From productivism to post-productivism … and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture
From productivism to post-productivism … and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1475-5661.00007
复制
发表时间：
2001-03
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
G. Wilson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Wilson
本文的发展是出于对当代辩论中相对不加批判地接受先进社会的农业已经从“生产主义”转向“后生产主义”的日益不满。对生产主义和后生产主义农业制度的当前概念化的简要回顾揭示了当前对这些二元术语的理解的不一致性。问题的部分原因在于，关于后生产主义的概念性文献在很大程度上没有考虑到面向行动者和基于行为的研究的财富。生产主义和后生产主义农业制度也是从以英国为中心的角度来概念化的，这在很大程度上未能讨论这一概念是否在欧洲内外具有更广泛的适用性。本文讨论了时间滞后和空间的不一致性，在采用后生产主义的行动和思想，并强调，不同的地方定位在不同的时间，空间和概念的过渡，从“前生产主义”到“后生产主义”的农业制度。生产主义和后生产主义行动者空间的“地域化”概念突出了生产主义/后生产主义光谱中存在的广泛多样性，生产主义和后生产主义行动和思想在多维共存中发生，这导致人们质疑传统生产主义/后生产主义辩论的隐含方向性。有人建议，“多功能农业制度”的概念更好地概括了多样性，非线性和空间异质性，目前可以观察到在现代农业和农村社会。
This paper has evolved out of a growing dissatisfaction with the relatively uncritical acceptance in contemporary debates that agriculture in advanced societies has moved from ‘productivism’ to ‘post-productivism’. A brief review of current conceptualizations of productivist and post-productivist agricultural regimes reveals inconsistencies in current understandings these dualistic terms. The problem has partly been that the conceptual literature on post-productivism has largely failed to take into account the wealth of actor-oriented and behaviourally grounded research. Productivist and post-productivist agricultural regimes have also been conceptualized from a UK-centric perspective that has largely failed to discuss whether the concept has wider applicability within Europe and beyond. The paper discusses the time-lag and spatial inconsistencies in the adoption of post-productivist action and thought, and emphasizes that different localities are positioned at different points in a temporal, spatial and conceptual transition from ‘pre-productivist’ to ‘post-productivist’ agricultural regimes. The notion of the ‘territorialization’ of productivist and post-productivist actor spaces highlights the wide-ranging diversity that exists within the productivist/post-productivist spectrum, and that productivist and post-productivist action and thought occurs in multidimensional coexistence leads one to question the implied directionality of the traditional productivist/post-productivist debate. It is suggested that the notion of a ‘multifunctional agricultural regime’ better encapsulates the diversity, non-linearity and spatial heterogeneity that can currently be observed in modern agriculture and rural society.