Busch Constructing Qualities

8/10/2019 Busch Constructing Qualities

1/27

http://sth.sagepub.com/Human Values

Science, Technology &

/content/21/1/3The online version of this articlecan be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/016224399602100101

1996 21: 3Science Technology Human Values

Lawrence Busch and Keiko TanakaSubsector

Rites of Passage: Constructing Quality in a Commodity

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Social Studies of Science

found at:can beScience, Technology & Human ValuesAdditional services and information for

/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

/content/21/1/3.refs.htmlCitations:

by guest on August 6, 2013pdf.highwire.orgDownloaded from
http://sth.sagepub.com/http://sth.sagepub.com/http://-/?-http://-/?-http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://4sonline.org/http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://-/?-http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/http://-/?-http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://-/?-http://-/?-http://4sonline.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://-/?-http://sth.sagepub.com/


2/27

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1996Version of Record>>

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://-/?-http://-/?-http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://-/?-


3/27

3

Rites of Passage: ConstructingQuality in a Commodity Subsector

Lawrence Busch and Keiko Tanaka

Michigan State University

This article extends the concept of symmetry to ethics. Using the case of canola inCanada, the authors argue that grades and standards simultaneously subject humansandnonhumans to rites of passage that test their "goodness.

"

Then, they furtherdevelopa tentative typology of standards. The authors argue that these standards allowsomethingresembling the neoclassical market to be established, create the conditions for economic

analysis, and allocate power among human actors.

For groups, as well as for individuals, life itself means to separate and to bereunited, to change form and condition, to die and to be reborn.

-van Gennep ( 1960,189)

Those who study the creation of scientific knowledge and technical

products have insisted on some version of the concept of symmetry.As

Woolgar (1992) has noted, Merton began down this road by arguing thatscience should be treated like any other social institution. Kuhn (1970), withsomewhat more ambivalence, argued that the puzzle-solving activities ofscientists may test either scientists abilities or their theory. Bloor (1976)

extended the concept by arguing that sociology should treat all knowledgeclaims in the same way, irrespective of their truth or falsity. More recently,Bijker, Hughes, and Pinch (1987), among others, further extended this sortof symmetry to technologies by arguing that all relations are at once socialand technical. Finally, Callon (1986) and Latour (1987) have extended thenotion of symmetry still further by insisting that nonhumans should be treatedin the same way as humans. In so doing, they have removed humans fromtheir previously central role (Collins and Yearley 1992).

AUTHORS NOTE: The research reported in this article was supported by grants from theNational Science Foundation (SBE-9212928 and SES-9123965) and by the MichiganAgricul-tural Experiment Station. The views reported herein are those of the authors. The work is partof a larger project on the role of quality in agricultural commodity subsectors. The authors thankthe anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this work.

Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 21 No. 1, Winter 1996 3-27m 1996 Sage Publications Inc.

http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/http://pdf.highwire.org/


4/27

4

Latour, in particular, has insisted that nonhuman actors resist humanintervention and do not resemble the passive objects described in both

positivist and social determinist accounts of science or in the diffusionliterature (e.g., Rogers 1983). He and his colleagues have further argued thatthe premodern view of natural objects as having human or human-likecharacteristics (e.g., goodness, strength, wisdom, valor) is recreated in theamodern notion of symmetry (Callon and Latour 1992; Latour 1993b;

Woolgar 1992). This also allows the concept of symmetry to be extended toethics. Indeed, Latours (1987) assertion that heroes are only identified assuch by their deeds implies that goodness is constructed through relationswith nonhumans.

However, with the exception of some recent work by Callon (1991), thisnow greatly expanded symmetry principle tends to privilege scientific andtechnical communities. It neglects an explicit portrayal of the characteristicsofnonhuman actors over time and space. For example, the complex networksknown variously as commodity chains (Gereffi and Korzeniewicz 1994) orsubsectors (Marion 1986) that bring certain nonhuman actors from theirinitial point of creation to their point of final consumption are rarely dis-cussed. Moreover, with few exceptions (e.g., Latour 1993a), the complexethical issues thatmight be illuminated by greater attention to symmetry havebeen ignored.

Consider the case outlined some years ago by MacIntyre (1984, 58).

