Rooting a Successful Model for Agriculture in a Politics of Possibility: the Case of the Land Institute
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Sociology Sociology 2017 Rooting a Successful Model for Agriculture in a Politics of Possibility: The Case of The Land Institute Alicia Hullinger University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2017.215 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Hullinger, Alicia, "Rooting a Successful Model for Agriculture in a Politics of Possibility: The Case of The Land Institute" (2017). Theses and Dissertations--Sociology. 33. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/sociology_etds/33 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Sociology by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately for worldwide access unless an embargo applies. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of my work. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of my work. I understand that I am free to register the copyright to my work. REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE The document mentioned above has been reviewed and accepted by the student’s advisor, on behalf of the advisory committee, and by the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), on behalf of the program; we verify that this is the final, approved version of the student’s thesis including all changes required by the advisory committee. The undersigned agree to abide by the statements above. Alicia Hullinger, Student Dr. Shannon E. Bell, Major Professor Dr. Ana Liberato, Director of Graduate Studies ROOTING A SUCCESSFUL MODEL FOR AGRICULTURE IN A POLITICS OF POSSIBILITY: THE CASE OF THE LAND INSTITUTE DISSERTATION A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky By Alicia Hullinger Lexington, Kentucky Directors: Dr. Shannon E. Bell, Associate Professor of Sociology and Dr. Julie Zimmerman, Professor of Sociology Lexington, Kentucky May 2017 Copyright © Alicia Hullinger 2017 ABSTRACT ROOTING A SUCCESSFUL MODEL FOR AGRICULTURE IN A POLITICS OF POSSIBILITY: THE CASE OF THE LAND INSTITUTE This research considers the potential for social movement organizations (SMOs) to bring about a comprehensive transformation to the current system of industrial agriculture by asking, How can a SMO outside a field of power advance an oppositional model while not being coopted by the dominant system? In Part One, I provide the background context for agricultural research systems in the U.S., describing the rise of the current landscape setting the national agenda and its consequences. To explain power dynamics, I apply a synthesis of Pierre Bourdieu’s and Raymond Williams’ relational theory models for considering the trends of dominant, alternative, and oppositional ideas and practices in a field of power. Next, I present Gibson-Graham’s “politics of possibility” conceptualization along with a concept I term “liberated ecosystem,” to visualize a SMO functioning outside a field of power and investing in a counterhegemonic project. I use the interplay of these concepts to examine the process of pre-emergence, defined as interactional relationships in some measure formulating new experiences that are not compatible to the dominant position. I contend that cultural work is an important factor in the process of pre-emergence. In Part Two, I pick up on the cultural strategies for pre- emerging social change. I start by introducing the case of The Land Institute (TLI) and then proceed to my methods in which I used a historical, multi-modal framework to analyze the cultural work enacted by activists advancing a progressive agenda for sustainability. I describe each strategic action based on its active making of culture, culture as product, and reception of culture. I conclude that the hegemonic nature of industrial agriculture continues to be alive and well, but SMOs have the potential to challenge the ruling social order through deliberate cultural work. Collective action among activists means moving between a liberated ecosystem and a field of power to create new language and new subjectivities. This research shows that comprehensive transformation relies on activists who sustain a comprehensive shared vision, provide values-based education, conduct place-based research, and