Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Drawing lines in the cornfield: an analysis of discourse and identity relations across agri-food networks

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, I analyze discourse and identity relations within so-called ‘conventional’ agri-food networks as well as how the conventional sphere perceives, constructs and responds to alternative food movements in Canada. The paper is structured around three primary research questions: (1) How are conventional actors understanding conditions, changes, and challenges within conventional networks? (2) How do conventional actors apply this understanding in advancing conventional interests and discourses, and defending conventional networks? (3) How do conventional actors and discourse construct AFMs? For this research, I draw from survey, focus group, and in-depth interview data alongside text analysis from online sources. I elucidate the interests and motivations behind the identities, stories and messages emerging from the conventional sphere. I conclude that relationship building and communication between diverse agri-food actors may help to expand the range of agricultural knowledge, philosophies and solutions available to farmers, especially those whom are currently quite divided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I use the term alternative food ‘movements’ and ‘networks’ interchangeably (Alkon and Agyeman 2011; Cadieux and Slocum 2015). Both terms “refer to a constellation of individuals, NGOs, alliances, initiatives, companies, and government entities arranged in affiliations of different intensities and scales” (Levkoe 2006; Cadieux and Slocum 2015, p .2). ‘Networks’ are defined more specifically as a set of interactions and relations of power encompassing “economic and institutional forms” situated beyond the binaries of state and market (Murdoch 2000; Lockie 2006). Networks evolve through the efforts of government and non-governmental organizations as well as corporate firms to provide capital and material resources, “training, networking and support services in order to facilitate self-help, entrepreneurialism and capacity building” in accordance with shared beliefs, customs and practices (Lockie 2006, p. 23). In doing so, and perhaps most importantly, networks promote and perpetuate these (social, cultural, and political-economic) beliefs, customs and practices.

  2. See the following for further insight into the impacts of industrial production on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (MacRae et al. 2010; Camargo et al. 2013; Higgins et al. 2015), socio-ecological resilience (Rotz and Fraser 2015), soil and water pollution (Matson et al. 1997), animal welfare (Weis 2013; Schneider 2015), and the rise of ‘pseudo foods’ and obesity (Winson 2004, 2013; Guthman and Watts 2011), to name a few.

  3. The non—or not so—consumptive work I refer to includes, but is not limited to, sustainable food production (improving land access for aspiring farmers/food gatherers, building Indigenous food systems and supporting farm transitioning), alternative food infrastructure (community food centres and community-based food storage and transport), and food justice (improving access to healthy food for marginalized communities and fighting for the rights of farm and food workers).

  4. The control was that they grew grain corn within the past five rotations.

  5. The numbers attached to farmer interview quotes refer to the farm number anonymized in the data. Focus group and expert interview quotes are not numbered.

  6. This finding has been observed elsewhere (Burton 2004, 2012).

  7. The broader political economic and ethical implications of big data in agriculture have been discussed—although rather scarcely—in academia and the popular media (Banham 2014; Bronson and Knezevic 2016; Carbonell 2016; Carolan 2016).

  8. Notably, rural farmwomen within the conventional network occupy a rather different space. However, it is also underpinned by its own social, political and economic structures of patriarchy. For example, a farmer explains, “when the guys come in from farming in the morning and they sit at a table they want to talk their own talk, they don’t want some woman talking to them.”

Abbreviations

AFM:

Alternative food movement

DSS:

Decision support systems

GMO:

Genetically modified organism

FCC:

Farm Credit Canada

OMAFRA:

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs

References

  • Agriculture More Than Ever. 2017a. Agriculture more than ever: A positive voice for Canadian agriculture. Agriculture More Than Ever.

  • Agriculture More Than Ever. 2017b. Why doesn’t Ag more than ever speak to consumers? Agriculture More Than Ever.

  • Agriculture More Than Ever. 2017c. Top 10 reasons to celebrate Canadian agriculture. Agriculture More Than Ever.

  • Alexander, J. C. 1992. Citizen and enemy as symbolic classification: On the polarizing discourse of civil society. In: Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality, ed. Michèle Lamont, 289–308. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkon, A. H., and J. Agyeman. 2011. The food movement as polyculture. Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability, ed. Alison Hope Alkon and Julian Agyeman, 1–20. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M. 1995. Agroecology. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M., and V. M. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies 38: 587–612. doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.582947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrée, P., J. Dibden, V. Higgins, and C. Cocklin. 2010. Competitive productivism and Australia’s emerging “alternative” agri-food networks: Producing for farmers’ markets in Victoria and beyond. Australian Geographer 41: 307–322. doi:10.1080/00049182.2010.498038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrée, P., P. Ballamingie, and B. Sinclair-Waters. 2014. Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in Eastern Ontario. Local Environment 9839: 1–21. doi:10.1080/13549839.2014.908277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, C., T. Selfa, T. Dandachi, and S. Velardi. 2017. “Superweeds” or “survivors”? Framing the problem of glyphosate resistant weeds and genetically engineered crops. Journal of Rural Studies 51: 211–221. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banham, Russ. 2014. Who owns farmers’ big data? Forbes.