From such factual premises as &dquo;He gets a better yield for this crop per acre thanany farmer in the district,&dquo; &dquo;He has the most effective programme of soil

renewal yet known,&dquo; and &dquo;His dairy herd wins all the first prizes at the

agriculturalshows,&dquo; the evaluative conclusion

validlyfollows that &dquo;He is a

good farmer.&dquo;

MacIntyre suggests that (1) the goodness of the farmer is objectively know-able and (2) goodness is demonstrated by the nonhuman objects with whichthe farmer is associated. Thus the tests passed by the nonhumans are tests ofboth the farmer and the nonhumans. However, MacIntyre fails to recognizethat the criteria for tests and their interpretation may be disputed within a

given culture and may change over time and space.Boltanski and Tb6venot (1991) make a similar point in attempting to

explain how one comes to achieve greatness. They argue that even within a

given society, there are numerous &dquo;worlds&dquo; (ofcommerce, inspiration, indus-

try, etc.), each of which has its own path to greatness (a great entrepreneursurely differs from a great theologian). They use &dquo;how to&dquo; manuals (how tobe a good teacher, priest, entrepreneur, etc.) to provide empirical evidence



5/27

5

for the specific tests that those aspiring to greatness in each world mustovercome. They further note that

[t]rials of greatness [grandeur] are not reducible to a debate about ideas; theyengage persons, in their corporeality, in a world of things that are ready to hand,in the absence of which the dispute would not find the substance [necessary]to end a trial. (p. 166)

They go on to argue that &dquo;[different methods for attaining greatness corre-

spond to different methods for testing reality&dquo; (p. 167). Similarly, Walzer(1983) asserts that there are different &dquo;spheres of justice,&dquo; each of which is

governed by different distributive criteria. Hence, for him, what is good inone sphere is not necessarily good in another.

Starting from a much more empirical stance, Ploeg (1990) notes that whatcounts for greatness or goodness differs from place to place. For example, a

study of farmers in the wealthy Emilia Romagna region of Italy reveals atleast two distinct notions of what constitutes good farming. For intensivefarmers high milk yield per cow is the normative meaning of production,whereas for extensive farmers the ability to control and manage the land is

the key to success. In both cases, good farming is demonstrated by an appealto nonhuman actors: cows and the land.22

In short, assessments of both human and nonhuman actors can be made

only on the basis of an external standard. Moreover, Maclntyre, Boltanskiand Tb6venot, Walzer, and Ploeg all emphasize that values such as goodnessare always demonstrated by an appeal to facts. Hence facts and values are

contingent and interdependent and can be treated symmetrically.In this article, we extend the concept of symmetry by advancing the

argument that through the use of product grades and standards, we subjectnature and people to rites of passage-rites that have all the intensity andforce of the rites to which we subject each other. The use of such standards

gives rise to at least three symmetries: (1) successful completion of a rite of

passage by a nonhuman is always simultaneously a statement about the

goodness of both the nonhuman and the human actor; (2) by defining the

good, standards and grades make nature and people more uniform, measur-

able, and controllable; and (3) by reducing the heterogeneity of the behaviorof both people and things, standards make both capitalist markets andneoclassical economics possible. Thus, by transforming nonhumans and

subjecting them to multiple rites of passage, we coproduce nature, society,the capitalist market, and neoclassical economics.

Our analysis ofthe case of canola explores, first, how the goodness of eachhuman actor is defined within the commodity subsector.3The various tests



6/27

6

and trials to which canola is subjected and the temporal and cultural differ-ences between them show that these tests are derived from tacit knowledge

about a natural object and its relationship with humans.A tentative typologyof rites of passage allows us then to show that each category of the typologyhas different consequences for both humans and nonhumans. The role oftests

in the creation of markets is the subject of the subsequent section. We arguethat &dquo;universal&dquo; standards differentiate capitalist markets from noncapitalistmarkets. Moreover, by establishing universal measurements, neoclassicaleconomics also becomes possible. We conclude by briefly examining the

power of tests.

Bringing Values Back In

Rapeseed (canola) is an Old World plant of relatively minor importancefor the New World. Recently, however, Canadian scientists successfullyremoved two allegedly toxic compounds (erucic acid and glucosinolates)from the seed and made it safe for use as an edible oil and as an animal feed.

