Abstract
This paper proposes a contribution to the analysis of the processes that accompany the increasing fragmentation of agricultural worlds between contrasting models of development. To this end, we examine an area that has until now attracted little attention in this respect, that of the scientific and technological actors involved; we also look at original mechanisms which aim to create intersections between models of development. The paper is based on research carried out in Argentina, a country where there are two major contrasting models of development, embodied by the notions of agribusiness and family farming. We analyse the trajectory of a technological innovation in the field of machinery, based on the determination of agronomists and manufacturers to adapt agribusiness technologies to the needs of small family farmers. We study the attempts at problematisation and interessement that they make in relation to this public and its accompanying scientific and technical actors. These dynamics reveal contrasting approaches to innovation, technology and agricultural development. They also demonstrate the profound misunderstanding that exists between these two heterogeneous worlds.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
On this notion of model, see also (Godin 2015) on “innovation models”.
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria.
This research was funded in part by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (France), as part of the SAGE project (Sécurité Alimentaire: la globalisation d’un problème public), ANR-13-JSH1-0008, and by INTA as part of the project “Procesos socio-técnicos de innovación en los territorios—Programa Nacional para el desarrollo y la sustentabilidad de los territorios”.
It is worth mentioning that we will not be discussing the theoretical or analytical pertinence of these concepts; instead we will use them instrumentally, to serve our objective which consists in clarifying a relatively unexplored facet of the dynamics of coexistence in agriculture.
Note that one specificity of INTA is that it has its own agricultural research and development departments, whereas in many countries these are often confined to separate institutions.
This process reached its peak in 2014, a year declared by the FAO to be “International Family farming year”, with numerous political and scientific events being organised in Argentina around this theme.
On the population of peri-urban market gardeners, often Bolivian immigrants, and on their role in supplying cities such as Buenos Aires, see Le Gall (2015).
References
Akrich, M., Callon, M., & Latour, B. (2002). The key to success in innovation. Part 1: The art of intressement. International Journal of Innovation Management, 6(2), 187–206.
Akrich, M., Callon, M., B. Latour, Eds. (2006). Sociologie de la traduction. Textes Fondateurs, Paris: Presses de l’Ecole des Mines.
Albaladejo, C. (2016) Modelo teórico para ensar la copresencia y coexistencia de diferentes formas de agricultura. In: Seminario internacional “Transformaciones territoriales y la actividad agropecuaria. Tendencias globales y emergentes locales”, La Plata, Argentina.
Albaladejo, C., & Arnauld de Sartre, X. (2012). Une révolution agricole incomplète? Leçons d’Argentine. In H. Regnault, X. Arnauld de Sartre, & C. Regnault-Roger (Eds.), Les révolutions agricoles en perspective (pp. 51–72). Paris: Editions France Agricole.
Barri, F., & Wahren, J. (2010). El modelo sojero de desarrollo en la Argentina: tensiones y conflictos en la era del neocolonialismo de los agronegocios y el cientificismo-tecnológico. Realidad Económica, 255, 43–65.
Bernstein, H. (2014). Food sovereignty via the peasant way: a sceptical view. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 1031–1063.
Best, H. (2008). Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis: a case study from West Germany. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(1), 95–106.
Blanchet, V. (2017). “We make markets”. The role of the ethical fashion show in categorising the ethical fashion. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 32(2), 26–45.
Bonneuil, C., Joly, P. B., & Marris, C. (2008). Disentrenching experiment? The construction of GM-crop field trials as a social problem in France. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 201–229.
Bowker, G., & Leigh Star. S. (1999). Sorting things out. Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of the St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge.
Callon, M. (2016). Revisiting marketization: from interface-markets to market-agencements. Consumption Markets & Culture, 19(1), 17–37.
Cornilleau, L., & Joly, P. B. (2014). La révolution verte, un instrument de gouvernance de la “faim dans le monde”. Une histoire de la recherche agronomique internationale. In D. Pestre (Ed.), Le gouvernement des technosciences (pp. 171–201). Paris: La Découverte.
Coughenour, C. M., & Chamala, S. (2000). Conservation tillage and cropping innovation. Constructing the new culture of agriculture (360 p). Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Craviotti, C. (2014). La agricultura familiar en Argentina: Nuevos desarrollos institucionales, viejas tendencias estructurales. In: Craviotti, C. (Eds) Agricultura familiar en Latinoamérica: Continuidades, transformaciones y controversias (pp. 175–204). Buenos Aires: CICCUS.
Dodier, N. (1995). The conventional foundation of action. Elements of a sociological pragmatics. Réseaux, 3, 145–166.
Dubuisson-Quellier, S. (2003). Confiance et qualité des produits alimentaires: une approche par la sociologie des relations marchandes. Sociologie du travail, 45(1), 95–111.
