• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Modernising to Remain Traditional: Farm Families Maintaining a Valued Lifestyle*

Posted on: Tuesday, 5 July 2005, 12:00 CDT

INTRODUCTION

The intent of this article is to offer three conceptualisations (a typology, a conditional matrix, and options for farm families remaining "traditional") that can be useful for researching and understanding farming families, especially as they undergo or resist transitions and modernisation. These theoretical constructs are informed by tentative findings from ongoing study of "traditional" farm families in Western Europe. The basic question asked is: How are traditional farm families, within a context of increased internationalisation of policy and markets and related agribusiness commercialisation and industrialisation, able to manage transitions and stress so that a valued lifestyle can be maintained? Case studies and biographic research were used for developing a grounded theoretical model of the process of maintaining traditional farm- family stability. Family stress theory as applied to farm families (Marotz-Baden et al., 1988; Melberg, 2003) was used to orientate the investigation.

BACKGROUND

In European Union (EU) countries (other than the United Kingdom) and the United States, the idea of "saving the family farm" often sways policy makers (Gasson and Errington, 1993). There are various myths and cultural and political values surrounding the concept of family farm (i.e., these families are seen by politicians as political and social stabilisers and land stewards), and there is a continuum from traditional to modern farm families. A traditional farm (i.e., Bauer) family is one with a specific lifestyle in the forefront (i.e., a valued way of life influencing daily dynamics including familism and collective orientation) that has its roots in the group's particular history as a farm family and in particular regional social patterns. In comparison, a modern farm family (i.e., Land-win und Unternehmer) is one where a rational business orientation as well as an individualised action orientation are in the forefront (Hildenbrand et al., 1992). Furthermore, traditional farm families manifest a tighter integration between family and farm; family life and the activities (business) of farming are inseparable, forming a particular and holistic lifestyle.

Following Planck (1964) and Gasson and Errington (1993), a distinction can be made as follows: a traditional farm family is able to satisfy demands of life for its members out of the intensive independent agricultural running or cultivation of mostly self- owned, inherited land, using mostly family labour. The family is fully occupied by farm labour and the farm income and products support the family. Additionally, the family has legal independence in the sense of owning and managing the farm. In contrast, the EU definition of agriculture households indicates they are those with independent (i.e., self employed) agriculture activity on the holding that is the main source of income for the entire household. In some texts, authors note the necessity of the family supplying the labour (rather than using wage labour) as the distinguishing feature of family farms, but this does not adequately address the issue of traditional compared to modern (see for example, Commandeur, Ramos, and also Rossier in this Special Issue). More modern farm families are likely to be heavily capitalised, use wage labour, and might not be considered "independent" in the sense that accepting loans, government subsidies, and contract work means that others have a stake in and more or less control of the farm management (Gasson and Errington, 1993; Vesala and Peura, this Special Issue).

MODERNISATION-TRADITIONALISM: AN ANALYTICAL TYPOLOGY

Levels of Social Action

Earlier work conceptualised four levels of social action (Bohler and Hildenbrand, 1990). Building on this framework, the authors have developed an analytical framework delineating three levels or dimensions upon which farms can vary as to their extent of modernisation or traditionalism. Often the degree of modernisation across the levels does not correspond, and especially at the individual level, differences can be found within the same farm. These three levels are the economy, the family, and the individualistic (see Table 1).

At the economy level, traditionalism means more interpersonal orientation and less rational and scientific management practices and forecasting, less capitalisation, arid more orientation to local markets and farming for subsistence rather than as a business. The modern paradigm would be the polar opposites of these characteristics.

At the level of family modernity, traditional is characterised by a strong linkage between family and farm with little separation in terms of thought, values, planning, and budget. The family is the farm and the farm is the family. The household is three generational and traditions and commitment to a valued lifestyle predominates. There is an absence of modern record keeping and little if any separation of a farm from a family budget. In Germany, this "type" could be considered as having the traditional family structure-das game haus (the whole house, or all family involved). The more modern family is somewhat to quite separated from their farm, perhaps having other sources of income and satisfaction and interests. The lifestyle is more urbane in nature, with two generations on the farm. Extensive records are kept (likely with a computer) and the farm is a business with its budget separate from that of the family's. Household and family organisation are more contemporary in the sense of gender roles, division of labour, and attention to traditional patterns and rituals. In Germany, this is the Burgerliches Familienmodell.

