The Nature of Farming: Peasantness and entrepreneurship revisited through the lens of diverging survival strategies of farms within the same micro-territory, Wallonia, Belgium

Considerable number of studies are produced to deal with one of the most important challenges of the 21th century, which is the triple challenge of: regenerating the life supporting services provided by the Earth system, achieving food and nutrition sovereignty that leaves no one behind, and ensuring that global food systems support socio-environmental justice. This triple challenge is intrinsically linked to the Gordian knot that characterizes present-day global agriculture, at once vital and threatening to human society. In the present study, this global Gordian knot is explored through the lens of the trajectories of a few dozen farming systems, all located in a micro-territory of Wallonia (Southern Belgium) at the heart of the old industrial Europe. The agroecosystems under study are all family farms, which are among the survivors of a socio-professional group that has shrunk dramatically in just a few decades. Our broad objective is to gain insight into the tenets of transition towards sustainable farming systems in Wallonia.An exploratory research phase contributes to set the scene of our 'core research'. The exploratory study shows that three types of discourses, and two opposite paradigms, split the conversation among Walloon stakeholders on the path to improve agriculture; moreover, it suggests that transition is mainly a matter of cognitive lock-in. Our core research builds upon these premises, while the 'Peasant Principle' (put forward by J.D. van der Ploeg) stands out as its main theoretical background. Our broad objective may therefore be reformulated as 'gaining insight into the tenets of repeasantization in Wallonia'. This is addressed through three research questions, namely: 'What makes a farming system more or less peasant?'; 'What is the link between farm survival strategies and the cognitive (un)locking process?'; and 'How to support repeasantization?'. Our approach is grounded into two deep-probing field studies. The first one is empirical, and essentially stems from a sample of 23 neighbouring farm families located in a homogeneous window of Wallonia, and whose trajectories have been explored through semi-structured interviews and participant observation. The second field study is the in-depth review of what we term 'Farming Assessment Normal Science' (FANS), which refers to usual (i.e. mainstream) farm productivity assessment, with or without sustainability concerns, and encompassing both agronomic and economic farm productive performance. Following an abductive and interdisciplinary approach, we make the realities of encountered farm families dialoguing with a set of theories and disciplines all along the four chapters of the core research – this set includes the Peasant Principle, agricultural accounting, orthodox economics, economic history, (agro)ecology, heterodox economic schools, thermodynamics and psychodynamics of work.The core research begins with the first proposal framework to build a situated tool assessing farm 'peasantness degree' (PD), and framed by the Peasant Principle. The application of this framework to our Walloon case study results in a 'PD tool' specifically designed to assess the relative peasantness of farms under study. By translating the broad dimensions of the Peasant Principle into 168 very tangible situated indicators, the resulting PD tool provides a fine-grained insight on what makes a farm more or less peasant in Wallonia. Economic and agronomic productivity indicators, usually used to compare farms, had to be left out from our comparative analysis. The reflexive process inherent to the PD tool construction has thus raised the following question: 'Why usual (economic and agronomic) productivity indicators turn out to be unfit to compare farming styles?'. This emerging question is first addressed by showing that FANS is rooted into orthodox economics, meaning that, with or without sustainability concerns, usual assessment views farms through the 'Firm model', and thus relies on input-output analysis to assess farm agronomic and economic performance. Through the lenses of both, (i) the diverging realities and peasantness degrees of investigated Walloon families, and (ii) the nature of the farming process, five categories of issues affecting the validity of FANS are put forward. The first category is about practical issues, and the other categories relate to conceptual issues. The three first categories only relate to farm economic assessment, whereas the fourth and fifth categories relate to both, agronomic and economic farm productivity assessment.Altogether, these issues not solely evidence that usual productivity indicators and usual sustainability assessment provide misleading insights on farm performance, but that they provide 'bias-asymmetry' insights, that is: the more a farming style depletes the (re)productive capacity of its agroecosystem, the more its productive performance is overestimated; in contrast, the more a style cares to replenish the (re)productive capacity of its agroecosystem, the more its productive performance is underestimated. Hence we evidence that FANS tailored, and keeps sustaining, 'the productivity myth' and. As this mainstream science has (and continue to) shape(d) agricultural prescriptions and development, we also show that these are oriented towards the