In a short period, Canada transformed itself from an importer of oilseeds tothe largest exporter of rapeseed and its third largest producer after China andIndia (Food andAgriculture Organization [FAO] 1992). Kondra (1985, 3)has argued that Canadas success in developing canola as a commodity liesin &dquo;an exceptional degree of cooperation between the research communityand agribusiness, from the crop producer to the processors and refiner of theseed products,&dquo; which was brought about by the Rapeseed Council (later theCanola Council) of Canada (cf. Busch et al. 1994).

The history of rapeseed cultivation as an oil crop can be traced back severalthousand years inAsia and NorthAfrica and about 600 years in Europe (Daun1993a). During World War II, it was transferred to NorthAmerica and usedas a replacement for hard-to-get marine lubricants. However, when the

rapeseed market collapsed after the war, production in NorthAmerica virtu-

ally disappeared. Then, during the mid-1950s in the midst of the cold war,the Canadian state recognized the need to secure domestic food supplies

includingedible oils. It became

painfully apparentthat the

majoredible oil

plants of the world could not survive the harsh Canadian winter.TheAssociate Committee on Fats and Oils of the National Research

Council was organized in 1952. It included scientists and representativesfrom the vegetable oil processing industry. The committee pursued the

production of rapeseed as a potential source of edible oil.At the same time,the Food and Drug Directorate of Canada supported experimental researchon erucic acid, a fatty acid present in rapeseed oil that had been linked to



7/27

7

adrenal cholesterol in mice.Agriculture Canada and the Canadian NationalResearch Council began to support programs to remove erucic acid from

rapeseed through breeding. In 1970, newly released findings raised thepossibility that human consumption of rapeseed oil would be prohibited.However, a low acid variety was ready for multiplication by seed companies.Rapeseed soon became the major oil crop in Canada.

During the 1960s, Canadian scientists worked feverishly to develop a lowerucic acid rapeseed (LEAR) oil and to eliminate glucosinolates from themeal. To stress the new properties of the crop (low erucic acid and low

glucosinolates), rapeseed was renamed canola. Canola appealed to consum-ers because (1) it has a low level of saturated fats, (2) it performs well whencooled in salad dressings and mayonnaise, and (3) it has less moisture, whichmakes it desirable for deep frying and processing into margarine and short-

ening. In short, not only were its deleterious properties removed, but its

positive properties increased its value to a wide range of actors.To transform canola and to make it into a highly desirable set of products,

a definition of what constitutes &dquo;good&dquo; canola had to be developed. Today,as in the past, each human actor concerned with canola is assessed in terms

of a specific notion of goodness. Consider some of the major categories ofhuman actors associated with the Canadian canola subsector and the mea-

sures of goodness associated with them.44

The good seed producer. Seed producers are judged by the quality of theseed they produce. Seed must be free ofweeds and dirt, must germinate when

planted, and must be capable of producing crops that are amenable tomechanical harvesting, mature at the same time, and

yield(at least) the

quantity per unit area stated on the registration certificate.

The good farmer. Farmers are judged by crop yields, the evenness of thestand they produce, the neatness of their fields, and even the way theymaintain their machinery and barns and help other farmers. Each year, the

agricultural extension service of Canada publishes seed variety recommen-dations based on yield; maturity in days; percentage of oil; and resistance to

lodging, shattering, frost, drought,white

rust, blackleg,and sclerotinia. For

most, a good farmer is defined as one who follows the recommendations thatextension provides.

The good crusher. Crushers are judged by the yield of oil that they areable to obtain, the quality of that oil, and the meal and its quality. Crushersmust also be dependable in supplying oil to processors.



8/27

8

The good processor. Processors are judged by the quality of the productthey produce. Margarine must (1) be free of crystals that would make it

grainy, (2) have &dquo;good melt-away atbody temperature&dquo; (Mag 1990,269), and(3) be firm enough to avoid turning to oil at room temperature yet not so firmthat it cannot be spread on bread. Similarly, cooking oil must be clear andodor free and must not become cloudy when subjected to cold weather ordiscolored from exposure to sunlight. It must also be available to retailers

year round.

The good retailer. Retailers are judged by the freshness of their product,which in turn is a function ofshelf life, turnover, and the conditions of display.In addition, because retailers always carry much more than canola, they are

judged by their service, variety of products, and accessibility of their stores.

The good consumer. Good consumers are judged by the selection of

products that they purchase. The selection may or may not reflect the currentconcerns over health, diet, nutrition, and environment or their ability to

purchase high-quality products at low cost.

