All farmers have their own version of what it means to be a good farmer. For many US farmers a large portion of their identity is defined by the high input, high output production systems they manage to produce food, fiber or fuel. However, the unintended consequences of highly productivist systems are often increased soil erosion and the pollution of ground and surface water. A large number of farmers have conservationist identities within their good farmer identity, however their conservation goals (...) often need to be activated to rebalance the production-conservation meanings they give to their roles in society. In this paper we analyze US Cornbelt farmer interviews and surveys to trace how the performance-based environmental management process can be used to influence the farmer social identity and shift the overall good farmer identity towards a stronger conservationist standard. We find the continuous feedback loop in performance-based environmental management mimics the hierarchically organized feedback control processes of identity verification and can be used to help farmers activate their conservationist farmer identities at the person, role, and social levels to establish new norms for the practice of more sustainable agriculture. (shrink)

Public concern over environmentalquality and food safety has culminated in thedevelopment of markets for “green” foods – foodsthat are variously construed as fresh, chemical-free,nutritious, natural, or produced in anenvironmentally-sustainable manner. Understanding theemergence of “green” foods is dependent on analysisboth of the ways in which foods are produced andprocessed, and of the meanings that are attached tothem at each stage of their production,transformation, and consumption. The notion of “green”foods is thereby understood here as a fluid andcontestable signifier that myriad actors involved (...) inthe production/consumption cycle may attempt to shapefor their own purposes. This paper explores corporate capital's recent attempts, through certification logosand advertising, to signify the “healthiness” andenvironmental virtues of organically-produced foods inAustralia and New Zealand. These attempts have not,however, been universally successful either in termsof gaining consumer interest, or in gaining agreementsbetween farmers, certifying organizations, andcapitalist firms over the meaning of “organic” and thepractice of “sustainable” agriculture. The experienceof corporate involvement in the organics industry isillustrative of yet-to-be-resolved processes ofreflexive modernization. As food production andtransformation continues to produce environmental andsocial risks, the question of just what makes food“green” will continue to be a source of social conflict. (shrink)

The Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society and the journal _Agriculture and Human Values_ provided a crucial intellectual space for the early transdisciplinary critique of the industrial agrifood system. This paper describes that process and presents the concept of “The Doctors of Agrifood Studies” as a metaphor for the key role critical agrifood social scientists played in documenting the unsustainability of conventional agriculture and working to create an alternative, ethical, sustainable agrifood system. After the introduction, the paper details the “Critical (...) Turn” in agrifood studies, followed by a reconsideration of my “Four Questions” framework, focusing on the current tension between the food security and food sovereignty discourses and movements. (shrink)

According to recent literature in the sociology of expectations, expectations about the future are “performative” in that they provide guidance for activities, attract attention, mobilize political and economic resources, coordinate between groups, link technical and social concerns, create visions, and enroll supporters. While this framework has blossomed over the past decade in science and technology studies, it has yet to be applied towards a more refined understanding of how the future of the modern agrofood system is being actively contested and (...) understood. I seek to redress this gap by using the sociology of expectations to explain the discursive topography surrounding in vitro meat, a nascent agrofood technology whereby processed meat products are developed from stem cells as opposed to live animals. In discussing the obstacles and challenges which confront the proponents of this technology, I utilize three key concepts from the sociology of expectations: (1) hype, (2) retrospective prospects, and (3) the role of myth, metaphor, and ideology. I find that despite sluggish results and financial setbacks, the controversial legacy of previous agrofood technologies, and persistent cultural skepticism, the core ideological justifications for in vitro meat have proven to be resilient in buoying the technology through rough discursive waters. (shrink)