loss of agroecosystems' (re)productive capacity.While unveiling the productivity myth and its real-life implications, a framework drawing on the 'Flow-Fund model' (put forward by the heterodox economist N. Georgescu-Roegen) emerged as a sound alternative to assess farm productivity performance. Through the lens of the flow-fund balance, we rely on the distinctly different ways Walloon farmers manage their agroecosystem, and on the metabolic nature of the farming process, to empirically and theoretically demonstrate that: the more a farming style complies with the peasant mode, the more the farming process (or flow-fund balance) is managed with art, and coproduces negentropy; conversely, the less a farming style entails peasantness, the more the farming process is denatured, and the more entropy is by-produced. Thus, at the same time, a metabolic interpretation of the Peasant Principle is drawn up.From all these empirical and theoretical insights, the following question emerges: 'How do surviving farm families cope with decennia of prescriptions oriented towards the depletion of the (re)productive capacity of agroecosystems, and thus towards of the depletion of their own capacity to remain farmers?'. Dealing with this emerging question merges with one last aspect that needed to be addressed, namely the social phe- nomena of suffering, deactivation and suicide that undermine the modern farming world of Wallonia and beyond. Assuming that these social phenomena are closely tied, we focus on the root causes of social suffering among surviving farmers, and give the floor to the statements of encountered farm families. After highlighting strong identity markers that set Walloon farmers as a singular socio-profes-sional group, the sensitive issue of suffering is addressed through collective narratives of encountered farmers on :the post- WW2 mutation of the Walloon farming work environment towards a modern environment with increased and plural hostility. Then we propose a typology of the strategies, deployed by the investigated farmers of Piccard Wallonia, to survive such hostility. By articulating our peasantness framework and the 'psychodynamic model of work-related suffering' (put forward by Ch. Dejours), five types of survival strategies are described, and labelled according to their corresponding category of farmers: the new peasants, the TMCE-ists (i.e. conservation agriculture farmers), the racing strugglers, the lost strugglers and the near-deactivated. These insights on farmers' narratives into the plurality of the hostility, on the contrasting degrees to which it undermines farmers' psychosocial health, and on farm diverging strategies, altogether challenge the commonly held vision that economic hardship is the root cause of agricultural pro- pensity to suffering, deactivation and suicide. Instead these empirical insights verify our interpretative hypothesis, i.e. the mechanical link between farmers' suffering and their relation to prescriptions. The loss of peasantness indeed appears as a root cause of the ill-being of the modern farming world.To conclude, this work evidences that the productivity myth has given rise to the (miscalled) 'productivist' paradigm and to a system of prescriptions oriented towards the depletion of the (re)productive capacity of agroecosystems – in turn undermining the Earth system's (re)production capacity. The psychosocial health of farmers clearly is a key fund element, and its depletion appears as the ultimate bend of the vicious downward spiral fueled by the productivity myth. We furthermore conclude that the peasant mode of production stands for managing the farming process in a coherent and sustainable manner, whereas non- peasant (so-called entrepreneurial and capitalistic) modes incoherently and unsustainably denature the farming process. Hence 'completed' repeasantization appears as a negentropic process of fund replenishment, ensuring wealth coproduction at all scales – from the farm to the Earth system. 'Completed' de-peasantization (or industrialisation), for its part, appears as an entropic process of fund depletion, causing illth at all scales.On this basis, we suggest an alternative representation of agricultural modes and processes, which comes down a metabolic reconfiguration of the triangle proposed by J.D. van der Ploeg, and takes the form of a multidimensional continuum opposing two poles.The main lesson learned from this research thesis is that, to unravel the Gordian knot bound to modern agriculture, we need to break free from the productivity myth. In the face of today's challenges, the usual yet fallacious statement that 'losing peasantness may enhance farm productive performance and sustainability', is no longer be an option. To support the transition towards sustainable farming worlds, transformative support systems are needed, and such systems require to design and rely on indicators assessing the real performance of farms and agriculture. Therefore, as a perspective for further research, we propose the 'Farm Metabolism (FM) framework', i.e. a conceptual and analytical proposal that basically implies to rely on agroecosystem's flow-fund analysis. The metabolic (or biophysical) assessment framework sketched out here therefore paves the way to a strong sustainability assessment of farm productive performance. In turn, it could contribute to support the necessary repeasantization of 'modernized' farmers, for the well-being of farmers and human society as a whole.