disaster or war, for example. This was a problem faced at the end of
World War II. Due to labour shortages much land had been left unfarmed
and it took several years to sort out the mess. But the prospects are
worse today — if farming skills disappear with farming as a viable
occupation, the viability of arable land will be lost, livestock bred
for specific environments will go; if Government targets for development
are met, much farm land will be forever lost to housing, commerce and
roads.
(This is not to encourage a nationalist outlook, by thinking in terms of
the long-term ‘national interest’. That is the State’s function for the
ruling class and we merely point out that they even fail to do this,
which is a sign of weakness. Some determinists will argue they are
forced to do this by greater economic and other forces; a partial truth,
but when argued too forcefully denies the facts of different possible
choices and conflict within the ruling class over strategy. Nevertheless
it is the poor who they will try to make pay for this failure of
strategy.)
Life in today’s countryside is pretty much a mystery to most of the town
and city-dwelling majority of the UK population. They see the rural
landscape as either some remote alien environment where food purchased
in the supermarket is said to originate from; or as a place to go and
use as a leisure resource for holidays, sporting activities or aesthetic
appreciation of the pleasant scenery. The actual lives of the various
sections of the rural population, their relationships and conflicts,
remain largely hidden.
Housing is an important issue in the countryside — who owns what
determines who lives where, and the present general housing crisis hits
the rural young and poor particularly hard. It determines who leaves and
who arrives in the countryside.
Gentrification has changed many urban areas in the UK. Though a word
seldom used now — since the gentry have redefined property relationships
so completely as to make their speculation the norm — the process
remains the same. But the profits from this urban property speculation
have led to greater investment in rural housing by those seeking quick
returns. Surplus profits from house values and retirement savings have
also been invested in rural retreats for the stressed-out city dweller.
So countryside is now divided into several different property owning
sectors. There are also the traditional landowners — aristocrats, some
of whom manage farming, and those with stately homes they run as tourist
attractions. Other large land owners farm on an industrial scale, or
often now, lease out the land to others. Some of these families are
local dynasties, owning much housing property and dominating the
business activity of the area. Some are large extended families with
extended branches, with the individuals forming the larger part of the
petit bourgeois/small business class both as landlords and traders.
Mechanisation drastically reduced labour needs; after World War II many
rural workers returned from fighting to find their jobs and skills
mechanised out of existence. The pre-industrial farms of yesteryear were
often large enterprises, with many workers living on the estate. Much of
this housing stock is now either rented out as slum housing at cheaper
rents to the rural proletariat — or, if renovated, is either sold off at
a handsome profit or let seasonally to city folk as holiday homes. Many
rural areas are now covered with these holiday lets or rarely used
2^(nd) homes, empty most of the year, while poorer locals have to move
away or endure poor housing conditions.
This rural proletariat is actually mainly self-employed. The dynastic
families dominating local businesses employ very small numbers and those
involved in the service industry — the largest area of employment — are
the gardeners, builders, hedgelayers, stonewallers, craftworkers,
mechanics, bar staff, waitresses, cleaners etc. Many turn their hand as
necessary to more than one skill to get by. We must make a distinction
between the true petit-bourgeois small business person and the
self-employed proletarian. The proletarian employs no staff and
accumulates little capital, certainly not enough to give him any
economic power over others. S/he either can’t accumulate sufficiently to
become petit-bourgeois, or often s/he prefers self-employment because it
gives more leisure time and less pressure from a particular boss. It
fits in with a less materialistic lifestyle, which is often the reason
s/he has moved to or stayed in the countryside. It also often has more
opportunities for cash-in-hand, tax-avoiding earnings, which goes hand
in hand with the generally lower wages and seasonal economy. This kind
of working is often subsidised by the State in the form of Housing
Benefit, Family Tax Credit etc.
Social relations are necessarily more intimate — smaller communities
means no one is as anonymous as in the big city. The fewer venues for
mixing mean the various classes are more likely to drink in the same
pubs (though perhaps in different bars), shop in the same places, bump
into each other etc. (Though the richest rarely mix socially with the
lower orders — thankfully.) As most people work alone or within a small
workforce, employed and employers may also spend more time at close
quarters to each other. And the gossip network ensures that word gets
around about generally disapproved of goings-on. The other side of this
is that most are content to live and let live and to respect each
other’s space.
