Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ideology and discourse: Characterizations of the 1996 Farm Bill by agricultural interest groups

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

Abstract

The relationship betweendiscourse and ideology can be described as thatof process and effect [Purvis and Hunt (1993)British Journal of Sociology 44: 473–499].Discourse, used within relations of domination,can result in the formation of ideology. Tostudy this relationship systematically requiresa methodology that contextualizes discoursewithin social relations and examines when suchdiscourse becomes an ideology. I use Thompson'stheory/methodology of ``depth hermeneutics'' tostudy documents produced by agriculturalinterest groups concerning the 1996 FederalAgriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Actand I assess the ideological status of thediscourses contained in these documents. Thefindings suggest that the organizationsrepresenting the small-to-medium-sized farmerstended to use more agrarian themes, fewermarket themes, and fewer linguistic strategiesindicative of ideology. The organizationsrepresenting more concentrated,vertically-integrated interests andagribusinesses use fewer agrarian themes, moremarket themes, and more linguistic strategies.Therefore, market themes, not agrarian themes,form an ideology in this context.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, K. and B. J. Elliott (1988). “The current debate and economic rationale for US agricultural policy.” In M. A. Tutwiler (ed.), US Agriculture in a Global Setting: An Agenda for the Future (pp. 9–33). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnen, J. T. and W. P. Browne (1989). “Why is agricultural policy so difficult to reform?” In C. S. Kramer (ed.), The Political Economy of U.S. Agriculture (pp. 7–33). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnen, J. T., W. P. Browne, and D. B. Schweikhardt (1996). “Further observations on the changing nature of national agricultural policy decision processes, 1946-1995.” Agricultural History 70: 130–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice, Richard Nice (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, W. P. (1995). Cultivating Congress: Constituents, Issues, and Interests in Agricultural Policymaking. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, W. P. (1988). Public Interests, Public Policy, and American Agriculture. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, W. P. and A. J. Cigler (1990). U.S. Agricultural Groups: Institutional Profiles. New York: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H. and W. L. Flinn (1976). “Sociopolitical consequences of agrarianism.” Rural Sociology 41: 473–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H. and W. L. Flinn (1975). “Sources and consequences of agrarian values in American society.” Rural Sociology 40: 134–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H., O. F. Larson, and G. W. Gillespie, Jr. (1990). The Sociology of Agriculture. New York: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cancian, F. M. and S. L. Gordon (1988). “Changing emotion norms in marriage: Love and anger in U.S. women's magazines since 1900.” Gender and Society 2: 308–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, W. W. and C. F. Runge (1992). Reforming Farm Policy. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. S. (1935). “Agrarian fundamentalism.” In N. E. Himes (ed.), Economics, Sociology and the Modern World (pp. 3- 22). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economic Research Service (1996). Provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service (AIB-729).

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M., R. I. Fretz, and L. L. Shaw (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. New York: Longman, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fite, G. C. (1962). “The historical development of agricultural fundamentalism in the nineteenth century.” Journal of Farm Economics 44: 1203–1211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flinn, W. L. and D. E. Johnson (1974). “Agrarianism among Wisconsin farmers.” Rural Sociology 39: 87–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, B. D. (1995). Plowing Ground in Washington: The Political Economy of US Agriculture. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadwiger, D. F. (1962). “Farm fundamentalism - its future.” Journal of Farm Economics 44: 1218–1231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, D. (1995). “A Perspective on the 1995 Farm Bill.” 1995 Farm Bill Working Group Paper Series. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP-95WG-00).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, R. and G. Kress (1993 [1979]). Language as Ideology. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. (Oct., 1995). “Cargill commentary: The answer for agriculture: Freedom to Grow.” The Cargill Bulletin 3(8): 7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutson, R. D., J. B. Penn, and W. T. Boehm (1995). Agricultural and Food Policy, 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLellan, D. (1995). Ideology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, J. J. and L. S. Wu (1989). “Agrarianism, family farming, and support for state intervention in agriculture.” Rural Sociology 54(2): 227–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Farmers Union (1996). Family Farming the American Way: National Farmers Union 1996 Policy Manual. Aurora, Colorado: NFU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orden, D., R. Paarlberg, and T. Roe (1999). Policy Reform in American Agriculture: Analysis and Prognosis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, S. (September, 1995). “Cargill commentary: Time to look ahead.” The Cargill Bulletin 3(7): 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. and M. Morehart (1996). “Who receives direct commodity program payments?” In M. T. Herlihy and C. E. Young (eds.), Issues in Agricultural Commodity Policy (pp. 25–35). Commercial Agriculture Division, Economic Research Service, USDA. Staff Paper AGES-9610.

  • Purvis, T. and A. Hunt (1993). “Discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology ...” British Journal of Sociology44: 473–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, D. E. (1996). “The FAIR Act: What does it all mean?” In S. A. Halbrook and K. W. Ward (eds.), Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies (pp. 75–94). Oak Brook, Illinois: Farm Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, A. J. and D. Colman (1993). “Current issues in agricultural economics: Introduction and overview.” In A. J. Rayner and D. Colman (eds.), Current Issues in Agricultural Economics (pp. 1–10). New York: St. Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, W. C. (1970). “Agrarianism and the social organization of U.S. agriculture: The concomitance of stability and change.” Rural Sociology 35: 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root, K. (May, 1996). “Rural America makes a comeback.” Prairie Grains. URL: http://www.smallgrains.org/Springwh/ May96/root.html

  • Schertz, L. P. and O. C. Doering, III (1999). The Making of the 1996 Farm Act. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swenson, L. H. (May, 1996). “From the President.” National Farmers Union News 43(5): 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, K. and C. F. Runge (1996). “Agricultural policy reform in the United States: An unfinished agenda.” Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy. Working Paper WP96-3.

  • Tai, W. (December, 1995). “Congress cultivates a revolutionary farm policy compromise.” The Cargill Bulletin 3(9): 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tai, W. (October, 1995). “Growing world demand and historic tight supplies are creating new opportunities for agriculture.” The Cargill Bulletin 3(8): 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tai, W. (September, 1995). “Incremental changes at the international, regional and national level are gradually flattening the playing field for farm trade.” The Cargill Bulletin 3(7): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and Modern Culture. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. B. (1984). Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B. (1988). “The philosophical rationale for U.S. agricultural policy.” In M. A. Tutwiler (ed.), U.S. Agriculture in a Global Setting (pp. 34–48). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. (1981). Critical Hermeneutics: A Study in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur and Jurgen Habermas. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Bureau of the Census (1996). “Large farms are thriving in the U.S.” Agricultural Brief AB/96-1.

  • van Dijk, T. (1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. (1995). “Discourse analysis as ideology analysis.” In C. Schäffner and A. L. Wenden (eds.), Language and Peace (pp. 17–33). Brookfield, Vermont: Dartmouth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, E. and D. A. Shields (1996). “1996 FAIR Act frames farm policy for 7 years.” Agricultural Outlook (Special Supplement). Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

    Kathryn J. Brasier

Authors
  1. Kathryn J. Brasier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brasier, K.J. Ideology and discourse: Characterizations of the 1996 Farm Bill by agricultural interest groups. Agriculture and Human Values 19, 239–253 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019913920983

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019913920983

Search

Navigation