Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
4. Arvin had a poorer physical appearance.
5. Social services were poorer in Arvin.
6. Poorer schools, parks, and youth services were found in Arvin.
7. Arvin had a dearth of social services.
8. Dinuba had more religious institutions.
9. There was a higher degree of community loyalty in Dinuba.
10. In Arvin, fewer community decisions were made by community residents.
11. Arvin displayed greater social segregation.
12. Dinuba had more retail trade.
Based on these observations, Goldschmidt concluded the following: “The scale of opera-
tions that developed in Arvin inevitably had one clear and direct effect on the community:
It skewed the occupation structure so that the majority of the population could only subsist
by working as wage labor for others… . The occupation structure of the community, with a
great majority of wage workers … has had a series of direct effects upon social conditions
in the community.” 15 In other words, differences in social and economic welfare between the
large-farm and the small-farm communities were directly the result of worker exploitation.
Unlike Mills and Ulmer, Goldschmidt did not integrate the civically engaged independent
middle class into his explanatory framework. However, he did acknowledge the presence of
this group in his study. For example, he noted that “the small farm community is a population
of middle class persons with a high degree of stability in income and tenure, and a strong
economic and social interest in their community.” 16 Elsewhere, Goldschmidt articulated the
relationship between civic engagement and the independent middle class. According to Gold-
schmidt, “civic leadership in Dinuba … rests largely with a small group of merchants, teach-
ers, and other professional persons.” 17 And he went on to elaborate the rich organizational
and associational life in the small farm community.
Production Districts
The perspective set forth by C. Wright Mills and Melville Ulmer and by Walter Goldschmidt
in the 1940s fits within a renewed interest in industrial/production districts that are organized
around smaller-scale enterprises, including family farms. 18 Jonathon Zeitlin, a professor of
history, sociology, and industrial relations at the University of Wisconsin, has noted that
smaller-scale, locally oriented production and distribution systems “require a broad set of
infrastructural institutions and services to coordinate relationships among economic act-
ors” and to compensate for the inefficiencies of a fragmented system of food production. 19
Relatedly, Charles Sabel, a political scientist at Columbia University, notes that the success
and survival of locally based economic systems is directly tied to the collective efforts of
Search WWH ::




Custom Search