Introduction to symposium—charting fault lines in US agrifood systems: what can we contribute?

Abstract

Rural sociologists, other researchers, and agrifood activists have made significant contributions to illuminating many fundamental social and ecological contradictions in the contemporary conventional agrifood system. Yet, conventional agriculture and food systems appear to persist and to develop in problematic directions, apparently unabated by economic, environmental and social challenges. These continuities have important implications for critical projects aimed at building alternative agrifood systems, as well as projects focused on risk management and refinement of dominant structures. For example, fossil fuel availability has long been identified as an Achilles’ heel of conventional agriculture, and yet we now observe high input monocultural production expanding rapidly in spite of—and in response to—energy supply constraints. The erosion of state engagement in the regulation of agricultural technology and food safety may have been tempered by processes of re-regulation (including certification and commercial standards), yet the proliferation of market-based governance mechanisms would seem to depoliticize an important class of social problems and arguably absolve the state of its responsibilities to ensure public welfare and social justice. Although constraints on labor supply and criticism regarding the status of immigrant farmworkers may be relaxed through (elusive) immigration reform, this potential is deeply constrained both by inaction in the federal policy arena and a resurgence of xenophobic policies in some localities. The Land Grant University and public sector research and extension have been in a decadeslong protracted ‘crisis’ linked to a need to more clearly connect public expenditures with public purposes, yet the mode of public sector engagement in agrifood innovation systems has not been fundamentally altered. In light of the resilience of contemporary conventional agrifood systems (i.e., capacity to absorb shocks, internalize challenges, and retain core characteristics), we are motivated to ask what we regard as a set of fundamental questions. Are there limits to the conventional model of agrifood provision and consumption? At what point and through what processes will the resilience of agrifood systems be exhausted? Alternatively, how are conventional agrifood structures and problematic social relations maintained, and their resilience sustained? As Buttel posed the question, ‘‘What are the forces and processes that enable the social and ecological reproduction of the unsustainability of agriculture?’’ (2006, 218). Lastly, we want to raise the possibility that the continuity we ascribe to the system is mythical, and we have potentially failed to recognize transformations—what systems thinkers would call a ‘‘new equilibrium.’’ In invoking the concepts of resilience, tipping points, non-linearities (i.e., discontinuities), and multiple equilibria, we join many other contemporary analysts engaged in analysis of systems (and risk being tarred as followers-on).