264 Communities and Social Capital
logical and conceptual issues raised by current researchers, and recover old ground
regarding the Goldschmidt thesis.
The Goldschmidt Hypothesis
During the Depression, social scientists observed a new round of farm restructur-
ing that differed from previous eras. This was manifest in the transformation and
general decline of simple commodity production, the exodus of poor and tenant
farmers from the South, and growth in the West of large-scale, hired-labour-
dependent farming. The effects of this latter type of farming and the fear that it
would replace traditional family farming were of particular concern to Gold-
schmidt (1978a) and others (Tetreau, 1938, 1940) who left less notable accounts.
As Bertrand (Wimberley, 1991, p24) noted:
We have sort of overlooked the studies that were done in the ’30s as a result of the ...
disasters in Oklahoma and some of the dust bowl states. There was a lot of work that
was sponsored at that time ... [Paul] Taylor over in California made studies of the work-
ers on the big fields and the social power mustered by the big owners, you know, put
rural sociology completely out of the California university system.Though others investigated similar issues, Goldschmidt’s hypothesis that a trend
towards large-scale farming and a concomitant decline of family farming jeopard-
ize community well-being would become the paramount statement of the prob-
lem.
Because of the profound political implications of the topic and partly because
of Goldschmidt’s own lack of clarity, the notoriety of Goldschmidt’s (1978a) study
has persisted. For supporters, it represents a compelling defence of traditional fam-
ily farming and assailment of corporate farming (Rodefeld, 1974; Strange, 1988;
see also Goldschmidt’s subsequent study, 1978b). Critics charge that it provides
theoretical justification for neo-populist stances in rural sociology (Friedland,
1989). Economists have challenged its methodology, subjecting it to standards
beyond those of the typical case study (Hayes and Olmstead, 1984). Goldschmidt’s
own lack of clarity as to the causal mechanisms by which farming affected com-
munities undoubtedly contributed to the debate and numerous attempts to repli-
cate this study. As has been long noted, whether Goldschmidt viewed scale or class
position or both as central causal elements remains unclear (Goss and Rodefeld,
1979; Green, 1985). Swanson (1990) pointed out, however, that the concordance
between scale and position is an empirical question: there is no reason why a
growth in large-scale farming must be accompanied by a change in class structure.
While this relationship has been observed in California, it has not been confirmed
in the Midwest.