Finally, it should be noted that virtually all the actors in the subsector-both human and nonhuman-arejudged by a criterion common to a capitalistmarket economy: they must make a profit. Consumers are the obvious

exception, but they too are bound by the rules of the market economy.5 Forexample, consumers acceptance of canola oil, as well as the goodness of theoil relative to competing products, can be measured by how quickly the

product disappears from the shelves compared to other vegetable oils. InCanada,

per capita consumptionof canola oil exceeded that of

soybeanoil

by 1977.

Tests and Trials

Whether or not canola can become and remain a commodity depends onthe results of tests performed at each stage from seed sales to consumption

of various canola products. For example, if Farmer Johns harvest fails tomake the minimum grade, it is discarded as a &dquo;poor crop&dquo; and Farmer Johnis judged as a &dquo;poor farmer.&dquo; We may argue that Keith Downey and BaldurStefanssen (the developers of canola) are great plant breeders for theircontribution to developing canola varieties. Similarly, many individuals canbe recognized as great food processors, farmers, crushers, and seed market-ers. Each, in his or her own way, contributes to his or her special world avalue dimension that is unique but, most significantly, is spatially, culturally,



9/27

9

and temporally relative. Indeed, as individuals in worlds are replaced throughtime, and as different worlds interact and even collide with one another, new

individuals and new values are introduced into the value set defining theworld. Therefore, the tests described below are not static but vary over space,time, and culture. In one of the few studies that examines the role of tests in

the social construction of technology, Pinch (1993) notes that tests are

designed to formally specify how a technology performs. He goes on to

develop some theoretical propositions about tests, noting both the assumptionof similarity that must underlie all testing and the negotiated political char-acter of its results.

By contrast, OConnell (1993) focuses on the ways in which tests andstandards are made universal by creating specialized institutions that are

charged with ensuring the universality of the standard. He shows that at-

tempts to change standards are hotly contested as they frequently involve

money, prestige, and power. The negotiated character of tests and test resultsis manifested in the technical literature. It is replete with discussions of

quality, although much of it remains as elusive as it is in Pirsigs (1974) Zenand the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

Current tests performed on canola in Canada at various stages of itstransformation are indeed the result of negotiation, persuasion, and coercion

(Busch 1980) among actors in the Canadian canola (rapeseed) commoditysubsector over the standards of canola quality since its inception, and thesestandards are always subject to future change.

However, unlike both Pinch and OConnell, who emphasize the negotia-tion process in the development and use of tests, we focus here on the

symmetry between the testing of people and things.Although our conversa-tions with those involved in testing as well as our review of the literature on

testing reveal the acknowledged centrality of negotiation, we take that as a

given in our analysis and consider instead the ways in which canola is tested

throughout its life span in Canada (Figure 1).

Variety Trials

The

qualityof new varieties and hence of

plantbreeders is measured in

variety trials. Development of a new variety for licensing usually takesbetween five and seven years including two to three years ofcooperative yieldtrials.After preliminary yield tests, selections are entered into strain tests forone or two years. Then, 1 or 2 kilograms each of promising varieties arecollected and distributed to about twenty different locations, mainly in

western Canada, for the Canada-wide rapeseed cooperative tests. The resultsof these field trials are evaluated by theAdvisory Committees on Grain



10/27

10



11/27


12/27

12

Breeding, Quality, and Plant Diseases. Varieties with good records in agro-nomic and in oil and meal quality characteristics receive recommendations

from these committees when the breeders apply for licensing to the PlantProducts division ofAgriculture Canada. Breeders whose varieties consis-tently fail to meet these tests will be denied tenure (if they work at universi-ties), whereas those whose varieties exceed expectations (e.g., have higheryields or better pest resistance) will be extolled for their skills.

Seed Quality

Seed quality, and hence the quality of seed companies, is measured byseveral different types of standards. The Seeds Regulations are the laws

governing seed purity and advertising. These laws limit the marketing ofseedto that which has no more than twenty weed seeds per 25 grams (Seeds

Regulations [amendment] 1986, schedule I, table VI) and is &dquo;reasonably freefrom ... inert material&dquo; (Seeds Regulations 1978, CRC c. 1400 6[ 1 ] [fl [iii]).They also require that information on the label reflect what is in the package.Finally, seed must have a germination rate of at least 75 percent.

