Is Homesteading a Political Act?

Getting a little controversial with this take on how political homesteading really is, or should be.

Call it homesteading or simple living, the quest for a self-sufficient life has been a desire of people from the moment it was no longer the necessary way of life.  For many, the decision to live a life of self reliance is an act of political protest.  Start with Henry David Thoreau, the inspiration for so many off grid enthusiasts, and the subtitle of his masterpiece Walden: Life in the Woods, and on the Duty of Civil Disobedience.  Civil disobedience is tightly intertwined with off grid living.

A lengthy thesis could be written on the historical acts of homesteading as a political statement and the influences of thinkers like Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson.  But let’s take a look at homesteading as a political act today.

Since the pandemic, ensuing lockdowns, and concerns over supply chains in 2020, homesteading as a lifestyle has experienced a boom like it hasn’t seen since the 1960s.  And like in the 1960s, this boom is tied to the politics of the time. 

A number of factors came together to create the perfect situation to inspire homesteaders in 2020.  Not only were people worried about food security, we were also stuck at home with time to actually do something about where our food comes from.  And since 2020 factors such as the ongoing Avian Influenza outbreak and high inflation have continued to challenge food systems.  Some people have chosen to take their interest in food security to the next level, actually purchasing rural land and leaping into a wholly off grid lifestyle.  

Homesteading has always drawn in people on the fringes.  Starting down this path in the early 2010s, I joked that everyone pursuing this lifestyle seemed to be politically extreme – either far right or far left.  It was striking how people involved in homesteading were almost always partisan, but often completely opposite.  

In 2023, there are still a number of back-to-the-land hippies and far left off grid homesteaders; but the majority of the groundswell in 2020 was at the other end of the political spectrum.  And for many of these homesteaders, the act of living self reliantly is a political statement.

Let’s take a look at some of the viral “reels” that have circulated among the homesteading community since 2020.  Reels and TikToks tend to oversimplify and generalize, putting things in the quickest, bluntest wording possible. They’ll borrow sound bites from films and professionals without credit or consent, making the poster seem perhaps more intellectual than they actually are.  And they are a uniquely effective form of propaganda that is being used to promote the homesteading lifestyle.

Within the homesteading community online, TikTok sound bites have gone viral with messages about how politically important homesteading is.  One quotes Indian doctor and food sovereignty advocate Vandada Shiva: “Food is a weapon.  When you sell real weapons you control armies.  When you control food you control society.  But, when you control seed, you control life on earth.”  One questions if the green activist was thinking of American survivalists when she said this.

The other sound bite I see most frequently comes from Michael Pollan: “I think local food is one of the most important political movements going on. It is much bigger than food, it is the most important protest against what Wendell Berry has called ‘the rise of the total economy’.  Food is about to go the way of clothing, of consumer electronics.  Our food, in the vision of the globalizers, in the vision of the total economy, will come from wherever it can be produced most cheaply, freeing American labor for “higher uses”.  I frankly don’t know what higher use there is for labor and land than growing food…”

Now, far be it for me to criticize Michael Pollan, whom I have a great deal of respect for, but whose work has received criticism for privilege, generalization, and not accounting for the bigger picture – and on a few occasions for using “junk science” as a resource. 

The context of this quote is important.  Michael Pollan was speaking in 2006 at the National Bioneers Conference, discussing his visit to Joel Salatin’s regenerative Polyface Farm which features in Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma.  Since the publication of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Joel Salatin has come under criticism for many things including racist rants, and how he acquired his land and started his farm: Salatin’s many books encourage regenerative farming as a viable way of turning a profit when in fact his land was inherited and his labor has been largely free interns.  What Salatin is doing in his work is not unlike what the Nearings did seventy years ago when they wrote about sustaining a homestead with a “cash crop” that they never had themselves (instead farming off of significant inheritances from their families).  He’s saying you can do something that he never has done himself.

I do not disagree with the fundamental idea that food is political.  How we live our lives is political, how we choose to interact with strangers and where we spend our money is political.  But I feel there is something insidious and self important about overstating the politics of growing your own food.  Refuse to buy GMOs and protest against Big Ag – absolutely.  But fundamentally believe that with “every loaf of bread (...) we are declaring our independence” (Jill Winger, via Twitter) is laughable.

Why?  Well, let’s start by looking at the politics of countries that still have large agrarian populations.  

