Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 2
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Methods
- Part II Embodied Environmental Sociology
- Part III Beyond the Human
- Part IV Sustainability and Climate Change
- Part V Resources
- Part VI Food and Agriculture
- 22 Future and Food: New Technologies, Old Political Debates
- 23 Eating Our Way to a Sustainable Future?
- 24 Neoliberal Globalization and Beyond: Food, Farming, and the Environment
- 25 The Sociology of Environmental Morality: Examples from Agri-Food
- Part VII Social Movements
- Index
- References
22 - Future and Food: New Technologies, Old Political Debates
from Part VI - Food and Agriculture
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 2
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Methods
- Part II Embodied Environmental Sociology
- Part III Beyond the Human
- Part IV Sustainability and Climate Change
- Part V Resources
- Part VI Food and Agriculture
- 22 Future and Food: New Technologies, Old Political Debates
- 23 Eating Our Way to a Sustainable Future?
- 24 Neoliberal Globalization and Beyond: Food, Farming, and the Environment
- 25 The Sociology of Environmental Morality: Examples from Agri-Food
- Part VII Social Movements
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter looks at two case studies: two groups that are part of “smart” farming assemblages in quite divergent ways. These data are derived from interviews with (1) twenty employees (technicians, sale reps, and engineers) from various big data companies located from around North America and the U.K., and (2) eighteen farmers from around the USA engaged to various degrees with the loosely organized group called Farm Hack. The chapter beings by briefly introducing each empirical case. Next, findings from an instrument used to generate word clouds are explored. The word clouds are used to interrogate how the two populations thought about the concept of good citizen. The chapter concludes by discussing what it means for data and code in an agricultural context to have politics and how we might think about prioritizing some techniques, in particular, those supporting collaborative ontologies, over others.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology , pp. 377 - 389Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
American Farm Bureau. 2015. The Voice of Agriculture. American Farm Bureau. Available online at www.fb.org/newsroom/news_article/178/, accessed November 16, 2017.Google Scholar
Andrejevic, M. 2014. Big Data, Big Questions: The Big Data Divide. International Journal of Communication, 8: 17–32.Google Scholar
Arditi, B. 2014. “Insurgencies Don’t Have a Plan – They Are the Plan: Political Performatives and Vanishing Mediators in 2011.” pp. 113–39 in The Promise and Perils of Populism: Global Perspectives, edited by de la Torre, C, Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Bobkoff, D. 2015 Seed by Seed, Acre by Acre, Big Data Is Taking Over the Farm. Business Insider 15 September. Available online at www.businessinsider.com/big-data-and-farming-2015–8, accessed November 9, 2017.Google Scholar
Carolan, M. 2010. The Mutability of Biotechnology Patents: From Unwieldy Products of Nature to Independent ‘Object/S’. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(1),110–129.Google Scholar
Carolan, M., 2013. The Wild Side of Agro‐Food Studies: On Co‐experimentation, Politics, Change, and Hope. Sociologia Ruralis, 53(4), 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carolan, M. 2017a. Publicising Food: Big Data, Precision Agriculture, and Co‐Experimental Techniques of Addition. Sociologia Ruralis, 57(2), 135–154.Google Scholar
Carolan, M. 2017b. Agro‐Digital Governance and Life Itself: Food Politics at the Intersection of Code and Affect. Sociologia Ruralis, 57(S1), 816–835.Google Scholar
Carolan, M. 2017c. More‐than‐Active Food Citizens: A Longitudinal and Comparative Study of Alternative and Conventional Eaters. Rural Sociology, 82(2), 197–225.Google Scholar
Carolan, M. 2018. “Smart” Farming Techniques as Political Ontology: Access, Sovereignty, and the Performance of Neoliberal and Not-So-Neoliberal Worlds. Sociologia Ruralis, DOI:10.1111/soru.12202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J., Coll, K, Dagnino, E, and Neveu, C. 2014. Disputing Citizenship. Chicago, IL: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Dawson, A. 2016. Digital Agriculture the Next Big Thing, Says Monsanto Official, Manitoba Cooperator May 3. Available online at www.manitobacooperator.ca/crops/digital-agriculture-the-next-big-thing-says-monsanto-official/, last accessed November 26, 2017.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1946. The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry. Chicago, IL: Gateway.Google Scholar
Emery, S. B. 2015. Independence and Individualism: Conflated Values In Farmer Cooperation? Agriculture and Human Values, 32(1), 47–61.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 2007. Security, Territory and Population. Lectures at the College de France 1977–1978. London: Palgrave,Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. 1983. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: Lifeworld And System. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Higgins, V., Bryant, M., Howell, A. and Battersby, J., 2017. Ordering Adoption: Materiality, Knowledge and Farmer Engagement with Precision Agriculture Technologies. Journal of Rural Studies, 55, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isin, E. 2009. Citizenship in Flux: The Figure of the Activist Citizen. Subjectivity, 29, 367–388.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. 2003. Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science,Minerva, 41, 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, R. 2015. A Plea for Culinary Modernism. Jacobin May 22. Available online at www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/slow-food-artisanal-natural-preservatives/ accessed November 9, 2017.Google Scholar
Michalopoulos, S. 2015. Europe Entering the Era of ‘Precision Agriculture.’ EurActiv.com October 23. Available online at www.euractiv.com/sections/innovation-feeding-world/europe-entering-era-precision-agriculture-318794, accessed November 20, 2017.Google Scholar
Rannikko, P. and Salmi, P., 2017. Towards Neo‐Productivism? Finnish Paths in the Use Of Forest And Sea. Sociologia Ruralis. DOI:10.1111/soru.12195/Google Scholar
Rose, N. 1999. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA 2015. Crop Production Practices for Corn. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=46941, accessed March 29, 2017.Google Scholar
Wiens, K. 2015. We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the very Idea of Ownership. Wired April 21. Available online at www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/.Google Scholar
Williams, R. 1985. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, G., 2001. From Productivism to Post‐Productivism … and Back Again? Exploring the (Un) Changed Natural and Mental Landscapes of European Agriculture. Transactions of the institute of British Geographers, 26(1), 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winner, L. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. 2005. Reflexing Complexity: Post-genomic Knowledge and Reductionist Returns in Public Science. Theory, Culture & Society, 22, 67–94.Google Scholar
Zarco-Tejada, P., Hubbard, N and Loudjani, P 2014, Precision Agriculture: An Opportunity for EU farmers – Potential Support with the CAP, 2014–2020, Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission; Monitoring Agriculture ResourceS (MARS) Unit H04 Available online at www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2014/529049/IPOLAGRI_NT%282014%29529049_EN.pdf, accessed November 20, 2017.Google Scholar
Zoomers, A., Gekker, A, and Schäfer, M 2016. Between Two Hypes: Will “Big Data” Help Unravel Blind Spots in Understanding the “Global Land Rush? Geoforum, 69, 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar