Sustainable Practices and Sustainability Ideology on Small Farms in North-Central West Virginia
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES AND SUSTAINABILITY IDEOLOGY ON SMALL FARMS IN NORTH-CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA by Amanda Zickefoose Bachelor of Arts, Pennsylvania State University, 2004 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2016 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences This dissertation was presented by Amanda Zickefoose It was defended on October 28, 2016 and approved by Kathleen M. Blee, PhD, Distinguished Professor of Sociology Gerard D’Souza, PhD, Director and Professor of Resource Economics and Management Bryan K. Hanks, PhD, Associate Professor of Anthropology Kathleen Musante, PhD, Professor of Anthropology and Public Health Dissertation Advisor: Richard Scaglion, PhD, Professor of Anthropology ii Copyright © by Amanda Zickefoose 2016 iii SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES AND SUSTAINABILITY IDEOLOGY ON SMALL FARMS IN NORTH-CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA Amanda Zickefoose, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2016 This dissertation examines farming practices and ideologies through the lens of sustainability rhetoric. While “conventional” and “sustainable” agriculture are often set in opposition in the literature, this research shows how, in West Virginia, small farmers who identify as being in both camps actually use many of the same methods and practices. Consequently, these farming operations are characterized not as contrasts and opposites, but rather as a spectrum with methods varying more by degree than type. In the literature, sustainable farmers are often described as employing practices that prioritize the environment and community, whereas conventional farmers purportedly use practices that maximize profit at a cost to the environment. Such a dichotomy suggests that sustainable farmers utilize methods entirely different from conventional farmers. This study reveals that small farmers of both types use many of the same agricultural practices for similar reasons, and argues for an analytic distinction between “sustainable practices” and “sustainability ideology”. The ideologies and practices involved in agricultural operations in the United States are contentious issues, with differences in opinions and values competing at the levels of household decision-making, market principles, and federal policy. For some, there is increasing concern about the impacts of conventional agriculture, producing alternatives such as organic agriculture and re-localization efforts. Sustainability rhetoric iv often depicts the alternatives almost entirely in opposition to conventional agriculture, and stereotypes that are based on large scale, conventional agricultural operations are extended to any conventional farm regardless of size and scale. This study reveals the actual practices and ideologies of small farmers who identify as conventional or sustainable and highlights sustainability ideology in order to help understand why there is not more collaboration among the conventional and sustainable farmers. By demonstrating that conventional small farmers do not always employ the same methods as agribusiness farmers and instead more often resemble sustainable farmers (although at times with a different ideology), this study argues for increased collaboration among rural small farmers of both types, as well as those who work with them. v TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION.......................................................................................................................... XIII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... XIV 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM .................................................................................... 1 1.2 OUTLINE OF THE DISSERTATION .............................................................. 6 2.0 FIELD SETTING ....................................................................................................... 15 2.1 METHODOLOGY FOR THE STUDY IN NORTH-CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.2 A BRIEF PROFILE OF WEST VIRGINIA ................................................... 22 2.3 THE HISTORY OF WEST VIRGINIA SETTLEMENT ............................. 24 2.4 STEREOTYPES OF THE REGION ............................................................... 30 2.5 WEST VIRGINIA FARMS TODAY ............................................................... 35 3.0 DECONSTRUCTING SUSTAINABILITY ............................................................ 43 3.1 HOW DIFFERENT SECTORS OF SOCIETY AND ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES UTILIZE SUSTAINABILITY RHETORIC ......................................... 47 3.1.1 Sustainability, agriculture, and sustainable agriculture ............................ 47 3.1.1.1 Commodity agriculture and civic agriculture .................................. 51 vi 3.1.1.2 Empowering the small farmer: sustainable practices and a perception of control .......................................................................................... 53 3.1.2 The global agri-food system .......................................................................... 56 3.1.3 Sustainability, development, and sustainable development....................... 59 3.1.4 Economics ....................................................................................................... 62 3.1.5 Neo-Malthusian foundations ........................................................................ 71 3.1.6 Recent branches of alternative agriculture ................................................. 76 3.1.6.1 The organic movement: aims, goals, and shortcomings .................. 76 3.1.6.2 The local food movement .................................................................... 78 3.2 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 84 4.0 THE SPECTRUM OF SUSTAINABLITY ON SMALL FARMS ........................ 88 4.1 THE FARMERS ................................................................................................ 89 4.1.1 A “sustainable” farm family ......................................................................... 89 4.1.2 A “working toward sustainability” farm family ......................................... 92 4.1.3 A “conventional” farm family ...................................................................... 94 4.1.4 A “leaning toward conventional” farm family............................................ 96 4.2 THE CONSEQUENCES OF A DIVISION BETWEEN SUSTAINABLE AND CONVENTIONAL FARMING ............................................................................... 98 4.3 SUSTAINABILITY IDEOLOGY AND SUSTAINBLE PRACTICES: HOW AND WHY ARE THEY DIFFERENT? ......................................................................... 107 4.4 IDENTITY AND EMOTIONALLY CHARGED DESIGNATIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY .......................................................................................................... 114 vii 4.5 INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCES ON THE DEMARCATION OF SUSTAINABLE AND CONVENTIONAL AGRICULTURE ..................................... 124 4.6 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 131 5.0 HOW SMALL FARMERS UNDERSTAND AND VALUE THE LAND, ANIMALS, AND PEOPLE ...................................................................................................... 140 5.1 THE ECOLOGY OF MULTISPECIES ........................................................ 141 5.2 THE HUMAN AS “PARTNERING” WITH OTHER SPECIES: THEORECTICAL INFLUENCES ON MULTISPECIES INTERACTION ............. 153 5.2.1 An ontological turn: the nature/culture divide ......................................... 162 5.3 REINVENTING “CONNECTEDNESS” THROUGH FOOD AND FOOD PRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 167 5.3.1 Early endeavors ........................................................................................... 167 5.3.2 The twentieth century ................................................................................. 169 5.3.3 Chicken butchering: learning to value life by taking it ........................... 177 5.3.4 Is cow manure just grass and water? ......................................................... 182 5.3.5 Raising livestock includes checking chicken fertility! .............................. 189 6.0 THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUSTAINABILITY RHETORIC......................... 198 6.1 SUSTAINABILITY ORGANIZATIONS ARE TALKING THE TALK, BUT ARE THEY WALKING THE WALK? ................................................................ 199 6.2 COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................. 210 6.3 CONSTRUCTED BOUNDARIES: THE FENCES IN PASTURES ARE NOT THE ONLY FENCES IN AGRICULTURE ........................................................ 215 6.4 IDEOLOGY AND SUSTAINABILITY IDEOLOGY ................................. 221 viii 6.4.1 Structuralist ideology .................................................................................. 222 6.4.2 Poststructuralist ideology............................................................................ 225 6.4.3 Sustainability ideology ...............................................................................