Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 275–283 | Cite as

Ever Since Hightower: The Politics of Agricultural Research Activism in the Molecular Age

  • Frederick H. Buttel
Article

Abstract

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.

Key words

Activism Agricultural science and technology Jim Hightower Land-grant universities Productivist ideology Public agricultural research 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Belden,  J. 1986Dirt Rich, Dirt PoorRoutledge and Keegan PaulNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Busch, L., Lacy, W. B., Burkhardt, J., Lacy, L. R. 1991Plants, Power, and ProfitBasil BlackwellOxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Buttel, F. H. 1993Ideology and agricultural technology in the late 20th century: Biotechnology as symbol and substanceAgriculture and Human Values10515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buttel, F. H. 1997

    Some observations on agro-food change and the future of agricultural sustainability movements

    Goodman, D.Watts, M. eds. Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and Global RestructuringRoutledgeLondon, UK344365
    Google Scholar
  5. Buttel, F. H., Busch, L. 1988The public agricultural research system at the crossroadsAgricultural History62303324Google Scholar
  6. Cleaver, H. 1972The contradictions of the Green RevolutionAmerican Economic Review62177186Google Scholar
  7. Dahlberg, K. A. 1979Beyond the Green RevolutionPlenumNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Danbom, D. 1979The Resisted RevolutionIowa State University PressAmes, IowaGoogle Scholar
  9. Danbom, D. B. 1986

    Publicly sponsored agricultural research in the United States from an historical perspective

    Dahlberg, K. A. eds. New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural ResearchRowman and AllanheldTotowa, New Jersey 142162
    Google Scholar
  10. Goodman, D., Redclift, M. 1991Refashioning NatureRoutledgeLondon, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Hadwiger, D. F. 1982The Politics of Agricultural ResearchUniversity of Nebraska PressLincoln, NebraskaGoogle Scholar
  12. Hadwiger, D. F. and W. P. Browne (eds.) (1978). The New Politics of Food. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  13. Hightower, J. 1973Hard Tomatoes, Hard TimesSchenckmanCambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenkins, J. W. (1991). A Centennial History: A History of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of WisconsinMadison. Madison, Wisconsin: College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  15. Kloppenburg, J.,Jr, Buttel, F. H. 1987Two blades of grass: The contradictions of agricultural research as state interventionResearch in Political Sociology3111135Google Scholar
  16. Krimsky, S., Wrubel, R. 1996Agricultural Biotechnology and the EnvironmentUniversity of Illinois PressUrbana, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  17. Marcus, A. I. 1986

    From state chemistry to state science: The transformation of the idea of the agricultural experiment station, 1875–1887

    Busch, L.Lacy, W. B. eds. The Agricultural Scientific EnterpriseBoulder, ColoradoWestview Press312
    Google Scholar
  18. Mooney, P. H., Majka, T. J. 1995Farmers' and Farm Workers' Movements: Social Protest in American AgricultureTwayneNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Perkins, J. H. 1997Geopolitics and the Green RevolutionOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Rissler, J., Mellon, M. 1996The Ecological Risks of Genetically Engineered CropsMIT PressCambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Schurman, R. and D. T. Kelso (eds.) (2003). Engineering Trouble: Biotechnology and Its Discontents. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Thompson, P. B. 2003

    The environmental ethics case for crop biotechnology: Putting science back into environmental practice

    Light, A.De-Shalit, A. eds. Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental PracticeMIT PressCambridge, Massachusetts187217
    Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederick H. Buttel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Rural Sociology and Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations