How do producers imagine consumers? Connecting farm and fork through a cultural repertoire of consumer sovereignty

Abstract

The phenomena of meat production and consumption are related but often studied separately, funnelled into silos of agro-food and consumer-focussed research. This article aims to reconnect these spheres by asking: How do meat producers understand the role of consumers in the ethical meatscape? We draw from interviews and site visits with 74 actors engaged with the ethical meat system in Canada. We find that consumers loom large in the cultural imaginary of meat producers and are often framed as key drivers of food system change. We make a two-pronged argument that explains the complex, embedded presence of consumers in meat producers' cultural imaginary. Conceptually, we argue that producers draw from a cultural repertoire of consumer sovereignty that frames consumer choice as a foundational element of capitalist societies. Empirically, we argue that ethical meat producers' direct relationships with consumers infuse producers' work with meaning and emotional significance, and this works to reinforce a normative valuation of consumer sovereignty. This All authors contributed equally to this article and are listed in alphabetical order.

‘I think this is where this lovely word “sustainability” comes in’: Fruit and vegetable growers' narratives concerning the regulation of environmental water use for food production

“…Growers also applied this distanciation to consumers, who were portrayed as uncaring, hypocritical and easily manipulated by supermarkets (also reflecting findings of consumer ‘othering’ by Letourneau & Davidson, 2022 ). Direct relationships with consumers, which according to some researchers is a factor that imbues the work of food production with meaning and emotional significance (Baumann et al., 2022 ), were largely absent in the growers’ descriptions.…”

Network embeddedness, entrepreneurial bricolage, and family farm sustainability

“…To overcome resource constraints, family farms need to embed different social networks at different stages of entrepreneurship (Fisher, 2013;Ochago et al, 2023). Baumann et al (2023) that network embeddedness in family farms involved not only two interrelated subjects, the farmer and family farm, but also other subjects in rural social networks. The network organization formed by family farms joining cooperatives can encourage family farms to further leverage their scale advantages, reduce transaction costs, and thus share the value-added benefits of the agricultural industry chain (Ochago et al, 2023).…”

“…Family farms can utilize elements at low cost through network relationships, and occupy network positions that are conducive to communication and cooperation with different actors (Baumann et al, 2023). Their behavior is influenced by the shared culture, norm, and values in the network.…”

‘Values‐based Territorial Food Networks’—Benefits, challenges and controversies

“…The article of Baumann Johnston and Oleschuk (2023) intends to connect meat production and consumption, normally funnelled into silos of agro‐food and consumer‐focussed research and scientific literature. Through the concept of cultural repertoires the authors aim to explore how meat producers understand the role of consumers in the ethical meatscape; in other words, how the values of ethical consumers influence the economic and cultural behaviour of small meat producers.…”