IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v19y2002i3p239-253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Kathryn Brasier

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. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Suggested Citation

  • Kathryn Brasier, 2002. "Ideology and discourse: Characterizations of the 1996 Farm Bill by agricultural interest groups," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 19(3), pages 239-253, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:19:y:2002:i:3:p:239-253
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1019913920983
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1019913920983
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1019913920983?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Orden, David & Paarlberg, Robert & Roe, Terry, 1999. "Policy Reform in American Agriculture," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226632643, April.
    2. Herlihy, Michael T. & Young, C. Edwin, 1996. "Issues in Agricultural Commodity Policy," Staff Reports 278808, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shortall, O.K., 2013. "“Marginal land” for energy crops: Exploring definitions and embedded assumptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 19-27.
    2. Mäkelä, Hannele & Laine, Matias, 2011. "A CEO with many messages: Comparing the ideological representations provided by different corporate reports," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 217-231.
    3. Sophie Payne-Gifford & C. S. Srinivasan & Peter Dorward, 2021. "Blunting EU Regulation 1107/2009: following a regulation into a system of agricultural innovation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 221-241, February.
    4. Robert Chiles, 2013. "If they come, we will build it: in vitro meat and the discursive struggle over future agrofood expectations," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(4), pages 511-523, December.
    5. Ferguson, John & Collison, David & Power, David & Stevenson, Lorna, 2009. "Constructing meaning in the service of power: An analysis of the typical modes of ideology in accounting textbooks," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(8), pages 896-909.
    6. Mohamed Chelli & Yves Gendron, 2013. "Sustainability Ratings and the Disciplinary Power of the Ideology of Numbers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 187-203, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johan Swinnen & Alessandro Olper & Senne Vandevelde, 2021. "From unfair prices to unfair trading practices: Political economy, value chains and 21st century agri‐food policy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 771-788, September.
    2. Tangermann, Stefan, 2001. "Has The Uruguay Round Agreement On Agriculture Worked Well?," Working Papers 14586, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. Swinnen, Johan F.M., 2010. "The Political Economy of the Most Radical Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 59(Supplemen), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Glauber, Joseph W. & Effland, Anne, 2016. "United States agricultural policy: Its evolution and impact," IFPRI discussion papers 1543, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Blandford, David & Orden, David, 2008. "United States: Shadow WTO Agricultural Domestic Support Notifications," IFPRI discussion papers 821, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Matthews, A., 2007. "Good Governance in the Agri-Food Sector of Industrialised Countries," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 42, March.
    7. Zulauf, Carl R. & Orden, David, 2009. "ACRE in the U.S. Farm Bill and the WTO," Working Papers 51821, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    8. Zulauf, Carl & Orden, David, 2014. "The US Agricultural Act of 2014: Overview and analysis," IFPRI discussion papers 1393, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Pease, James W. & Lehman, John & Orden, David, 2001. "Proposed End Of Peanut Quota Program: Economic Effects On Virginia Producers," Report Papers 14845, Virginia Tech, Rural Economic Analysis Program (REAP).
    10. Nadine Lehrer & Dennis Becker, 2010. "Shifting paths to conservation: policy change discourses and the 2008 US farm bill," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(5), pages 639-655.
    11. Zulauf, Carl & Orden, David, 2012. "US Farm Policy and Risk Assistance: The Competing Senate and House Agriculture Committee Bills of July 2012," National Policies, Trade and Sustainable Development 320174, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).
    12. Miller, J. Corey & Coble, Keith H., 2007. "Cheap food policy: Fact or rhetoric?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 98-111, February.
    13. Liang, Yan & Miller, J. Corey & Harri, Ardian & Coble, Keith H., 2011. "Crop Supply Response under Risk: Impacts of Emerging Issues on Southeastern U.S. Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 181-194, May.
    14. Hopkins, Jeffrey W. & Hanson, Kenneth & Somwaru, Agapi & Burfisher, Mary E., 2003. "Allocation Effects of Policy Reform: A Micro-Simulation of Macro-Model Results for the United States," Policy Reform and Adjustment Workshop, October 23-25, 2003, Imperial College London, Wye Campus 15750, International Agricultural Policy Reform and Adjustment Project (IAPRAP).
    15. Keri L. Jacobs & Walter N. Thurman & Michele C. Marra, 2014. "The Effect of Conservation Priority Areas on Bidding Behavior in the Conservation Reserve Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(1), pages 1-25.
    16. Timothy E. Josling & Stefan Tangermann, 2015. "Transatlantic Food and Agricultural Trade Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15889, March.
    17. William Lin & Robert Dismukes, 2007. "Supply Response under Risk: Implications for Counter-Cyclical Payments' Production Impact," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 64-86.
    18. Bellemare, Marc F. & Carnes, Nicholas, 2015. "Why do members of congress support agricultural protection?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 20-34.
    19. de Gorter, Harry, 2008. "Explaining Inefficient Policy Instruments," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48638, World Bank.
    20. Rebecca E. Shelton & Hallie Eakin, 2021. "Social and cultural bonds left to “the mercy of the winds:” an agricultural transition," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 693-708, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:19:y:2002:i:3:p:239-253. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.