The Unsettling of America

“Are we, or are we not, going to take proper care of our land? And do we, or do we not, believe in a democratic distribution of usable property?”

These rhetorical questions directly challenge readers, urging them to confront the broader moral and societal issues at stake in agriculture. By framing the questions in this way, he invites readers to reflect on their own values and the collective responsibility for land stewardship and equitable property distribution. The questions emphasize the urgency of these issues, making the text more engaging by encouraging active consideration and inspiring critical thought about the future of the land and society.

“Air remains the only necessity that the average user can still get for himself, and the revolution has imposed a heavy tax on that by way of pollution.”

Berry adopts a biting, critical tone to emphasize the extent of environmental degradation resulting from industrial practices. He highlights how the exploitive systems he critiques have commodified or compromised basic human needs that were once freely available. This critical tone reflects Berry’s broader condemnation of how modern society’s values and economic practices have detrimental effects on both the environment and human life.

“We have millions, too, whose livelihoods, amusements, and comforts are all destructive, who nevertheless wish to live in a healthy environment; they want to run their recreational engines in clean, fresh air.”

Berry uses satire to expose the hypocrisy of modern American lifestyles by noting the contradiction between people’s destructive habits and their desire for a healthy environment. The imagery of running “recreational engines in clean, fresh air” mocks the unrealistic expectation that individuals can enjoy environmentally harmful activities, such as using motorized vehicles for leisure, while simultaneously wanting the natural world to stay pure.

“We then begin to see the grotesquery—indeed, the impossibility—of an idea of community wholeness that divorces itself from any idea of personal wholeness.”

This idea draws from the transcendentalist tradition, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of individuals and their communities with nature. The transcendentalists, like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, believed that personal integrity and inner harmony were essential for a well-functioning society. Berry reflects this philosophy by suggesting that true community cannot exist if individuals themselves are fragmented and disconnected from their values.

“The money is given in lieu of action, thought, care, time.”

Berry critiques modern society’s reliance on monetary transactions as a substitute for genuine, meaningful engagement. He scorns the idea that giving money can replace the moral and practical responsibilities of direct involvement in solving societal and environmental problems. Berry’s criticism refers to the reduction of complex human obligations, such as caring for the land or contributing to a community, to mere financial exchange, which distances people from the consequences of their actions. This transactional mentality, he argues, undermines the depth and integrity of real change, highlighting the moral bankruptcy of a system that values money over thoughtful, hands-on care.

“‘[T]he sin is not trespass, the sin is letting the apples go to waste […] There are so many elements of class struggle lying under the attitudes of a lot of environmentalists; it’s scary…Their view of the natural world is […] terrarium-like, picture-windowish. I know nature is precious and delicate. I also know it is incredibly tough and resilient, has unbelievable power to respond to and flourish with kindly use.’”

Berry uses Budbill’s letter to illustrate the disconnect between modern conservationists and those who have a more practical, hands-on relationship with the land. Budbill advocates a more community-centered view of land use, one that values the productive use of land over rigid notions of property and ownership, which elite conservationists often emphasize. By including Budbill’s voice, Berry deepens his critiques of how modern environmentalism sometimes imposes an elitist and detached approach to land management, treating nature as something separate from humans.

“The consumer withdraws from the problems of food production, hence becomes ignorant of them and often scornful of them; the producer no longer sees himself as intermediary between people and land—the people’s representative on the land—and becomes interested only in production. The consumer eats worse, and the producer farms worse. And, in their estrangement, waste is institutionalized.”

Berry highlights the growing disconnect between consumers and producers. Consumers, removed from the realities of food production, become ignorant, dismissive, and even critical of the labor and environmental impacts of food production, while producers focus solely on maximizing output, often at the expense of sustainability. This estrangement creates a vicious cycle: As consumers demand cheaper, more convenient foods, producers increasingly cut corners, leading to lower-quality farming practices and less nutritious food.

“They were farmed by families who lived not only upon them, but within and from them.”

This remark emphasizes the interconnectedness between people and the land. By stating that rural farming families lived “within and from” the land, he highlights the intimate, symbiotic relationship between these people and their environment. This interconnectedness starkly contrasts the disconnection of modern industrial farming, which severs the bond between people and the land in favor of profit and mechanization.

“One cannot sell milk from a few cows anymore; the law-required equipment is too expensive.”

