Periodic Reporting for period 2 - MaMoGH (The Making of Monoculture: A Global History)
Reporting period: 2023-06-01 to 2024-11-30
Many scholars have discussed the problems of monoculture. This project takes the next step: if monocultures are notorious trouble spots in economic, social, political and environmental respects, why are they still with us? There is no theory of monoculture and plenty of empirical and conceptual evidence that it is a really bad idea. Against this backdrop, the project seeks to use the tools of historical research to unlock the mystery of monoculture. If we cannot explain the resilience of specialized organic production regimes conceptually, it may help to trace the path that we have taken.
Understanding monoculture is crucial in a 21st century world that needs to feed more than eight billion humans without devastating the planet. We know a lot about the symptoms of our agricultural crisis, but we need to learn more about the underlying resilience of a dubious mode of production. More specifically, we need to learn more about how monocultures have managed to stumble on in spite of perennial crises, both in order to understand why monocultures have made it so far and to assess the chances (and the price) of crisis management in the future.
None of this is meant to raise doubts about the moral case against monocultures. In fact, the project departs from the assumption that monoculture is one of the most underrated problems of our time. But moral indignation has not triggered a collapse of monocultures yet: agricultural production regimes are so firmly entrenched that they have defied numerous critics with ease. As a history project, MaMoGH is not in the business of changing the world. But those who work towards a more sustainable world food system may come to work in a more targeted, effective manner if they gain a better understanding of how monoculture works from the inside.
Understanding monoculture is crucial in a 21st century world that needs to feed more than eight billion humans without devastating the planet. We know a lot about the symptoms of our agricultural crisis, but we need to learn more about the underlying resilience of a dubious mode of production. More specifically, we need to learn more about how monocultures have managed to stumble on in spite of perennial crises, both in order to understand why monocultures have made it so far and to assess the chances (and the price) of crisis management in the future.
None of this is meant to raise doubts about the moral case against monocultures. In fact, the project departs from the assumption that monoculture is one of the most underrated problems of our time. But moral indignation has not triggered a collapse of monocultures yet: agricultural production regimes are so firmly entrenched that they have defied numerous critics with ease. As a history project, MaMoGH is not in the business of changing the world. But those who work towards a more sustainable world food system may come to work in a more targeted, effective manner if they gain a better understanding of how monoculture works from the inside.
As every decent study of history, this endeavor has taken a deep plunge into the documents. The project is dedicated to a bottom-up approach, and that makes it crucial to take a close, multidimensional look at individual production regimes, producers, scientists, workers, and plots of land. Team members have visited archives and libraries in the United States, Australia, India, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, and they work on commodities as diverse as oranges, eucalyptus, almonds, tobacco, and pork. As the project has passed the half-time mark, the focus gradually shifts from archival work to writing.
At the same time, discussions within the project have produced a set of theorems, observations and terms that guide all projects. This conceptual framework serves an enabling function: individual researchers can develop a deeper understanding of their respective monoculture if they recognize that the challenges in their case study reflect a general pattern. At the same time, case studies help to identify problems with this framework that call for conceptual revisions. The project website provides a preliminary summary of some key theorems.
At the same time, discussions within the project have produced a set of theorems, observations and terms that guide all projects. This conceptual framework serves an enabling function: individual researchers can develop a deeper understanding of their respective monoculture if they recognize that the challenges in their case study reflect a general pattern. At the same time, case studies help to identify problems with this framework that call for conceptual revisions. The project website provides a preliminary summary of some key theorems.
The expected result of the project is a set of conceptual tools that allow a better understanding of the resilience of monoculture: a comprehensive assessment of driving forces, enabling contexts and modes of crisis management. This toolset seeks to apply to any monoculture in agriculture and forestry that grew anywhere on this planet during the age of global modernity. It will be useful for two different groups: those who are interested in the making of the world food system in the age of global modernity and those who have a stake in the future of monoculture – be it as producers, experts, consumers, or critics of one of the numerous problems. After all, this is not a project that seeks to demonize monoculture. This is a project that seeks to give stakeholders a better idea of what they are doing.
Results will include books and articles, the customary output of a history project – culminating in a synthetic book that will change our understanding of agricultural history. But in a project that seeks to speak beyond the boundaries of our profession, it seems legitimate to phrase our results in a way that other experts can understand. This is why the PI has coined a law of monoculture, knowing that historians are usually not in the business of developing laws. This is the law that should henceforth guide our engagement with monocultures worldwide:
“A resource arrangement that cannot work in theory can stumble on in practice.”
Nobody knows whether this stumble can continue, and at what price. But maybe this law can foster a more realistic idea of the global spread of monoculture: it is neither a victory run or a juggernaut but a highly unstable and somewhat unlikely outcome of history. And perhaps Frank’s Law of Monoculture, or FLOM for shorts, can bring people to rethink their infatuation with economic laws.
Results will include books and articles, the customary output of a history project – culminating in a synthetic book that will change our understanding of agricultural history. But in a project that seeks to speak beyond the boundaries of our profession, it seems legitimate to phrase our results in a way that other experts can understand. This is why the PI has coined a law of monoculture, knowing that historians are usually not in the business of developing laws. This is the law that should henceforth guide our engagement with monocultures worldwide:
“A resource arrangement that cannot work in theory can stumble on in practice.”
Nobody knows whether this stumble can continue, and at what price. But maybe this law can foster a more realistic idea of the global spread of monoculture: it is neither a victory run or a juggernaut but a highly unstable and somewhat unlikely outcome of history. And perhaps Frank’s Law of Monoculture, or FLOM for shorts, can bring people to rethink their infatuation with economic laws.