The petit bourgeois small businessperson is sometimes a typically mean
penny pinching, money grabbing character. But often the role is more
ambiguous — if one is running the only shop or pub in a more remote area
then it is sometimes more a case of managing a needed community resource
for long hours and low-ish pay. The sociability of the role as well as
the self-employed autonomy are often the main compensations that make
the job worth staying in. It is also sometimes the only way for locals
to both stay in the area and hang on to community resources. This often
creates double-edged loyalties and resentments. The employed can be very
loyal as they appreciate the social benefits of the pub, shop etc as
both a resource and rare source of wages. But small resentments can
accumulate and smoulder as employees with few other options remain in
the job long after they are fed up with it and the generally low wages.
Working and often living at close quarters with the employer may mean
having to constantly bite the tongue and swallow resentment and pride.
In many areas of the West Country, there are — what some would call —
long established ‘hippie communities’; children of the 1960’s
counter-culture who settled and raised their kids, in pursuit of a
different lifestyle. Often arriving with romanticised, naive views of
country living, those who remain have adapted in various ways. The
wealthier ones often bought up cheap properties in ‘underpopulated’
areas; this has sometimes resulted in gentrification (as in Hebden
Bridge, Yorkshire). The bohemian presence, with it’s health food and
craft shops etc, attracts tourists and liberal middle class types with
money to buy property.
The poorer locals and settlers are obviously priced out of available
housing by this process. Combined with the State policy of running down
and selling off social housing (of which there has never been a lot in
rural areas) this has created a chronic housing shortage. Young people
find it impossible to buy or rent, so are stuck at home living with
their parents for years. Or they end up living in vans and caravans on
camp sites. It is sometimes possible to find winter lets; but when the
profitable summer season comes around you’re booted out to make way for
the high-paying holidaymakers. So with no security of tenure, you’ve
basically paid rent for the privilege of being a winter caretaker for
your landlord. Many move away to the towns where housing is more
available, and wages higher.
In the worst cases, whole villages become semi-ghost towns for over half
the year. In Salcombe, south Devon, beautifully situated looking over a
bay, 75% of properties are now holiday homes. In towns like this
property prices have often risen 250% in the past ten years. Nearer to
the big cities, some villages are just dormitories for commuters who
bring their suburban aloofness to the place. To cater for them, more of
the countryside is swallowed up and disfigured by ugly housing estates,
out-of-town supermarkets and DIY superstores etc. Doing all their
shopping and socialising by car elsewhere, village shops, post offices
and pubs close, public transport is cut, further penalising the poorer
locals. It is an understandable complaint from country dwellers that
they get little for the extortionate council tax that they pay. Often
there is little or no policing — some areas suffer from opportunistic
snatch and grab organised crime whereby thieves will visit an area to
burgle houses or steal farm machinery (here is not the place to deal
with why the police are no real solution to this). There is little
infrastructure such as streetlighting, public services are cut across
the board, etc. The pro-hunting Countryside Alliance has been quick to
opportunistically link these grievances to their own agenda. This has
been easy to do, as there is a feeling that remote townie bureaucrats
and politicians who understand nothing about the countryside are lording
it over rural people. This ignores the fact that our political masters
are as arrogant and ignorant in their treatment of townies. It also
ignores the Lords and masters who, by their social status, dominate
rural life and the Countryside Alliance. (Please, somebody set the dogs
on Otis Ferry and co. — the Lord Snooty and His Pals of the 21^(st)
century.)
The UK Independence Party has recently enjoyed some popularity in some
rural areas, particularly parts of the west. They have played upon the
fears of some of the imminent invasion of the countryside by asylum
seekers and other dark foreign hordes. This fantasy is most ironic, as
it is a rarity to see a non-white face in such places; it is a real
irrational fear of the unknown. But obviously — aided by media
manipulation — sufficient to penetrate the psyche of some and give them
enough sleepless nights to make them vote for UKIP.
