This is a working draft: Please do not cite

Allotment work? Theorising the relationship between allotments and wage labour

Abigail Schoneboom, Ph.D.
University of York

Running Head: Allotment. Schoneboom

Word Count: 7970 words

Contact information:

Dr Abigail Schoneboom
Lecturer in Organisational Theory and Behaviour

(01904) 325031,

Department address:
The York Management School

University of York

Freboys Lane, Heslington, York

YO10 5GD

United Kingdom

Abstract:

There are currently an estimated 30 applicants for every UK allotment plot, with projected waiting times of up to 40 years in parts of the country (Jones, 2009). Allotments have historically been intertwined with wage labour. They have provided food to supplement cash income; mitigated the physical and mental degradation exacted by the assembly line or coal face; and lessened the blow of periodic redundancy and layoffs. However, increased living standards and the removal of wartime exigencies imbued allotment gardening with recreational status. Consequently, the productive aspect of this activity and its potential intrinsic value as a form of satisfying and socially valuable labour has been neglected (Armstrong et al., 2010, Crouch and Ward, 1988, Leivers, 2009).

This paper looks at ways to theorise allotment work in relation to paid labour. Recent critical scholarship has highlighted the opportunities for self-fulfilment, autonomy and consumption afforded by contemporary jobs while highlighting the intensification of wage labour, and the precarious nature of employment in an increasingly globalized economy (Ross, 2002, Warhurst et al., 2008b, Webb, 2006). There is an increasing need for reflection on the type of work that may be suited to a society increasingly threatened by sustainability crises, economic recession, jobless recovery and the rise of short-time working (Aronowitz and DiFazio, 1995, Birchall et al., 2009).

The paper explores how allotment work, as an alternative outlet for productive capacity, responds to or is triggered by the contemporary labour process. It argues that greater study of such forms of informal productive activity, which people undertake spontaneously in addition to their participation in wage labour, should become a more integral component of the scholarship on work, providing insights into self-worth and security as negotiated against the backdrop of an increasingly intensified and insecure labour process.

The study will engage with the recent move away from the notion of work-life balance, which treats work and life as distinct and separable spheres, toward a focus on work and life as overlapping domains where, subject to structural constraints, people navigate and set boundaries in order to optimise self-fulfilment and quality of life (Warhurst et al., 2008b). It will also aim to contribute to discourse about future directions for labour process theory (LPT), which acknowledges the centrality of wage labour to labour process analysis but encourages interplay between LPT and perspectives that draw attention to informal and unpaid forms of work (Thompson and Smith, 2010c, p. 13).

Introduction

This paper looks at ways to theorise allotment work in relation to paid labour. It sets out by identifying key ways in which allotment activity has been intertwined historically with wage labour, critically analysing the post-war conception of allotment gardening as a leisure activity. Considering current allotment use, the paper suggests that allotment gardening may be usefully theorised as a form of productive but unpaid activity that takes place alongside wage labour; and which – through its distinctively productive nature – both complements the contemporary labour process and mitigates some of its shortcomings. However, the paper also tries to avoid excessive vaunting of the allotment’s productive function, in keeping with the contention that productivity, in an ecologically threatened society, is overrated.

In pursuit of a theoretical anchor, the paper draws first on early Marxist works and critical theory, then on recent edited volumes and journal articles devoted to labour process theory and work-life boundaries, identifying possible theoretical directions that may focus analysis around the idea of work as it plays out in the allotment setting. I contend that a critical understanding of the labour process can be better developed by closer theoretical correspondence between labour and ‘leisure’ in a way that pays closer attention to the nuanced interplay between our jobs and our unpaid time.

Allotments and Labour

Allotments have historically been deeply intertwined with wage labour. Their emergence coincides with the Enclosure Acts, and flourished alongside 18th and 19th century industrialisation. Well into the 20th century, they provided food to supplement cash income; mitigated the physical and mental degradation exacted by the assembly line or coal face; and lessened the blow of periodic redundancy and layoffs. And during the World Wars, allotments were formally recognised as an essential part of the nation’s food production apparatus (Crouch and Ward, 1988). This section explores several dimensions of this linkage, and is followed by reflection upon how these features may endure in the contemporary setting, in spite of increased living standards and the removal of necessity in the post-war period.

