Talking Sustainability:
Identification and Division in an Iowa Community
CARL G. HERNDL
Department of English, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
JEAN GOODWIN
LEE HONEYCUTT
GREG WILSON
S. SCOTT GRAHAM
DAVID NIEDERGESES
Department of English, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA
This study investigates how sustainability and its inherent values figure into farmers’ discourse,
i.e., how farmers and members of farming communities talk about sustainability. We conducted
qualitative interviews of various individuals in a single Iowa community to determine whether
the visions guiding their land management choices resembled at all the ideals of a sustainable
agriculture. Using Kenneth Burke’s concepts of identification and division, we rhetorically
analyzed the interview transcripts. We found animosity towards much green terminology but
widespread commitment to environmental preservation, especially when aligned with economic
interests. We highlight rhetorical strategies for promoting sustainable practices.
KEYWORDS: rhetoric, language, incommensurability, identification, economics, environment,
community
—————The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Jill Euken, Rick Cruise, Paul Brown, Jerri Neal, and Matt
Liebman at Iowa State in locating research subjects. We would also like to thank Caroline Gottschalk-Druschke,
Ben Crosby, and Jean McGuire for reading earlier drafts of this article.
Research supported by a grant from the Center for Excellence in the Arts and Humanities, College of Liberal Arts &
Sciences, Iowa State University.
Address correspondence to Dr. Carl G. Herndl, Department of English, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler
Ave, CPR-107, Tampa, FL 33620-5550. Email: cgh@usf.edu
Talking Sustainability:
Identification and Division in an Iowa Community
This study investigates how sustainability and its inherent values figure into farmers’ discourse,
i.e., how farmers and members of farming communities talk about sustainability. We conducted
qualitative interviews of various individuals in a single Iowa community to determine whether
the visions guiding their land management choices resembled at all the ideals of a sustainable
agriculture. Using Kenneth Burke’s concepts of identification and division, we rhetorically
analyzed the interview transcripts. We found animosity towards much green terminology but
widespread commitment to environmental preservation, especially when aligned with economic
interests. We highlight rhetorical strategies for promoting sustainable practices.
INTRODUCTION
In 2008, the “new bioeconomy” promised to “reinvent” agriculture and restore it to the center of
economic development in the United States. With oil prices at a record high, new ethanol plants
were opening every month throughout the Midwest—and the first few were going bankrupt as
well. A record amount of the Midwestern corn crop was diverted into ethanol production.
Farmers reaped premium prices for their crops—but also faced rapid growth in the cost of inputs
and land rents. It was a moment when the usual constraints of rural economic life were briefly
lifted, and farm communities had the potential to make real choices about their futures.
Nevertheless, this demand for increased production brought to the forefront real questions about
the long-term viability of industrial-scale corn production. At the same time, ongoing concerns
about soil erosion, chemical runoff, conservation, and land stewardship continued to strongly
shape what it meant for rural communities to plan for the future. Often academics and
Talking Sustainability
2
environmentalist tend to categorize all of these concerns under the broad rubric of
“sustainability.” However, it is less clear how evident the values of sustainability are in the
minds and discourse of farmers who must make decisions about how to run their operations.
Therefore, our goal in this study was to determine how sustainability and its inherent values
figure into farmers’ discourse—i.e. how farmers talk about sustainability. Subsequently, we
conducted qualitative interviews of various individuals in a single Iowa community to determine
whether the visions guiding their land management choices resembled at all the ideals of a
sustainable agriculture.
The importance of community attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions in promoting sustainable
change has been widely recognized (Ajayi, 2007; Burton, 2004; Corselius, Simmons, and Flora,
2003; Stofferahn, 2009; Buttel et al., 1981; Darnhofer, Schneeberger, and Freyer, 2005; Padel
and Lampkin, 1994). As Duram (1997) has observed, while “all farmers act within the same
broad structural framework of U.S. agriculture,” only “some individuals are motivated to try
alternative forms of production…. Variations in individual farmers’ attitudes toward agriculture
are key to understanding what influences some farmers to adopt alternative methods” (203). The
recommendations of experts in sustainable practices, “while valuable to farmers, agriculture
policy makers, and consumers, remain disembodied and ineffectual without an analysis of the
primary actors’ hierarchy of motives” (Peterson, 1991, 289). Thus, since a 1999 call in this
journal “to better understand the farmers’ view point” (Comer et al.), a large body of scholarship
has emerged surveying the beliefs and values that affect North American farmers’ choice of
beneficial practices such as integrated weed management (Wilson et al., 2009), crop
diversification (Corselius, Simmons, and Flora, 2003), manure management (Filson et al., 2009),
and grass finishing of beef (Lozier, Rayburn, and Shaw, 2006). Similar studies have explored
Talking Sustainability
3
farmers’ perspectives in international contexts (Ajayi, 2007; Fairweather and Campbell, 2003;
Ommani et al., 2009).
One leading approach to conceptualizing farmers’ attitudes has suggested that the
sometimes acrimonious political debates over agricultural policies are essentially replicated
among farmers, whose convictions are captured by two broad and competing paradigms.
According to a seminal article by Beus and Dunlap (1990), the outlines of these competing
paradigms can be gleaned by examining the writings of leading spokespeople on both sides of
the contemporary agricultural policy controversies. Farmers adhering to the conventional and the
alternative paradigms will differ systematically in their attitudes towards centralization and
competition, their ways of conceptualizing their relationship with nature
(domination/exploitation v. harmony/restraint), and their preferences for specialization or
diversification on their farms. The 24-item ACAP Scale based on their theory has been shown by
some studies to reliably predict farmers’ choices of better land management practices. (Beus and
Dunlap, 1991; Comer et al., 1999; Allen and Bernhardt, 1995).
Recently, however, a more complex picture has begun to emerge. Some studies have
found that Beus and Dunlap’s ACAP scale produces mixed results; for example, some farmers
using conventional practices hold “alternative” attitudes of respect for nature, and some
alternative farmers are committed to a “conventional” profit-maximizing approach (Abaidoo and
Dickinson, 2002; Duram, 1997). Other scholars have voiced a concern that “the nuances of
values, environmental beliefs, and attitudes…are missed by surveys” such as the ACAP Scale
(Abaidoo and Dickinson, 2002). A simple dichotomy between two “paradigms” or mindsets may
not represent the full diversity and complexity of farmers’ worldviews (Corselius, Simmons, and
Flora, 2003; Duram, 1997, 2000; Darnhofer, Schneeberger, and Freyer, 2005; Walter, 1997),
Talking Sustainability
4
which may even include value commitments that are incompatible or at least in tension
(Peterson, 1991; Buttel et al., 1981).
