Agriculture and Human Values最新文献

This paper examines the role of geopolitics, including armed conflict, in family farming. Drawing on critical approaches to geopolitics in geography and anthropology, we situate the dynamics of family farming in the context of multiscalar struggles over territory and political sovereignty. Our historically and geographically situated approach shows how geopolitical positionality engenders vulnerabilities as well as political potential for alternative development by shaping labor and gender dynamics in farming households. Empirically, our research provides an illustrative example of the Baltic states, especially Latvia and Lithuania, which have been situated within geopolitical fault lines for centuries. Focusing on four different historical periods, we demonstrate how the dynamics of family farming in the Baltic states—characterized by the persistence of smallholder family farms and specific land ownership patterns with women owning almost half of farms—are partly a result of the multiscalar geopolitics manifesting itself in violent colonial histories. Our analysis also reveals how various geopolitical power interplays in borderlands can lead to devastating consequences, while simultaneously creating pathways for alternatives to the capital-intensive, environmentally destructive, and socially exploitative corporate food regime. Overall, our research underscores the complex ways in which geopolitical (in)security undergirds labor and gender in farming households.

As the United Nations declared the beginning of the “Decade of Family Farming” in 2017, scholars were increasingly questioning the romanticized and uncritical use of the term to mask some structural inequalities, including patriarchal ownership, colonialism, heteronormativity, family and child labor exploitation, poor labor standards, and environmental destruction. This introduction to a special symposium on the family farm differentiates scholarly approaches to studying family farming into three categories: celebratory, reformist, and abolitionist. After summarizing the papers included in this special issue, this introduction contends that it may be time to move beyond biological and marital relations when analyzing the most effective ways to solve social and environmental problems related to agricultural production.

Infrastructure can make or break a farm’s economic viability. Farmers’ ownership and ability to invest in infrastructure is often arranged through the family farm model, where farmers are typically married to their business partners. In this paper, we analyze the implications of organizing infrastructure access through the family farm model. Through interviews with 66 farmers and key informants in New England, U.S., we identify a treadmill of infrastructure accumulation for farmers with family capital and a treadmill of high labor and low profitability for farmers without the family capital to acquire needed infrastructure. Infrastructure accumulation in the family farm model builds farms that are difficult to adapt to new systems and markets, challenging to retire from without selling to developers, and hard for beginning farmers to afford. The economic tendencies of organizing infrastructure through the family farm model can make it difficult for farmers of all social backgrounds to access farmland and infrastructure. Moreover, continued inequities in family wealth and wages, credit access, and social capital means that the family farm model systematically disadvantages farmers of color, LGBTQ + farmers, limited resource, and women farmers. We argue that infrastructure accumulation through the family farm model is a process that intensifies inequities in farm viability, exacerbates the challenges of transitioning farms to new farmers and ways of farming, and fuels land injustice.