TABLE 1

Levels of Social Action Orientation

At the individualistic level, the traditional person is characterised by having his or her biography closely linked with the family farm. The personal biography is in service to the farm and family, especially to their maintenance. The more traditional individual considers the family and the farm in her or his decision- making, and might forego (or perhaps seek) other opportunities in order to maintain a close link with the farm. The more modern individual has a biography reflective of a certain distance from the family and especially the farm. This is a chosen path, with a conscious decision made to pursue individual rather than group goals and to regard personal and individualistic values as more important than collective and family values and aspirations (see Ramos, Melberg, and also Hildenbrand and Hennon in this Special Issue for more on the emotional closeness, or affective distance/affective vicinity, in traditional and modern farm families).

While the model represented in Bohler and Hildenbrand (1990) appears to be linear, in reality, modernisation is not. Modernisation usually does not happen on all levels of social action in a precise, lock step, uniform fashion. Rather, the degree of modernisation can vary along the different dimensions for a particular family in ways that might appear contradictory. A farm and its inhabitants could be modern in some ways, but much less so in others. It might even be argued that if modernisation happens at all three levels equally and the placement of this farm is on the modern extreme ends of the continua (or dimensions), then this has ceased to be a family farm as conventionally conceptualised. This entity is now what might be called an agribusiness.

Socially Locating Families

The three dimensions just discussed, on which family farms can differ as to their extent of modernisation, are depicted in Figure 1. The three dimensions are combined into a three dimensional social space in which families can be empirically (qualitatively) located. This allows for further specification of the extent of modernisation of a farm, and elaboration of a typology.

FIGURE 1

Modernisation-Traditionalism: A Social Space Typology

The horizontal dimension is integration or the extent to which the farm and family are integrated. The continuum ranges from integrated (symmetrical, joined, no separation) to disjointed (asymmetrical, discontinuous, complete separation). The economy as reflected in the farm's management varies from less rational (traditional, fatalistic, folkways) to more rational (modern, controllable, scientific). This is the vertical dimension of the Figure. The third dimension is the personal subjective orientation (or personal biography) of each individual member of the farm family, especially those that farm. The orientation can be "to the family" (unity, continuation, familism) or "from the family" (separation, nuclearisation, individualism). This is represented in the third dimension of the figure, one that gives "depth" to what it means to be a member of this farm and family.

In Figure 1, the cell marked "T" shows the placement of the ideal type traditional family farm, while the cell marked "M" indicates the placement of the ideal type modern family farm. The other cells marked "J" (Jones), "S" (Schmitt), "C" (Cott), and "B" (Berger) show the qualitatively assessed social locations of the four farms studied as cases for the theoretical and empirical development of this typology.

TRA\DITIONAL FARM FAMILIES: CASE STUDIES

A case study methodology was employed to provide empirical data to develop a grounded theory of how farm families can remain "traditional" in the face of pressure to modernise (get bigger, more rational and scientific, more capital intensive, more commercial and commodity intensive). This investigation informed the development of the Modernisation-Traditionalism: A Social Space Typology [Modernisierung - traditionale Orientierung: Eine Typologie des sozialen Raums] shown in Figure 1, a conditional matrix portrayed in Figure 2, and the delineation of six options for traditional farm- family stability discussed in the conclusion of this article.

A case study entails collection of intensive data about all aspects of the focus of the study, including that which might be unique to the individual case; treating the case holistically rather than isolating variables; taking into account the history and social context of each case, thus making behaviour more intelligible; seeking ways to obtain data about personal experiences and their meanings to the participants; and attaching special importance to the individuals' own versions of events (which implies that the investigator's preconceptions should not be imposed and the desirability of collecting data in the subjects' own words) (Handel, 1991; see also Rosenblatt and Fischer, 1993). This approach privileges using emic concepts and worldviews to gain understanding of the meaning of things, events, and processes for those involved- while reserving etic constructs for the purposes of theoretical development grounded in these emic data (see also, Bell et al., 2004).

Using family history interviews and a case reconstructive research paradigm, the authors have been developing a grounded theory based, on the methods of Glaser and Strauss (1967), Strauss (1987), Corbin and Strauss (1988), Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1991), Bohler and Hildenbrand (1990, 1995), and Hildenbrand (1999). The focus of inquiry is how more traditional farm families are coping within political contexts of national and international policy developments as well as environments of increasing mechanisation, industrialisation, and commercialisation of agriculture (see other articles in this Special Issue for details of, and other perspectives on, this phenomenon in several countries). It was hypothesised that such changes and pressure for modernisation were stressful for farm families. For example, in a related study, it was found that in some families, particularly the more traditional farm families and those that were part-time farmers, the attempt to become more modern in agribusiness practices on the one hand and to stay rigidly vigilant towards traditional orientations on the other hand, was associated with alcoholism and psychosocial crisis (Bohler and Hildenbrand, 1997; see also Hildenbrand and Hennon, this Special Issue). In another related study, it was discovered that pressures to meet government relegations at the local, national, and EU levels lead the farming (crofting) couple to develop a host of coping strategies, including networking with others to locate ways around some regulations, devising new farming methods, delays in farm improvements, and time and energy being diverted from some valued activities in order to be in compliance with the new regulations (including record keeping and applying for some subsidies while complex requirements meant not being eligible for others) (Hennon, 2002).