Such studies acknowledging greater complexity find confirmation within the theoretical
literature on paradigms. Adapting Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) concept of the “paradigm” and his
model of change as a revolutionary “paradigm shift” provided useful analytic clarity for Beus
and Dunlop. In Kuhn’s original theory, “paradigms” are overarching theories with associated
procedures, disciplinary precedents, and standards. Paradigms were said to so heavily structure
people’s thoughts, work, and talk that those from different paradigms appear to live in different
worlds. In this situation, communication and cooperation between members of different
paradigms would indeed seem impossible, and change would become a very difficult and rare
event, one that Kuhn models on the analogy of a political revolution. However, Kuhn’s notion of
the incommensurability of opposing paradigms has been increasingly undermined in the past
twenty years. Philosophers have pointed out that Kuhn’s own work seems to contradict his
theories. While Kuhn proposes that “[t]here may be no translating from one scheme to another,
in which case the beliefs, desires, hopes and bits of knowledge that characterize one person have
no true counterparts for the subscriber to another scheme” (Davidson, 1984, 183), his history of
scientific change shows that it is possible to translate different historical paradigms into a single
common language and description (Kent, 1993). Other scholars have pointed out that in many
actual cases, incommensurability is not an irresolvable conflict between ideas, theories, concepts,
and values, but one between those holding commitments to such things (Harris, 2005). Thus
studies by Miller (2005), Prelli (2005), Campbell (2005) and others attribute the appearance of
incommensurability not to absolute paradigms, but rather to social, political and cultural
conflicts—conflicts that can be managed and resolved by communicative means. Finally, other
Talking Sustainability
5
scholars have pointed out that Kuhn’s concept of incommensurability overlooks the reality of
scientific practice. Star and Griesemer (1989), Galison (1997), and Wilson and Herndl (2007)
each provide detailed accounts of how communication and collaboration can take place even
across deep disciplinary boundaries. Such evidence brings to mind Paul Feyerabend’s comment
that “incommensurability is a difficulty for philosophers not for scientists” (quoted in Harris
2005, 81).
Together, the arguments against modeling disagreement as radical opposition between
incommensurable paradigms suggest that this dualistic model is too blunt and should be
abandoned. Instead, many scholars have adopted a rhetorical approach, examining the
communication in and through which both conflict and cooperation between paradigms are
achieved, whether in science or policy-making. While “rhetoric” in colloquial terms is often
associated with verbal trickery and deception, it is best understood as the study of the
connections between persuasion and communication in any given setting. Influential rhetorical
theorist Kenneth Burke defined rhetoric as “the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing
cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols” (Burke, 1969, 43). For Burke and many
contemporary rhetorical scholars, rhetoric occurs when people holding different beliefs and
values come into contact and into conflict over what is the best course of action or the most true
position. In this theory, rhetoric emerges when the differences or divisions between people
require that they work to find some common ground. Persuading someone to act or think in
specific ways involves locating the possibilities of identifying your beliefs, values, and
understanding with them. Here “identifying” refers to a process of bringing two people or two
positions into some form of agreement or coincidence, a meeting of minds or a newly shared
position or value. As Burke pointed out, “But put identification and division ambiguously
Talking Sustainability
6
together, so that you cannot know for certain just where one ends and the other begins, and you
have the characteristic invitation to rhetoric” (25).
The paired concepts of identification and division have proved useful to analyze the areas
of conflict and common ground in the construction of national identity (Charland, 1987),
organizational identity (Cheney, 1983), and environmental activism (Prelli and Winters, 2009).
Our goal in this study is to continue this line of work, adding complexity to our understanding of
the paradigms for contemporary agriculture. By adopting such a rhetorical approach, we examine
the language rural residents use to express their identification with or division from the core
values of sustainable agriculture. This study is called for in part because from the beginning,
“sustainability” has been a term with a specifically rhetorical force. It was intended to promote
change by bringing together or identifying apparently disparate values, interests, approaches, and
even worldviews. “Sustainability” would be “an emblem or banner which represents a broad
range of related and important issues” (Pannell and Schilizzi, 1999, 64) because it united the
divisive “ecocentric/anthropocentric dichotomy” (Thompson, 1992, 12). As readers of this
journal well know, “sustainability” has no single, widely accepted definition, but there are some
general themes of identification that most conceptions include. A sustainable agriculture takes a
“holistic” approach, integrating in knowledge and practice the diverse physical, biological, and
human systems that constitute agriculture (Altieri, 1995; Pezzoli, 1997). A sustainable
agriculture similarly integrates across scales, combining global and multigenerational
perspectives with adaptation to local and changing circumstances (Norton, 2005; Altieri, 1995).
Finally, a sustainable agriculture integrates across values; in the familiar declaration of the 1990
Farm Bill, a sustainable agriculture simultaneously promotes environmental quality, economic
efficiency and viability, and social quality of life (see also Altieri, 1995).
Talking Sustainability
7
According to Peterson (1997), “sustainable agriculture” has become the preferred
rhetorical alternative specifically because it is has succeeded in overcoming these and other
divisions; as a term of identification, “everyone can support sustainable agriculture” (11). In this
study, we ask whether in the heartland of conventional production agriculture, “everyone” in fact
does. What does the term “sustainability” mean to members of a typical community in this
region? Do members identify with the conception of sustainability as integrating systems, scales,
and values?
METHODOLOGY
Burton (2004) argues for alternatives to the dominate methodological modus operadi for studies
that investigate “the implementation and uptake of conservation schemes [which typically] use
attitudinally based approaches” (212). While Burton acknowledges the benefits of these
approaches in terms of their ability to provide quick and quantifiable answers, he suggests that
greater attention needs to be directed at “understand[ing] the language of farming” (212).
However, as rhetorical theories of incommensurability and division suggest, different individuals
and/or different groups often employ different forms of language even when discussing the same
problems. In an analysis of environmental policy and management, for example, Norton (2005)
describes how different groups adopt ways of thinking and talking that are isolated and
disconnected from the thinking and talk of others. In this phenomenon, which he calls
“towering,” each group builds its own tower, but is disconnected from others who share the same
problems and often the same goals. Regarding the concept of sustainability, he argues that “the
vocabulary currently available for discussing policy goals and policy choices is so impoverished
that it blocks communication and prohibits rational deliberation over the right questions” (30).
These divisions (in Burke’s terms) or points of incommensurability (in Kuhn’s terms) are
Talking Sustainability
8
potentially problematic, but rather than model them as incommensurability, Norton calls for
“bridge terms” that can connect the empirical work of science with the social values and lived
experience of others. That is the purpose of this paper—to increase our understanding of
potential bridge terms in conversations about sustainability by identifying those rhetorical
strategies that people use to identify with others holding different positions so they can talk and
work together.
Following Burton, our goal in this pilot study is to begin identifying the language of
farmers regarding sustainability. However, in keeping with Norton’s arguments, we recognize
that there are a variety of different ways farmers and other stakeholders in the burgeoning Iowa
bioeconomy talk about sustainability. Therefore, we wanted to speak with different kinds of
people—enough different kinds that a full range of opinions would emerge through in-depth
interviews and subsequent analysis of language patterns in the transcripts. In addition to farmers,
some scholars have widened their scope to include other stakeholders such as researchers
(Wilkins et al., 2001), extension personnel and educators (Camara, Martin, and Kwaw-Mensah,
2009; Muma, Martin, and Shelley 2010; Rodriguez et al., 2008), and consumers (Pelletier,
Kraak, McCullum, and Uusitalo, 2000; Hassanein, 2008; Schneider and Francis, 2006; Stock,
2007). Such investigations are important in part because studies have confirmed that community
support—or lack of it—can play a key role in farmers’ decisions to adopt and maintain
sustainable practices (Morton and Weng, 2009; Guptill, 2009; Rodriguez et al., 2008; Burton,
2004; Hanson, Kauffman, and Schauer, 1996). More significantly, however, attention to the
world views of other community members is necessary because “it takes a village” to achieve a
sustainable food system; all “[i]nnovators in agriculture, including farmers, educators,
researchers, businessmen, lawmakers, and so on, need to focus on more inherently
Talking Sustainability
9
multidisciplinary approaches to solve agricultural production problems” (Sassenrath et al., 2008,
291). To the extent that our interview subjects represent the complexity of communities of
farmers and stakeholders, and to the extent that the issues Iowa faces are representative of issues
faced by other states and the nation, we believe this study provides valuable insights to those
promoting sustainable practices locally and nationally.
