ABSTRACT
The presence of ideology seems an obvious and plausible part of the explanation of controversy that one can easily suppose it is the whole explanation. A respectful reading of the literature of agricultural controversy is workable partly because the texts one encounters are often rhetorically naive. Looked at in one way, what agricultural controversy is about is winning this battle over meanings—meanings of texts, actions, observations of fact, possibilities, recommendations. Michael Boehlje sought statistical correlations to clarify the attributes of different farm structures; while Tony Smith explained the views of agricultural scientists in terms of their place within the power structure. Much of the conflict in agricultural controversy appears to be about what words or phrases mean. There are differences with regard to the formal definition of “family farm” in agricultural economics, rural sociology, or agricultural policy.