gather together to nurture a politics of possibility. KEYWORDS: social movements; agriculture; relational theory model; cultural analysis; politics of possibility. Alicia Hullinger 19 April 2017 ROOTING A SUCCESSFUL MODEL FOR AGRICULTURE IN A POLITICS OF POSSIBILITY: THE CASE OF THE LAND INSTITUTE By Alicia Hullinger Shannon E. Bell Director of Dissertation Julie Zimmerman Director of Dissertation Ana Liberato Director of Graduate Studies 19 April 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge and thank my personal and professional confidantes who supported me in various, immeasurable ways at some point throughout my long, arduous dissertation journey (starting with the person who turned up at the end and then in alphabetical order): Deji Amos, Allison Adair, Lily Brislen, Grace Cale, Gaby Ciciurkaite, Sara Compion, Douglas Constance, Joel DiGirolamo, Wes Eaton, John-Mark Hack, John Fisher, Laura and Dave Fisher, Michelle Francis, Wain Joseph, Abdel Lawani, David Luke, Pat Mooney, Valerie Phebus, Sarah Rocker, Keiko Tanaka, Gene Theodori, and Kyla Wazana Tompkins. I would also like to acknowledge the contemplations I gained through my colleagues in the Ag-Food Working Group and the Political Ecology Working Group (PEWG). I am super grateful for my committee members, Shannon Bell, Julie Zimmerman, Tom Janoski, Shaunna Scott, and Krista Jacobsen, who supported my research endeavor and provided thoughtful feedback and insights along the way. A special note of gratitude goes to co-chair Julie Zimmerman who was my cheerleader. Along with her, I am especially grateful for starting and finishing my graduate work at UK with co-chair Shannon Bell who has been my champion. Thank you to Mary Berry who informally spoke about The Land Institute’s work at a luncheon back in 2012, sparking my interest to pursue my research topic. I would like to call special attention to Wes Jackson and Tim Crews along with the staff, board members, fellows, interns, and Friends of The Land Institute. I am grateful that you provided me behind-the-scenes access to your organization and network for my research. I am pleased as punch to have worked with such helpful and pleasant folks and who work to make our one home a better place. Thanks y’all for your encouragement! iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii LIST OF TERMS vi LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX ix 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. 1.1 The Case 7 1.2. 1.2 Research Proposition 8 1.3. 1.3 Goals of Research 10 1.4. 1.4 Methodology 11 1.5. 1.5 My Positionality 12 1.6. 1.6 Structure of Dissertation 14 PART ONE: BACKGROUND CONTEXT OF POWER DYNAMICS IN 16 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEMS 2 RISE OF AGRO‐CAPITALIST RESEARCH COMPLEX 17 2.1. 2.1 Origins of Modern Day Science 18 2.2. 2.2 Interlocking Logic: State‐Science‐Market 25 2.3. 2.3 Consequences Of Agro‐Capitalist Research Complex 33 2.4. 2.4 Response To Agro‐Capitalist Research Complex 38 3 THE STRUGGLE: DOMINANT, ALTERNATIVE, OPPOSITION 49 3.1. 3.1 Mechanisms of Struggle: Maintaining Dominant Position 55 3.2. 3.2 Mechanisms of Struggle: Opposing Dominant Position 61 4 A LIBERATED ECOSYSTEM AND ITS POLITICS OF POSSIBILITY 66 4.1. 4.1 Previous Literature: Cultural Work 66 4.2. 4.2 Politics of Possibility 70 4.3. 4.3 Liberated Ecosystem 76 PART TWO: CULTURAL STRATEGIES FOR PRE‐EMERGING SOCIAL 82 CHANGE 5 THE CASE: THE LAND INSTITUTE 83 5.1. 5.1 The Protagonist: Wes Jackson 88 5.2. 5.2 The Posture: Solution To Problem 93 5.3. 5.3 The Place: Konza Prairie 95 5.4. 5.4 The Event: The Prairie Festival 97 iv 6 METHODOLOGY 102 6.1. 6.1 Research Design 103 6.2. 6.2 Data Collection 105 6.3. 6.3 Data Analysis 108 7 CULTURAL LOGIC: ASSUMPTIONS + VALUES FOR IDEAS + PRACTICES 115 7.1. 7.1 Oppositional Paradigm 116 7.2. 7.2 Natural Systems Agriculture 128 7.3. 7.3 Perennials in Polycultures 132 7.4. 7.4 A Marriage of Ecology and Agronomy 136 7.5. 7.5 Ecospheric Studies 137 8 SUSTAINING A SHARED VISION 142 8.1. 8.1 Active Making of Vision 142 8.2. 8.2 Vision as Product 154 8.3. 8.3 Reception of Vision 164 9 DELIVERING VALUES‐BASED EDUCATION 167 9.1. 9.1 Active Making of Education 168 9.2. 9.2 Education as Product 181 9.3. 9.3 Reception of Education 186 10 CONDUCTING PLACE‐BASED WORK 189 10.1.