The investigation reported here built upon a study of farm families in the modernisation process (Hildenbrand et al., 1992). Using this background and selective theoretical concepts, this article presents selected findings and the theoretical constructs (a typology, a conditional matrix, and options for farm families remaining "traditional") informing or resulting from the comparison of case studies in Scotland (croft with sheep), Wales (hill sheep farmers), and Germany (mountain farmers in the Black Forest and Allgau). A review of appropriate literature provided a context for specific research questions and bounding the scope of the study, as well as some of the conceptualisations and typology presented in this article.1 The investigation was of how more traditional farm families conceptualise and manage success in their integration of family and farming (business) roles and values. The focusing questions included:

* What transitions have farm families been experiencing?

* In what ways have these been stressful?

* In what manners do they manage these transitions and stress?

* What meaning do these transitions and their resolutions have for farm families?

* How is success as a family defined? How is it achieved?

* What is farm (business) success? How is it achieved?

Biographical interviews (Bohler and Hildenbrand, 1995) were conducted with all available members of the families under study. Each family was selected as typical (in the Weberian sense, Weber, 1922/1987) of traditional farm families for their regions. Taped, these interviews were later transcribed and studied via sequential analysis (Bohler and Hildenbrand, 1995). Conceptual depth was sought with theoretical sampling (Strauss, 1987) used to achieve an integration conveying density and precision in the grounded theory.

Native speakers either conducted the interviews or were used as interpreters as necessary.2 In Wales and Allgau, the interpreters also assisted the investigators in gaining access to the families (all interviews took place in the families' homes). Each interview lasted at least 2 1/2 hours. Due to space limitations, details of each family such as the case reconstruction or case monograph are not presented here. Each case was analysed in terms of a "conditional matrix" (see Figure 2) (Bohler and Hildenbrand, 1990; Corbin and Strauss, 1988; Strauss and Corbin, 1991).

CONDITIONAL MATRIX: FOUR ACTION LEVELS TO CONSIDER

The use of a conditional matrix (Corbin and Strauss, 1988; Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1991) allows following the course of an interaction as it is shaped and makes its way through various phases. This movement is difficult to convey in a single diagram. Any such diagram is cross-sectional, only capturing a static representation of evolving interaction. A conditional matrix is a heuristic device helpful for reminding the investigator of the importance of representing the subject matter (an action scheme) as a process occurring (with interactions and strategies) within (or under) specific conditions. These combinations of levels and specific time and place situations have consequences for the participants. The participants (that is, the social actors) give subjective meanings to their various physical, political, economic, cultural, social, and emotional environments. It is these meanings and interpretations that form a foundation for considering what lines of action can be taken given perceived constraints and opportunities. For authentic understanding and explanation of behaviour (choices made, strategies employed, etc.), it is crucial that the values and world views of the actors be assessed and life be understood "from the inside out" as a lived reality, rather than investigators applying "fictitious" constructs to offer "scientific" explanations (Deutscher, 1973). The reader can consult other articles in this Special Issue for quality examples of how authentic understanding can be achieved.

Mindful of the difficulties of diagramming such a dynamic process, Figure 2 nevertheless shows a conditional matrix for the general form of the analysis of the farm families studied. The specifics of the conditional matrix varied for each farm family (and member) and for each family it would vary depending upon the specific transitional event or time frame. In general, the circles (levels) of the matrix call attention to important conditions to consider in the understanding and interpretation of each family (i.e., case). There are four action levels to consider.

FIGURE 2

Conditional Matrix

In Figure 2, the outer circle represents the modern or Western rationalisation process. That is, the general movement to holding a rational or scientific approach to problem solving and planning. This is a macro condition influencing the nation-state and the globalisation of agriculture, and would dictate policy development and other conditions within which a specific farm family functions. The next circle represents the local agricultural social landscape. Each family farm is situated socially and physically in a community or region. This locality has a culture and history of how and why to farm. There are certain meanings and values attached to the land, commodities, and practices. Regional differences are apparent, and families and/or farm operations tend to more or less "fit" into their localities.

The next circle represents the farm in question. This includes the social history of this specific farm and its organisation. Each family farm has a history of events and turning points, as well as long-standing traditions that influence the daily life patterns. Decisions to plant certain crops, participate in specific government schemes, to buy or not buy land, provide both historical context and influence current organisation. Division of labour (including the possible use of wage-labour as well as off-farm employment or involvement in pluriactivity) is also an aspect of this action level. Who does what and under whose direction is part of the more micro sociocultural context for understanding the social relationships and other aspects of a family farm and a farm family.