We began by contacting experts in agricultural extension and agronomy from Iowa State
University who helped us identify different categories of farmers—defined by type of operation,
size of operation, and land ownership—as well as other stakeholders, such as ethanol plant
managers, bankers, and local government employees. Given these categories, we sought to locate
specific individuals who were representative of these different groups. Following the advice of
one of these advising experts, we decided to focus on just one location that might serve as a
representative microcosm of Iowa’s larger bioeconomy. The community we chose is a larger
agricultural county of some 40,000 people, one-third of whom live in rural areas. With 99
percent of its available acres planted in either corn or soybeans, this community is one of Iowa’s
largest corn producers and supports one of the state’s largest and most prominent ethanol plants,
as well as a massive corn starch factory that was just starting operations when we conducted this
study. Ringing the centrally located county seat—a mixed industrial town of 25,000—are several
smaller communities that serve as anchors of the agricultural sector, which totals some 900 farms
with an average size of 460 acres.
Having decided on a research site, we set up an interview with the county’s agricultural
extension agent, who provided the names of those in the area who would best represent the type
of farmers and stakeholders we had identified earlier. With this purposive sampling design
(Patton, 1990), we identified single individuals who could provide a perspective from each
Talking Sustainability
10
category (e.g., organic farmers, commercial farm managers, commodity brokers, small to
medium conventional farmers, bankers, ethanol plant managers, community development
specialists, insurance agents, and print and broadcast media professionals.). Purposive
sampling—in this case a type that is sometimes called “diversity” or “maximum range”
sampling—is useful to “obtain all the important dissimilar forms present in the larger
population” (Weiss, 1994, 23). We contacted the individuals suggested by the county extension
agent, trying to set up interviews with a variety of subjects, but not everyone on the list was
available or willing to participate. Because this was a pilot study, we were primarily concerned
with developing appropriate approaches and methods and identifying initial insights, not with
conducting multiple interviews within each category. While certainly not exhaustive, our
coverage is usefully comprehensive.
We spoke with 16 individuals in 10 interviews during the spring and summer of 2009.
Table 1 shows the categories of farmers and stakeholders we interviewed and their role in the
community and bioeconomy. For confidentiality, we do not provide subject names. In the results
section, we attribute quotes by the bolded categorical term (e.g., Agent, Banker, etc.) shown in
Table 1.
[Insert Table 1 about here ]
For all interviews, we used a common set of interview protocols and questions that
reflected our research questions (see Appendix A). We refined this list of questions slightly after
our initial two interviews, revising some questions based on emerging themes and deleting others
that did not elicit useful responses. Interviewers followed the set of questions with each subject,
but asked follow-up questions to explore interesting topics that arose during discussion. This
Talking Sustainability
11
type of “semi-structured interview” is a common practice among qualitative researchers, who
want to capture comparable responses across all interviews but also want to flexibly explore any
differences that might emerge. The methodology has been widely used in studying farming
communities and agricultural issues (Duram, 1997, 2000; Carolan, 2005, 2006; Peterson, 1991;
Burton, 2004).
With subjects’ permissions, all interviews were recorded using a digital audio recorder
and then transcribed. All members of the research team read through the first five interview
transcripts to identify themes consistent with the literature on sustainable agriculture, and then all
ten interviews were coded by the team using ATLAS.ti, a popular qualitative analysis software
tool for managing large sets of interview transcripts. Coding consisted of marking the occurrence
of an identifiable set of themes across all of the transcripts and identifying the language subjects
used to express those themes.
As the literature on sustainability and sustainable agriculture would suggest, the broad
themes of environment, social quality of life, and economics were evident in the transcripts. We
sorted quotes from the transcripts into these three categories and then reviewed the sets of quotes
to determine how different types of farmers and stakeholders discussed these broad themes. We
looked for ways that farmers/stakeholders used identification and division to join or separate
themselves from certain meanings of the term “sustainability” and certain related agricultural
practices.
As is the standard practice in rhetorical studies, the discussion of our results involves
using the transcripts of the interviews as texts to study. We look closely at the language the
community members used to argue for or against sustainability and sustainable practices.
Obviously we are not analyzing the transcript of a formal Oxford-style debate, so the
Talking Sustainability
12
“arguments” are subtle, which is where Burke’s concepts of identification and division are
useful. When participants talk about things they value, that they do for good reasons, that they
feel are part of their heritage, Burke’s concept of identification helps us read that as an argument.
Likewise participants are making arguments when they criticize, ridicule, or divide themselves
from practices and concepts that don’t work for them. In terms of results, we are interested in
what arguments are made about sustainability and what that tells us about what sustainability
means in this Iowa community.
RESULTS
As we worked our way through the transcripts, we read and analyzed the conversations using
Burke’s concepts of identification and division as tools to identify arguments for or against belief
in certain ideas or practices relating to sustainability. Overall, we found there were, in fact,
several varied ways of talking that grapple with concepts often included under the broad rubric
of sustainability. Our findings further suggest that these discursive foci often fall into categories
that could be described using the generally recognized dimensions of sustainability—
environmental, economic, and social. However, we found that various farmers and stakeholders
use these foci differently in order to leverage identification and division with/from other farmers
and stakeholders.
First, we have found that the language of environmental sustainability generally fosters
divisive attitudes among our interviewees. Indeed, community members largely distance
themselves from terms like “sustainability” or “green” because these are related to outside
activist agendas that are perceived to run counter to the economic interests of the farm. Second,
and perhaps not unexpectedly, even though environmental and social issues are present,
economics is the dominant issue, and arguments from this economic viewpoint generally trump
Talking Sustainability
13
arguments about environment or community. Third, though almost all community members
expressed strong environmental concerns, they tended to do so using linguistic resources that a)
are different from the typical language of environmental sustainability and b) are often
appropriated from other dimensions of their lives—such as their communities of faith. Finally,
we also found that our interviewee’s language tended to most successfully incorporate all three
dimensions of sustainability when the focus was on social issues. This suggests that the three
dimensions of sustainability are not separate paradigms, but an interconnected set of issues
where strategic approaches could advance environmentally conscious practices without
triggering divisive reactions related to politicized terminology.
Division and Environmental Sustainability
We begin our analysis by examining participants’ reactions to the term “sustainability” itself. Put
simply, the term consistently invoked division; members of this community did everything they
could to verbally distance themselves from the term. Few of the participants used the term until
the interviewer inserted it into the conversation. Even then many of the participants were
reluctant to endorse it—even two of the three who confessed a personal interest in the values of
sustainability. The local broadcaster—who otherwise avows his “passion” for “sustainable
living”—did not want to use the term to describe the exemplary farming practices of his uncle;
“‘sustainable,’ maybe, I guess could be the term.” he hesitates before settling on the alternative
word “conservative.” Similarly, the diversifying farm couple who built up a local “alliance”
around their feeder pig operation recognized that their community partners “don’t talk about
sustainability, they talk about how do we make this work and make a living and feed my family.”