In addition, like most European countries, Canada has a national seedcertification program. Onlyafieties approved by the Canadian Seed Grow-ersAssociation and registered byAgriculture Canada may be sold undervarietal names. To qualify for a varietal name, seed must be distinct, homo-

geneous, and stable and (until recently) must yield more than other cultivarson the market at the time of registration.6A seed producer who fails to meetthese standards will be barred from future sales.

Grading

After harvest, canola is once again subject to testing as it is brought to

grain elevators. Canada maintains a grading system in which all canola isclassified on the basis of (minimum) weight, degree of soundness (i.e., lackof damage and greenness), heat, and minimum proportion of other seeds.Canola that does not meet even the minimal standards of grade No. 3 is

discarded. In practice, thismeans

that itwill not be

accepted bythe elevators.

By implication, a farmer whose grain is graded below No. 3 is considered tobe a poor farmer; moreover, if his or her canola is consistently so graded, heor she will be forced out of the market. Furthermore, grading cannot be

performed by just anyone but only by those who are licensed by the CanadianGrain Commission, and the test must be conducted with appropriate gradingequipment as specified in the Canada Grain Regulations. Thus the gradingprocedure is simultaneously a test of the canola, the farmer, and the grader.



13/27

13

Grain to be exported is subjected to another set of tests to determine itsmoisture content, oil content, and fatty acid composition. This information

is considered so important that the Canola Council of Canada publishes it inits monthly newsletter, Canola Digest, under the heading, &dquo;Measures ofMerit.&dquo; In 1983, the procedures used to calculate oil content even became the

subject of an international dispute over the use of diethyl ether as a solventin oil content tests. Hexane is the favored solvent in industrial applications(e.g., for cooking oil), but until recently no laboratory-grade hexane wasavailable off the shelf for that purpose. By contrast, laboratory-grade diethylether was easily available but gave higher estimates of oil content. The

dispute was resolved when the Japanese and Canadians agreed to the use ofhexane in the laboratory (&dquo;Oil Content&dquo; 1984). In short, the oil content (andother) standards are measures of the goodness of the persons and things thatdefine the Canadian canola production, storage, and distribution industry asa whole. Consistent failure to meet these standards would result in the

Japanese buyers looking elsewhere for canola.

Oil Standards

Oil quality, and hence the quality of crushing companies, is measured byseveral different types of standards including the level of erucic acid and

glucosinolates, relative density, refractive index, saponification value, iodine

value, content of unsaponifiable matter, acid value, and peroxide value.Crushers desire to remove as much oil as possible from the seeds without

&dquo;compromising&dquo; the quality of that oil. The uniform standards of canola oilare defined in various regulations including Food and Drug Regulations(amendment) (1974), Processed Products Regulations (amendment) (1982),and the Trade Mark Register (Canadian General Standards Board [CGSB]1987). These standards apply to both domestic and export sales of rapeseedoil.Although theCGSB sets the official quality standards, the buyer and selleroften set individual specifications that are mutually agreed on for exchange.These standards are almost always more restrictive and cover a broader rangeof quality factors than do those of the CGSB (Boulter 1983). For example,the CGSB

acceptedoil with a maximum of 5

percenterucic acid until 1987,

whereas most crushers had offered canola oil containing a maximum of 2

percent erucic acid.

Failure to meet these standards reflects on the goodness of the processor.A processor consistently failing to meet the standards would be forced out ofbusiness. By contrast, one that exceeds the standards would be likely to

develop a loyal clientele.



14/27


15/27

15

when cooled in salad dressings and mayonnaise or heated for deep frying.Rothbards ( 1973, 319) description of the valuing of butter is helpful here:

[T]he valuations placed by each consumer on butter relative to all otherproducts available [include] the availability of substitutes, the climate in thebutter-producing areas, technological methods of producing butter (and mar-garine), the price of cattle feed, the supply of money in the country, theexistence of prosperity or recession in the economy, and the publics expecta-tions of the trend of general prices.

Moreover, at present, consumers are concerned about their intake of saturatedfats (as a result of a claimed relationship between saturated fats and heart

disease) and will be drawn to canola instead of other oils by virtue of its lowsaturated fat content. Consumers will use these tests to judge the goodnessnot only of the product but also of all the human actors in the commoditychain. Moreover, consumers are constantly introduced to new edible oil

products and nutritional information that may affect their future choice ofproducts.