The innermost circle is representative of each farm-family member's life course. This is the person's biography or life history and important events, and turning points must be noted. These would include age, cohort events, major illnesses and accidents, marriages and divorces, births, school\ing, mental illness, alcoholism, and so on. The coming together of these individual and separate biographies into an overlapping unity creates the pattern of social interaction and particularistic form of any single farm and family.

This conditional matrix provided the framework for analysis and consideration of each case family. The matrix was useful in finding specifics in each case studied, which represented a diversity of countries and conditions. Which levels of social action were in the background or less relevant, and which were dominant in determining the social characteristics of each family, varied. While all four levels provided context considered by the researchers, the families varied as to which action levels seemed to most influence their lives. For example, in other cases studied, "modern" agribusiness farm families were more dominated by conditions at the first and fourth levels. The opportunities and constraints offered by rationalisation, industrialisation, and capitalisation of the farm were important influences. Likewise, the individual farmer's rational decision making and planning in order to operate the farm in a way that was competitive with other agribusinesses had great bearing on how the farm was organised and its future. While the local agricultural landscape and the farm and family's organisation were influences, they were less dominant.

In contrast, family farms being run as an icon to a romanticised past (as was one of the cases studied, the Schmitt family, for the results reported here) or as approximations to idealized traditional family farms (the other cases) were influenced in important ways by other more dominant action levels. The farms of these types were less attentive to the trends of modern agribusiness and the Western ration, profit maximisation world. The region was important because, for example, an iconic farm will likely not exist if the area does not have tourism or another factor (e.g., Old Order Amish religion) supportive of this type of socially organised farm. The farm family's history was important, with often three generations living on the farm with all the associated traditions and family culture. Additionally, the individual's subjective action orientation was important, because the farmer and other family members must want to live this particular "quaint" way of life.

THE STORY LINE

The "story line" (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), or central phenomenon of the theory discussed here, is one of managing stressful transitions in ways that preserve core traditional values and life ways while maintaining "success" as both families and farmers (businesses). The families studied show the interesting phenomenon that they are breaking with tradition in order to preserve their traditions as family farms. That is, they are modernising but only insofar as it is necessary to survive as a family farm. In a sense, this process of maintaining stability "brings them to the brink" in that financial foundations are shaky as is the potential of successfully providing for the transition of the farm to an appropriate heir.

In this project, the phenomenon of success was analysed in terms of process, with transitions (in agriculture and family) being context and conditions for specific situations that were managed (by use of strategies) in ways that a valued lifestyle could be maintained. Consequences of change and stability for each family was sought in the analysis, as were intervening conditions that appeared to explain different outcomes or strategies. These insights, as revealed by the families, provided the researchers the data to begin the development of a theory of modernising to remain traditional.

Based on primarily findings (as a grounded theory, this is still in process and more interviewing will be taking place), it appears that people have to work (strategise) at being a family farm and at being a traditional farming family. This lifestyle requires planning and organising for controlling what agribusiness innovations, laws, market opportunities information, capital, and the like are diffused across the family system boundary in selected ways, thus allowing maintenance of the more traditional family farm ideology and lifestyle. In a sense, farm families have to become "modern" in order to maintain stability in traditional values and patterns.

Farms arid families are not isolated, self-sustaining, independent, subsistence production and consumption units. To be sustainable as a lifestyle, unless there is a paradigm change and the farm becomes "green" (or there is a rigid maintenance of an existing paradigm), these families must be tied to markets, fluctuating prices, increasingly globalised policies and practices, quotas, modern veterinary practices, and the like. In the EU especially, unless one was to totally reject the agricultural policy, the everyday practices of family farming are much constrained. The future of family farming, and thus family dynamics, will be influenced to a great extent by EU policy. The process of maintaining stability in a valued traditional pattern, so that success as families and family businesses can be achieved, requires developing strategies for transition management (e.g., succession, new agricultural policies and regulations, marriages) and for selectively adopting modernisation practices (e.g., intensification or diversification, pluriactivity, record keeping, broader markets).

CONCLUSION

The interviews for this study as well as related work suggest six options for traditional farm-family stability and success are indicated.

Living museums. The option of living and farming in ways that could be classified as "living museums" or representation to a pasting way of life is possible as long as the community or government can accept and support (including financially) such icons to a past way of life. In this study, the Schmitt family, farming a holding too small to be economically viable while engaging in constructing and performing tradition musical instruments and maintaining a rather traditional division of labour and worldview, typifies this option.

Traditional with limited adaptations. This pattern consists of living and farming in ways that are as traditional as possible while adapting in limited (and perhaps contested) manners to the realities of present day farming policies and markets. In this study, the Cott and Jones families represent this option as well as the Berger family (Bonier and Hildenbrand, 1990:22-26). All three have worked to maintain simple and more traditional lifestyles (including in the case of the Jones, the use of Welsh as a language and living in an older and not much modernised house) while having to integrate EU regulations and consider market prices for their main or traditional sources of livelihood, sheep. In the case of the Cotts, it also means diversification and pluriactivity (e.g., forestry and small businesses including operating a B&B) but putting these "modern" avenues to financial viability in secondary positions to the main and valued life ways (see Vesala and Peura, this Special Issue, for more information on pluriactivity and entrepreneurial behaviour). For example, both spouses helping with lambing and other farm work and only taking in B&B guests if they happen to be at home when someone stops by, and using limited advertising. However, succession is problematic as the sons have developed careers and lives in urban areas. Of the three cases, the Cotts would be the most modern and perhaps fit into this typology of traditional options less well. They represent how degree of modernisation does not match across dimensions.

Hobby farming. In some situations the self-conception of part- time farmers are "as if they were full-time family farmers. However, substantial income comes from elsewhere (i.e., pluriactivity). Many tradition notions of farm life are maintained, and the orientation is not toward commercial farming or full-scale agribusiness. Never the less, the farming activities are not sufficient to either maintain the family in terms of market sales of commodities or subsistence farming. Consult the other articles in this Special Issue for examples of this option; for example, the case of the Burckhardt family reported in the article by Rossier and some of the farm families studied by Machum.

Organic or "green". This or another paradigm of small scale or unique practices that allow a marking niche can allow some families to maintain a valued rural lifestyle. This option might be attractive to those with smallholdings and "back to the earth" paradigms (but others could also adopt this option, and to some extend become rather modern in the sense of investigating and using current organic agricultural methods and marketing). The Schoch family studied by Rossier (this Special Issue) is one that could, but likely will not, adopt this strategy. They appear to be more traditional with limited adaptations. In the same article, the Meierhofer family is one that has adopted this option, but in a modern manner. see also the Rotter family in Bohler and Hildenbrand (1990:29-31).

Swiss solution. Following the "Swiss solution" means having a society willing to subsidise "traditional" family farms not as living museums, but as "real" farming families and agricultural systems that are seen in part as saving the cultural landscape of the region. In this manner, families can be traditional in many ways (values, customs, farming practices) as long as they are willing to modernize to the extent of accepting government subventions and regulations over use of land, buildings, and farming practices. The Bieri family studied by Rossier (this Special Issue) could be an example of a family farm being maintained by this option.

British solution. This option consists of farm families being countryside landscapers and historical/cultural preservers, with farmers considered stew\ards of the land. In this government scheme, farmers follow directives about what the "rural" ought to be and receive income from acting like farm families, but are living on the land and not from the land (G. Day, personal communication, April, 1994). For example, in Scotland, the local council might regulate where and how buildings can be constructed so to not adversely affect the scenic values of the countryside, while proving ineffective for agricultural practices. Aspects of this scheme are also found in Germany where farm families can obtain agricultural subsidies to develop B&Bs so that people can enjoy farm holidays.

Further Work

Further work (including on the part of the authors) will help refine and provide more density to the theoretical understandings of farm-family dynamics and the processes by which families can remain "stable" as traditional farm families while yet changing within a sociomatrix of modernisation, national and international agripolicy, and the globalisation of markets and constraints. The specific Stressors experienced and the strategies employed to manage the stress should be explored and incorporated into the "modernising to remain traditional" theory as currently existing and as it goes through various permutations. It is also important to discover if the options identified so far are realised in Eastern Europe and the United States, while remaining open to the identification of other schemes to "preserve the family farm."

Gasson and Errington (1993) suggested that less confidence is possible when applying conclusions derived from market- industrialised countries to those of Eastern Europe. Will this region return to family farms, with larger businesses being rejected? Collectives have been rejected (Bergmann, 1990), but will land reform or the returning of land to previous private holders allow a sustainable business? For example, in some former Eastern Block countries such as Romania, the lands returned to previous owners (after the break-up of collectives) are in the range of 10 hectares or approximately 25 acres. This is too small to be farmed in a commercially viable way. Will new market or production "collectives" be voluntary organised as a social strategy for survival? see the article by Small in this Special Issue for some important insights as to how conceptions of, and ties with, family have been influencing farming in parts of Bulgaria and Russia.

Switzerland, as one example, is willing to provide financial supports for a more traditional lifestyle and argumentatively less effective agricultural practices (see the article by Rossier in this Special Issue for information on Swiss farmers). In the United States, the United Kingdom, and some other countries with a tendency toward a nostalgic view of family farms, only Amish and some other isolated units can flourish and survive as genuinely traditional.