The transitioning farmers offered an explanation for their reluctance to speak of
“sustainability.” This couple spontaneously brought up the term, only to characterize it as a
Talking Sustainability
14
“buzzword,” a “sound-bite word,” and a word that “gets used a lot, because I think it’s a feelgood word” (Transitioner 1). Although they were adopting organic practices on some of the land
they farmed, they still felt the term “sustainability” was meaningless. “You hear a lot about
sustainable agriculture, so what is that really?” the wife asked, and her husband extended her
thought, saying that the word “doesn’t bring people back to . . . standards” by which
sustainability might be measured. The main purpose of the term was instead to score points in
the intractable debates over the “pretty polarizing” contemporary issues in agriculture:
In Iowa, I feel like there are a lot of different groups that have taken that
sustainability word and branded it for their purpose.... So then you read it in the
newspaper, and you read: this group says “biofuels are not sustainable, maybe we
shouldn’t do them” and this group says “biofuels are sustainable” and um,
“producing pigs this way is sustainable,” “it’s not sustainable.” (Transitioner 1)
More specifically, it was perceived as a term used to strike against farmers like themselves. The
husband comments:
I look at our operation and I say, well we’ve been here 150 years, why is that not
sustainable? We’re still farming here and um, as far as I can tell, it’s still farmable
indefinitely into the future, so I think as a farmer, I get in that train of thought,
“Well, of course we’re sustainable, I’m going to farm next year, I farmed last
year” and to me that’s sustainable. But and when I step back, somebody from the
outside says, “Well, what you’re doing there in a certain way, you’re maybe
losing some of your resources so we don’t view that as sustainable.” (Transitioner
1)
Talking Sustainability
15
“Sustainability” for this couple was a term of division—a term “somebody from the outside
says” in order to criticize what “we” are and always have been doing.
The ethanol plant manager echoed these themes of lack of meaning and criticism.
According to him, “sustainability” is the sort of term salesmen use “where they try to talk in
terms that the other people want to hear.” Or to be more precise, it is the kind of term salesmen
should not use. It has negative connotations for farmers because it is implicitly an insult: “it
implies that your sustainability is questioned” (Supervisor).
The participants’ reluctance to identify with the term “sustainability” extended to two
other terms treated in a similar manner: “green” and “environmental”—a finding that confirms
the results of several previous studies (Duram, 1999; Blesh and Barrett, 2006). The ethanol plant
manager quickly corrected himself when using the term “environmentally friendly” because
“that’s bad, I guess that’s [the] wrong connotation,” and substituted “good stewardship” instead.
This “wrong connotation” was perhaps due to the fact that “environmental” was to him a highly
politicized term that was coming from outside the community, connected with “political,
environmental, whatever you want to call them, agendas out there.” One of the diversifying
farmers agreed, referring dismissively to the fact that “everything you read now is green, green
this, green that. I mean there seems to have been—the whole environmental consciousness seems
to be elevated to a new level.” Although this was “admirable in lots of ways,” it was, she
explained, still “very problematic in other ways,” since even apparently minor environmental
regulations of gravel roads could lead to the destruction of “our” corn and livestock production
agriculture. “Not produce any livestock? Not produce beef or pork, to keep the dust down? I
mean is that what we want? I don’t think so” (Diversifier 2). This farmer, like many of the
Talking Sustainability
16
participants, spoke of environmental regulations and enforcement as hostile and “outside” forces;
she did not identify as a member of the “we” that enacted them.
While every participant described a commitment to, and belief in, some manner of
environmental preservation, they frequently established their own sense of identity in opposition
to a perceived sense of environmental zealotry they found objectionable. “I’m no tree hugger,”
the broadcaster was careful to point out, “but I’ve planted several hundred trees.” Even more
dramatically, when one of the commodity brokers detailed his own and his father’s concerns
about “the plastic bags that are blowing around in the fields,” his wife interrupted to explain that
these commitments do not define who he is as a person: “He’s not a greenie. This is not a green
person,” she insists, and a few turns later, she added, “Neither of us are environmental rabblerousers, not at all” (Broker 2).
Identification and economic sustainability
Notable in all these remarks is a shrinking of the conception of sustainability from the three or
more axes of concern it was intended to embrace down to a narrow focus on environmental
concerns, and then a rejection or “division” of environmental concerns as not “ours.” With what
values, then, did participants identify? When we asked them to express their visions of the future,
many gave strikingly similar responses.
Q: So on your dream farm, if you could farm any way you wanted, how would it
different from.
A: I’m going to need money (Manager 1).
Q: How do the kinds of land management and things we’re talking about fit into
your sense of the future?
Talking Sustainability
17
A: I think, number one is that it has to be profitable, otherwise we’re not going
to be a business (Transitioner 1).
Q: You’ve talked a number of times about making the community or the
businesses in the community viable. I want to know more about what that
means to you. What is a very viable [town] look like?
A: It’s got a successful Main Street. It’s got successful businesses that are
catering to an increased population (Agent).
Our interviews documented again a recurring focus on economic factors that has been
recognized by many previous studies of farmers across the globe (e.g. Fairweather and
Campbell, 2003; Blesh and Barrett, 2006; Buttel et al., 1981; Darnhofer, Schneeberger, and
Freyer, 2005). All our participants were fluent in the language of economics, talking of land or
“ag property” (Manager 1) as an appreciating asset that could be improved, as a hedge against
hard economic times, or as part of a portfolio of investments. Many could also speak
knowledgeably of the relative efficiencies of the ethanol industry in Brazil and explain the
profitability (or lack thereof) of various models for managing an ethanol plant.
The language of economics is not only fluent, but also dominant. In most participants’
arguments, economic values overrode both social and environmental values. Almost every
participant, for example, spontaneously expressed an attachment to the social value of the
“family farm” (often, the “century farm”)—either their own, the one they were raised on, or the
ones they live among. At the same time, they acknowledged what would happen if family bonds
and economics came into conflict. One of the farm managers commented that recent rises in land
prices
have probably shaken loose some of the land that was being held because it was
grandpa’s land or because of the emotional ties to it.... How much is it worth to
Talking Sustainability
18
hold it for sentimental reasons? Now they see the dollar signs getting up to where
they are willing to part with the grandpa’s land or dad’s land. (Manager 1)
Flourishing family farms do not depend on “emotional ties” or “sentimental reasons”; flourishing
family farms become that way because they adopt what participants speak of as “corporate”
approaches. In some cases, this meant legal incorporation, as when one of the transitioning
farmers lapsed between identifying himself as part of “we…my family” and also as “a
corporation”:
Um we’re, my family, and [my wife] and I are a corporation, so we own, all that
corporation owns in farm machinery, and this farmstead, there’s seven acres here
with the buildings and then my parents own ground and most of what we farm is
with relatives, but we rent everything from other people, so that’s how we have it
set up I guess. (Transitioner 1)
Even if not a “real…corporate outside ownership,” such family “teams that have been put
together over time” were said to be better poised to take “opportunistic” advantage of economic
changes (Broker 1). The ethanol plant manager gave as an example a “father and four sons with
30,000 acres,” describing the group first as “corporate,” before correcting himself: “I say
corporate, they’re family owned” (Supervisor).
Economic values similarly dominated when they came in conflict with environmental
values. The reflections of the transitioning farmers again offer special insights. In discussing her
and her husband’s use of a voluntary conservation program, the farmer’s fractured grammar
reflects her sense of conflict:
But so as you know.... I went to [state university] for Forestry and Agronomy, so I
like the environmental aspect of it. But then profitability-wise, it may not be
Talking Sustainability
19
helping us so much. And then in the end, with prices the way they’ve gone, it’s
really not making the money. If we can—if we took it back out [of conservation
reserve]—which is kind of—it’s you know one of those moral—do you put it
back to corn as a farmer, profitability, yes, as someone who—it’s beautiful out
there, you like to see the geese and ducks that go out there, and the dogs love it
too, um, you hate to see it go away, but—so it’s kind of, kind of hard to do, I
think, um, as people who just rent most of our land (Transitioner 2).