Except for some of the tests performed by consumers, the tests of canoladescribed here are

performedwith

specific equipmentand tools under

highlycontrolled conditions that are described in the various regulations. Becauseall tests performed at all locations are supposed to be identical, these stan-dards claim to allow canola to have uniform quality at each point in thesubsector. The tests of canola occur seriatim so that each subsequent stepdepends on the successful passage through the previous one. In Latoursterms, they turn canola into an immutable mobile, a commodity, that may betraded on the Winnipeg exchange and purchased unseen by buyers. Theyensure

that Gertrude Steinwas

right: &dquo;rose isa rose

isa

rose.&dquo;At thesame

time, the standards discipline-in Foucaults (1979) sense-the behavior ofall concerned with the subsector, from seed producers to consumers. This

disciplining is essential if the desired goodness is to be achieved. Therefore,standards control not only the quality of the commodity but also the behavior

(quality) of humans.As Callon ( 1991 ) suggests, they standardize both actorsand intermediaries.

Temporal and Cultural Differences

Farming methods and systems with respect to the same commodities differin various countries. Ploeg (1990) suggests that such differences in &dquo;stylesof farming&dquo; are a result of different relations between farmers, objects of

labor, and means (i.e., differences in networks of people and things). Thesame person or object may be judged differently in different cultural or



16/27

16

temporal situations. Thus a good canola farmer in Canada is quite differentfrom a good rapeseed farmer in China, and what was a good rapeseed cropin 1950 differs from that of 1994. Consequently, standards for canola prod-ucts in one country and the tests of the quality of canola may not applyeverywhere although there is some degree of uniformity for the productscommonly traded in international markets.g

For example, major changes took place in the standards for seeds in 19869in terms of grades, tests for the standards, and standards themselves (SeedsRegulations [amendment] 1986). Three new tests were added to determinethe amounts of ( 1) mixtures oftwo rapeseed species, (2) other brassica crops,and (3) sclerotia1 bodies. These changes were made in response to actionsby a nonhuman, sclerotinia stem rot at a time when it had reached epidemicproportions.

The addition of these new tests (and new standards) implied changes inthe notion of &dquo;good&dquo; canola seed and changes in the concerns of seed

companies. Soon after the change in the regulations, the resistance rate ofeach variety to sclerotinia and blackleg (another disease) began to be includedin an annual extension publication for farmers that lists characteristics ofcanola varieties (SaskatchewanAgriculture 1989). Thus planting varietiesless susceptible to sclerotinia was added to a list of tests that determine a goodfarmer. By 1992, Canadian canola farmers abandoned &dquo;Westar,&dquo; the domi-nant variety for the previous eight years, because of its high susceptibility to

blackleg and poor resistance to sclerotinia.Another example of the temporal nature of tests is change in the maximum

level of erucic acid.&dquo; Concerns over digestibility of erucic acid led theCanadian

rapeseed industryin 1973 to establish

voluntarilya 5

percentlimit

on the erucic acid content of rapeseed oil (RapeseedAssociation of Canada

1974). In May 1975, amendment B.09.022 to the Food and Drug Regulationsofficially limited rapeseed oil to no more than 5 percent erucic acid (Foodand Drug Regulations [amendment] 1974). By 1982, canola oil and LEARoil were defined in Canada as containing less than 5 percent of erucic acidand less than 30 micromoles of glucosinolates per gram.

In 1985, affirming its GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status, the U.S.

Food and DrugAdministration limited the maximum erucic acid content ofLEAR oil to 2 percent despite a petition filed byAgriculture CanadasResearch Branch (&dquo;ErucicAcid Content&dquo; 1985). This ruling led the Canadian

government to reduce the maximum level of erucic acid to 2 percent in 1987.

And yet, in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and China, high erucic acid

rapeseed varieties (approximately 42 percent of the oil) are still commonlyused for human consumption. Furthermore, until recently, the Chinese wereless interested in reducing the erucic acid content of the oil than they were in



17/27

17

developing low glucosinolate varieties (Pigden 1983).Although the Chineserecently adopted the international standards forLEAR oil and rapeseed meal,the localized networks in the rapeseed subsector in China make it difficult toperform the various tests and therefore to create uniformity in the quality ofrapeseed and its products.