1. Link to enclosure and early capital formation

Allotments were introduced into urban areas from the early eighteenth century onwards, alongside a process of enclosure that gradually recognised the need to insure the working poor against paupery, while compensating them for the loss of rights to common land. They were part of a broad political recognition of self-provisioning as a necessary complement to wage labour, decreasing the economic vulnerability of the poor and promoting temperance and self-sufficiency. For example, in the 1760s, ‘cow and cot schemes’ were promoted via the Gentleman’s Magazine as a way for the displaced poor to maintain themselves (Crouch and Ward, 1988, p. 46). Similarly, Arthur Young’s widely read pamphlet of 1801 promoted the notion that giving the poor access to a plot of land would “induce industry, frugality, patience and exertion without bounds” (Crouch and Ward, 1988, p. 45). In keeping with this mode of thinking, as well as responding to the hardships imposed by enclosure, legislation in the early 1800s began to stipulate that enclosed land should be set aside as allotments for the labouring poor (Crouch and Ward, 1988, p. 48). In the 1840s, allotments helped the state avoid the expense of poor law provisions, such as in Nottingham, where land was converted during a recession to enable unemployed workers from the knitting trade to grow their own food (Crouch and Ward, 1988, p. 68).

At the same time, the potential for allotments to empower wage-labourers by providing an avenue to self-sufficiency posed a threat to employers in rural and urban areas, leading to mounting opposition to allotment provision and debates about acceptable allotment size. An 1834 Report of the Poor Law Commission noted farmers’ objections to their labourers having allotments, noting fears that ‘The more they work for themselves, the less they work for us’(Crouch and Ward, 1988, p. 54). In 1844, Henslow of Hitcham, a campaigner for allotments, noted that farmers feared that allotment-holding would give workers a ‘spirit of independence’ that would interfere with the service owed to their masters (Crouch and Ward, 1988, p. 52).

Such concerns led to tight stipulations on plot size in order to support wage labour as the primary mode of survival. The Nottingham allotments, which grew out of James Orange’s influential ‘Cottage Garden Plan’, were set at one-quarter acre, a size that was deemed adequate to supplement an industrial occupation, being capable of supporting a small family for thirteen weeks during a period of unemployment (Crouch and Ward, 1988, p. 68). Similarly, the 1843 General Inclosure Act noted:

“The profits of the allotments should be viewed by the holder of it in the light of an aid and not as a substitute for his ordinary income accruing from wages, and that they should not become an inducement to neglect his usual paid labour, the allotment should be of no greater extent than can be cultivated during the leisure moments of the family” (Crouch and Ward, 1988, p. 49).

Allotment-holders nevertheless managed to use their allotments as an alternative source of income. Notable here are the Hunger Hills gardens in Nottingham, which were tenanted by hosiery workers who sold their much sought after produce to nearby markets (Crouch and Ward, 1988, p. 67).

Allotments, and attendant debates about their impact on worker productivity or loyalty, remained a fairly central political issue throughout the1800s and early 1900s, garnering support from Disraeli and Gladstone, and being cemented in legislation such as the 1887 Allotments Act (pushed through by a Conservative government) and the1908 Smallholdings and Allotments Act, which gave local councils responsibility for allotment provision (Crouch and Ward, 1988, p. 63). The standard ten pole (250 square metres) plot, which persists today, was set by the 1908 Smallholdings and Allotments Act as sufficient to ‘feed a family of four for a twelvemonth’ (Poole, 2006, p. 9).

During the pre-war era, the directly productive nature of allotment activity, as an alternative or supplement to wage labour, is thus foregrounded in legislation and political debate. Importantly, these debates and legal restrictions acknowledged the ontological security gained through having an allotment and the danger of highlighting to the worker the temporary and reversible nature of his dependence on wage labour. As a supplement to wages or a stopgap in time of unemployment, allotments were clearly a boon to employers and the state. Yet, as a source of independence and self-direction they promised an unwelcome independence from waged work, however partial, that some employers and their political allies feared.