  • Bell, S. E., A. Hullinger, and L. Brislen. 2015. Manipulated masculinities: Agribusiness, deskilling, and the rise of the businessman-farmer in the United States. Rural Sociology 80: 285–313. doi:10.1111/ruso.12066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, A. 2014. Stop letting “crunchy mommas” tell your story. In: Pork network. Lenexa, KS: Vance Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronson, K., and I. Knezevic. 2016. Food studies scholars can no longer ignore the rise of big data. Canadian Food Studies 3: 9–19. doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v3i1.138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, R. L., and M. K. Goodman. 2004. Consuming narratives: The political ecology of “alternative” consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 29: 344–366. doi:10.1111/j.0020-2754.2004.00333.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bufkin, M. 2015. The truth about “agvocating”. In: The truth about agriculture. Logan: Utah State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. J. F. 2004. Seeing through the “good farmer”s’ eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of “productivist” behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44: 195–215. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00270.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. J. F. 2012. Understanding farmers’ aesthetic preference for tidy agricultural landscapes: A bourdieusian perspective. Landscape Research 37: 51–71. doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.559311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bye, L. M. 2009. “How to be a rural man”: Young men’s performances and negotiations of rural masculinities. Journal of Rural Studies 25: 278–288. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadieux, K. V., and R. Slocum. 2015. What does it mean to do food justice?. Journal of Political Ecology 22: 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camargo, G. G. T., M. R. Ryan, and T. L. Richard. 2013. Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from crop production using the farm energy analysis tool. BioScience 63: 263–273. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, P. 2013. Food, health and identity. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell, I. M. 2016. The ethics of big data in big agriculture. Internet Policy Review 5: 1–13. doi:10.14763/2016.1.405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2005. Barriers to the adoption of sustainable agriculture on rented land: An examination of contesting social fields. Rural Sociology 70: 387–413. doi:10.1526/0036011054831233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2016. Publicising food: Big data, precision agriculture and co-experimental techniques of addition. Sociologia Ruralis 0: 2–31. doi:10.1002/acr.22212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coldwell, I. 2007. New farming masculinities: “More than just shit-kickers”, we’re “switched-on” farmers wanting to “balance lifestyle, sustainability and coin”. Journal of Sociology 43: 87–103. doi:10.1177/1440783307073936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W. 2001. Understanding men: Gender sociology and the new international research on masculinities. Social Thought & Research 24: 13–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crop Life International. 2017. @CropLifeIntl [Twitter profile]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/CropLifeIntl.

  • Daynard, K. 2015. Speak up for agriculture: How to talk to consumers about ag and food. Farm & Food Care Ontario. Agriculture More Than Ever.

  • Dixon, J., and C. Richards. 2016. On food security and alternative food networks: Understanding and performing food security in the context of urban bias. Agriculture and Human Values 33: 191–202. doi:10.1007/s10460-015-9630-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farms.com. 2017. Precision agriculture. Farms.com.

  • Flick, U. 2009. An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnett, T., M. C. Appleby, A. Balmford, I. J. Bateman, T. G. Benton, P. Bloomer, and B. Burlingame, et al. 2013. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science Magazine 341: 33–34. doi:10.1126/science.1234485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliessman, S. 2007. Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossberg, L. 1986. On postmodernism and articulation: An interview with stuart hall. Journal of Communication Inquiry 10: 45–60. doi:10.1177/019685998601000204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2008. Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California. Geoforum 39: 1171–1183. doi:10.1080/13549839.2014.908277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J., and S. Brown. 2015. I will never eat another strawberry again: The biopolitics of consumer-citizenship in the fight against methyl iodide in California. Agriculture and Human Values 33: 575–585. doi:10.1007/s10460-015-9626-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. and Michael Watts. 2011. Excess consumption or over-production? US farm policy, global warming, and the bizarre attribution of obesity. In Global political ecology, ed. Richard Peet, 51–66. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S., and P. Du Gay. 1996. Questions of cultural identity. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, V., J. Dibden, and C. Cocklin. 2015. Private agri-food governance and greenhouse gas abatement: Constructing a corporate carbon economy. Geoforum 66: 75–84. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.09.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P. H. 2009a. Consolidation in the North American Organic Food Processing Sector, 1997 to 2007. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food 16: 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P. H. 2009b. Organic industry structure. Media-N: Journal of the New Media Caucus 5. http://median.s151960.gridserver.com/?.

  • Jaffee, D., and P. H. Howard. 2009. Corporate cooptation of organic and fair trade standards. Agriculture and Human Values 27: 387–399. doi:10.1007/s10460-009-9231-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janzen, T. 2017. America’s first Ag data case. Janzen Ag Law.

