The Transformation to Organic: Insights from Practice Theory - Organic Food and Agriculture: New Trends and Developments in the Social Sciences - page 171

organic farming (Darnhofer et al. 2010; Noe & Alroe 2006, 2003; Høgh-Jensen 1998). Despite
their different theoretical perspectives, all of these studies sensitize us to the multi-faced
characteristics of the transformation process.
Drawing on this wealth of empirical and conceptual discussions of organic farming, as well
as our own experiences about the complexity of transformation processes at the farm level
(Freyer 1998; Freyer et al. 1994; Freyer 1994; Freyer 1991; Rantzau et al. 1990), regional
transformation processes (Freyer et al. 2005; Freyer et al. 2002; Freyer & Lindenthal 2002),
participatory approaches (Wehinger et al. 2002) and our initial efforts to apply practice
theory (Freyer et al. 2011), we argue that there is a need for new theoretical perspectives on
transformation processes.
3. Conceptualization of practice theory
Before we describe our model, we first explain more specifically our interest in practice
theory and offer some insights into this theoretical perspective. From our own life
experiences we know what the challenges of changes in habits can be. Change occurs in
thinking, feeling and in what we communicate. However, change becomes most visible
when we engage in a practice and when this activity becomes part of a routine in our life.
Similarly, we suggest that rethinking the transformation from non-organic to organic
farming requires the use of a theoretical perspective that captures the practices of farm
transformation from a non-organic towards an organic farming system.
Theories with a broader perspective for analyzing complex systems change are systems theory
(Bertalanffy 1973), social practice theory (e.g. Schatzki 1996) and transformation theory (e.g.
Reissig 2009). Social practice theories play an intermediate and integrative role between
systems and transformation theory. We argue that system theory, which is sensitive to actors
and actants, offers a methodological feature that draws attention to the pre-structuring of
relevant factors, - in our case the material - which is part of the social practice. In addition, it
also highlights the ways in which humans participate in the practice as well as in the exchange
of materiality. However, it underestimates the individual dimensions such as cognitive and
mental processes or how individuals act. 3 Transformation theory focuses on macro level
development processes, on organizational and societal structural change (Reissig 2009), but it
is not sensitive towards the individual, materiality or embodiment of practices. Therefore we
redefine and extend the term transformation with reference to systems theory as well as
practice theory and to processes at micro-, meso- and macro-level.
So, why practice theory? In the transformation process from non-organic to organic farming
the farmer specifically confronts changes in those practices that were learned, created,
sustained, and part of social experience and reproduction in everyday life. The transformation
requires changes to embodied practices that made sense for a long time, and that informed
what was always done, and was confirmed by the cultural and social context (Schatzki 2002).
To describe farm and farmers transformation, we seek a theoretical concept that is sensitive
to the farmers' individual perspectives, the changing material, social, knowledge, mental
and structural conditions confronted in this period, and that guides or influences decisions.
Practice theory offers such a broader view on human behavioral change. It is sensitive to
those aspects, which are fundamental in change processes, e.g. (Strengers 2010, 17): “How
are everyday practices reproduced in daily life and what, if anything, disrupts these
3 This observation however will be deepened in a further paper.