As she describes her divided commitments, she contrasts her identify as a farmer—”Do you put
it back to corn as a farmer? Profitability, yes”—with her identity as someone concerned with
environmental and “moral” and aesthetic issues—”as someone who, it’s beautiful out there.” A
few minutes later, however, she admits that her identity “as a farmer” must dictate the decision.
Referring again to the conservation land, she admits that “I think it has a lot of value with that,
but it’s hard to put money with that, which is, as farmers, um, what we have to do—its [the]
bottom line, um, and how you feel is, unfortunately, doesn’t matter.” As with the social values of
the family farm, “how you feel” falls below the dominance of the “bottom line.”
The dominance of economics over environmental values was echoed by other
participants as well. One confessed that in order to get his soybean yields “to the level we are
trying to get to,” he needs to apply more pesticides than what he understands to be
environmentally best: “we’re also spraying more spray, which is not what you would think of as
a green person” (Broker 1). Another is skeptical of cellulosic ethanol made from corn stover
because “it takes tremendous amounts of fertility off the farm.” And that, he explains, is “not a
big advantage”—at least until “you’re going to really get paid well for it” (Manager 1).
Talking Sustainability
20
In sum, members of this community largely distanced themselves from the term
“sustainability,” speaking of it as a meaningless political buzzword deployed by people from
“outside” to criticize “us.” Instead, they identified themselves strongly with economic values and
dismissed social and environmental values as merely private “feelings.” These results tend to
confirm Beus and Dunlaps’ model of two incommensurable paradigms of agriculture:
participants perceive a stark division between themselves and the “tree-huggers, greenies” and
“rabble-rousers,” and portray themselves as trapped in a narrow focus on economic advantage.
Alternative Terminology for Sustainability
The rhetorical landscape of Iowa’s bioeconomy is not as straightforward as the above analysis
suggests. There are other possibilities evident in the participants’ discourse—other arguments,
more diverse values, and grounds for identification as opposed to division. As before, let us start
by observing what terms the community is using. As discussed above, when asked for the words
they would use to describe ideal farming practices, only three participants (Agent, Traditional 1,
and Broadcaster) gave even a limited endorsement to the term “sustainability.” One couple
refused to answer, explaining that they were “sorry, too practical…not that much of a visionary”
(Brokers). All the others, however, had alternative terms to express the ideal they would want to
realize if they were “king for a day,” including especially “stewardship” and “conservation.”
Both these were used as terms of identification, referring not just to a cluster of specific farming
practices, but to entire ways of life (“conservative living,” Broadcaster), ways of thinking
(“conservation minded,” Manager 1), and ways of being (being a “steward,” Supervisor).
These alternate terms articulate a vernacular definition of “sustainability” that avoids the
explicit term while expressing the same themes. First, aligning with the ordinary definition of the
word “sustain,” ideal farming would “not deplete” the resources it depended on (Manager 1,
Talking Sustainability
21
Transitioner 1, Supervisor). It would not “mine” (Agent, Traditional 1, 2) or “rape” (Agent) the
land—in fact, it might even “build it back up” (Reporter). As the insurance salesman put it, “to
me, sustainability is just, getting better than getting worse.” Echoing a theme of the orthodox
conception of sustainability, participants also wanted to see “a holistic approach to farming”
(Reporter), one that required “looking at the big picture” (Broadcaster). One of the transitioning
farmers recognized this as a “systems approach”:
If I plant a certain crop this year, how’s that affect next year? What am I going to
have to do to prepare that ground to get the next crop in? How many nutrients
you’re taking out this year? Where are my soil tests, so where I do have to apply it
to get that next crop in? And then three years down the road, where does that put
me and um, it’s more of a systems approach, I guess....
Such complex thinking is required, he explained, because “we want to do what’s best for
everybody, and the land, us, relatives, everything” (Transitioner 1). Finally, participants also
expressed the theme of multiple scales. On the one hand, they projected the continued operation
of the farm into the distant future—the next “100 years” (Traditional 1) or “indefinitely into the
future” (Transitioner 1), often speaking in generational terms:
And you know, I want this land to be here, be productive, to when my son, when
his descendants, my grandchildren maybe someday, want to be involved in
farming. My grandpa always felt that way, and I’ve tried to instill that into him
also, son, we take care of this for the future because it goes back to the old adage
we always talk about: God gave us this land to use for the short time of, that we’re
here. It’s still his and it’s going to be his for centuries to come; he’s just letting us
Talking Sustainability
22
use it for a few years while we’re alive, so we’re going to keep good care of it.
And that’s our philosophy. (Manager 1)
At the same time, ideal farming practices required “paying attention to what you’re doing” in
very local terms.
If you’re, okay, I have this thought it might work, so we’re going to try it, and
then we see how it worked and maybe ahead of time, had some ideas of what the
outcome might be, and then we actually saw what the outcome was and um,
changed or didn’t change what we’re doing based on that, so I think as long
somebody’s doing that, I would maybe consider that sustainable. And lack of
consciousness about what you’re doing would be unsustainable, I guess, cause,
you know, if someone is not paying attention to what they’re doing, just we’re
going to do it this way again next year cause that’s what we always did, that’s
unsustainable, in my mind, so, not necessarily that any one thing is good or bad,
just paying attention is probably the most important part. (Transitioner 1)
Other participants stressed the same need for “consciousness” and “attention,” speaking of
“smart farming” (Broadcaster) and “working smarter” (Diversifier 1).
“Bridging” the Dimensions of Sustainability
Participants’ discourse suggests they share a vision of ideal farming that closely resembles the
concerns being expressed under the general banner of “sustainable farming”— bringing together
multiple systems into one “holistic” approach and integrating scales from local to global. In
addition, despite their apparently narrow focus on economic factors, participants’ discourse also
makes it clear that they also are committed to multiple values: not only economic profitability,
but flourishing communities and environmental protection. Often, participants discussed these
Talking Sustainability
23
non-economic values in very concrete and immediate terms. For example, virtually every
participant articulated a tangible vision of a good community, speaking of the churches, schools,
Starbucks, parks, swimming pools, golf courses, roads, bike lanes, trails, canoe landings, senior
and affordable housing, loft apartments, and in general “amenities” it would include. Several also
told small stories that expressed good neighborly relations; for example:
like the last year, I got, I put in oats, and last year was really tough because of the
wet spring, if you don’t get it done in late March early April, you don’t get much
of a crop. And my neighbor, he wants straw, but he volunteered, he said “I’ll run
the cultivator” or prepare the land for me. So it was that kind of a deal, where, oh
yeah, we’ll help you. And really, I think all of the farmers around here, it’s a
fairly tight neighborhood, if someone gets in trouble or if somebody needs work
or hey can I borrow a wagon, yeah (Traditional 1).
Participants were similarly specific about a range of good environmental practices that would
conserve soil and protect water quality. Many participants discussed the advantages of no-till
cultivation, the utility of grass waterways and buffer strips, the value of manure as fertilizer, and
the need to depend on rainwater rather than drawing water from aquifers. While they may have
resisted “greenie” talk that they perceived as coming from outside, they took full ownership of
these specific realizations of social and environmental values.
In addition to these concrete examples of valued objects and practices, participants also
voiced, sometimes quite eloquently, their attachment to more abstract ideals of good
communities and good environments independent of economic or market concerns. Several
participants mentioned, for example, that good social relations with neighbors or membership in
farmers’ organizations could provide them with trustworthy information that they couldn’t get
Talking Sustainability
24
from market sources. “Can I buy seed corn somewhere else cheaper?” one of the diversifying
farmers asked.
