By
Harriet Shaklee, Family Development Specialist
University of Idaho Cooperative Extension
In 1940,
nearly one-third of the nation’s population lived on farms, but only 2% were farm
residents by 1980. As the number of farms
dropped, average farm size doubled in the United States.
The family farm was on the decline in a trend fueled by the boom and
bust economic cycles of farming life.
The
demise of the family farm may reflect the economics of farming in recent decades, but how
about the effects of those changes on the quality of life for rural families? This was the question raised by Rand Conger
and Glen Elder in the Iowa Youth and Families Project, a study of 451 families in rural
Iowa who were caught in the economic downturn of the 1980’s. During this period, land
values in the 8 study counties dropped 39 – 46%, and the number of farms declined 15
- 27%. Especially significant were
losses of farms in the mid-size range (50-500 acres).
Conger and Elder interviewed families who had lost their farms over
these years, as well as comparison groups who were small town residents, or farmers who
had successfully weathered the economic storm. Each
family included a couple with a 7th grade child and at least one sibling. Interviews of family members and observations were
used to measure family well-being.
Economic
hardships in the farm sector were felt throughout these farming communities with the loss
of stores and businesses in the area. Population
declines ensued as people left their family homes in search of a stable income. The fabric of community life was disrupted in the
process, with fewer resources available and more individuals in need of assistance. The New Federalism in national policy shifted the
burden for services from the federal to the state and local level during this same time
period, exacerbating the struggle for economically depressed areas like rural Iowa.
What
was the psychological fallout of this economic upheaval? Adverse
effects were worst among those families who lost their farms. Adults in these families described losing the farm
as the worst of their life experiences, even worse than the major illness of their
children. For these families, farming was
more than an income, it was a way of life for all family members. Farm families liked the responsibility children
learn in farm life in caring for the animals and other family chores. They also liked the bond of work and family roles
on the farm, and appreciated the chance to spend time working together with their
children. To these families, farming was a
commitment across generations. The farm they
lost was not theirs alone. It was the home for many generations of their family. In the words of one farmer, losing the farm was
like “5 years of hell.”
Losing
the land was especially hard on farm men, who felt a stronger attachment than their wives
to their farm operations. “It’s the
eleventh commandment. Thou shalt farm,”
said one farm husband. Family men were less
likely than women to let go of their identities as farmers, dreaming of a return to
farming in the future. Men also experienced
more depression over the farm loss than did their wives.
Women, on the other hand, were most concerned about economic hardship as the
farm failed. They had more invested in a
nonfarm future with a prospect for more economic security for the family.
Economic Stress and Family Dynamics
The
economic stress and disappointment of farm failures had a major effect on family life for
adults and children as well. Economic
pressures were seen in the emotional states of husband and wife, including explosive
tempers and depression. Spouses on edge were
easily provoked into hostile exchanges with other family members in a cycle destructive to
family stability. Economic stress resulted in
hostility, which led to conflict between family adults, resulting in a decline in marital
happiness, which led to more hostility, etc., etc. Stresses
such as these can be manageable in the short run, with current hostilities taken as a
debit against the bank of good will built up over the many years of good times. But these families struggled economically for
years, with memories of their good life together steadily fading from memory.
Economic
pressures have a negative effect on adults as parents as well. Many studies have shown that exposure to parental
conflict is hard on children, with negative effects in social, academic and emotional
development. In addition, adults who are
depressed and irritable often make poor parents. Parents
under economic pressure are likely to be distracted and minimally involved in the
parenting role until the children get involved in serious misbehavior. Then the parental response is an angry outburst
with harsh discipline. Such parents present
an inconsistent front of parenting, vaccillating between noninvolvement and overreaction. With this approach, the more effective parental
tools of consistent guidance and encouragement fall into disuse, while negative
consequences for misbehavior are severe.
Not
all parents showed this inconsistent, harsh parenting style, despite serious economic
pressures. What factors helped such families
cope? Spousal support was one strong factor. In those families where parents backed each other
up in child rearing, parenting was more consistent and less explosive. In these homes, children showed more positive
behavior, despite the economic hardship in the family.
Children
sometimes resisted the negative effects of a hostile home by seeking support elsewhere. Especially with older children such as those in
this study, access to supportive peers and adults outside of the family can sometimes
moderate negative effects at home. Results
showed that many of these farm children did find help outside of the home. Boys, in particular, benefited from nonfamily
adults, whose attentions resulted in a lowered likelihood of anti-social behavior. Girls, on the other hand, found peer support
especially helpful in preventing depression. Thus,
the community was effective for many of these stressed children in building up their
resilience to their difficulties at home.
These
things could also potentially lessen negative effects of hostility at home. However, study results showed that hostility among
farm family adults had negative consequences for sibling relationships as well. Siblings in homes with parents in conflict may
model their parent’s style of interaction when resolving differences with their
brothers and sisters. In addition, children
in high-conflict homes become irritable and/or depressed, mood states likely to exacerbate
normal sibling disagreements. In some
homes, siblings did have a warm relationship despite parental conflict. In these cases, brothers and sisters were able to
serve as effective buffers against the negative effects of erratic and irritable parents.
These
experiences of Iowa families in the 1980’s have been shared by economically stressed
farm families across the country in recent decades. Financial
difficulties for a family accumulate over the years, wearing down good will among family
members, turning spouses against each other, and undermining parenting skill. A few good crop years, the sale of the farm, debt
restructuring, or even bankruptcy may lighten the economic pressure on these families. However, it may be years before they recover the
joy they lost in family life. Patterns of
hostility between family adults and negative effects of erratic parenting on
children’s behavior will be slow to change.
Conger and Elder’s study offers unique
insight into one of the common findings of children’s development. That is, poverty is considered to be one of the
greatest risk factors for children. However,
the present study suggests that the lack of material goods is not the main problem for
poverty-level children. Rather, chronic
economic stress and adult hostility lead to inconsistent and hostile patterns of
parenting, a poor environment for childrearing.
What
do these study results suggest for rural families and communities caught in an economic
downturn?
· Communities
should help families address their economic issues, through assistance in debt
restructuring, access to public benefits that can help families meet their needs, and by
easing the transition into new careers for those who give up farming.
·
Support
from family members and community adults and peers was effective in buffering the negative
effects of economic stress on children. Family
members need to realize their potential as a mutual support network to carry each other
through hard times. Friends and neighbors
should also maintain contacts with children and adults in families suffering hard economic
times.
·
Work
directly with families on strategies of stress reduction and on positive styles of marital
interaction and parenting. When financial
hardship strikes, family adults may focus on saving the farm, while family life
deteriorates under the pressure. But saving
the farm will be a hollow victory to a farmer who loses his family in the process.
|
