Home economics Book

Interesting topic. His assertion of the relationship between community and economy are what interested me the most. Berry poses the question of whether communities have a value other than emotional value because, according to him, community is a concept no one bothers to quarrel with. He asserts the modern thought is that we are better off with corporate industries, therefore communities are run under the assumption they have no real value. Berry, however, believes otherwise. Using the experience from two friends, Loyce and Owen Flood, Berry provides an example of what he believes to be an ideal community. The Floods' community from 1938 was autonomous, the elders conveyed practical skills and knowledge to the young, and they did not depend on financiers or big corporations in order to subsist. He claims communities like this have ceased to exist and this is a huge loss for him. He proceeds to argue about how we should have more ideal economies like the Floods', and to an extent I wouldn't exactly agree if we grafted certain qualities from said community, but I wouldn't oppose it either. I just really wouldn't care. I feel in this age it's not necessary to have huge, united communities. It shouldn't be an obligation, which is what Berry sometimes implies. I don't want to get to know my neighbours simply because I am completely fine being on my own. Do I expect them to aid me by calling the authorities if they heard me, or someone from my family, scream my lungs off? Yes. The same way I expect them to expect me to call the authorities if I heard a serious disturbance in their home! But that is the only neighbourliness I want and need. I don't want to get to know them simply because in the digital age, a community bordered on zero technology to help themselves and merely scrap by because they think unity is all they need is not necessary. Berry wants a community from 1938 to be the standard community of 2016. How is this logical? (Mind you, this book was published on 1987, but Berry still stands by what he has said on this book today)

Don't get me wrong--I agree people should become more autonomous, I do believe we should rely less on big corporations. But I don't believe we need communities like Berry's ideal one. Take into account Berry is a guy who despises technology--he has no refrigerators, no computers and basically refrains himself from using anything technological which has advanced the human species. He uses solar panels because he doesn't want to support the power industry, which I admire and concur with. But I do not agree with depriving yourself from things which are necessary in the digital age. I do not think it is a viable form of living for the common denominator and families caught up in the day-to-day. Berry claims in one of his chapters that people call him a sentimental guy for wanting the 1938 community back and refutes that he is not. But honestly? I think he is. I think he's nostalgic, and this nostalgia prevents him from accepting the technological advancement of mankind. I don't agree with this.

In overall, yes, this was interesting. It was a different perspective albeit a sometimes irrational one. I feel that in many ways Berry is very subjective, though his whole goal is to be as objective as possible. I don't agree with the heart of this argument and his way of living, but it works for him. I just don't like the pietistic, oftentimes aloof tone he conveys to the reader. It's one thing to use a tone that implies you mean business, but it's a completely different thing to use a tone which criticises and judges your reader. One of the most important things, if not the most important thing, in academic writing is building common ground with your reader. You achieve this with a non-judgemental tone and I think Berry fails in this aspect, which crumbles his point to many people and may not make them want to read what he has to say.