Yes. Or any other input.... [But] if I don’t use my local guy and I don’t use his
expertise, I buy from somebody else, then where do I get my expertise? I’ve got
to get it myself or figure out some way to get it, whether I’m buying seed corn or
whatever, if I’m buying chemicals. Chemicals is a favorite one that people are
buying off site, but if you don’t know how to use them, see? The guy you buy
from on the internet is not going to probably tell you how to use this thing. They
may be cheaper.... I think we’re very community minded. We would probably,
willing most times, to pay a little more to do business in this community. That’s
very important to us. (Diversifier 1)
In addition to being “community minded,” participants also talked of themselves as
environmentally minded. As the radio reporter explained,
despite the image of corporate farming,... a lot of [farmers] still live and work on
the land that they farm. They want their water to be clean that they drink, so they
are cognizant of that. They want the air to be clean. Farmers may not be
environmental activists, but a lot of them are active environmentalists that I talk
to, because they really do care and they want to do the right things like soil
conservation and having windbreaks in, preserving what they have for the next
generation.
Participants frequently expressed the personal satisfaction and aesthetic enjoyment of working
and living on a farm that employs environmentally conscious practices. As other studies have
found, some farmers appreciate the challenges adopting new practices will bring (Duram, 1999).
Talking Sustainability
25
Thus one of the farmers transitioning to organic commented, “I like it personally, just the
organic, is more of a challenge,” adding that he was “bored with…the chemicals and everything”
(Transitioner 1). Other participants described the enjoyment of incorporating CRP plots, buffer
strips, water/canoe trails, or border habitat around their farms. One farmer commented “I’ll go
for a walk, up and down. And you’ve got the goldfinches and the brown thrashers and robins and
everything,” (Traditional 1), to which his brother later added, “it is just a nice place to go over on
a Sunday afternoon and meditate, I guess you’d say, just relax. Rejuvenate” (Traditional 2). In
this response and in others, participants described the enjoyment of wildflowers, birds and
birdsongs, hunting, spending time with family outdoors, or reserving some farmland for prairie
restoration in memory of departed relatives. These participants describws a connection to the
place where they live (not just farm), and as such, the aesthetics of living close to, and providing
for, nature is important (see also Hunt, 2009).
As has been documented in other studies (Corselius, Simmons, and Flora, 2003; Stock,
2007), religious commitments are another significant feature of the non-economic engagement
with environment. Multiple participants described an ethic of “stewardship” of the land that was
given to them by God to use only temporarily. This can be seen in a comment by one of the
diversifying farmers, who said,
Well, we’re put here on this earth to take care of it, to make a living, enjoy it, but
to take care of it for future generations. And ethically, we would never do
anything that would destroy the land, destroy a natural resource, destroy what
God has given us. We just wouldn’t do that. It’s not in our make-up to do that:
Because of our religious beliefs, because of the heritage that we have from our
families. (Diversifier 2)
Talking Sustainability
26
Finally, participants expressed a sense of sustainability when they spoke of their
conviction that economic, social, and environmental values, far from competing with one
another, could actually complement and extend one another. In their minds, profitability and care
for the land can coincide. This was the case both for more “alternative” and more “conventional”
farmers. The two participants who adopted organic practices described their motivations as an
easy blend of financial and environmental concerns. Because of the price premium for organic
products, the decreased chemical inputs, and the decreased competition with their neighbors,
these farmers saw strong business advantages in organic practices. One commented that although
he had “originally…got in just to make the land a little better,...build the soil up. Then I found
out there’s other, kind of monetary [benefits]. It’s nice because you can be small and make fairly
good money” (Traditional 1). Several of the more conventional farmers expressed a similar view.
For example, the farm manager said that he’d “always been that type of person; if there’s
something that doesn’t make me money, I’m not going to do it.” To increase his profit margin,
he’d been “trying to eliminate” inputs. “And these things have done that. We’ve cut out a lot of
tillage and fuel consumption and all that type of thing and maintained better soil for conservation
for the future” (Manager 1). One of the diversifying farmers similarly explained how the
cooperative ethanol plant in which he had shares was co-located with a dry ice factory that used
CO2 emissions from the plant, a deal the farmer described as “win-win” (Diversifier 1). Each of
these is an example of economic and environmental concerns blending together; as the radio
broadcaster put it, “it’s a management practice, that is about the bottom line and about the
environment too.”
No matter what type of operation they run, members of this community found many
different ways to mentally reconcile more profitable farming with better environmental practice.
Talking Sustainability
27
The radio broadcaster explained that members of his community “are much more cognizant” of
issues of sustainability “than they were maybe 25-30 years ago”:
They recognize they can not only be sustainable agriculture, but profitable
agriculture. You know, if I can show you a way where you use less chemical on
your land, you’d not only feel better about your families’ health, but you’d save
money too, kind of a win-win situation.... And I think it’s become much more
mainstream and acceptable to talk about sustainability and even organic
agriculture. They may not all go organic, but there is an awareness there that there
is a way that they can cut back on the inputs, fertilizer, they’ll do it.
And the insurance agent reported a similar, if more personal evolution:
Well, I mean, I guess we had certain concepts as to how to farm and how to make
it productive, first of all, because we have farm payments to make, and we’ve got,
you know, we’ve got to pay the farm off. And also kind of that balance between
being productive, having a productive farm, and also maintaining a quality of life
for our kids and for the community and for the environment. Those are all things
that we had in our mind and how we were going to—and it’s been an evolution.
You know, it’s not something we just woke up one day and did. It’s just, we kind
of thought it out as years went by.
In speaking of the complex “balance” he envisions between productivity, quality of life and
community, and the environment, this participant gives voice to a recognizable conception of a
sustainable agriculture.
All of the interview excerpts in this section share a common focus on the social.
However, what makes this different from other, more divisive quotations is the way they
Talking Sustainability
28
differentiate among the various dimensions of sustainability. With a focus on the social, mutually
beneficial economic relationships are interpreted as friendship interactions and mechanisms of
community betterment. Environmental concerns are understood in terms of intergenerational
bequests or as issues of family health. In short, an emphasis on social quality of life seems to
help community members identify with other sustainability issues which presented in isolation
only fostered division. These results suggest that when discussions of sustainability are framed
with reference to the social, “bridging” becomes more possible. Like the “bridge terms” that link
different towers in Norton’s account of environmental policy discourse, a social focus can help
coordinate all three axes of sustainability. Recognizing this, activists and community leaders may
be able to foster increased identification in communities more accustomed to division concerning
issues of sustainability.
CONCLUSION
As the analysis above demonstrates, members of the community often distanced themselves from
the term “sustainability.” They perceived the term as one used by others: outsiders, extremists
and activists. To them, it is a politically charged and faddish term more useful primarily for
emotional effects. They associate the term with onerous regulations that threaten their way of life
and see it as too vague or nebulous to be useful. Nevertheless, these same people offer vernacular
explanations of “stewardship,” “conservation” or “respect for the land” that capture many
aspects of sustainability. They routinely describe agricultural practices that are elements of
sustainable agriculture. This is not the strict dualism described by Beus and Dunlop’s analysis of
the controversy between leading spokespersons for traditional and alternative agriculture. And it
is not the incommensurable clash of opposing paradigms. The spokespersons whose speech and
publications Beus and Dunlop analyze are articulating a contradiction between theories. The talk
Talking Sustainability
29
of community members expresses the conflict between people and specific practices, but in our
particular community, conversation was more nuanced and complex.
