Ever Since Hightower: The Politics of Agricultural Research Activism in the Molecular Age
- Frederick H. Buttel
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
In 1973, Jim Hightower and his associates at the Agribusiness Accountability Project dropped a bombshell – Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times – on the land-grant college and agricultural science establishments. From the early 1970s until roughly 1990, Hightower-style criticism of and activism toward the public agricultural research system focused on a set of closely interrelated themes: the tendencies for the publicly supported research enterprise to be an unwarranted taxpayer subsidy of agribusiness, for agricultural research and extension to favor large farmers and be disadvantageous for family farmers, for public research to stress mechanization while ignoring the concerns and interests of farm workers, and for the research and extension establishment to ignore rural poverty and other rural social problems. By 1990, however, there had been a quite fundamental restructuring of the agricultural technology opposition movement – one that is not often well recognized. Two overarching changes had occurred. First, agricultural-technology activism had shifted from contesting land-grant/public research priorities and practices to contesting private agribusiness technological priorities and practices. Second, the relatively integrated, overarching Hightower-type opposition had undergone bifurcation into two quite distinct social movements: the agricultural sustainability/local food systems movement on one hand, and the anti-GM food/crop and anti-food-system-globalization movement on the other. In this paper I explore the causes and consequences of these restructurings of the agricultural research and technology opposition movement. Chief among the major factors involved was the fact that “Hightowerism'' involved an ineffectual representational politics. Hightowerist claims – especially the claim that land-grant research was detrimental to family farmers – generated little support among the groups it claimed to represent (particularly “small'' or “family'' farmers). The two successor movements, by contrast, have relatively clear and dependable constituents. Further, the progressive molecularization of agricultural research, which proved to be both an antecedent and consequence of corporate involvement in agricultural research in the US, has decisively changed the issues that are contested by technology activists. Since the age of Hightower, the agricultural technology activist movement has shifted its 1970s and early 1980s emphasis from contesting public sector/land-grant research priorities to contesting private sector activities, particularly genetic engineering, GM crops, and globalization of agricultural technologies and regulatory practices. Even the sustainability/localism wing of the new agricultural technology movement configuration has progressively backed away from contesting public research priorities. The efforts of the sustainable agricultural and localism movement have increasingly focused on quasi-private efforts such as community supported agriculture, green/“value-added'' labeling and marketing strategies, and community food security. Some implications of this increasingly bifurcated, agricultural technology, activist movement configuration in which there is decreased interest in land-grant/public research priorities are discussed.
- Belden, J. (1986) Dirt Rich, Dirt Poor. Routledge and Keegan Paul, New York
- Busch, L., Lacy, W. B., Burkhardt, J., Lacy, L. R. (1991) Plants, Power, and Profit. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK
- Buttel, F. H. (1993) Ideology and agricultural technology in the late 20th century: Biotechnology as symbol and substance. Agriculture and Human Values 10: pp. 5-15 CrossRef
- Buttel, F. H. Some observations on agro-food change and the future of agricultural sustainability movements. In: Goodman, D., Watts, M. eds. (1997) Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and Global Restructuring. Routledge, London, UK, pp. 344-365
- Buttel, F. H., Busch, L. (1988) The public agricultural research system at the crossroads. Agricultural History 62: pp. 303-324
- Cleaver, H. (1972) The contradictions of the Green Revolution. American Economic Review 62: pp. 177-186
- Dahlberg, K. A. (1979) Beyond the Green Revolution. Plenum, New York
- Danbom, D. (1979) The Resisted Revolution. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa
- Danbom, D. B. Publicly sponsored agricultural research in the United States from an historical perspective. In: Dahlberg, K. A. eds. (1986) New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural Research. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, New Jersey, pp. 142-162
- Goodman, D., Redclift, M. (1991) Refashioning Nature. Routledge, London, UK
- Hadwiger, D. F. (1982) The Politics of Agricultural Research. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska
- Hadwiger, D. F. and W. P. Browne (eds.) (1978). The New Politics of Food. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
- Hightower, J. (1973) Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times. Schenckman, Cambridge, Massachusetts
- Jenkins, J. W. (1991). A Centennial History: A History of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Madison, Wisconsin: College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin.
- Kloppenburg, J., Buttel, F. H. (1987) Two blades of grass: The contradictions of agricultural research as state intervention. Research in Political Sociology 3: pp. 111-135
- Krimsky, S., Wrubel, R. (1996) Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois
- Marcus, A. I. From state chemistry to state science: The transformation of the idea of the agricultural experiment station, 1875–1887. In: Busch, L., Lacy, W. B. eds. (1986) The Agricultural Scientific Enterprise. Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, pp. 3-12
- Mooney, P. H., Majka, T. J. (1995) Farmers' and Farm Workers' Movements: Social Protest in American Agriculture. Twayne, New York
- National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NRC) (1972). Relevant Agricultural Research for the Seventies. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Agricultural Research Institute, October 12–13, 1971, St. Louis Missouri. Washington DC: NRC.
- Perkins, J. H. (1997) Geopolitics and the Green Revolution. Oxford University Press, New York
- Rissler, J., Mellon, M. (1996) The Ecological Risks of Genetically Engineered Crops. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
- Ruttan, V. W. (1980). Agricultural Research and the Future of American Agriculture. St. Paul, Minnesota: Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, Institute of Agriculture, Forestry, and Home Economics.
- Schurman, R. and D. T. Kelso (eds.) (2003). Engineering Trouble: Biotechnology and Its Discontents. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
- Thompson, P. B. The environmental ethics case for crop biotechnology: Putting science back into environmental practice. In: Light, A., De-Shalit, A. eds. (2003) Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 187-217
- Ever Since Hightower: The Politics of Agricultural Research Activism in the Molecular Age
Agriculture and Human Values
Volume 22, Issue 3 , pp 275-283
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- Agricultural science and technology
- Jim Hightower
- Land-grant universities
- Productivist ideology
- Public agricultural research
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Rural Sociology and Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA