Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Interpreting orchardists’ talk about their orchards: the good orchardists

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to implement environmental policies for sustainable and resilient land use we need to better understand how people relate to their agricultural land and how this affects their practices. In this paper I use an inductive, qualitative analysis of data gathered from interviews with kiwifruit orchardists and observations of their orchards to demonstrate how their interpretation of their relationship with their orchards affects their management practices. I suggest that these orchardists experience their orchards as having agency in four different ways—as wild, challenging, needy, and passive—and that these different perspectives result in practices which produce orchards that impact differently on sensory faculties—sight, touch, hearing, taste, and smell. This finding implies that land use policies that seek to change sensory aspects of the land which are in conflict with producers’, farmers’, or growers’ sense of relationship with the land—and how the land “should be”—are unlikely to succeed. That these orchardists produce fruit which is compliant with two comprehensive audit systems—one of which is organic—and also serve an international market, indicates that the constraints of such systems still allow orchardists to exercise autonomy, express their identity, and make sense of their orchard activities in different ways, indicating a potentially resilient and sustainable production system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Dry matter is the ratio of the dried weight of fruit to the total weight before the moisture is removed.

  2. These figures add to more than 100% because some orchardists grow both green and gold fruit.

  3. Hormone-based bud-break sprays are used to simulate frost which encourages greater budding and uniformity of flowering and fruiting. The product name, HiCane®, used in a quotation, is such a spray.

  4. A native bootlace fungus Armillaria novaezelandiae.

  5. “… actantiality is not what an actor does … but what provides actants with their actions, with their subjectivity, with their intentionality, with their morality” (Latour 1998, p. 2). In other words, actants are things actors use to mediate or translate their actions. They do not have to be “things” with a physical existence but may be laws, norms or other abstract ideas such as the “market”.

Abbreviations

ARGOS:

Agriculture Research Group on Sustainability

GlobalGAP:

Global Good Agricultural Practice

ANT:

Actor Network Theory

References

  • Adams, M. 2006. Hybridizing habitus and reflexivity: Towards an understanding of contemporary identity? Sociology 40 (3): 511–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H.S. 1998. Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while you’re doing it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1990. The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1998. Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buell, L. 2001. Writing for an endangered world: Literature culture and environment in the US and beyond. Cambridge: Belknap Press at Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buller, H. 2004. Where the wild things are: The evolving iconography of rural fauna. Journal of Rural Studies 20: 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J., J. Clark, and C.M. Harrison. 2000. Knowledges in action: An actor network analysis of a wetland agri-environment scheme. Ecological Economics 35: 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R.J.F., C. Kuczera, and G. Schwarz. 2008. Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis 48 (1): 16–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R.J.F., and G.A. Wilson. 2006. Injecting social psychology theory into conceptualisations of agricultural agency: Towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity? Journal of Rural Studies 22: 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, ed. J. Law, 196–233. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloke, P., and H.C. Perkins. 2005. Cetacean performance and tourism in Kaikoura New Zealand. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23 (6): 903–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egoz, S., J. Bowring, and H.C. Perkins. 2001. Tastes in tension: Form, function, and meaning in New Zealand’s farmed landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 57 (3): 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J., L. Hunt, A. Cook, C. Rosin, J. Benge, and H. Campbell. 2007. The representativeness of ARGOS panels and between panel comparisons. ARGOS Research Report 07/03. Christchurch: ARGOS. http://www.argos.org.nz/pdf_files/Research_Report_07_03_Representativeness_Panels.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2009.

  • Gille, Z. 2006. Detached flows or grounded place-making projects? In Governing environmental flow: Global challenges to social theory, ed. G. Spaargaren, A.P.J. Mol, and F.H. Buttel, 137–156. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • GlobalGAP. nd. http://www.globalgap.org. Accessed 28 August 2009.

  • Goldman, M. 2008. What’s nature got to do with it? Contemporary Sociology 37 (4): 309–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. 1998. Family farms in the Scottish borders: A practical definition of hill farmers. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (3): 241–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, L.M., C. Rosin, C. McLeod, M. Read, J.R. Fairweather, and H.R. Campbell. 2005. Understanding approaches to kiwifruit production in New Zealand: Report on first qualitative interviews with ARGOS kiwifruit participants. ARGOS Research Report 05/01. July, 2005. Christchurch: ARGOS. http://www.argos.org.nz/pdf_files/Research_Report_05_01_ARGOS%20Kiwifruit%20Report%20on%20first%20interviews%202005.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2009.

  • Jay, M. 2005. Remnants of the Waikato: Native forest survival in a production landscape. New Zealand Geographer 61: 14–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, O., and P.J. Cloke. 2002. Tree cultures: The place of trees and trees in their place. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaltoft, P. 1999. Values about nature in organic farming practice and knowledge. Sociologia Ruralis 39 (1): 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. 1998. On recalling ANT. Department of Sociology, Lancaster University. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Latour-Recalling-ANT.pdf. Accessed 8 September 2009.

  • Lofland, J., and L.H. Lofland. 1995. Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten, P., and J. Urry. 1998. Contested natures. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEachern, C. 1992. Farmers and conservation: Conflict and accommodation in farming politics. Journal of Rural Studies 8 (2): 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer, J. 1997. Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and sustainability. In Placing nature: Culture and landscape ecology, ed. J. Nassauer, 67–83. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosin, C. 2008. The conventions of agri-environmental practice in New Zealand: Farmers, retail-driven audit schemes and a new Spirit of Farming. GeoJournal 73 (1): 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saugeres, L. 2002. The cultural representation of the farming landscape: Masculinity, power and nature. Journal of Rural Studies 18: 373–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T.R. 2000. Introduction: Practice theory. In Practice turn in contemporary theory, ed. T.R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, and E. von Savigny, 10–23. Florence: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Setten, G. 2004. The habitus, the rule and the moral landscape. Cultural Geographies 11: 389–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shucksmith, M., and V. Hermann. 2002. Future changes in British agriculture: Projecting divergent farm household behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics 53: 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvasti, T. 2003. The cultural model of “the good farmer” and the environmental question in Finland. Agriculture and Human Values 20 (2): 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stock, P.V. 2007. ‘Good farmers’ as reflexive producers: An examination of family organic farmers in the US Midwest. Sociologia Ruralis 47 (2): 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P.J. 2005. Unruly complexity: Ecology, interpretation, engagement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. 2001. From productivism to post-productivism … and back again? Exploring the [un]changed and natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26 (1): 77–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The ARGOS program is funded by the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FRST), and is also supported by ZESPRI®. It is a joint venture between the Agribusiness Group, Lincoln University, and the University of Otago in New Zealand. I thank the ARGOS kiwifruit orchardists who share their lives with me from time to time, Chris Rosin who usefully challenged and critiqued my writing, Simon Lambert for his insights and good words and Jayson Benge, the ARGOS kiwifruit research field officer. I also received support for writing this paper from New Zealand’s Building Research Capability in the Social Sciences (BRCSS) fund. Thanks also to the reviewers and editor of this journal for their great suggestions which have resulted in a much improved paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lesley Hunt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hunt, L. Interpreting orchardists’ talk about their orchards: the good orchardists. Agric Hum Values 27, 415–426 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9240-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9240-7

Keywords

Navigation