Homesteading as a moral commitment

“I’d love to do what you’re doing,” we sometimes hear, followed by the inevitable “but.” There are people who say they would love to live a more self-sufficient life, to be off-the-grid, to homestead out in the country, growing their own food and living a more intentional life. Many of these individuals are sincere and do wish to break free of their enslavement to a social and economic system that holds them tightly in its grasp, but how many of them will ever move on their desires?

It was very encouraging recently to come into contact with a man and his family who earnestly desire to become modern day homesteaders. I will do anything and everything I can to help them realize their dreams (and whomever else). This family’s desire is not just a passing fancy; they are serious and are doing things now to make it a reality. Unfortunately, most of the people I’ve heard express affinity for what my family and I are doing are most likely never going to do it. They have a romantic notion of “the simple life” (which ain’t so simple) but they value some things too highly to give them up to see their notions become reality.

Recently, in passing I mentioned that living a homesteading life requires a moral commitment, but I didn’t elaborate on that point. Basically, the morality of the situation resides in believing it is good/better to pursuing this particular way of living, an intentional life, as I like to call it. For us it is better to live without debt than to borrow money in order to have things which we may want but don’t need, realizing the difference between wants and needs. It is right to invest our energy and labor in providing as much as we can for ourselves rather than relying on industrial mechanisms to make things available for us via an exchange of my labor in the form of dollar bills. Being together and working together as a family is more highly valued than having enough money to provide a bigger home and more things at the expense of family. These are all moral choices that guide our way of life.

You can examine anyone’s life and begin to see what they value. You can do that with my life and find things that reveal moral commitments I should change (I need to be examining my life for this purpose, actually). For instance, if one values things over relationships, this is evident. Granted, some do not see any other way to live than the usual, standard way of living that is all around us; they’ve been conditioned and trained to accept life on terms that they did not create. Intentionally changing the terms upon which we live our lives requires discernment, seeing how we live in its bare, naked form, for what it is.

Western culture and economics dictate a certain way of life, one that I find morally problematic in many ways. Until I had opportunity and reason to question the context of modern life, I didn’t see this. As my eyes opened to the problems of our socio-economic system, I was challenged with the responsibility of making a choice about what to do. Should I go along with what I understand is wrong but which is difficult to disentangle myself from (the easier path)? Or, should I act upon my understanding and choose to change the circumstances of my life, living in opposition to much of the socio-economic order surrounding me? That’s a tough place to be, but one in which everyone makes a choice. Even choosing not to decide is still to make a choice.

We are surrounded by romantic notions of rural/farm life and the good old days. Most of these notions are not in sync with the reality of rural/farm life as it exists today. Examine the packaging in the grocery store to see the images that are sold to us, images that draw upon our romantic notions. These are a part of our social psyche, but they are not based upon current reality. These are powerful images that when we buy things from the grocery store may help us feel good about what we’re buying and eating and keep us from seriously considering the real conditions of production. They are evidence, though, of the power of our notions and their very real existence.

I think it is these same kinds of romantic notions which lead people to say they would love to live a self-sufficient life but to never make changes in their lives to realize at least part of that desire. Being a homesteader doesn’t always mean owning a chunk of rural property with enough room to raise a large garden and a menagerie of animals. However, it does mean making choices and decisions in our lives that separate us from the hegemony of the socio-economic system in which we are all enslaved. It means frugality. It means doing as much for yourself and your family as you can. It means taking increasing responsibility for your life in meaningful ways within the current sphere of your existence. It’s a process, not a destination.

I wish to encourage all who want to homestead to take steps right now to realize their desires. However small the steps may be, start taking some now. Limit your consumption of industrially produced products by making do with what you have or making for yourself. Focus on and prioritize those things which are more meaningful, like time together as a family playing and working. Grow a tomato plant in a pot. Preserve some of your own food. Make your choices more intentional with a goal of realizing your dreams/desires one step at a time.

There’s nothing wrong with romantic notions. They can guide and motivate us. We need to take responsibility for our our actions, for the moral choices we make every day, with an end in view, not because it is a romantic notion, but because it is a better way to live. Our moral commitments are revealed in what we do. What does what we’re each doing say about us and our values?

Thoughts on sustainability

One of our goals and objectives is the pursuit of sustainability. What does this mean, though? Is it possible? The term sustainable is frequently used in reference to our personal agricultural and homesteading practices. It's something I've been thinking about and which I think ought to be considered.

What does it mean for our practices to be sustainable? Webster's defines it as “of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.” For us, that means replacing the minerals and nutrients taken from the soil in growing food and forage. Additionally, to truly be sustainable, external resources would not be brought in to supplement or augment growing and harvesting our food, hay, and firewood.

Do we do this? No. We use machinery which requires fuel derived from petroleum. We cut and haul in firewood from other farms. We have had manure brought in from outside our farm. I've also taken several tons of hay off of the fields without putting amendments back on the fields as sustainability would require (this is an area to be addressed).

Do I want to be sustainable? Yes and no. I want to work toward being more sustainable than conventional agricultural practices and to have the ability and capacity to be completely sustainable at some point (if required). As long as I use machinery that is powered by internal combustion engines, I'm not practicing sustainability (unless, maybe, I can set up a wood gasification system on my tractor). I am not ready to do without these things though. The amount of physical labor required to grub hoe my garden instead of disk or till it and the labor required to scythe hay and haul it to the barn in loose form is mind-boggling (especially without the help of some sort of draft animal, be it horse or ox).

One of the problems with complete sustainability is that it is unrealistic, just like the term self-sufficient. We are created to need a community, the support of a structure larger than ourselves. I believe this is natural, normal, and necessary. We are social creatures and can accomplish so much more in conjunction with other individuals than we can alone.

What does this mean for homesteaders? It means we need each other. Homesteading is bigger than we are. My farm cannot be completely sustainable without a great amount of work. Using resources that come from outside our gates makes the work we have to do more doable. We also have resources that can be shared with others in order to make their work more doable. If we view sustainability from a personal, farm-specific perspective, we will find that it is an elusive, if not impossible, goal to attain. But, if we view it in terms of community, it is more realistic.

It's difficult for individuals who wish to homestead to capitalize on the notion of community with like-minded families. We seem to live so far apart mostly. Intentional communities that have been attempted have their own sets of problems. It's not easy. There used to be more community when people were mutually engaged in the process of growing their own food and helping one another with the work at hand. Mechanization and industrialization killed much of that as the rogue American independence triumphed over the strength and richness of real community.

I like to read about how things were done a hundred or more years ago in rural America. There were multiple diverse farms with people working to supply their own needs and for their neighbors' needs. Villages and towns were supported by a belt of these farms that grew (or could grow) most if not all of their food needs. In return, the people in the villages/towns provided for needs on the farms that otherwise would have been difficult to produce on site, from shoes to salt to farm equipment. There is a richness in such a situation and a sustainability that we can only dream of today.

Our current agricultural system involves the consumption of great amounts of petroleum. Even industrial organic agriculture consumes great quantities of petroleum, nearly as much as conventional, just not in the form of petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Industrial organics has adopted the conventional model merely with substitutions for the synthetic additives. Is the industrial organic model more sustainable? Although it has certain elements that make it 'better' than conventional, it is hardly more sustainable in the form it has taken.

True sustainability involves a retrogression to some age-old, pre-mechanized, pre-industrial practices, including the development of community inter-dependence. Without that, our efforts at sustainability involve a movement in the direction of more ecological responsibility, better stewardship of the land God has blessed us with, and the adoption of the philosophical and moral principles of the original organic agricultural movement (not its current iteration in the form of industrial agriculture).

Will this happen? Not without great disruption to the current order, I'm afraid. Do I want that? No, because it would bring great suffering. We live in an age that is based upon unsustainable practices such as a debt-based economy and petroleum-based agriculture and lifestyle. At some point, the resources we're exploiting will run out and the debt will have to be paid. Both of these outcomes will be difficult and painful because by-and-large, we are unprepared for it.

So, I come back to where I started. What does it mean to practice sustainability? For me it means working toward and reaching a point at which I can provide for my family and others in need without depleting the resources available to me and without being dependent upon external resources. It means working with and for those that live with and around me in order to help one another. It's less of a realistic goal to be achieved than a direction around which we seek to organize our life. It's a moral choice that reveals itself in what we do as a form of stewardship of the land and responsibility to ourselves and to others.