  • Jarosz, L. 2000. Understanding agri-food networks as social relations. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 279–283. doi:10.1023/A:1007692303118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, B. 2011. Gender in a global/local world: Reshaping gender and class in rural spaces. Farnham: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levkoe, C. Z. 2006. Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 89–98. doi:10.1007/s10460-005-5871-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levkoe, C. Z. 2014. The food movement in Canada: A social movement network perspective. Journal of Peasant Studies 41: 385–403. doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.910766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levkoe, C. Z., M. Bebee, S. Wakefield, E. Castel, and C. Dávila. 2012. Propagating the food movement: Provincial networks and social mobilization in Canada. Montreal: Food Secure Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liamputtong, P. 2012. Qualitative research methods, 4th edn. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • License to Farm. 2016. Berteig imaging.

  • Liepins, R. 2000. Making men: The construction and representation of agriculture-based masculinities in Australia and New Zealand. Rural Sociology 65: 605–620. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2000.tb00046.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockie, S. 2006. Networks of agri-environmental action: Temporality, spatiality and identity in agricultural environments. Sociologia Ruralis 46: 22–39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00400.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockie, S. 2009. Responsibility and agency within alternative food networks: Assembling the “citizen consumer”. Agriculture and Human Values 26: 193–201. doi:10.1007/s10460-008-9155-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyndsey Smith. 2016. @realloudlyndsey [Twitter moment]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/realloudlyndsey.

  • Lynch, D., R. MacRae, and R. C. Martin. 2011. The carbon and global warming potential impacts of organic farming: Does it have a significant role in an energy constrained world? Sustainability 3: 322–362. doi:10.3390/su3020322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacRae, R., D. Lynch, and R. C. Martin. 2010. Improving energy efficiency and GHG mitigation potentials in Canadian organic farming systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 34: 549–580. doi:10.1080/10440046.2010.484704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matson, P. A., W. J. Parton, A. G. Power, and M. J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277: 504–509. doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McInnes, A., E. Fraser, Z. Gedalof, and J. Silver. 2017. A quantitative analysis of food movement convergence in four Canadian provinces. Agriculture and Human Values. doi:10.1007/s10460-017-9775-y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K., and J. Murdoch. 2000. Organic vs. conventional agriculture: Knowledge, power and innovation in the food chain. Geoforum 31: 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, J. 2000. Networks: A new paradigm of rural development? Journal of Rural Studies 16: 407–419. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(00)00022-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, C. 2016. Real Dirt on farming: Communicating your message with confidence. Farm & Food Care.

  • O’Neill, K. J. 2014. Situating the “alternative” within the “conventional”: Local food experiences from the East Riding of Yorkshire, UK. Journal of Rural Studies 35: 112–122. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.04.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortner, S. B. 1974. Is female to male as nature is to culture? In Woman, culture, and society, eds. M. Z. Rosaldo, and L. Lamphere, 68–87. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pini, B. 2004. Managerial masculinities in the Australian sugar industry. Rural Society 14: 22–35. doi:10.5172/rsj.351.14.1.22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Practical Pathways to Drive Real Results. 2015. Precision agriculture conference. London, ON: Practical Pathways to Drive Real Results.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotz, S., and E. D. G. Fraser. 2015. Resilience and the industrial food system: Analyzing the impacts of agricultural industrialization on food system vulnerability. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 5: 459–473. doi:10.1007/s13412-015-0277-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotz, S., E. D. G. Fraser, and R. C. Martin. 2017. Situating tenure, capital and finance in farmland relations: Implications for stewardship and agroecological health in Ontario, Canada. The Journal of Peasant Studies. doi:10.1080/03066150.2017.1351953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruby, M. B., and S. J. Heine. 2011. Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite 56: 447–450. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SaskCanola. 2016. License to farm. Saskatoon: SaskCanola.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sbicca, J. 2015. Food labor, economic inequality, and the imperfect politics of process in the alternative food movement. Agriculture and Human Values 32: 675–687. doi:10.1007/s10460-015-9582-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M. 2015. Wasting the rural: Meat, manure, and the politics of agro-industrialization in contemporary China. Geoforum. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.12.001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnino, R., and T. Marsden. 2006. Beyond the divide: Rethinking relationships between alternative and conventional food networks in Europe. Journal of Economic Geography 6: 181–199. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbi006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada. 2011. 2011 census of agriculture. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, W. 2016. On a mission to “agvocate”. Farm Industry News, October 4.

  • Weis, T. 2013. The meat of the global food crisis. Journal of Peasant Studies 40: 65–85. doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.752357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winson, A. 2004. Bringing political economy into the debate on the obesity epidemic. Agriculture and Human Values 21: 299–312. doi:10.1007/s10460-003-1206-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winson, A. 2013. The industrial diet: The degradation of food and the struggle for healthy eating. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S. A., and F. H. Buttel. 1996. The political economy of precision farming. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 1269–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D. 2015. Monsanto’s precision agriculture pipeline and strategy. In Precision agriculture conference. London: Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. As well, thank you to all of the research participants. This work is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships program (Grant No. CGV-SSHRC-00433).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada

    Sarah Rotz

Authors
  1. Sarah Rotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Rotz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rotz, S. Drawing lines in the cornfield: an analysis of discourse and identity relations across agri-food networks. Agric Hum Values 35, 441–456 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-017-9838-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-017-9838-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation