RELACIONES COLECTIVAS DE TRABAJO 1 Introducción

Many farmers were seen as both isolated and very busy, which creates practical problems in accessing support. In addition, key informants and farmers acknowledged that there was a self- sufficient ethos within farming that could make it difficult to acknowledge problems, even among friends and family, and could also act as a barrier to take-up of more formal sources of support. Larry Black, describing a reluctance to discuss issues relating to the success of the farm as a business, including financial problems caused by milk quality issues, referred to: “this privacy that farmers carry. They carry this privacy, this privacy and pride, and also a sense of failure.”

There was also a widespread recognition that emotional and personal issues were rarely discussed among farmers, outside of their immediate family circle, and many interviewees described stress as something which did not affect them, or which they felt well able to cope with. Vernon Chester was typical of these views, saying:

“You have to get on and do it, if it wants doing basically. Ill health. That would, I mean, if you’ve got your health and strength, I’ve always said that if you wake up every morning with your health and strength there’s no bridge that you can’t cross.”

This seemed to be linked to a particular style of masculinity associated with farming; however, it could mean that problems were not shared until they had reached a crisis point. The difficulty for support organisations was in creating a climate where farmers felt comfortable discussing worries and concerns with outside agencies at a point before they became unmanageable, and required more intensive support. Key informants also commonly felt that the culture of farming meant that farmers tended to immerse themselves in their work in order to defer tackling problems, and that farmers were facing very many difficulties which they never heard about. A recent survey conducted by the Institute of Rural Health with rural Welsh farmers (Boulanger et al., 1999) uncovered a reluctance to seek specialist help, reflecting the stigma these communities associated with mental illness, their worries about anonymity, and appearing not able to cope. Intervention therefore needs to be sensitive to the needs of the environment within which it is directed (Lobley et al., 2004).

Some respondents had been forced to confront potentially tragic consequences if these kinds of attitudes were maintained in the face of increasing stress. Derek Morris, another dairy farmer, also depicted farmers as “proud”, and referred to “peer pressure” and a desire not to “share your dirty washing with everybody”, and shared these values himself. However, he had taken the initiative to organise talks on stress and mental health issues in his area following the suicide of a close friend: “It was such a blow to us, all of us really, he was very well respected, lovely chap. I felt that we ought to put something together to try to prevent it.”

Arthur Read described how, despite his misgivings about breaching privacy, he had contacted a friend’s wife to alert her to his concerns after her husband, a local vet, had broken down during a routine visit to the farm not long after another of his friends had committed suicide:

“I explained exactly what had happened, and you know I think it was a release to her. It was a release to her because she said to me, “Well, at least he’s spoken to you about it”. And I think she felt then that that was, he was going to be okay.”

The vet had subsequently, and much to the surprise of his friend, taken up the offer of counselling via his local GP, and had found this very helpful. A representative of a local farmers’ support group also noted that it was often wives or children who alerted him to problems on a farm, rather than this coming from principal farmers. Consequently, organisational approaches to farmers could be delicate and protracted.

This widespread reluctance to use outside sources of support can also place a heavy burden on those family members, often their wives, in whom farmers confide, since their role as a buffer exposes them to considerable stresses, for which they may have few outlets. Cecilia Butler, who was relatively isolated, described herself in these terms, explaining that:

“for me to not cope with my stress, which is much more domestic-based, would, I don’t know, would probably push us under … If there’s any non-coping of stress it has to be on the farming side rather than domestic side.”

Barbara Watson, who felt there were a number of pressures on her, and seemed as if she might appreciate some additional support, went on to explain that she did not feel able to ask for this, partly because of her own attitudes, which had been influenced by her upbringing, and partly because of her husband’slack of understanding towards her feelings:

“I suppose just never been brought up to think that I would need help…

I guess if I’m really honest I guess it’s tied up with Eric’s attitude to it all, because he thinks I’m a big wimp and I should be able to cope.”

In this context, many farm women lacked a normative support route.

Another consequence of this tendency not to seek outside sources of assistance is that those without a close family member, and especially bachelor farmers, may lack ready access to support and be particularly vulnerable to stress. Key informants described such individuals as often isolated, and sometimes lacking conversational skills and general knowledge of modern life. Respondents gave examples of several unmarried farmers who had committed suicide in their local areas. Divorce was also seen as a common trigger to depression and problem drinking among farmers.

Several organisations spoke to us about the longer-term perspective needed in their work, particularly in light of the stigma issues attached to stress and coping within farming communities. This meant that farmers often found it easier to present themselves as needing help or advice on a particular issue (such as finances or paperwork), but that underlying factors were actually causing them more stress and worry (although this is not to discount the support needs associated with more practical issues). Consequently support organisations needed to build up a relationship with people over time if they were to unearth more deep-rooted problems, such as fear of losing one’s farm or family problems.

Farming communities adopted a variety of coping mechanisms, both in everyday life, and in crisis situations, which reflected individual preferences, shared group norms, and differences in their material circumstances. However, notably some of these tactics, such as throwing themselves into their work, have been less successful in the current climate of farming than they were in the past. The final chapter draws these findings together to explore the challenges for policy makers and support providers posed by the various stresses associated with farming.

6.7 SUMMARY

• Interviewees utilised a variety of personal resources, formal and informal sources of support, and styles of coping in responding to the stresses associated with their farming work. The pressures of work were variously countered by having time for relaxation, to pursue leisure activities, and to see friends (both farmers and non-farmers), who provided an important source of emotional support and information exchange. Preferences for more formal sources of support included the NFU and TFA, and known and trusted local vets and doctors.

• Close and supportive families were valued by interviewees as having the capacity to understand the unique demands of a farming lifestyle. In particular, farmers’ wives played an important role in terms of emotional caretaking, but they also often lack their own normative support routes, and the intensive support demands placed upon families could itself provide a cause of strain. Farmers who lack close families, or who were geographically isolated may be more vulnerable in coping with stress.

• Social resources were combined with personal dispositions to form the basis of coping mechanisms. A critical difference was between more reactive individuals, who responded to crises by immersing themselves in their work, and longer-term planners, who emphasised problem-solving, time management and related to farming as a business enterprise. The latter group tended to deal better with farming stress over the longer-term. Others dealt with frustrations by getting angry, or by bottling their worries up.

• Interviewees were in contact with governmental representatives relatively infrequently and in relation to specific issues, such as paperwork submissions or inspections. A major reason for this was that DEFRA and the HSE were largely perceived in terms of enforcement rather than support. Most interviewees preferred to rely upon the kinds of support organisations or individuals who were known to them locally, and who were felt to be knowledgeable about the day-to-day problems of farming. Similarly, few interviewees were familiar with the work of the stress-based agricultural organisations operating at a local partnership level, and the stigma attached to not coping with pressure emerged as a major reason why support may not be sought until difficulties have become quite entrenched.