The 2024 farmers’ protests and a classic vision of agrarian stability

The 2024 European farmers' protests are rooted in farmers' resistance to policies that threaten their economic stability, cultural identity, and autonomy. These protests reflect Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl’s 1847-1851 conservative analysis of the agrarian class as a stabilizing force in society that preserves national identity and continuity against modern economic and bureaucratic pressures. Riehl’s 19th-century views still help explain why farmers feel compelled to push back against current EU policies, as they see these policies as a direct threat to their way of life.

Why were farmers protesting?

Farmers were protesting primarily due to economic and regulatory pressures. Specifically:

1. Low food prices and competition from non-EU imports under free trade agreements, such as Mercosur and Ukrainian grain imports, undermine farmers' incomes.

2. Environmental regulations such as carbon taxes, nitrogen emissions limits, pesticide bans, and requirements to leave arable land fallow (unplanted) — this directly impacts farming productivity and autonomy.

3. Reduced state support, such as the phasing out of diesel subsidies and decreasing financial aid, further strains farmers, especially given their role as food providers.

How does Riehl’s analysis from 1847-1851 relate to the 2024 farmers' protests?

Riehl’s analysis of rural society stresses the agrarian class’s importance in maintaining societal stability. He argues that farmers:

1. Uphold the country's stability through local production and self-sufficiency.

2. Preserve historical identity, customs, and language, resisting the cultural erasure that can come from rapid modernization and global trade.

3. Defend against external control and rapid industrial or bureaucratic changes that disregard rural needs.

In what specific ways do Riehl’s views help us understand the farmers' motivations?

Riehl’s belief that rural communities safeguard national identity and oppose centralization helps explain farmers' resistance in several areas:

1. Farmers see their economic role as fundamental to societal health. Policies that increase dependence on imported goods (e.g., Ukrainian grain or South American products) and reduce local production capacity are perceived as threats to this economic base. According to Riehl, economic destabilization of the rural class threatens broader societal order.

2. Riehl criticized centralized interventions that alienate rural people. The EU’s environmental mandates on carbon, pesticide use, and nitrogen limit farmers' ability to govern their lands according to tradition; they mirror the type of bureaucratic overreach Riehl warned would erode trust and stability.

3. Riehl valued the cultural role of farmers, seeing farmers as protectors of continuity against urbanization and modern, often imported, ideologies. In the protests, this protective role emerges through farmers’ demand for prioritizing local production and preferential treatment for EU products, aligning with Riehl’s belief in preserving rural customs.

?

Why do farmers’ protest actions seem radical, and how does this align with Riehl’s conservative radicalism?

Riehl observed that while farmers were traditionally conservative, they could exhibit radical behaviors when their livelihoods were threatened, something he called conservative radicalism. This explains the current farmers' use of:

- Blockades and demonstrations, symbolic acts to defend their autonomy, economic security, and traditional way of life against state or EU mandates.

- Direct actions (e.g., illegal dumping, roadblocks), especially prominent in France and the Netherlands; this reflects a reactionary approach. According to Riehl, these actions are driven by a sense of dispossession when local governance and autonomy are overridden by bureaucratic policies.

What are the broader societal implications if these protests are not addressed?

Riehl warned that destabilizing the agrarian class risks undermining national stability. Unresolved tensions in rural areas could:

1. Increase societal division; if economic and cultural concerns remain unaddressed, a rift between rural communities and urban-focused policies will deepen.

2. Centralization can lead to a rural proletariat or a marginalized rural class that aligns more closely with urban discontent, which could radicalize conservative groups and destabilize societal order.

3. Without the cultural continuity provided by the agrarian class, a society loses touch with its roots; national identity erodes and ideological extremism is supported.

?

Conclusion

I have applied Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl’s classic theory to the recent European farmers’ protests. Riehl saw the “agrarian class” as a stabilizing, conservative force in society. The current protests show a clash between rural traditions and bureaucratic pressures. Riehl saw a culturally resilient, economically independent “agrarian class” as essential for societal harmony.

Acknowledgement

Thanks to Armin Nassehi for recently referencing Riehl’s book in light of the farmers' protests.

References

Riehl, W.H. (1866), Die Naturgeschichte des Volkes als Grundlage einer deutschen Social-Politik, Zweiter Band: Die bürgerliche Gesellschaft, 6. Auflage, Stuttgart: Verlag der J.G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung, Die bürgerliche Gesellschaft von W. H. Riehl - Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl - Google Boeken.

“2024 European farmers' protests” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, 19 September 2024, 2024 European farmers' protests - Wikipedia.