Much of the language of community members use to express this complexity followed a
pattern that balanced identification with division. When the radio broadcaster says “I’m not a tree
hugger, but I have planted a lot of trees,” he captures a tension that ran throughout the talk of
community members. The central figure is one of balance. The broadcaster expresses both the
division between himself and those he perceives as extremists or outsiders—“tree huggers”—and
his identification with environmental values and a commitment to improve both the land and the
community—“but I plant a lot of trees.” This same speaker repeats this figure, commenting that
“farmers may not be environmental activists, but a lot of them are active environmentalists”.
This figure of balance between identification and division also appeared when one of the
diversifying farmers referred to the “whole environmental consciousness” that is “green, green
this, green that,” but then adds, “and that is admirable in a lot of ways. But it is very problematic
in other ways, particularly for production agriculture.” Again, this speaker expresses a balance
between her sense of division between herself and the people who talk about “green this, green
that” and her identification with the environmental consciousness she describes as “admirable.”
Our analysis also shows that the language of economics and economic motives are the
most powerful and most common motive for action. But the analysis also demonstrates that both
the language of community and environment exist independently of economics and provide
viable motives for action to many community members committed to heritage, neighborly
relations, and moral or spiritual values. Furthermore, despite the dominance of economic
language and values, many community members describe specific situations in which economic
Talking Sustainability
30
interests and environmental or community values coincide. These are places where the divisions
between the three values are put together into an integrated conception of sustainability.
This rhetorical analysis of the more nuanced language of stewardship, resource
management or respect for the land among community members suggests real possibilities for
agronomists, extension agents, and conservationists to engage in productive conversation with
community members over sustainability. Our analysis suggests first, that those approaching the
community should avoid the term “sustainability,” at least initially, in conversations with
community members, and that they use community-based terms such as “stewardship,”
“conservation,” “best management practices,” or “respect for the land.” These terms are part of
the discourse with which community members identify. Second, our analysis suggests that
language that identifies the intersection of economic and environmental or community values
and terms will be useful in weakening the perceived contradiction between economic necessity
and environmental or community ideals. Finally, this analysis suggests that community
members’ deep commitment to a sense of heritage, family, and land offer openings for
persuading people to listen to discussions of sustainable agriculture.
The rhetorical concepts of division and identification. and the possibility of conversation
between them, nicely captures the values and visions of this community. It offers a theory that
makes the language and social dynamic of this community visible. And the detailed attention to
actual speech—and the forms and patterns it takes—offers sustainable agriculture a practical
method for understanding how differences are manifested and how we might forge identification
across them. Future studies of this kind might concentrate on isolating different segments of the
community or different stakeholder groups and analyzing their internal language use patterns.
Our study looked at the community as a whole, selecting a cross section of community members
Talking Sustainability
31
in a purposive sampling. A more extended analysis could apply this methodology to individual
stakeholder groups and determine in more detail the specific differences in language use, values,
and practices between them.
Talking Sustainability
Table 1. Categories of Farmers and Stakeholders Interviewed
Farmer or Stakeholder Category
(Insurance) Agent
Banker
Broadcaster
(Commodity) Brokers, 1 and 2
Diversifiers, 1 and 2
(Community Development) Leader
(Commercial Farm) Managers, 1
and 2
Reporter
Supervisor (of Ethanol Plant)
Traditional (Farmers), 1 and 2
Transitioners, 1 and 2
Description
Insurance salesman who also farms 200 acres.
Retired banker and member of a local economic
development board.
Reporter for a local radio station.
Husband and wife who are commodity brokers and
consultants and who farm “a little bit”
Husband and wife who run “a fair number of acres” and
feed cattle, and are part owners of an ethanol plant
Head of a local community economic development
board.
Head and employee of a firm that manages about 80
farms; both also farm themselves.
Reporter for a local newspaper.
Manager of the local ethanol plant.
Brothers who farm about 150 acres each of family land
and have full time jobs off the farm; one is certified
organic.
Husband and wife who are transitioning much of their
rental acreage to organic for the price premium.
32
Talking Sustainability
33
Appendix A – Interview Protocols
Pre-Interview
First, we identified ourselves to the subject, telling them what we were interested in, why we
decided to interview them, etc.






Bioeconomy discussion is contentious
Studying communication with many of different ideas and points of view
Want to know your perspective
Help people talk to each other and understand each other
Want to know how you imagine the future of bioeconomy in Iowa will be
Want to ask you about your thoughts and practices
Questions On Practices—What Do You Do?


“So tell me what you do here.”
“When you think about continuing to do what you are now doing in the future, what
concerns do you have?”
Thoughts on and Practices in Regards to Sustainability (How You Talk About It)



“Why do you practice your occupation the way you do?”
“How would you practice your occupation if you could do so any way you wanted?”
“What prevents you from practicing your occupation the way you want to?”
Land Management



“What do you see as the important elements of (land management | resource management
| sustainability | conservation | etc)?”
Use their term for land management in the remaining questions.
“How does (conservation | resource management | sustainability | development |
resilience | environmentalism | organic farming | long term productivity | functionality |
stewardship) fit into the way you operate?”
Thinking about the Future



“And how do these things fit into your sense of the future?”
“What do you think is going to be happening here on this (farm | location)?”
“What do you think is going to be happening in Iowa generally?”
Talking Sustainability
34
Exploring Informant’s Narrative






“Can you give me an example of what you think of as really good (farming | industrial |
banking | infrastructure | economic) practice?”
Then, “Why is that a good way to operate?”
“Can you give me an example of what you consider a bad practice?”
Then, “Why is that a bad way to operate?”
“What do you think of ‘sustainability’?”
“Can you give me an example/tell me a story about that?)”
Notes
Ask follow-up questions as appropriate. Topics may include:




Questions for explanation and verification
Questions on values incommensurability
Questions about temporal & spatial relationships
Questions about major events
Talking Sustainability
35
REFERENCES
Abaidoo, S., and H. Dickinson. 2002. Alternative and conventional agricultural paradigms:
Evidence from farming in southwest Saskatchewan. Rural Sociology 67(1): 114-131.
Ajayi, O. C. 2007. User acceptability of sustainable soil fertility technologies: Lessons from
farmers’ knowledge, attitude and practice in southern Africa. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture 30 (3):21-40.
Allen, J. C., and K. Bernhardt. 1995. Farming practices and adherence to an alternativeconventional agricultural paradigm. Rural Sociology 60(2): 297-309.
Altieri, M. A. 1995. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Beus, C. E., and R. E. Dunlap. 1990. Conventional versus alternative agriculture: The
paradigmatic roots of the debate. Rural Sociology 55(4): 590-616.
———. 1991. Measuring adherence to alternative vs. conventional agricultural paradigms: A
proposed scale. Rural Sociology 56(3): 432-460.
Blesh, J.M., and G.W. Barrett. 2006. Farmers’ attitudes regarding agrolandscape ecology: A
regional comparison. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 28(3): 121-143.
Burke, K. 1969. A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burton, R. J. F. 2004. Seeing through the “good farmer’s’ eyes: Towards developing an
understanding of the social symbolic value of “productivist” behaviour. Sociologia
Ruralis 44(2): 195-215.
Talking Sustainability
36
Buttel, F. H., G. W. Gillespie, Jr., O. W. Larson III, and C. K. Harris. 1981. The social bases of
agrarian environmentalism: A comparative analysis of New York and Michigan farm
operators. Rural Sociology 46(3): 391-410.
Camara, M., R. A. Martin, and D. Kwaw-Mensah. 2009. Water quality issues in the north central
region of the United States: A teaching-learning model. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture 33(3): 285-302.
Campbell, J. A. 2005. The ‘anxiety of influence’—Hermeneutic rhetoric and the triumph of
Darwin’s invention over incommensurability. In: Rhetoric and incommensurability, ed.
