Farming from a Process‐Relational Perspective: Making Openings for Change Visible

Abstract

The theoretical debates in sociology have highlighted the strengths, but also the limitations of perspectives building on, anthropocentrism, essentialism, or structural determinism. One school of thought that strives to overcome such limitations is relational sociology. The aim of this article is to explore how a process-relational perspective can offer a new conceptual framework for farm-level studies in rural sociology. It is an invitation to view the world as a tissue of interactions, of dynamic and often unpredictable processes. By injecting a dose of new materialism and thereby extending agency to nonhumans, the liveliness of nature and technology is also taken into account. Yet, reconceptualising farming in relational terms is not just a theoretical but also a political project: it spurs different imaginations, making other worlds thinkable. This would enable to show everpresent openings for more socially just and environmentally friendly farming practices. Keywordsfarmer decision-making, post-humanism, new materialism, relational sociology Darnhofer

A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations

“…However, while such efforts have powerfully highlighted the complex spatial webs of interdependence that characterize human-nature connectedness and influence governance outcomes, they have placed less emphasis on the dynamic temporal processes that (re)produce network configurations, and have so far tended to stay within substantialist understandings of distinct social and ecological nodes (Sayles et al 2019). Meanwhile, in parallel development, others have drawn on Emirbayer's work, along with Latour (2005), Dépelteau (2018), Deleuze and Guattari (1988), and others, to develop rich conceptual and qualitative accounts of human-nature connectedness from 'deep' relational perspectives that collapse distinctions between 'human' and 'natural' entities, for instance in relation to farms and farmers (Darnhofer et al 2016;Darnhofer 2020) and agricultural systems more generally (Dwiartama and Rosin 2014; Darnhofer et al 2019). Bringing together the quantitative, spatial emphasis of network analysis with the conceptual development of the latter studies is a promising research pathway for sustainability science (Lejano 2019;Sayles et al 2019).…”

“…Sustainability scientists are therefore increasingly engaging with research associated with the 'relational turn' in the humanities and social sciences, as a means of revising substantialist assumptions and better capturing the complexity of human-nature connectedness (Darnhofer et al 2016;Gillard et al 2016;Stenseke 2018;West et al 2018West et al , 2019bLejano 2019;Hertz et al 2020;Darnhofer 2020;Walsh et al 2020;Mancilla Garcia et al 2020a, 2020b. The relational turn does not refer to a single, unified approach, but rather describes a broad shift in scholarship across multiple disciplines, encompassing many distinct commitments, theories and ideas (e.g.…”

Supporting food systems transformation: The what, why, who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems

“…It is increasingly argued that also nature itself and biological and ecological agents (e.g. plants, animals, ecosystems) need to be seen as drivers in innovation systems in view of ideas on ecological feedback loops and biomimicry and the 'more-than-human' debate in rural sociology, as well as technologies such as robotics, digital twins and artificial intelligence ( Andersen and Wicken, 2020 ; Darnhofer, 2020 ; Klerkx et al, 2019 ; Pigford et al, 2018 ; van der Jagt et al, 2020 ).…”

Rethinking resilience and development: A coevolutionary perspective

“…Not only social factors influence the filtering process but also linked ecological processes as well (Mancilla Garcia et al 2019). The lens of practice enables these intertwined processes to be mutually considered (Berkes et al 2003, Darnhofer 2020). While we propose that a coevolutionary perspective provides a powerful lens to conceptualise social-ecological relationships in more dynamic ways, we are not here advocating evolutionary explanations of human social behaviour.…”