ABSTRACT
While representing two very intriguing studies of agricultural change under the spur of social conflict, the chapters by Miriam Wells and by Philip Lowe and Neil Ward raise similar problems of method and meta-theory in the social sciences. I shall therefore begin with a brief account of the philosophical basis of the poststructuralist shift that they represent, both in its strengths and weaknesses. At the same time, the two chapters manifest rather different political commitments and theoretical stances behind the poststructuralist veil, which I shall take up subsequently. Lastly, the piece by Wells speaks volumes about matters of concern in our shared bailiwick of California, which I can address with some confidence about both local knowledge and the global significance of the events.