As racism has grown among the poor of the cities, so we can expect that
it has in the countryside. But as there is so little physical presence
of “aliens”, it remains mainly a fear of something external that will
hopefully keep its distance. So there is little overt display of
hostility to what is an imaginary enemy, just maybe the occasional
comment or dumb joke heard muttered in the pub. This is sometimes
presented as some kind of rebellion against modern political
correctness, implying that to be against racism is necessarily to be
approving of all the token political correctness nonsense that
privileged liberal bureaucrats and politicians churn out. No surprise
that it usually seems to be white (middle aged ) males expressing such
views, encouraging non-whites and foreigners to not take it all too
seriously and to join in laughing at the jokes at their expense. But of
course the jokes are never about white middle aged British males. There
is such a thing as banter between trusted friends whereby people have a
mutual laugh by using the racial stereotypes related to their various
backgrounds and thereby defuse them. But this is very different from the
local ‘comedian’ who keeps an audience’s attention by using these racial
stereotypes; the audience is kept guessing as to whether the ‘comedian’
is going to go the whole way and come out with a racist punchline — or
just keep it implied or ambiguous. So the audience is wondering how they
should react if the racism becomes explicit — whether the rest of the
pub will laugh along with it, or show disapproval. At least ‘political
correctness’ may have made some people less confident in openly
expressing their racism; but then this just submerges it, which is what
the ‘comedian’ is playing on. He implies, “Come on, you know you agree
with me really, and I’ve got the guts to say what you’re thinking.”
This insecurity which is sometimes expressed as racism is an insecurity
of self-identity. The old certainties that gave identity — settled
communities of long standing, common culture, way of life and values —
are threatened and eroded. The younger generation leaves the farm and
village, out of economic necessity; newcomers relate to the land and
community in a different way. This leads some to seek security in larger
identities such as region and/or nation. In Cornwall there is an
unusually large number of persons who fly flags in their front gardens,
clearly as a statement of pride to their neighbours and passers-by;
flags are flown in various and potentially confusing combinations. One
can see Britain’s Union Jack, England’s Flag of St George and the
Cornish black and white flag all flown both separately or in various
combinations. So whilst some see the Cornish flag as a symbol of a
desire for future Cornish national independence, others happily fly it
alongside either the Union Jack or St George — or both; implying a sense
of regional pride that exists contentedly as part of England and/or the
UK. It is not so unlikely that a movement for Cornish independence could
grow, but it would be foolish to read too much into flag-waving. It is
significant that the flag of St George has regained popularity in recent
years, but again, via the supporting of national sports teams, it is
perhaps more an emotional need being met by this more particular and
specific assertion of identity than any intended political statement.
(Though it could eventually become linked to a more political stance.
The fascists of the NF, BM and BNP are sometimes credited with raising
the popularity of the St George, though they are also accused of ‘
hijacking’ this flag by more liberal and inclusive political hacks.)
The State’s strategic game plan for the countryside is, at present, to
move away from direct material production by farming towards a use of
the countryside as a leisure resource and a relatively unexploited site
of real estate investment. Food production is no longer to be seen as a
“strategic reserve”. (This difference in outlook forms part of the UK’s
conflict about food subsidies with other members of the EU.) Farmers are
being encouraged by government Stewardship grants to become agents of
nature conservation, to manage the land as a leisure resource rather
than as a productive farming resource. This is a probably temporary
compensation for the gradual withdrawal of other farmers’ subsidies. At
the same time more land is being opened up for housebuilding and leisure
development, with attitudes to protection of Green Belt land and Sites
of Special Scientific Interest being relaxed. From the State’s point of
view, and the rich landowners, the ideal rural constituency would be a
mix of large scale ‘agri-biz’ intensive farming, a thriving tourist
industry with all the relevant outlets, and plenty of well-heeled
retirement home owners, rural-dwelling city commuters (many in gleaming
new estates of ‘gated communities’) plus a decent amount of second
homes/holiday cottages. Fitting in somewhere is the inconvenient
necessity of a rural proletariat to man the infrastructure to keep all
this profitability ticking over.
But this is perhaps an optimistic outlook for some areas; particularly
in the south-east, where we may see most countryside swallowed up and
converted to suburban sprawl. All of this destruction is as irreversible
as the destruction of the rainforests on the other side of the world;
both environments are the result of a unique development over thousands
of years. For many people, those who are most passive and resigned,
these changes are seen as being beyond their control, as forces of
nature in themselves. The dictates of Capital, whether called ‘progress’
or ‘just human nature’ are seen as consequences as unchallengeable as
the weather conditions. (Ironically, there is a ‘marxist’ version of
this resignation; such environmental vandalism is still claimed to be
the ongoing maturation of the material conditions that will lead to a
communist utopia.) This is the essential blind spot of daily life; the
root of these miseries are not seen as specific to the particular social
relations, but appear as an unfortunate necessity natural to the
existence of humanity.