Patrick Mooney | University of Kentucky (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Patrick Mooney
This paper is written from a sociology of science/rhetoric of science perspective. The paper crit... more This paper is written from a sociology of science/rhetoric of science perspective. The paper critiques the central rhetorical constructions of neoclassical economic studies as applied to agricultural cooperative conversions. Conversions refer to the internal re-structurings, sell-outs, and hybridizations of cooperative organizational form to investment oriented structures. Neoclassical economics analyses of conversions are based within an "individualist-idealist" metaphor. This metaphor, as articulated in neo-classical economics, does not allow the scientist to see historical and sociological aspects of cooperatives, and broader, more holistic implications of conversions. We argue for broadening the conversation to include social materialist, and social voluntarist metaphors, for more complete expression of the practical implications of the conversion of agricultural cooperatives, and to suggest the importance of self-awareness in doing science.
This report is intended to develop the outlines of a sociological theory of cooperatives. This ob... more This report is intended to develop the outlines of a sociological theory of cooperatives. This objective is accomplished by: 1) critiquing neoclassical economic analyses of cooperative conversions, (restructuring, acquisition, or sale of agricultural cooperatives such that an investment-oriented firm is created in its place), 2) examining historical data on cooperative restructuring generally and conversions as a subset of this data and 3) developing a theoretical approach to a sociology of cooperatives, that is inductive and retains cooperative tensions (e.g. democracy versus economy, local versus global).
Social Thought and Research, 1987
Rural Sociology, 2009
This article demonstrates Gamson's claim that behind the apparent agreement implied by ''consensu... more This article demonstrates Gamson's claim that behind the apparent agreement implied by ''consensus frames'' lies considerable dissensus. Ironically, the very potency of consensus frames may generate contested claims to the ownership of a social problem. Food security is a potent consensus frame that has generated at least three distinct collective action frames: food security as hunger; food security as a component of a community's developmental whole; and food security as minimizing risks with respect to an industrialized food system's vulnerability to both ''normal accidents'' as well as the ''intentional accidents'' associated with agriterrorism. We show that each collective action frame reflects internal normative variation identified here with Goffman's ''keying'' concept. These keys suggest power differentials in the endorsement or critique of dominant institutional practices. Each frame and associated keys reflect distinct sets of interests by collective actors, such as demands for substantively different applications of science and technology. The prognostic framing of the community food security movement coincidentally holds potential for reducing not only the accidental risks of productivist agriculture but also the uncertainty induced by the risk of terrorist exploitation of those vulnerabilities. The article explores power differentials and variable levels of oppositional consciousness as mechanisms by which keys generate contentious politics within frames while serving as potential bridges between frames. This contested ownership of food security has implications for the associated movements' and organizations' capacity to influence the structure of the agrifood system as well as the broader socioeconomic organization of rural regions.
This paper is written from a sociology of science/rhetoric of science perspective. The paper crit... more This paper is written from a sociology of science/rhetoric of science perspective. The paper critiques the central rhetorical constructions of neoclassical economic studies as applied to agricultural cooperative conversions. Conversions refer to the internal re-structurings, sell-outs, and hybridizations of cooperative organizational form to investment oriented structures. Neoclassical economics analyses of conversions are based within an "individualist-idealist" metaphor. This metaphor, as articulated in neo-classical economics, does not allow the scientist to see historical and sociological aspects of cooperatives, and broader, more holistic implications of conversions. We argue for broadening the conversation to include social materialist, and social voluntarist metaphors, for more complete expression of the practical implications of the conversion of agricultural cooperatives, and to suggest the importance of self-awareness in doing science.
This report is intended to develop the outlines of a sociological theory of cooperatives. This ob... more This report is intended to develop the outlines of a sociological theory of cooperatives. This objective is accomplished by: 1) critiquing neoclassical economic analyses of cooperative conversions, (restructuring, acquisition, or sale of agricultural cooperatives such that an investment-oriented firm is created in its place), 2) examining historical data on cooperative restructuring generally and conversions as a subset of this data and 3) developing a theoretical approach to a sociology of cooperatives, that is inductive and retains cooperative tensions (e.g. democracy versus economy, local versus global).
Social Thought and Research, 1987
Rural Sociology, 2009
This article demonstrates Gamson's claim that behind the apparent agreement implied by ''consensu... more This article demonstrates Gamson's claim that behind the apparent agreement implied by ''consensus frames'' lies considerable dissensus. Ironically, the very potency of consensus frames may generate contested claims to the ownership of a social problem. Food security is a potent consensus frame that has generated at least three distinct collective action frames: food security as hunger; food security as a component of a community's developmental whole; and food security as minimizing risks with respect to an industrialized food system's vulnerability to both ''normal accidents'' as well as the ''intentional accidents'' associated with agriterrorism. We show that each collective action frame reflects internal normative variation identified here with Goffman's ''keying'' concept. These keys suggest power differentials in the endorsement or critique of dominant institutional practices. Each frame and associated keys reflect distinct sets of interests by collective actors, such as demands for substantively different applications of science and technology. The prognostic framing of the community food security movement coincidentally holds potential for reducing not only the accidental risks of productivist agriculture but also the uncertainty induced by the risk of terrorist exploitation of those vulnerabilities. The article explores power differentials and variable levels of oppositional consciousness as mechanisms by which keys generate contentious politics within frames while serving as potential bridges between frames. This contested ownership of food security has implications for the associated movements' and organizations' capacity to influence the structure of the agrifood system as well as the broader socioeconomic organization of rural regions.