Berry critiques the ethical implications of industrial agriculture and its regulatory environment. He highlights how laws designed to ensure sanitation and safety have marginalized small farmers because they often cannot afford the expensive equipment necessary to meet legal standards. While the intention of these regulations may be to protect public health, Berry suggests that they disproportionately benefit large agricultural producers at the expense of smaller, independent farmers. This raises ethical concerns about fairness and equity in agriculture.

“And it is one of the miracles of science and hygiene that the germs that used to be in our food have been replaced by poisons.”

Here, Berry uses irony to criticize industrial agricultural. He juxtaposes the supposed progress that society achieved through science and hygienic practices with the harmful consequences of this progress. The statement reflects Berry’s broader critique of industrial agriculture’s reliance on pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers, which prioritize efficiency and mass production over environmental and human health.

“An infinitely greedy sovereign is afoot in the universe, staking his claims.”

Berry uses the metaphor of an “infinitely greedy sovereign” to represent the human arrogance that drives unchecked exploitation of natural resources. This image casts humanity as an imperial force, expanding its dominion without regard for the planet’s limits or well-being. Berry criticizes this mentality as an overreach of human sovereignty. By equating human ambition to a boundless, consuming force, Berry suggests the destructive consequences of treating nature as an infinite resource to be staked and claimed.

“In addition to the ethical questions involved, the use of animals as machines—penning them in feed lots and cages—creates an enormous pollution problem.”

Berry addresses both the ethical and environmental issues inherent in industrial animal agriculture. By describing the use of animals as machines, he critiques the exploitative practices of factory farming, which pens animals in cramped feedlots and cages solely to maximize efficiency and profit. Berry raises concerns about the ethical implications of reducing living beings to mechanical units in a production process, ignoring their welfare and intrinsic value. Beyond ethical issues, he notes the environmental costs of this approach, specifically the pollution that results from concentrated animal feeding operations. This kind of farming creates waste that the land cannot naturally absorb, leading to water contamination, greenhouse gas emissions, and soil degradation.

“If we do not live where we work, and when we work, we are wasting our lives, and our work too.”

Berry’s statement advocates a holistic approach to life, in which work and living are not compartmentalized but deeply integrated. He critiques the modern separation between where people live and where they work—a division that leads to disconnection from the sources of sustenance and meaningful engagement with labor. Berry argues that this separation diminishes quality of life, while a more holistic approach would foster a greater sense of responsibility, purpose, and fulfillment.

“The great difficulty, which these cheerful prophets do not acknowledge at all, is that we are trustworthy only so far as we can see. The length of our vision is our moral boundary.”

Berry highlights the limitations of human foresight and the ethical implications of human actions. He suggests that the extent of people’s understanding and awareness defines their moral responsibilities; in other words, people can only be trusted to act ethically within the limits of what they perceive and comprehend. The danger lies in the unchecked optimism of those who propose “infinite” energy solutions without acknowledging those boundaries of human vision and the potential consequences beyond what people can predict. Acting on such proposals is often rooted in shortsightedness and therefore irresponsible.

“The knowledge that purports to be leading us to transcendence of our limits has been with us a long time. It thrives by offering material means of fulfilling a spiritual, and therefore materially unappeasable, craving: we would all very much like to be immortal, infallible, free of doubt, at rest. It is because this need is so large, and so different in kind from all material means, that the knowledge of transcendence—our entire history of scientific ‘miracles’—is so tentative, fragmentary, and grotesque.”

Berry critiques humanity’s desire to transcend its natural limits through technological and scientific advancement. He argues that this desire is fundamentally a spiritual craving (for immortality, certainty, and rest) that material means cannot satisfy. Pursuing these ideals through science and technology leads to incomplete and often absurd attempts at transcendence, highlighting the mismatch between the depth of human needs and the capacity of technological solutions to fulfill them.

“Contempt for the body is invariably manifested in contempt for other bodies—the bodies of slaves, laborers, women, animals, plants, the earth itself.”

In this statement, Berry argues that devaluing the body leads to a cascading effect of exploitation across all forms of life. He suggests that the failure to honor the inherent worth of one’s own body results in seeing other beings as resources, in terms of their usefulness, rather than as valued partners in the community of life.

