Pigs in Space: Ghosts, Gender and Sexuality in a Debate About Regulating Industrial Hog Farms in Kentucky
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Kentucky UKnowledge University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2002 PIGS IN SPACE: GHOSTS, GENDER AND SEXUALITY IN A DEBATE ABOUT REGULATING INDUSTRIAL HOG FARMS IN KENTUCKY Mary E. Curran University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Curran, Mary E., "PIGS IN SPACE: GHOSTS, GENDER AND SEXUALITY IN A DEBATE ABOUT REGULATING INDUSTRIAL HOG FARMS IN KENTUCKY" (2002). University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations. 356. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_diss/356 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Mary E. Curran The Graduate School University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences 2002 PIGS IN SPACE: GHOSTS, GENDER AND SEXUALITY IN A DEBATE ABOUT REGULATING INDUSTRIAL HOG FARMS IN KENTUCKY ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky By Mary E. Curran Lexington, Kentucky Director: Dr. Susan M. Roberts, Associate Professor of Geography Lexington, Kentucky 2002 Copyright © Mary E. Curran 2002 ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION PIGS IN SPACE: GHOSTS, GENDER AND SEXUALITY IN A DEBATE ABOUT REGULATING INDUSTRIAL HOG FARMS IN KENTUCKY In 1997, Governor Paul Patton of Kentucky asked the state Cabinet of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection to develop administrative regulations for industrial hog farms in the state. The regulatory process has been contentious. From 1997 through 1998, the Cabinet held five public hearings to elicit comments on the proposed regulations. This study is designed to answer two questions. First, how, within parameters of participation established by the Kentucky Cabinet of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, have participants in the debate deployed notions of risk to privilege certain gendered and sexualized farming identities, farming practices, and notions of rurality? Second, how will the spatial arrangements proposed by participants alter social relationships? A theoretical framework that draws from Foucault’s work on governmentality and power/knowledge, feminist theories and Latour’s actor network theory was developed for this analysis which combines discourse analysis with participant observation. The study examines texts produced by the Cabinet and three groups: the Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth and Community Farm Alliance. Texts include transcripts of hearing comments, published histories, newspapers and web sites produced by three studied, law suits related to the debate, and newspaper coverage of the debate. Participant observation was conducted at public hearings and meetings of the Kentuckians for the Commonwealth and Community Farm Alliance. Results from this project suggest that gender and sexualization play very important roles in establishing hierarchies between organized groups and government agencies. Results also indicate that the constructions of farmers, farming and rurality produced by hierarchical relationships are largely dependent on distinct spatial arrangements which have very real effects on human-human, human-environment and human-animal relationships. KEYWORDS: Hog farming, gender, governmentality, power/knowledge, actor networks PIGS IN SPACE: GHOSTS, GENDER AND SEXUALITY IN A DEBATE ABOUT REGULATING INDUSTRIAL HOG FARMS IN KENTUCKY By Mary E. Curran Susan M. Roberts Director of Dissertation Richard Schein Director of Graduate Studies RULES FOR THE USE OF DISSERTATIONS Unpublished dissertations submitted for the Doctor’s degree and deposited in the University of Kentucky Library are as a rule open for inspection, but are to be used only with due regard to the rights of the authors. Bibliographical references may be noted, but quotations or summaries of parts may be published only with the permission of the author, and with the usual scholarly acknowledgments. Extensive copying or publication of the dissertation in whole or in part also requires the consent of the Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Kentucky. PIGS IN SPACE: GHOSTS, GENDER AND SEXUALITY IN A DEBATE ABOUT REGULATING INDUSTRIAL HOG FARMS IN KENTUCKY DISSERTATION A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences At the University of Kentucky By Mary E. Curran Lexington, Kentucky Director: Dr. Susan M. Roberts, Associate Professor of Geography Lexington, Kentucky 2002 Copyright- Mary E. Curran 2002 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am exceedingly grateful both for the collegial atmosphere in the Geography Department in general as well as for my committee members’ assistance, guidance and sense of humor throughout the dissertation process. My Dissertation Chair, Dr. Susan M. Roberts, is the answer to a student’s prayers: she is tough, supportive, ironic, wise and so busy that her almost immediate comments to my chapters was nothing less than miraculous. I owe Dr. Paola Bacchetta, not only for her shared wisdom and willingness to read chapters but for my born-again geographer status. If Dr. Karl Raitz weren’t such a wonderful person he’d be downright scary: the man knows everything and is so crucial to the maintenance of the department atmosphere in his role as chair. What can I say about the prince of poststructuralism, Dr. J.P. Jones III, who, without a moment’s hesitation, encouraged me to take the kind of risks I took writing like a pig? Dr. Shaunna Scott has been helpful in two departments: first, sociology and now geography. And my outside member, Dr. Keith Schillo, is a welcome addition as he is one of the few members of the College of Agriculture who is interested in the challenges that I raise to industrial agriculture. I am very grateful to Richard Gilbreath and John Hintz who produced my maps. I have been blessed. Thank you all. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowlegments............................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v List of Figures................................................................................................................................ vi List of Files ...................................................................................................................................vii Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Importance of the debate............................................................................................................. 1 Other theoretical approaches..................................................................................................... 15 An alternative theoretical approach .......................................................................................... 17 Ghost hunting............................................................................................................................ 29 ‘Rights’ as a problematic .......................................................................................................... 31 Methods..................................................................................................................................... 32 Structure of this study ............................................................................................................... 35 Interpolation #1............................................................................................................................. 37 Chapter Two: KFTC and CFA: The activist agenda .................................................................... 39 KFTC history ............................................................................................................................ 40 CFA history............................................................................................................................... 46 Hearing comments .................................................................................................................... 54 Hearing comment analysis........................................................................................................ 73 Chapter Three: Environmental justice: Gender and religious imaginaries................................... 79 Industrial farming...................................................................................................................... 81 Economic development............................................................................................................. 85 Environmental issues ................................................................................................................ 87 Criticism of government agencies ............................................................................................ 89 Social justice issues................................................................................................................... 92 Global ties ................................................................................................................................