Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

FASTing in the mid-west?: A theoretical assessment of ‘feminist agrifoods systems theory’

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we assess the generalizability of the feminist agrifood systems (FAST) model developed by Sachs et al. (The rise of women farmers and sustainable agriculture, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, 2016). We ask to what extent might these findings generated from the study of Pennsylvania women farmers be generalized to other regions of the U.S. We define and situate the FAST theory to the Michigan, U.S. context in order to better understand how the shifts in agriculture and women’s roles in the U.S. based on our data, align or depart with that experienced by women farmers in the northeast. We find that there are many similarities in the experiences of these two populations, but there are also some differences. Five primary differences in the two populations are articulated. Michigan women farmers appear to (1) struggle to assert the identity of a farmer; (2) struggle to access land via inheritance; (3) are income dependent on males; (4) often work in value-added production that does not challenge traditionally-coded ‘women’s work’; and (5) perpetuate on-farm education/networks based on nostalgia which may further the distance between producers and consumers. We conclude with a brief discussion of what may account for these differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

FAST:

Feminist agrifoods systems theory

References

  • Allen, P., and C. Sachs. 2007. Women and food chains: The gendered politics of food. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 15 (1): 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandth, B. 2002. On the relationship between feminism and farm women. Agriculture and Human Values 19 (2): 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandth, B., and M.S. Haugen. 2010. Doing farm tourism: The intertwining practices of gender and work. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 35 (2): 426–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandth, B., and M.S. Haugen. 2014. Embodying the rural idyll in farm tourist hosting. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 14 (2): 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, J. 2013. On behalf of the family farm: Iowa farm women’s activism since 1945. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • England, P. 2005. Emerging theories of care work. Annual Review of Sociology 31: 381–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Ramon, M.D., G. Ca´noves, and N. Valdovinos. 1995. Farm tourism, gender and the environment in Spain. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (2): 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. 1983. The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. 2002. Rural geography: Rural gender identity and the performance of masculinity and femininity in the countryside. Progress in Rural Geography 26 (5): 665–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacTavish, D.G., and H.J. Loether. 2002. Experimentation in sociological social psychology. In Sociological perspectives on social psychology, ed. K.S. Cook, G.A. Fine, and J.S. House, 629–649. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilgeram, R., and B. Amos. 2015. Beyond ‘inherit it or marry it’: Exploring how women engaged in sustainable agriculture access farmland. Rural Sociology 80 (1): 16–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, C.E. 1983. The invisible farmers. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, C.E., and M. Alston. 2010. Global shifts, sedimentations and imaginaries. Signs: Journal of Women, Culture and Society 35 (2): 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, C.E., M.E. Barbercheck, K.J. Brasier, N.E. Kiernan, and A.R. Terman. 2016. The rise of women farmers and sustainable agriculture. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Saugeres, L. 2002. ’She’ not really a woman, she’s half man’: Gendered discourses of embodiment in a French farming community. Women’s Studies International Forum 25 (6): 641–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S.L. 1996. Drudges, helpers and team players: Oral historical accounts of farm work in Appalachian Kentucky. Rural Sociology 61 (2): 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shisler, R.C., and J. Sbicca. 2019. Agriculture as carework: The contradictions of performing femininity in a male-dominated occupation. Society and Natural Resources 32 (8): 875–892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shortall, S. 1992. Power analysis and farm wives: An empirical study of the power relationships affecting women on Irish farms. Sociologia Ruralis 32 (4): 431–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shortall, S. 2014. Farming, identity and well-being: Managing changing gender roles within western European farm families. Anthropological Notebooks 20 (3): 67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trauger, A. 2004. ‘Because they can do the work’: Women farmers and sustainable agriculture. Gender, Place and Culture 11 (2): 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2012. 2012 census report, vol. 1. Washington, DC: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/index.php. Accessed 2 Feb 2019.

  • USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2017. 2017 census report, vol. 1. Washington, DC: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2019. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/index.php. Accessed 11 Apr 2019.

  • van der Ploeg, J. 2011. The new peasantries. Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whatmore, S. 1991a. Farming women: Gender work and family enterprise. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Whatmore, S. 1991b. Life cycle or patriarchy? Gender divisions in family farming. Journal of Rural Studies 7 (1/2): 71–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witz, A., C. Warhurst, and D. Nickson. 2003. The labour of aesthetics and the aesthetics of organization. Organization 10 (1): 33–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, W., and A. Annes. 2014. Farm women and agritourism: Representing a new rurality. Sociologia Ruralis 54 (4): 477–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, W., and A. Annes. 2016. Farm women and the empowerment potential in value-added agriculture. Rural Sociology 81 (4): 545–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarwood, R. 2005. Beyond the rural: Images, countryside change and geography. Geography 90 (1): 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by Michigan AgBio Research at Michigan State University. We thank the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous version of this paper. We are also grateful to Carolyn Sachs, Mary Barbercheck, Kathryn Brasier, Nancy Kiernan and Anna Terman for providing the exciting foundation of agrifoods systems theory which catalyzed this work. Any shortcomings are the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wynne Wright.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wright, W., Annes, A. FASTing in the mid-west?: A theoretical assessment of ‘feminist agrifoods systems theory’. Agric Hum Values 37, 371–382 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09994-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09994-3

Keywords

Navigation