The Hutterites and a few isolated farms in Appalachia might provide interesting illustrations of other traditional forms. The Hutterites (in mid-western United States and Canada) speak German (as do the Amish in the United States), live and farm communally, and maintain distinctive traditional dress and lifestyles with strict gender roles. However, they have adopted modern agricultural practices and machinery. The Old Order Amish, in contrast, eschew modern conveniences and transportation (use instead, horses and buggies), electricity (except to the extent to meet government standards for milk production, for example), and power farm equipment (using instead, horses or perhaps mules). The Amish also have distinctive homemade clothing and strict gender roles, and children are educated in one-room schoolhouses only until the eighth grade as further education is seen as unnecessary. The children then work in the family's farm or business until they marry. Some Amish farms employ pluriactivity (producing wood products such as furniture, or quilts, or running a business such as selling and repairing buggies or other goods), including having some members working off farm for wages in lumbering, barn construction, and the like. Both groups tend to have relatively large families. While the Amish farm smallholdings with animal power and family labour, the Hutterites communally farm large holdings using up-to-date equipment and procedures.

Within the political-geographic area in the United States known as Appalachia (mountainous area in Eastern U.S.) there can still be found rather isolated communities and homesteads. While there is debate about if a distinctive Appalachian culture and family pattern still exists, in some cases traditional family patterns (including familism, strong kinship ties and interactions, and gender roles) would still prevail. Farming could range from small almost subsistence, to part-time, to hobby, to small-scale commercial. In many cases, the family is maintained through pluriactivity (off- farm employment) or by government subventions or "welfare".3

Communities will need to value and support traditional family forms, or it appears that farm families must become to some extent, "businesses or nothing". Perhaps a new cultural conception of family farming will evolve; one of farms of any size that are "owned" and "managed" by members of a family, with income often derived from pluriactivity, and with family members acting as if they were a traditional farm family. The stress associated with such transitions as well as participating in this more modern lifestyle will need to be managed.

This article offers three conceptualisations (a typology, a conditional matrix, and six options for farm families remaining "traditional") useful for researching and understanding farming families, especially as they undergo or resist transitions and modernisation. These theoretical constructs are informed by tentative findings from a study of "traditional" farm families in Western Europe. The basic question asked is: How are traditional farm families, within a context of increased internationalisation of policy and markets and related agribusiness commercialisation and industrialisation, able to manage transitions and stress so that a valued lifestyle can be maintained? case studies and biographic research were used for developing a grounded theoretical model of the process of maintaining traditional farm-family stability. The six options presented are Living Museums, Traditional with Limited Adaptations, Hobby Farming, becoming Organic or "Green", the Swiss Solution, and the British. Solution.

* This article is a major revision and updating of two papers- Stress and Traditional Farm Families: Maintaining a Valued Lifestyle that was presented at the Seventh International Conference on Social Stress Research, Budapest, Hungary (1998, May); and Traditional Farm Families in Wales and Germany: The Process of Maintaining Stability, presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Kansas City, MO (1996, November). The first author acknowledges the financial support provided for travel by the Department of Family Studies and Social Work, The School of Education and Allied Professions, and International Programs of Miami University.

1 The literature reviewed for this study and the conceptualisations presented in this article includes Bergmann, 1990; Bodenstedt, 1990; Bohler and Hildenbrand, 1990, 1997; Bohler et al., 1992; Bowler et al., 1996; Djurfeldt, 1996; Eikeland, 1999; Galeski and Wilkening, 1987; Garkovich et al., 1995; Gasson and Errington, 1993; Giordano and Hettlage, 1989; Goody, 2000; Gray, 1998; Haan, 1993; Hildenbrand, 1989,1999; Hildenbrand et al., 1992; Jervell, 1999; Kasimis and Padadopoulos, 1997; Marotz-Baden et al., 1988; Planck, 1964; Pongratz, 1990; Reed et al., 2000; Shucksmith, 1993; Shucksmith and Hermann, 2002; Shucksmith and Smith, 1991; and Thiele and Brodersen, 1999. A variety of materials produced by the Scottish Crofting Foundation and the Crofters Commission were also consulted.

2 For information on conducting qualitative research in "foreign" counties and languages, see Asay and Hennon, 1999. Hennon (1978) has information about achieving conceptual equivalency versus phenomenal identity in cross-cultural research. The article by Bell et al. (2004) reviews constraints inherent in crosscultural research and how to proceed, strategies for increasing validity, and the use of emic and etic constructs or measures. Peterson et al. (2004) reviews complementary research methods in cross-cultural work and achieving more cultural relativist or more universalistic knowledge.