Elgert, L. (2016). ‘More soy on fewer farms’ in Paraguay: challenging neoliberal agriculture’s claims to sustainability. Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(2), 537–561.
Elverdin, J., Ledesma, S. E., Zain El Din, E. & Cittadini, E., Eds. (2014) Programa Nacional para el Deasrrollo y la Sustentabilidad de los Territorios. Buenos Aires: Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación, INTA.
Fleury, P., Chazoule, C., & Peigné, J. (2014). Ruptures et transversalités entre agriculture biologique et agriculture de conservation. Economie Rurale, 339–340, 95–112.
Fouilleux, E. (2015). Agriculture, alimentation et mondialisation (75 p). Angers: Groupe ESA.
Gisclard, M., Allaire, G. & Cittadini, R. (2015) Proceso de institucionalización de la agricultura familiar y nuevo referencial para el desarrollo rural en la Argentina. Mundo Agrario 16(31).
Godin, B. (2015). Models of innovation: Why models of innovation are models, or what work is being done in calling them models? Social Studies of Science, 45(4), 570–596.
Goodman, D. E., Dupuis, M., & Goodman, M. K. (2012). Alternative food networks. Knowledge, practice and politics (308 p). London: Routledge.
Goulet, F. (2016) Faire science à part. Politiques d’inclusion sociale et recherche agronomique en Argentine, Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Université Paris-Est.
Goulet, F., & Vinck, D. (2012). Innovation through withdrawal. Contribution to a sociology of detachment. Revue Française de Sociologie, 53(2), 117–146.
Granjou, C., & Arpin, I. (2015). Epistemic commitments: making relevant science in biodiversity studies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 40(6), 1022–1046.
Gras, C., & Hernandez, V. (Eds.). (2013). El agro como negocio (366 p). Biblos: Buenos Aires.
Hervieu, B., & Purseigle, F. (2015). The sociology of agricultural worlds: from a sociology of change to a sociology of coexistence. Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies, 96(1), 59–90.
Hubbard, K., & Hassanein, N. (2013). Confronting coexistence in the United States: organic agriculture, genetic engineering, and the case of roundup ready alfalfa. Agriculture and Human Values, 30, 325–335.
Jansen, K. (2014). The debate on food sovereignty theory: agrarian capitalism, dispossession and agroecology. Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(1), 213–232.
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order (332 p). New-York: Routledge.
Lapegna, P. (2013). Social movements and patronage politics: processes of demobilization and dual pressure. Sociological Forum, 28, 842–863.
Lapegna, P. (2016). Genetically modified soybeans, agrochemical exposure, and everyday forms of peasant collaboration in Argentina. Journal of Peasant Studies, 43, 517–536.
Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology (336 p). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Le Gall, J. (2015). Nouveaux producteurs urbains, nouvelles agricultures urbaines? Migrants boliviens et «bolivianisation» de l’approvisionnement en légumes de Buenos Aires. Problèmes d’Amérique latine, 4(99), 49–66.
Leigh Star, S. & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutionnal ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals on Berkeley’s museum of vertebrates zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
Le Velly, R. (2017). Sociologie des systèmes alimentaires alternatifs. Une promesse de différence. Paris: Presses des Mines.
Lemery, B. (2003). Les agriculteurs dans la fabrique d'une nouvelle agriculture. Sociologie du Travail, 45(1), 9–25.
Manzanal M. & Schneider S. (2011). Agricultura familiar y políticas de desarrollo rural en Argentina y Brasil (Análisis Comparativo, 1990-2010). Revista Interdisciplinaria de Estudios Agrarios 34, 35–71.
Pellegrini, P. A. (2013). Transgénicos. Ciencia, agricultura y controversias en la Argentina. Bernal: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
Richardson, N. (2009). Export-oriented populism: commodities and coalitions in Argentina. Studies in Comparative International Development, 3(44), 228–255.
Sabourin, E. (2014). L’agriculture brésilienne en débat: évolutions récentes, controverses et politiques publiques. Problèmes d’Amérique latine, 4(95), 33–55.
Schiavoni G. (2010) Describir y prescribir: la tipificación de la agricultura familiar en la Argentina. Las agriculturas familiares del Mercosur: trayectorias, amenazas y desafíos. M. Manzanal and G. Neiman (eds). Buenos Aires, Ciccus: 43–59.
Vinck, D. (2009). De l’objet intermédiaire à l’objet frontière. Vers la prise en compte du travail d'équipement, Revue d'Anthropologie des Connaissances, 3(1), 51–72.
Vinck, D. (2011). Taking intermediary objects and equipping work into account in the study of engineering practices. Engineering Studies, 3(1), 25–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goulet, F., Giordano, G. Searching for family farming in Argentina: chronicles of a technological innovation between two worlds. Rev Agric Food Environ Stud 98, 233–253 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-017-0058-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-017-0058-1