Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
contradiction in terms. This approach is in contrast to a long history of
social science methods that have emphasized (and even naturalized) the
effects of economic and technological change in agriculture, placing nor-
mative labels on growers and their adoption rates, or conceiving of change
as driven by irresistible treadmills (Rogers 1958; 1983; Cochrane 1993).
While profi t motives and new innovations certainly have powerful effects
on the decisions and interests of both growers and scientists, an ecological
view of production highlights actors' attempts to control the very factors
that create these results. Capital is not self-generating, and in this way, a
control motive is essential for understanding a complex system of produc-
tion like industrial agriculture (Noble 1977; 1984). When the production
of something as simple as a head of lettuce or a stalk of celery can lead to
power, control of even small details of production is a key interest for the
players in this ecology.
Controlling Agricultural Ecologies: A Theory of Repair
If an ecology of power represents the material, practical, and institutional
structure of the relationship between science and industrial agriculture,
then repair is the work of maintaining this system in the face of constant
change. In everyday usage, “repair” describes a process of fi xing things.
Sociologists working in the fi elds of ethnomethodology and symbolic
interaction often use the term in a slightly different sense: a process of
maintaining social order. In this view, social order is a practical, everyday
accomplishment, negotiated over and over again.
12
The canonical example
of this negotiated order comes from studies of everyday conversations,
where social interaction is like a juggling routine between two actors. In
the course of a conversation, actors skillfully toss all kinds of “objects” to
each other; in this case, the objects are symbols, meant to be understood
and returned. In this metaphor, meaning and understanding are contin-
gent upon the continual exchange of symbols and their proper recognition
as such. Just as in a juggling routine, a misthrown symbol requires an
adjustment to continue the interaction. We continually adjust to slight
variations in the fl ow of symbols as we communicate with each other.
Actors in social interaction work within a basic structure of meaning, but
the actual accomplishment of this interaction is highly improvisational. In
this way, the ethnomethodological sense of repair provides a rich view of
