Suchergebnisse

Recent tendencies in the literature on the sociology and political economy of agriculture in advanced industrial societies are analyzed with respect to their adequacy for guiding future research and their implications for sociology at large. We argue that the emergent tradition of agrarian political economy, while it has been productive in many respects, has tended to have two limitations. First, agriculture has typically been reified by being conceptualized as a distinct and autonomous sector when, in fact, modern agriculture is increasingly characterized by a decline in its sectoral and national identities. Second, major contending theories, despite their apparent differences, have been rooted in common deductivist approaches that fail to recognize the contingent character of agricultural organization. Two theoretical strategies with particular promise for transcending these limitations are then discussed.

It is revealing and important to preface this paper by noting the fact that a paper of this sort could hardly have been written as recently as 15 years ago. In sociology at large, historical methods and approaches were quite uncommon from the 1940s through the early 1970s. Further, mainstream American sociology organizations have distinguished themselves worldwide by their neglect of matters rural and agricultural. In part, this is because American rural sociologists have had their own professional association, the Rural Sociological Society, since 1937. There has accordingly been a fairly substantial separation and division of labor between "general" and rural sociology/sociologists, with "non-rural" sociologists having their major allegiance to the American Sociological Association (ASA) and regional disciplinary groups, while rural sociologists have had their closest identification with the Rural Sociological Society. Further, in American rural sociology prior to the late 1970s and 1980s, there had never been a major tradition of work along the lines of "historical sociology" as the notion is commonly understood today.

RésuméCet article décrit ľevolution de la sociologie rurale aux Etats‐Unis. Aprés avoir présente la naissance de cette discipline scientifiquc et son rôle moteur pour lc developpement de la sociologie générale nord‐américaine, les auteurs essayent de décrire les événements àľorigine de la crise qu'elle a connue dans les années 60 et qui s'est poursuivie la décennie suivante. Par la suite, ils tentent de presenter les raisons du renouveau actuel que connaît cette discipline aux USA, ses nouvelles orientations: sociologie de ľenvironnement, sociologie de ľagricul‐ture et des politiques agricoles. lis s'interrogent, enfin, sur son avenir.AbstractThis paper discusses the evolution of rural sociology in the United States. After describing the birth of the discipline and the important impact it has had on the development of general sociology in North America, the authors discuss the origins of the crisis it faced in the sixties and which continued into the seventies. Following this, they give a tentative interpretation of the reasons for the present revival of the discipline in the United States and for its new orientations: environmental sociology, agricultural sociology, and sociology of agricultural policy. Finally, they raise questions about its future.KurzfassungIn diesem Artikel wird die Entwkklung der ländlichen Soziologie in den Vereinigten Staaten beschrieben. Nach Darstellung der Entstehungsgeschichte dieser Wissenschaftsdisziplin und ihrer Rolle als Motor der Entwicklung der allgemeinen Soziologie Nordamerikas, versuchen die Autoren die Ereignisse zu Beginn der Krise zu beschreiben, die dicse in den 60er Jahren erlebt hat und die sich auch ira folgenden Jahrzehnt fortgesetzt hat. Dann versuchen sie die Gründe der aktuellen Erneucrung, durch die diesc Disziplin in den Vereinigten Staaten gekennzeichnet ist, und deren neucn Orienticrungen aufzuzeigen: Soziologie der Umwelt, Soziologie der Landwirtschaft und der Agrarpolitik. Sie fragen sich zum Schluß, wie deren Zukunft sein wird.

Abstract We test two sets of hypotheses concerning the association between gender and various structural and attitudinal variables, using data collected in two surveys (1979 and 1995–1996) from random samples of land‐grant agricultural scientists. The first set of hypotheses centers on the expectation that the resources and rewards of agricultural science are distributed unequally by gender. We find significant gender differences in scientists' postdoctoral work experience, academic rank, employment of graduate students, rate of book publication, and links with private industry. Our second set of hypotheses, drawing on the literatures of feminist epistemology and situated knowledge, focuses on the relationship between scientists' gender and perceptions of the goals of agricultural research. Our findings indicate that gender is unimportant in explaining differences in scientists' commitment to agricultural sustainability, environmental issues, and family farm preservation as important goals of land‐grant research. Yet we find significant gender differences in attitudes toward biotechnology and the growing links between land‐grant universities and private industry.

ABSTRACTThis theoretical analysis focuses on the properties of conservative, liberal, and radical paradigms in social science and their application to the growth/no‐growth debate in environmental policy literature. We find conservatives working with an evolutionary model of society which suggests that environmental problems are imperfections to be remedied by science, technology, and the free market. Liberals recognize the benefits and costs of growth, and they articulate ways to minimize the costs through state regulation and planning. Radicals argue for state ownership of the means of production and new cultural values about growth as the only effective environmental policies. This analysis closes with a discussion of the future of the growth debate in terms of these paradigms.