“The concept of ‘model’ here conforms very closely to the model of the scientists and planners: it is an exclusive, narrowly defined ideal which affects destructively whatever it does not include.”

This quote highlights Berry’s criticism of the modern fixation on an idealized physical appearance, resembling how scientific models impose rigid boundaries. By promoting narrowly defined standards of beauty, society pressures individuals to conform, often at the cost of their mental and physical well-being. These exclusive ideals not only create widespread dissatisfaction but also contribute to a fragmented understanding of health, sacrificing true wellness for superficial conformity. Berry suggests that such idealism alienates people from embracing the natural diversity of healthy human bodies.

“Along with its glittering ‘consumer goods,’ the modern city produces an equally characteristic outpouring of garbage and pollution—just as it produces and/or collects unemployed, unemployable, and otherwise wasted people.”

This remark uses metaphor to compare a modern city’s production of consumer goods to its production of waste and devaluation of people. It figuratively conveys how a consumer-driven economy results not only in physical waste but also in the marginalization and devaluation of human lives, illustrating Berry’s criticism of modern society’s disregard for both environmental and human health.

“The way is thus opened to run a university as a business, the main purpose of which is to sell diplomas—after a complicated but undemanding four-year ritual—and thereby give employment to professors.”

Berry uses irony to critique the transformation of education from the pursuit of knowledge and service to the community to a profit-driven enterprise. By referring to the university’s primary objective as selling diplomas through an “undemanding four-year ritual,” Berry sharply condemns how the educational system prioritizes revenue and careerism over genuine intellectual development. The imagery of education as a “ritual” suggests a hollow performance devoid of true purpose, while the emphasis on providing employment for professors underscores the system’s self-serving nature.

“Experience, which is the basis of culture, tends always toward wholeness because it is interested in the meaning of what has happened; it is necessarily as interested in what does not work as in what does. It cannot hope or desire without remembering. Its approach to possibility is always conditioned by its remembrance of failure.”

These lines underscore the theme of Sustainable Alternatives to Industrial Agricultural Practices by emphasizing the value of experiential knowledge. Sustainable agriculture, in Berry’s view, requires a deep cultural connection to the land, which people build over time by learning from past successes and failures. This contrasts with industrial agricultural practices, which often prioritize immediate productivity gains through technology while ignoring the broader ecological and social consequences. However, when people instead value what works in harmony with the land and reject what leads to degradation, experience becomes central to achieving a balanced, enduring agricultural system. Berry suggests that sustainability relies on a holistic understanding of the past, one that respects natural cycles and limits, focusing on humans’ relationship to the environment instead. In contrast, the relentless drive for innovation discards this tradition and undermines long-term viability.

“This Andean agriculture, then, does not push its margins back to land unsuitable for farming, as our does, but incorporates them into the very structure of its farms. The hedgerows are marginal areas, little thoroughfares of wilderness closely crisscrossing the farmland, and in them agriculture is constantly renewing itself in direct response to what threatens it.”

This excerpt highlights the sustainable practices of Andean agriculture, which differ significantly from modern industrial methods. The emphasis on incorporating natural margins into farmland demonstrates an understanding of ecological balance and biodiversity, ensuring that farming remains adaptable and resilient. This integration of margins is a specific example of a sustainable alternative to modern industrial practices in agriculture.

“If all the farms in the country were managed organically, both our people and our land would undoubtedly be healthier and there would be a considerable ramification of the benefits.”

Berry presents a clear cause-and-effect relationship between organic farming and overall health. He uses definitive language, such as “undoubtedly” and “considerable,” to assert his position confidently. By emphasizing that the benefits extend beyond individual farmers to encompass “our people and our land,” Berry alludes to the importance of collective well-being.

“Unlike so much of the best farmland, which has become a kind of agricultural desert, the Amish landscape in Holmes County is vibrantly populated with both people and animals.”

Berry uses a metaphor here by describing industrially farmed land as an “agricultural desert.” This literary device evokes imagery of barrenness, lifelessness, and ecological devastation, which powerfully contrasts with the “vibrantly populated” Amish landscape. The use of this metaphor highlights the desolation resulting from industrial farming, which uses machines, while emphasizing the vitality of sustainable, community-centered agriculture, which incorporates animals. This vivid juxtaposition effectively communicates Berry’s belief that true agricultural success involves supporting both the land and the communities that depend on it.