It is well known that the cities of Rotterdam, The Hague and Arnhem were largely destroyed during the Second World War. But the farms were also hit hard:as many as nine thousand were destroyed. Researcher Sophie Elpers wrote a book about the struggle for reconstruction.
Farms have become indispensable in the Dutch countryside. Still, during and just after the Second World War, hardly any farms were left standing in some areas. The plans for the reconstruction already started during the war and caused a great deal of tension. Should the buildings be erected with the preservation of tradition or as innovative as possible? Sophie Elpers wrote the book 'Reconstruction farms' about this field of tension. She is an ethnology researcher at the Meertens Institute and a research assistant at the Intangible Heritage Knowledge Centre.
Why was there a tension between tradition and modernity during the reconstruction?
“For certain groups, the farms symbolized traditional values and reinforced national identity. A farm is much more than just a building that was needed for agriculture or livestock. It caused a great deal of discussion at the time, especially just after the Second World War. Should we mainly think about modernization and agriculture, or should the farms provide national cohesion and should we restore them to their former glory?”
“The slogan was unity in regional diversity. It was more complicated than it seems at first glance. Because what was typical for a certain region? Maps were made of farm types, which were located in certain regions. For example, a head-neck rump in Groningen and a closed farm in South Limburg. These types were seen as a kind of icons that the reconstruction had to comply with. But there were also modernizers who argued in favor of translating these types, because new buildings were much better suited to the demands of agriculture.”
What did the farmers want?
“When I started my research, I thought they would want their old farms back. After all, they had to come to terms with the loss. But this is not apparent at all from historical material and from the interviews I have conducted. Most did not find the regional form important at all. They just wanted to modernize. They were looking for a place that was practical and where they could work well.”
Featured by the editors
MedicineWhat are the microplastics doing in my sunscreen?!
AstronomySun, sea and science
BiologyExpedition to melting land
How did they make those wishes known?
“By organizing and speaking out. The farmers did this too. They came together through associations such as the rural women. Incidentally, they focused less on the business part; during the reconstruction this was seen as the domain of the man. Although women usually cooperated in the stable and on the land. Yet farmers' wives mainly talked about the living area:how the kitchen was furnished, where the water pipes were installed, what the bedrooms looked like and that there was no drafty living room. They made special brochures that they distributed to architects.”
Were they listened to?
"Yes, of course. At the beginning of the Reconstruction period, many farmhouses were built whose exteriors were quite traditional, but which were modern on the inside. Farmers sat on advisory committees of the Bureau for Farm Reconstruction, which coordinated and organized everything. But they also often demanded influence on the reconstruction on the spot and discussed what they wanted with the architect and contractor. As a result, there was no standardization, but individual farms arose. I also heard funny stories, like a farmer who locked up an architect and wouldn't let him leave until he made the barn doors in a certain shape. By the way, local architects were chosen everywhere, also because they were familiar with the regional requirements of the farmers and the regional building styles.”
Was there a real culture of consultation, where all parties were listened to and a compromise was sought?
“The battle over modernization and traditions was fought quite fiercely, but people also looked for rapprochements. This succeeded in the first years of the reconstruction, when farms arose that showed a traditional shape and were modernized on the inside. But the agricultural sector, supported by the government, later became increasingly uncompromising. During this time, the debate was always also about issues of control and expertise. The Foundation for Agriculture argued in favor of sidelining architects. Farmers did not need an architect, was their motto. Carpenters and construction workers were able to get the job done. Ultimately, the modernizers would gain a stronger position. Issues of tradition and modernization were increasingly subjected to economic realities that urgently required a reduction in the cost of farm construction and a modernization of farms. Most reconstruction farms did take on a regional appearance, but it is precisely in the farms from the late reconstruction years (between 1950 and 1955) that the trend towards abandoning the regional types in farm construction was clearly apparent."
Why did you want to investigate this?
“A lot is known about how cities such as Rotterdam, The Hague and Arnhem were affected during the war and their reconstruction. The countryside has been explored much less intensively, which was largely uncharted territory. I thought that was remarkable, because the damage was so extensive. Between Groesbeek, Arnhem and Nijmegen hardly a farm was left standing. You can still see what was placed there during the reconstruction, so there is also a clear connection with the present that appealed to me. This also applies to the debate about traditions. That discussion is currently underway. How do we deal with modern stables for large-scale agriculture? How do we fit new farms into the landscape so that people find them beautiful? Those questions remain relevant and that is what makes this research so exciting.”