For many countries outside of the United States, subsistence agriculture is still a way of life.  It is a way of combating poverty, both by eliminating the need to buy food and by providing unskilled job opportunities.  You know the meme about how Grandma survived the Great Depression because her food supply was local and she knew how to do stuff?  Well, across much of Asia, Africa, and Eurasia they still know how to do stuff.

This way of life is admirable, requires hard work, and has the tangible reward of putting food on the table.  But subsistence agriculture is most common in countries that are considered less than “free”.  Some of the countries with the highest rates of subsistence agriculture include Sierra Leone, Botswana, Zambia, Vietnam, and Mexico.  According to Freedom House, a non-profit think tank, not one of these countries is considered “free” in 2023.  All struggle with political corruption, some with single party political systems, most do not have freedom of expression or religion, and many restrict citizens’ access to the internet and social media.

So around the world (and throughout history), people grow their own food and maintain food sovereignty, and yet live under oppressive restrictions.  Is having their food locally grown really helping these people achieve political freedom?  If that doesn’t seem relevant to you, ask yourself if your freedom of expression or political choice was compromised just how useful it will be that you could grow a potato.

The idea of homesteading as a political act comes from the fact that, should “the shit hit the fan”, you won’t have to rely on the government.  No supply chain system failures when your supply chain is your backyard.  But this cuts both ways.  One account I follow likes to say “only God can turn off the rain.”  Well, what if He does?  The way in which subsistence agriculture fails citizens is in extreme situations.  For a true self reliant homesteader, a single summer of drought means you starve.  There’s a balance between these two extremes – one does not want to rely on a system entirely outside of your control, but you also don’t want to be entirely dependent upon yourself for survival if you can help it.  To be wholly self reliant is incredibly dangerous.  To act self reliant in a world of cars and the internet has the same level of danger as sneaking a drink from your parent’s liquor cabinet: in reality, you aren’t really doing anything transgressive.

Finally, we have to ask ourselves one other question about homesteading as a political act.  In order for something to be rebellious, you’ve got to be rebelling against something.  So is growing your own food actually controversial?  

A host of conspiracy theories will tell you yes.  They’ll point to a collection of seemingly connected events which they say indicate a desire to disrupt our food system: factories burning, bird flu, train derailments.  Each event has a perfectly reasonable explanation, and I can certainly attest to the reality of bird flu.  

What is factually accurate is that you can buy raw milk in retail stores in eleven states as of March 2023.  In 2013, there were only nine states where it was legal to buy raw milk in retail stores.  In 2017, the governor of Maine signed into law our Food Sovereignty Act, guaranteeing the rights of local government and ordinances to determine what farmers can sell in roadside stands – without fear of state or federal regulations.  The right to food cultivation was then added to the Maine State Constitution in 2021.  Other states are considering following suit, including Texas and Minnesota. Some form of cottage food law is in place in every one of the fifty states, allowing the sale of bread, jam, coffee, and/or cookies at a roadside stand.

You’ll often see food laws passing with headlines such as “food rights on the ballot” or, recently, “right to farm” bills that make it seem like the right to grow your own food is under threat.  But what actually seems to be happening is that laws protecting these rights are finally being passed.  They aren’t under threat – they’re actually being protected for the first time.  

I think it is deeply important to understand where our food comes from and how to take care of ourselves.  I believe it is natural and fulfills our souls in a special way to be able to go out and forage or hunt, to create shelter and cook.  And I think that there’s always a certain risk of disaster, an element of danger in putting your life entirely in the hands of others.   I started homesteading because I wanted to be as self-sufficient and self reliant as possible, and I believe these are important qualities to this day.

I also think there is a danger in overstating the importance of what we’re doing here.  It’s privileged and arrogant.  It encourages lack of engagement on real issues, because if you are already participating in the “most important political movement” why would you engage in actual political involvement?  It is a way to feel good about what otherwise would be seen as dropping out.

Why does this bother me so much?  The personal is political, and every action we take should reflect our inner beliefs as much as possible.  But there is no need to overstate the implications of an everyday act.  Is it not important enough to be choosing this lifestyle for yourself, without making it something bigger?   Is it not, in the end, more sustainable to gain personal fulfillment than an abstract protest?  Why are we really doing this?

Two weeks from now, for our next installment of this Substack series, I will share how fear and homesteading are connected, and the way in which I see that impact homesteader’s choices.