Previously we observed that the true nature of homesteading diverges from its popular imagery, and upon clearing some of the illusions surrounding it as a popular conception, resolved to further expand upon the meaning of it as a larger process.
However before proceeding to an expanded view of the issue, and then a wrap-up and conclusion, I'd like to take a brief detour.
There is a growing interest in going back to homesteading, or farming, or something similar, which can be seen as a desire to somewhat simplify one's life and move closer to the land and the nurturing processes connected with the land, such as making food, crafts, clothing, shelter, and all the rest. This is a clear reaction to the intensifying fields of destruction wrought by capital and industry in general, which has been growing and becoming more visible over several years, and really over the last decade, but which is by no means a new phenomenon.
But why the desire and the ever-increasing interest? I'd like to make sense of it, at least partially on the individual level.
Part of the motivation, as hinted at before, consists of the ongoing loss of power and disenfranchisement of the individual, and the ability of a given individual to affect the conditions of their own processes of production and reproduction. We should unpack this a little more.
As seen in the Marxist concept of fetishism, there is a power that emanates from the terminus of the chains of manipulation. The commodity holds a certain kind of power to the eye of consumer, a power that obstructs the actual nature of that commodity's production, that is, its nature as a product of dense social interactions. But this is a phenomenon that occurs more generally than the concept suggests, and is really everywhere.
The contractor becomes powerful after assembling together numerous materials of socially produced origin, while using tools and techniques which are also socially produced, but is nevertheless perceived to be powerful locally as an individual, because it is the individual putting everything together and doing the providing.
Similarly the householder is perceived to be powerful within the community or family for putting food on the table, however many hands in nearby or faraway places made that food possible. And so on across every specialization and level of organization, wherever there is an individual that helps to provide the community. It is this power, which by various means is being concentrated and pulled away from the average individual.
What is supposed to be a community of peers is transformed into a gauntlet of humiliations and degradations, as individuals in myriad ways can no longer provide for their peers while existing autonomously, more frequently needing to ask various permissions from increasingly powerful bosses, landlords, elites, and etc.
This socially painful situation is made all the more acute as the loss of local control amounts to universal and increasing destruction which is perceived to be emanating from distant and alien powers.
Revolution often marks a breaking point within the sum of these forces, in which there is a rebalancing of power at the various terminals of manipulation, which at least attempts to proceed toward a more even and stable distribution of this power.
A more even distribution of power allows individuals to subsist more autonomously with respect from their peers. It makes up the lifeblood of a healthy community in which there is mutual trust and respect.
Of course revolution manifests itself in many different ways, and though it is often conceived as sudden calamitous change, it can also grind on gradually as well, often leading up to those changes. One of the ways could very well be a growing shift into a homesteading lifestyle, however that may look.
If you take various manufactured ingredients and produce something, there is still power emanating from you. Though the source of that power can be traced to the sum of its parts, it is significant that one can produce something and provide something, however removed from the actual process of production is from the land itself.
So the movement towards the homestead is a movement closer to the base of production itself, away from all of the specialized and complex chains of production which are beset with avaricious middlemen and corroded trust. If one can no longer buy enough high quality food for example, one can at least attempt to grow it oneself, even if the growing is with manufactured tools and soil amendments. One is at least cutting out portions of the chains of production, taking back however meager portions of power in the process. Where is it all going? What does it mean?