R. A. Harris, 334-390. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Carolan, M. S. 2005. Barriers to the adoption of sustainable agriculture on rented land: An
examination of contesting social fields. Rural Sociology 70(3): 387-413.
———. 2006. Do you see what I see? Examining the epistemic barriers to sustainable
agriculture. Rural Sociology 71(2): 232-260.
Charland, M. 1987. Constitutive rhetoric: The case of the peuple québécois. Quarterly Journal of
Speech 73(2): 133-150.
Cheney, G. 1983. The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication.
Quarterly Journal of Speech 69(2): 143-158.
Comer, S., E. Ekanem, S. Muhammad, S. P. Singh, and F. Tegegne. 1999. Sustainable and
conventional farmers: A comparison of socio-economic characteristics, attitude, and
beliefs. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 15(1): 29-45.
Corselius, K. L., S. R. Simmons, and C. B. Flora. 2003. Farmer perspectives on cropping
systems diversification in northwestern Minnesota. Agriculture and Human Values 20(4):
371-383.
Talking Sustainability
37
Darnhofer, I., W. Schneeberger, and B. Freyer. 2005. Converting or not converting to organic
farming in Austria: Farmer types and their rationale. Agriculture and Human Values
22(1): 39-52.
Davidson, D. 1984. On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. In Inquiries into truth and
interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Duram, L. A. 1997. A pragmatic study of conventional and alternative farmers in Colorado. The
Professional Geographer 49(2): 202-213.
———. 1999. Factors in organic farmers’ decisionmaking: Diversity, challenge, and obstacles.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 14(1): 2-10.
———. 2000. Agents’ perceptions of structure: How Illinois organic farmers view political,
economic, social, and ecological factors. Agriculture and Human Values 17(1): 35-48.
Fairweather, J. R., and H. R. Campbell. 2003. Environmental beliefs and farm practices of New
Zealand farmers: Contrasting pathways to sustainability. Agriculture and Human Values
20(3): 287-300.
Filson, G. C., S. Sethuratnam, B. Adekunle, and P. Lamba. 2009. Beneficial management
practice adoption in five southern Ontario watersheds. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture
33(2): 229-252.
Galison, P. 1997. Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Guptill, A. 2009. Exploring the conventionalization of organic dairy: Trends and counter-trends
in upstate New York. Agriculture and Human Values 26(1-2): 29-42.
Talking Sustainability
38
Hanson, J. C., C. S. Kauffman, and A. Schauer. 1996. Attitudes and practices of sustainable
farmers, with applications to designing a sustainable agriculture extension program.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 6(2): 135-156.
Harris, R. A. 2005. Introduction. In: Rhetoric and incommensurability, ed. R. A. Harris, 3-149.
West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Hassanein, N. 2008. Locating food democracy: Theoretical and practical ingredients. Journal of
Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 3(2): 286-308.
Hunt, L. 2009. Interpreting orchardists’ talk about their orchards: The good orchardists.
Agriculture and Human Values. Published Online First: 21 September 2009.
doi:10.1007/s10460-009-9240-7
Kent, T. 1993. Paralogic rhetoric: A theory of communicative interaction. Cranbury, NJ:
Associated University Presses.
Kitschelt, H. 1986. Four theories of public policy making and fast breeder reactor development.
International Organization 40(1): 65-104.
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lozier, J., E. Rayburn, and J. Shaw. 2006. The decision to finish cattle on pasture: An
ethnographic approach. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 28(3): 5-23.
Miller, C. 2005. Novelty and heresy in the debate on nonthermal effects of electromagnetic
fields. In: Rhetoric and incommensurability, ed. R. A. Harris, 464-505. West Lafayette,
IN: Parlor Press.
Morton, L. W., and C. Y. Weng. 2009. Getting to better water quality outcomes: The promise
and challenge of the citizen effect. Agriculture and human values 26(1): 83-94.
Talking Sustainability
39
Muma, M., R. Martin, and M. Shelley. 2010. Sustainable agriculture: Teacher beliefs and topics
taught. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 34(4): 439-459.
Norton, B. G. 2005. Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Ommani, A.R., M. Chizari, C. Salmanzadeh, and J. F. A. Hosaini. 2009. Predicting adoption
behavior of farmers regarding on-farm sustainable water resources management
(SWRM): Comparison of models. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 33(5): 595-616.
Padel, S., and N. H. Lampkin. 1994. Conversion to organic farming: An overview. In: The
economics of organic farming: An international perspective, ed. N.H. Lampkin and S.
Padel, 295-313. Guilford, UK: CAB International.
Pannell, D. J., and S. Schilizzi. 1999. Sustainable agriculture: A matter of ecology, equity,
economic efficiency or expedience? Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 13(4): 57-66.
Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Pelletier, D. L., V. Kraak, C. McCullum, and U. Uusitalo. 2000. Values, public policy, and
community food security. Agriculture and Human Values 17(1): 75-93.
Peterson, T. R. 1991. Telling the farmers’ story: Competing messages to soil conservation
rhetoric. The Quarterly Journal of Speech 77: 289-308.
———. 1997. Sharing the earth: The rhetoric of sustainable development. Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina Press.
Pezzoli, K. 1997. Sustainable development: A transdisciplinary overview of the literature.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40(5): 549-574.
Talking Sustainability
40
Prelli, L. J. 2005. Stasis and the problem of incommensurate communication: The case of
spousal violence research. In: Rhetoric and incommensurability, ed. R. A. Harris, 294333. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Prelli, L. J., and T. S. Winters. 2009. Rhetorical features of green evangelicalism. Environmental
Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture 3(2): 224-243.
Rodriguez, J. M., J. J. Molnar, R. A. Fazio, E. Sydnor, and M. J. Lowe. 2008. Barriers to
adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: Change agent perspectives. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems 24(1): 60-71.
Sassenrath, G. F., P. Heilman, E. Luschei, G. L. Bennett, G. Fitzgerald, P. Klesius, W. Tracy, J.
R. Williford, and P. V. Zimba. 2008. Technology, complexity, and change in agricultural
production systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(4): 285-295.
Schneider, M. L., and C. A. Francis. 2006. Ethics of land use in Nebraska: Farmer and consumer
opinions in Washington County. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 28(4): 81-104.
Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects:
Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.
Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387-420.
Stock, P. 2007. “Good Farmers” as reflexive producers: An examination of family organic
farmers in the U.S. midwest. Sociologia Ruralis 47(2): 83-102.
Stofferahn, C. W. 2009. Personal, farm and value orientations in conversion to organic farming.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 33(8): 862-884.
Thompson, P. B. 1992. The varieties of sustainability. Agriculture and Human Values 9(3): 1119.
Talking Sustainability
41
Walter, G. 1997. Images of success: How Illinois farmers define the successful farmer. Rural
Sociology 62(1): 48-68.
Weiss, R. S. 1994. Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
New York: Free Press.
Wilkins, J. L., V. Kraak, D. Pelletier, C. McCullum, and U. Uusitalo. 2001. Moving from debate
to dialogue about genetically engineered foods and crops: Insights from a land grant
university. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 18(2): 167-201.
Wilson, G., and C. G. Herndl. 2007. Boundary objects as rhetorical exigence: Knowledge
mapping and interdisciplinary cooperation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication 21(2): 129-154.
Wilson, R.S., N. Hooker, M. Tucker, J. Lejeune, and D. Doohan. 2009. Targeting the farmer
decision making process: A pathway to increased adoption of integrated weed
management. Crop Protection 28(9): 756-764.