3 For more on the Hutterites, the Amish, and Appalachia see Hildebrand et al. (2000); Hutterites: A Selected Bibliography (n.d.); The Hutterian Brethren (n.d.); Ingoldsby (2001); Amish 101 (n.d.); The Amish & the Plain People (n.d.); Blake and Cardamone (1997); Ediger (1996); Kreps and Donnermeyer (1994); and The Rural and Appalachian Youth and Families Consortium (1996).

REFERENCES

Amish 101 - Amish Beliefs, Culture & Lifestyle

n.d. URL [pittsburgh.about.com/cs/pennsylvania/a/arnish_2.htrn].

The Amish & The Plain People

n.d. URL [www.800padutch.com/amish.shtml].

Asay, S. M., and C. B. Hennon

1999 "The challenge of conducting qualitative family research in international settings." Family and Consumer Science Research Journal 27: 409-427.

Bell, L. G, H. Dendo, Y. Nakata, D. C. Bell, T. Munakata, and S- I Nakamura

2004 "The experience of family in Japan and the United States: Working with the constraints inherent in cross-cultural research." Journal of Comparative Family Studies 35: 351-373.

Bergmann, Th.

1990 "Socioeconomic situation and perspective of the individual peasant." Sociologia Ruralis 30:48-61.

Blake, K. V., and Cardamone, E. A.

1997 "Modern Amish farming as ecological agriculture." Society & Natural Resources 10: 143-159.

Bodenstedt, A. A.

1990 "Rural culture-A new concept." Sociologia Ruralis 30: 34- 47.

Bohler, \K. F., and B. Hildenbrand

1990 "Farm Families between tradition and modernity." Sociologia Ruralis 30: 18-33.

1995 "Conditions for sociological research in biography." International Sociology 10: 331-340.

1997 Landwirtschaftliche Familienbetriebe in der Krise [Farm Families in Crisis]. Munster, DE: LIT.

Bohler, K. F, B. Hildenbrand, W. Jahn, and R. Schmitt

1992 Bauernfamilien heute - sieben Fallstudien - [Farm Families Today: Seven Case Studies]. Fredeburger Hefte 21(1): entire issue.

Bowler, L, G. Clark, A. Crockett, B. Ilbery, and A. Shaw

1996 "The development of alternative farm enterprises: A study of family labour farms in the Northern Pennines of England." Journal of Rural Studies 12: 285-295.

Corbin, J. M., and A. Strauss

1988 Unending Work and Care: Managing Chronic Illness at Home. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Deutscher, I.

1973 What We Say/What We Do: Sentiments & Acts. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Djurfeldt, G.

1996 "Defining and operationalizing family farming from a sociological perspective." Sociologia Ruralis 36:340-351.

Ediger, M.

1996 "Teaching about another culture: The Old Order Amish." Social Studies 87: 161-163.

Eikeland, S.

1999 "New rural pluriactivity? Household strategies and rural renewal in Norway." Sociologia Ruralis 39: 359-375.

Galeski, B., and Wilkening, E. (eds.)

1987 Family Farming in Europe and America. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Garkovich, L., J. L. Bokemeier, and B. Foote

1995 Harvest of Hope: Family Farming/farming Families. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

Gasson, R., and A. Errington

1993 The Farm Family Business. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Giordano, C, and R. Hettlage (eds.)

1989 Bauerngesellschaften im Industriezeitalter. Zur Rekonstruktion lndlicher Lebensformen [Peasant Societies in the Industrial Age: Reconstructing Rural Forms of Living]. Berlin, DE: Reimer.

Glaser, B., and A. Straus

1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Goody, J.

2000 The European Family: An Historico-Anthropological Essay. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Gray, J.

1998 "Family farms in the Scottish Borders: A practical definition by hill sheep farmers." Journal of Rural Studies 14: 341- 356.

Greksa, L. P.

2002 "Population growth and fertility patterns in an Old Order Amish settlement." Annals of Human Biology 29: 192-201

Haan, H. de

1993 "Images of family farming in the Netherlands." Sociologia Ruralis 33; 147-166.

Handel, G.

1991 "Case study in family research." Pp. 244-268 in J. R. Feagin, A. M. Orum, and G. Sjoberg (eds.), A Case for the Case Study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Hennon, C. B.

1978 "Self conception and desired family organization in Finland and Iran." Journal of Comparative Family Studies 9:191-210.

2002 Crofting and Modernisation in Scotland: A Longitudinal Case Reconstruction Approach to Theoretical Understanding. Paper prepared for the conference Farming Families in Transition: A Qualitative Approach by case Reconstruction, Tanikon, Switzerland, 2-4 September.

Hildebrand, V., L. A. Phenice, M. M. Gray, and R. P. Hines

2000 Knowing and Serving Diverse Families (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Hildenbrand, B.

1989 "Tradition and modernity in the family farm: A case study." Marriage and Family Review 14:159-172.

1999 Fallrekonstruktive Familienforschung. Qualitative Sozialforschung [Case Reconstruction in Family Research: Qualitative Social Research]. Opladen, DE: Leske + Budrich.

Hildenbrand, B., K. F. Bohler, W. Jahn, and R. Schmitt

1992 Bauernfamilien im Modernisierungsproze [Farm Families in the Modernisation Process]. Frankfurt, DE: Campus.

Hutterites: A Selected Bibliography

n.d. URL [www.hutterites.info].

The Hutterian Brethren

n.d. URL [www.hutterites.org],

Ingoldsby, B. B.

2001 "The Hutterite family in transition." Journal of Comparative Family Studies 32: 377-392

Jervell,A.M.

1999 "Changing patterns of family farming and pluriactivity." Sociologia Ruralis 39:100-116.

Kasimis, C., and A. G. Padadopoulos

1997 "Family farming and capitalist development in Greek agriculture: A critical review of the literature." Sociologia Ruralis 37: 209-227.

Kreps, G. M., and Donnermeyer, J F.

1994 "The changing occupational structure of Amish males." Rural Sociology 59: 708-719.

Marotz-Baden, R., C. B, Hennon, and T. H. Brubaker (eds.)

1988 Families in Rural America: Stress, Adaptation, and Revitalization. St. Paul, MN: National Council on Family Relations.

Melberg, K.

2003 "Farming, stress and psychological well-being: The case of Norwegian farm spouses." Sociologia Ruralis 43: 56-77.

Peterson, G. W., S. K. Steinmetz, and S. M. Wilson

2004 "Introduction: Complementary approaches in cross-cultural parent-youth research." Marriage & Family Review 36: 1-6.

Planck, U.

1964 Der Bauerliche Familienbetrieb: Zwischen Patriarchal und Partnerschaft [The Family Farm: Between Patriarchal and Partnership]. Stuttgart, DE: Enke.

Pongratz, H.

1990 "Cultural tradition and social change in agriculture." Sociologia Ruralis 30: 5-17.

Reed, M., M. Lobley, M. Winter, and J. Chandler

2000 Family Farmers on the Edge: Adaptability and Change in Farm Households. Final Report for The Countryside Agency. University of Plymouth, University of Exeter, UK. URL [www.ex.ac.uk/crr/pdfl/ mattreedl/final_report_vl3.pdfj.

Rosenblatt, P. C, and L. R. Fischer

1993 "Qualitative family research." Pp. 167-177 in W. J. Doherty, P. G. Boss, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz (eds.), Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach. New York, NY: Plenum.

The Rural and Appalachian Youth and Families Consortium

1996 "Parenting practices and interventions among marginalized families in Appalachia: Building on family strengths." Family Relations 45: 387-396.

Shucksmith, D. M., and R. Smith

1991 "Farm household strategies and pluriactivity in upland Scotland." Journal of Agricultural Economics 42: 340-353.

Shucksmith, M.

1993 "Farm household behaviour and the transition to post productivism." Journal of Agricultural Economics 44:446-478.

Shucksmith, M., and V. Hermann

2002 "Future changes in British agriculture: Predicting divergent farm household behavior." Journal of Agricultural Economics 5: 37- 50.

Strauss, A.

1987 Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge.

Strauss, A., and J. Corbin

1990 Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

1991 "Tracing lines of conditional influences: Matrix and paths." Pp. 455-464 in A Strauss (ed.), Creating Sociological Awareness: Collective Images and Symbolic Representations. New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions.

Thiele, H., and C. M. Brodersen

1999 "Differences in farm efficiency in market and transition economies: Empirical evidence from West and East Germany." European Review of Agricultural Economics 26: 331-347.

Weber, M.

1987 Die "Objektivitat" sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis [The Objectivity of Social Science and Social Policy]. Pp. 146-214 in M. Weber (ed.), Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Wissenschaftslehre [Collected Papers Concerning the Theory of Science] (7th Ed.). Tubingen, DE: Mohr. (Original work published 1922).

CHARLES B. HENNON**

and

BRUNO HILDENBRAND***

** Family Studies and Social Work, Center for Human Development, Learning and Teaching, McGuffey Hall, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056, USA. Email: hennoncb@muohio.edu

*** Institut fr Soziologie, Friedrich-Schiller Universitt Jena, D 07740 Jena, Germany Email: hildenbrand@soziologie.uni-jena.de

Copyright University of Calgary, Department of Sociology Summer 2005

Source: Journal of Comparative Family Studies

More News in this Category