In spite of these concerns, allotments became an integral aspect of certain trades, in particular those related to the railways, coalmines and gasworks (Armstrong et al., 2010, Crouch and Ward, 1988, Leivers, 2009). Railway-owned land was parcelled out to workers as part of their employment, and working the allotment became an integral part of the lifestyle associated with the railway occupation (Crouch and Ward, 1988, p. 23). In coalmining, which involved lengthy underground exposure, allotments provided a restorative connection to fresh air, light and colour. For workers accustomed to repetitive labour the allotment provided a source of productive autonomy, articulated through the individuality of each plot and the eccentricity of the allotment-holder’s shed.

During the World Wars, allotment activity was formally recognised as central to the nation’s food supply. WWI saw a huge increase in urban allotments through government-directed subdivision of land. In the inter-war years, and particularly during the 1930s, allotments were an essential way for families to maintain themselves through periods of unemployment or casual work (Pahl, 1984). The 1939 Cultivation of Lands Order, backed by the Dig For Victory campaign, aimed to ensure food provision via allotments and small-scale gardening. Crouch and Ward (1988, p. 75) cite a survey of manual workers at the middle of WWII, which indicated that over half kept allotment or garden. They also note that in 1943-4 domestic henkeepers produced 25% of nation’s egg supply, and a pigkeeping craze led to 6900 pig clubs.

This wartime equation of allotment activity with individual necessity and also national economic security contrasts sharply with the post-war redefinition of allotments as recreational in essence. This transition is marked by Harold Thorpe’s 1964 Committee of Inquiry into Allotments, which was set up by Harold Wilson’s government to, in Crouch and Ward’s terms, straighten out an “antiquated, backward-looking activity, selfishly squatting on valuable urban land” (Crouch and Ward, 1988, p. 78). Thorpe sought to modernise allotments by redefining them along the lines of a leisure garden concept, replete with playgrounds, family picnic areas and toilet facilities. Crouch and Ward cite the failure of the report’s recommendations to materialise and the perpetuation of allotments in their unruly and pragmatic form, as evidence that the leisure garden concept was misguided. Instead, allotment demand received a boost in the early 1960s from Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, which highlighted the need for environmental awareness and natural, chemical-free food; while the 1973 oil crisis stimulated demand based on rising food prices.

In summary, the above discussion highlights the following historical linkages between allotment activity and wage-labour, showing allotments to have acted as:

  1. An employer- or state-sponsored supplement to wage labour, or stopgap during periods of unemployment.
  2. A viable alternative to wage labour, potentially imbuing workers with a sense of independence or giving them greater choice about whether to engage in paid employment or work the land directly. This alternative includes the notion of accessing superior produce (e.g., in terms of freshness or control over the production process) not available through the cash economy.
  3. A balancing activity to counter the negative impact of certain occupations on physical and emotional wellbeing by providing opportunities for creative self-direction and a sensually rich form of work.
  4. A formally acknowledged part of the nation’s food production apparatus, replacing a significant percentage of commodified food production.

These aspects are, in modified form, arguably still relevant to today’s workers, and can serve as a framework for approaching the interrelationship between allotments and the concept of work. They highlight the allotment’s relationship to wage labour as a complement to the exigencies and uncertainties of paid work and as an articulation of what we might desire from our everyday labours as the following points of interest elaborate:

1)Supplementing wage-labour / weathering unemployment / navigating retirement
A 2010 study investigating attitudes to allotments, conducted by Newcastle University, surveyed existing and potential allotment-holders via 1100 face to face interviews conducted around shopping areas in Newcastle. In particular, the Newcastle study highlights the economic value allotment-holders place on being able to save money on fruit and vegetables by growing their own (about half said they rent a plot to save money, estimating about 950 pounds saved per year (Armstrong et al p32). In addition, Crouch and Ward cite evidence from the 1980s that allotments are an important means of weathering unemployment, both in terms of maintaining self-esteem and economic survival (they also note that allotments can, in some case, be a source of stigma for the unemployed, signifying resignation to life outside the labour market). There is reason to suspect that they would serve similar functions during the current economic downturn. By extension, the importance of allotments as a transition out of wage labour into retirement, facilitating a productive lifestyle in the absence of wage labour, deserves further study. A look at retired allotment holders might build on the work of Milligan et al (2004), which considered the therapeutic nature of allotments in the lives of older people. Provision of organisational attachment, during unemployment or retirement, is another highly important function of allotments that deserves attention.

