4,219 research outputs found
"Name your poison": the discursive construction of chemical-use as everyday farming practice
No full text[Extract] The burgeoning use of agricultural chemicals is held by many to be responsible for widespread ecological damage and a plethora of public health problems (see van den Bosch, 1978; Carson, 1962; Fagin et al., 1996; McHugh, 1996; Shon, 1994; Steingraber, 1997). Consumer concerns about the potential effects of chemical residues in foods have contributed to rapid growth in sales for organically grown produce (Dumaresq and Greene, 1997; Hudson, 1996) and to demands by retailers for the introduction of complicated systems of Quality Assurance designed to minimise food-borne risks to consumers (Lockie, 1998). Even research with so-called "conventional" farmers has revealed deep-seated unease about chemical-use and a preference for its reduction (Lockie, 1997a; Lockie et al., 1995). Despite this, between 1977-78 and 1990-91, chemical- use on Australian farms rose by a factor of approximately two point five, while fuel and fertiliser use remained relatively stable and capital expenditure declined (Knopke & Harris, 1991). The all too obvious question is why? The answer is rather less so, but is commonly associated with the declining terms of trade faced by farmers and a subsequent need to boost productivity (Knopke & Harris, 1991), along with the seemingly more tangible environmental benefits of pest control and soil conservation offered by chemical-use (Barr & Cary, 1992). Sociologists, on the other hand, have pointed variously to a "technological treadmill" of industrialised capitalist agriculture and an accelerating transfer of control over on-farm decision making towards off-farm capital (Lawrence, 1987). Either way, farmers have been seen to have little choice if they are to remain viable but to continually intensify their production through ever-increasing use of off-farm inputs, including chemicals
Citizenship, engagement and the environment
No full text[Extract] The need to involve resource users, citizens, communities and other stakeholders as active participants in managing environments and natural resources has become so widely accepted as to seem common sense. Beyond the basic democratic principle that people have a right to be involved in decisions affecting their livelihoods, values and ways of life, community engagement and participation are seen as ways to reduce conflicts over managing resources, ensure that social strategies and, perhaps most importantly, 'capture' and apply local knowledge (Lockie 2001). Scientific organisations and regulatory agencies are no longer seen as the sole repositories of relevant knowledge and expertise. Government and corporate policies and expenditures are no longer seen as being sufficient to address environmental problems. Resolving the environmental challenges of our time is seen as such a large and complex set of tasks as to require all citizens to be actively involved
Governance, 'local' knowledge and the adoption of sustainable farming practices
No full text[Extract] This chapter is concerned with the attempts of state agencies and their representatives to promote more productive and sustainable relationships between farmers and 'natural' environments. We argue that while it is important to recognise the direct attempts to regulate agricultural environments and farm management practices, there is much to be gained from an analysis of the more subtle ways in which agencies attempt to influence how people think about the environment and understand their place within it, as well as their responses to what they 'know' about that environment. This chapter focuses upon the relationships between power, knowledge, and the symbolic and material construction of agricultural environments. In doing so it draws heavily on Foucault's analysis of governmental rationalities and the ways in which these are used to coordinate 'action at a distance' amongst otherwise disparate actors. Thus, for example, Miller and Rose (1990) argue that modem government occurs not just via direct 'political' forms of intervention or force, but through mechanisms which allow calculations and strategies at one place to be linked to action at another. In relation to Australian ·agriculture, this theoretical approach has been most extensively used, to date, in the analysis of changes to state policy and activity associated with the National Landcare Programme (see Lockie, 1999; Martin and Woodhill, 1995)
Governance, 'local' knowledge and the adoption of sustainable farming practices
No full text[Extract] This chapter is concerned with the attempts of state agencies and their representatives to promote more productive and sustainable relationships between farmers and 'natural' environments. We argue that while it is important to recognise the direct attempts to regulate agricultural environments and farm management practices, there is much to be gained from an analysis of the more subtle ways in which agencies attempt to influence how people think about the environment and understand their place within it, as well as their responses to what they 'know' about that environment. This chapter focuses upon the relationships between power, knowledge, and the symbolic and material construction of agricultural environments. In doing so it draws heavily on Foucault's analysis of governmental rationalities and the ways in which these are used to coordinate 'action at a distance' amongst otherwise disparate actors. Thus, for example, Miller and Rose (1990) argue that modem government occurs not just via direct 'political' forms of intervention or force, but through mechanisms which allow calculations and strategies at one place to be linked to action at another. In relation to Australian ·agriculture, this theoretical approach has been most extensively used, to date, in the analysis of changes to state policy and activity associated with the National Landcare Programme (see Lockie, 1999; Martin and Woodhill, 1995)
