Document Type
Dissertation
Date of Award
1976
Keywords
Organic farming, Technology, Social aspects, Agriculture and state
Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Department
Political Science
First Advisor
Dennis L. Thompson
Second Advisor
Richard Rehberg
Third Advisor
Thomas Denyer
Abstract
This dissertation seeks to explain the controversy over organic farming. The organic movement is seen as a challenge to “technological” or “conventional” farming on a number of planes—political, ideological, scientific. The empirical thrust is to investigate the extent ideology might be an explanatory factor.
Chapter I sets the background for the dissertation. Employing the concepts of the sociology of knowledge and the sociology of science as well as precedent case studies, the structure of the argument is developed as the basis for the empirical research. Science is examined in terms of norms and counternorms and as ideology.
Chapter II discusses the “politics” of organic farming. Organic farming is defined, its historical background developed, and its political activities (at state and federal levels) delineated. The last part of the chapter examines the relationship or linkages of the organic movement with other political movements (i.e., environmentalism, populism) and philosophical orientations (i.e., the relationship of man and nature, views toward science and technology).
Chapter III is a pivotal one for the dissertation: an analysis of the scientific evidence. Nine broad scientific areas (from forms of plant nutrient absorption to long-term ecosystem stability) are investigated organized around three sets of dichotomies (acute/chronic, chemical/biological, romantic/classic). The key findings are two: overall the evidence is ambiguous and the opposing scientists are really asking different questions. The second part of this chapter relates the present controversy to other technological controversies employing the conceptual framework of Alan Mazur, in his article “Disputes Between Experts.” The question was asked: assuming scientific evidence is susceptible to alternative interpretations, why does polarization occur?
Chapter IV develops the concept “ideology” as one possible answer. Ideology is discussed from a social psychological point of view and its contents evolved from the linkages explored in Chapter II.
Chapter V is a short methodological discussion for an exploratory research project among forty-three scientists engaged in activities relating to organic farming.
Chapter VI presents the results of the research. The project involved a mail questionnaire sent to all forty-three scientists and interviews with ten of them. The basic premise of the research was that if ideology could be demonstrated to be present among scientists, given their norms of objectivity, then it was reasonable to assume ideology was present among policy-makers and interest group members. The basic hypothesis was that there was a positive relationship between attitudes toward organic farming and attitudes toward the elements comprising the ideology. The quantitative analysis, in general, showed this to be correct. The qualitative evidence, based on the interviews, reinforced the analysis of Chapter III that opposing scientists were conceptualizing problems and questions differently depending on their attitude toward organic farming.
Chapter VII summarizes and concludes the dissertation. It discusses the “vision of the future” implied within the two modes (organic and technological) of farming and concludes with prospects for further research.
Recommended Citation
Rushefsky, Mark E., "Organic farming: science and ideology in a technological dispute" (1976). Graduate Dissertations and Theses. 339.
https://orb.binghamton.edu/dissertation_and_theses/339