2)Sense of independence from wage labour

Contemporary experiments with living outside the cash-based economy rely on growing your own as a cornerstone of survival, pointing toward the possibilities for survival outside the realm of wage labour (Boyle, 2009). While full participation in ‘regular’ contemporary society implies participation in a cash-based economy, partial self-provisioning via an allotment, or via the gift economy it sustains, is still a possibility even in the modern urban setting. In the cultural realm, the idea of The Good Life, popularised in the 1970s TV sitcom, lives on, partly as a comical solution to the stresses of modern life, partly as a plausible and desirable lifestyle choice. Books such as Giles and Sue Live the Good Life(Coren and Perkins, 2010) and self-sufficiency manuals such as The Essential Guide to Back Garden Self-sufficiency: Feed Your Family from a Quarter of an Acre or Less(Madigan, 2010)hold out the possibility of alternative modes of living. Concerns over the sourcing of organic produce (Doward and Wander, 2005) can also fuel demand for allotments, making their benefits something that is not purchasable in the cash economy.

Beyond actual self-sufficiency or provisioning, the ontological security gained from working a plot of land, however symbolic, is worth exploring. Harking back to pre-capitalist production or ancestral memories, today’s allotments may offer a sense of work that extends beyond wage labour, allowing the white-collar worker to explore the sensation of physical labour. Offering to workers who operate in an abstracted or specialised capacity a tangible connection between labour and its fruits (or vegetables) may assuage anxieties over the ability of participation in the cash economy to guarantee access to the food supply. Arguably, theorising this activity as an alternative form of work, rather than as leisure, might yield useful insights into the needs and desires of today’s workers.

Finally, bearing in mind evidence that work increasingly spills beyond the workplace into the private domain, and that this boundarilessness is fuelled by ICTs that enable one to be ‘at work’ in an ever-broadening range of locations, the allotment may be conceived as a domain that enables escape from wage labour and its attempt to colonise the hearts and minds of workers. Whether by its consuming rhythms and the flow state (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) produced by physical labour that distract the mind (through the body) from the cares and responsibilities of wage labour; or by actions such as leaving the iPhone or Blackberry outside the allotment gate, allotment activity can be conceived as interacting with wage labour through the boundary-making decisions of the worker. Alternatively, the allotment might be revealed as a place for pleasant integration of work and ‘life,’ enabling rumination and problem-solving, the active mind of the knowledge worker remaining ‘at work’ while digging over the plot or trimming back the gooseberries.

3) Balancing the demands of the labour process

Building upon the above section, allotments may be part of a strategy workers adopt in order to accommodate or push back against work intensification. For example, desire to engage with the rhythm of the allotment and indulge a sense of time dictated by nature may be a complex and interesting response to perceived time scarcity or job-related stress. This is in keeping with several studies that allude to the role of allotments in managing stress and providing a source of healthy outdoor physical activity (Committee, 2006, Hope and Ellis, 2009, Kingsley and Townsend, 2009, Murray, 2007). For example, a 2010 report from the New Local Government Network (NLGN) notes that allotments, among many other benefits, “increase physical exercise, encourage a nutritious diet, support mental health, help people relax…” (Hope and Ellis, 2009, p. 28). This report draws on the findings of a Toronto-based study that highlighted the calming and stress-relieving effect of urban gardening (Wakefield et al., 2007). Similarly, a recent report on Scottish allotments cites mental relaxation and gentle exercise among the primary benefits of allotment holding (Murray, 2007, p. 8). However, the exact way in which such needs interface with workplace demands and responsibilities has not been researched in any depth, making this an intriguing line of inquiry for researchers interested in contemporary work, particularly as navigated in the urban environment.