Engaging with scientific data: making it meaningful
No full textTitled Engaged Environmental Citizenship, the book is a collaborative effort between editors Dr Heather Aslin of Charles Darwin University and Professor Stewart Lockie of the Australian National University. The publication brings together a diverse range of people to cast a critical look at how people identify and act as environmental citizens
Rural gender relations and landcare
No full text[Extract] Farming in Australia is constructed as a very male business. Farm men are 'farmers' while farm women are 'farmer's wives'. Cattle and sheep sales see rings filled to capacity with farm men watching the fate of their year's work, while farm women go off to do the shopping. Examination of the membership of farm organisations reveal these to be male dominated. This masculine hegemony, which has implications well beyond the construction of gender roles, is under challenge from a number of directions. Rural women's networks and conferences, for example, bring together large numbers of rural women, researchers and bureaucrats to put issues of concern to rural women on the public agenda, and to remind women of the important contributions they make to agriculture and rural life. Another area of particular interest- in. that it brings women and men together in what may have been viewed as a traditionally male area - is Landcare
Positive futures for rural Australia
No full text[Extract] Making bold predictions about the future, or offering defini¬tive solutions to complex social and environmental problems is a dangerous, if not foolhardy, enterprise. One thing we can be confident about, however, is that the best way to ensure the continuation of existing trends toward depopulation, negative incomes, poor health, increasing debt, etc., is to maintain the status quo in terms of government and industry policy. The extreme economic rationalist argument that deregulation hasn't worked yet simply because it hasn't gone far enough -that governments have lost their nerve while farmers have tied up resources by not responding rationally to market signals to sell up and leave is circular and nonsensical. More of the same results in more of the same
What future landcare? new directions under provisional funding
No full textAttempting to plot the future for any domain of social practice is a danger-fraught enterprise; and one that is made even more so in the case of Landcare by the multitude of social relationships involved, and the equally myriad understandings of Landcare promoted through those relationships. This has not stopped some rather notable attempts to plot such a future. These range from Andrew Campbell's (1992) vision for far-reaching changes in resource use, research and development and economic management; to Brian Roberts (1995) bold predictions about a 'hiccup' in the 'landcare movement' halfway through the Decade of Landcare - caused by the frustrations of bureaucratisation, economic pressure and under-funding - followed by a nation-wide renaissance of environmental concern, ecological literacy, support for alternative production systems and spiritual values. As tempting as it would be to focus on such heady claims, the intent and approach of this chapter is rather more conservative. It will seek rather to clarify the extent of change in Landcare policy initiated following the change of Federal Government in March 1996, and to explore the implications of this for the Landcare Program and rural environmental management more generally
Rural sociological perspectives and problems: a potted history
No full textThe discipline of sociology developed largely in response to social transformations associated with the Industrial and French Revo¬lutions. Not surprisingly, this lent early sociology a distinctly urban air. While issues associated with rurality were not omitted entirely from the sphere of sociological theorising, the social relations of industrialisation and urbanisation were seen as the fundamental problem matter of sociology. 'Rural' issues were consequently addressed, interpreted and, at times, ignored, according to the concerns and priorities of the broader sociological paradigm, because they were not considered 'problematic'. Industrialisation and urbanisation were identified as i:he quintessential features of modernity, reflected in, among others, Durkheim's Division of Labour, which marked rural communities and small-scale agricul¬ture as residual social categories (the 'other') marked by back¬wardness, conservatism and, inevitably, decline.' Many 'rural' people will argue, of course, that this 'urban bias' is still reflected today in many of their experiences with governments, service providers and 'urban' people more generally
Rural sociological perspectives and problems: a potted history
No full textThe discipline of sociology developed largely in response to social transformations associated with the Industrial and French Revo¬lutions. Not surprisingly, this lent early sociology a distinctly urban air. While issues associated with rurality were not omitted entirely from the sphere of sociological theorising, the social relations of industrialisation and urbanisation were seen as the fundamental problem matter of sociology. 'Rural' issues were consequently addressed, interpreted and, at times, ignored, according to the concerns and priorities of the broader sociological paradigm, because they were not considered 'problematic'. Industrialisation and urbanisation were identified as i:he quintessential features of modernity, reflected in, among others, Durkheim's Division of Labour, which marked rural communities and small-scale agricul¬ture as residual social categories (the 'other') marked by back¬wardness, conservatism and, inevitably, decline.' Many 'rural' people will argue, of course, that this 'urban bias' is still reflected today in many of their experiences with governments, service providers and 'urban' people more generally
- …
