Matthew Shelley

ANTH450
Final Exam
Dr. Jerry Galm
Essay 1

The introduction of monocultural agriculture forms into a developing

culture will have significant and substantive effects on those people. By its

very nature, monocultural growth means a dependence on one single crop,

rather than sustainable farming which can involve several disparate crops.

While subsistence farming will result in a greater self reliance as well as

sustainability in the face of changes in the region, monocultural farming

brings about myriad changes, many societal in nature.

In horticultural societies, the ultimate goal of all farming is for

subsistence for the members of the community. In essence, the crop is the

reward. The culture is based around this concept, and most often involved

simplistic techniques, slash and burn horticulture, and a continued reliance

on hunting and gathering to supplement grown foods. In these societies,

gender roles take on a very specific, if not entirely balanced, importance.

Men were the hunters, women the gardeners and gatherers.

That is one of the paramount shifts in the adoption of monocultural

practices, the restructuring of a society. Now with one single, massive crop,

the male element becomes the field laborer, the mastermind behind the

farm, while the female is 'domesticated' not necessarily in a subservient

context, but rather relegated to homebound duties.

 The advent of monocultural farming practices also realizes a

fundamental change in the ultimate goal of agriculture: income. A single

large crop can indeed meet many of the dietary needs of a society,

especially major crops like rice and wheat, but alternative sources of

nourishment must be procured. So the crop becomes a currency of a sort,

able to be traded with other groups for other crops, tools, et al.

The crop is no longer selected to suit the land, the land is selected to

suit the chosen crop. A valley with a myriad of soil types and erosive

qualities may support a multitude of harvestable plants, however

monoculture requires the adoption of a larger, singular adaptation.

One is not necessarily superior to the other: a plethora of grown crops

can easily mean that shifts in climate, geology, or even seasons may not

have as big an impact on the subsistence of the society, some crops may

perish while others thrive, and the potential for adaptation is great.

Monoculture will mean a specific condition must be met at all times, in

climate, terrain, precipitation, etc., but it will also mean that the society now

has room for alternate means of income, the culture can now support

artisans, craftsmen, metalworkers, in addition to farmers.

The societal impact this shift can have is apparent. The ecological

impact, however, can be slower in revealing itself. The clearing of land of its

natural taxa in favor of a mass crop can mean greater soil erosion, an

interruption in the natural succession growth can mean a loss of nutrients in

the soil, requiring land to lay fallow from time to time, risking the complete

annihilation of the field otherwise.

This fundamental change in the subsistence of a group will result in a

restructuring of a society; now the land must be owned rather than shared,

the labor force which physically works upon the land may not take full part

in the profits of their work, a class system inevitably rises from this change

which will dramatically increase social density even in its earliest stages.

Neither form is necessarily better than the other, monoculture is not

an evil presence which corrupts a pristine system. Both have extreme

advantages and disadvantages that, while not immediately evident, have

long lasting repercussions.

Essay 2

The introduction of wage labor into any culture and especially that of

developing nations, has immense influence on that culture and surrounding

environment. Wage labor, the separation of income for wage from income

for subsistence, by its very nature will cause a removal of its practitioners

from their natural environs. As sustainable farmers, the society remains

close to the local ecology, they become familiar not only with the environs in

which they grow their foodstuffs, but also with the supplementary fauna, the

local wildlife, and surrounding conditions.

Upon the introduction of wage labor, the connection with local ecology
is near instantaneously severed. The immediate necessity of continually

earning a wage as a means of sustenance means a complete shift in the

values of a given people. No longer content to subsist from the land itself,

now the onset of wage labor brings about a new morality. Money can be

used to sate desires and purchase foods grown or collected from far away,

increasing population density and further removing the individual from their

surroundings.

As the social density increases, so too does the social distance, as a

community of horticulturalists is no longer necessary to work the land, and

the wants and needs of an individual can now be sated over the wants and

needs of others due to the presence of a wage, one which not everyone in

that community will be capable of earning. The individual is no longer

concerned for the continued sustenance of his peers, nor is he concerned

with his own, as the currency of wage labor will ensure his ability to

purchase foodstuffs that previously were grown by his own community.

This is a fundamental shift in the desires and values of a society, and

in many ways can be tied directly to the introduction of monocultural forms

of agriculture and the necessary societal shifts that practice incurs. This

shift can often be rather uncomfortable, creating personal angst within the

system of the society, a distancing from the natural ecology which previously

had nourished these people, even generations back.

Wage labor also meant a new ideal for agriculture: the cash crop.
Coupled with colonialism, the cash crop was a means for another power to

profit via the labor of others, who were then (for the most part)

recompensed with wages. These cash crops were not selected for their

appropriateness for the region, nor their heartiness in that given climate, but

rather entirely through their ability to be sold at a profit. This meant that

the once vital ecology now took a backseat to currency, as the best

agricultural lands were appropriated for various crops, and in some regions,

large areas were completely turned over to a new crop, regardless of the ill

effects on the local conditions.

Just as mining and waste dumping can wipe out local fauna, so too can

unrestricted agriculture destroy a region. Whereas horticulture sought to

mimic nature with its combinations of various plants, the mindset behind

wage labor based farming is one of subjugation, ignoring natural conditions

as much as possible in favor of focusing on one huge profitable crop. In

regions where the soil is more fragile due to its consistency or chemical

makeup, what may work in one region will fail utterly in another, but with

the promise of profit behind any venture, the attempt will most likely be

made despite the potential failure. The goal is profit, not sustainability.

In Brazil, maximum deforestation was incurred in order to further

agricultural growth, an effort to sustain the growing population. The

incredible lushness of the rain forests would cause most to assume the soil

would be highly rich in biota and nutrients, but due to the incredible level of
taxa density there, the soil received very little in the way of organic matter,

due to the prevalence of thatch as well as the needs of the multitudes of

other organisms living off the debris. With the removal of the forest by

man, what resulted was an area now devoid of life, the soil which had

already been poor, now lacked the well adapted fauna of the rainforest

which had developed atop it, leaving lands not only useless to farming, but

now incapable of supporting itself. With well over 200 centimeters annual

rainfall, this now loosened soil was free to slide and shift across the face of

the region, completely changing the face of the local ecology.

The onset of wage labor changes the perceptions of the people who

live within an environment. The focus, once on sustainability, now becomes

one of immediacy and satisfaction. The advent of monoculture farming

coupled with wage labor creates an air of dominion over the lands, one

which cannot last. The destruction of a stream or valley may seem

insignificant in the face of monetary satisfaction, but the repercussions can

be quickly felt in regions with a more delicate ecosystem than others, and

the soil itself, along with other organisms, is most assuredly a part of that

ecosystem.