The tests of canola described here show that the shared values of humanactors within a commodity subsector (e.g., farmers, processors, retailers) ina particular place, time, and culture are defined in terms of the problems setby its &dquo;clients&dquo; and by recognizing those who maintain standards as &dquo;valueheroes.&dquo; The relative malleability or resistance of canola and other nonhumanactors that form the subsector is reflected in the malleability of these values. It

appears that shared values in a commodity subsector, including the ethicalcommitments that are implicit in notions ofgoodness, arerevealed in the productsthat the subsector delivers, both to other members of the subsector and to itsclients. These products also reveal differing organizational structures of com-

modity subsectors and differing values in actor networks across cultures.

Toward a Typology of Rites of Passage

In the classic work on the subject, van Gennep (1960) classified rites ofpassage into three categories: rites of incorporation, of transition, and ofseparation.Adopting a functionalist position, van Gennep argued that mem-bers of a given community increase their degree of sociality by sequentiallyundergoing a series of rites.

Like Collins and

Yearley (1992),van

Gennep,who was

interested in howpeople are socialized, assumed that things have no social life. Moreover, forhim things were not even particularly central to human life; hence his focuswas on puberty, marriage, and death-rites that appear to have little or noconnection to the world of things. By contrast, we argue withAppadurai(1986) that the social life of things is an essential aspect of the world. Our

typology reflects ways in which both humans and nonhumans are socialized.We propose that rites of passage be viewed from the perspective of the

type of test or trial that they imposeon

actors. The life ofa

nonhuman actorand its relationships with other actors can be illuminated by examining ritesof passage that both human and nonhuman actors undergo together. From this

perspective, and from empirical examination of the canola case, we can

distinguish among four types of rites: Olympics, filters, ranks, and divi-sions.12 These four types can be seen as different avenues for creatingstandards, and hence &dquo;goodness&dquo;, for both humans and nonhumans. Each

type of rite has different consequences for humans and nonhumans.



18/27

18

Olympics are tests in which the winner must surpass all others in the

competition. In the case of canola, the process of varietal succession is a good

example of an Olympic competition. Until recently, to be registered for sale,each new variety had to yield more than its competitors. Similarly, farmers

engage in Olympic competitions in attempts to see who can produce the

highest yield per hectare or the largest ear of corn.Filters are tests that sort out the good from the bad. For example, canola

that fails to pass seed purity tests is rejected and may not be sold as seed.

Similarly, farmers who fail to adhere to the rules for pesticide use are likelyto be driven from farming either by legal means or by the difficulty they facein selling their crops.

Ranks are tests that arrange things on a scale from good to bad. Grain

grades are examples of ranks. Implicit is the notion that grain of a highergrade is of better quality (although for a given use, the better quality may notbe necessary). Similarly, farmers may be ranked by credit institutions accord-

ing to their level of solvency and likelihood of loan repayment.Divisions involve nominally arranging things on a scale with no necessary

connotation of

goodnessor badness attached to them.

Fattyacid

composition(but not the limits on erucic acid content) is a good example of a set ofdivisions. Note that different users may prefer different fatty acid composi-tions based on the end uses to which the crop will be put. Similarly, farmers

may be divided according to the crops they grow without any necessarygoodness or badness associated with such groupings.

These four types of tests have different consequences for the behavior of

both nonhuman and human actors. Moreover, they vary in the intensity with

which they (re)distribute power, prestige,and status

amonghuman and

nonhuman actors. Olympic competitions lead human actors to continuouslyupgrade their products (e.g., new varieties, higher farm yields) by adoptingnew technologies and practices. Only the winners of the competitions can

enjoy the power, prestige, and status associated with the best quality products/producers. More importantly, the losers (e.g., old varieties) cease to exist inthe subsector.

Filters bar goods that do not meet the standard from being marketed. For

example, the change in the minimum level of erucic acid content from 5 to 2percent led to the rejection of all canola that exceeded the limit. These seedshad been accepted in previous years. Clearly, filters are far more coercivethan other types of tests. On the other hand, those who meet the standard

share equal power, prestige, and status in the subsector.

By contrast, ranks differentiate among several levels of a good without

necessarily excluding anything. Given that different actors may need differ-ent levels of a particular good, buyers may benefit from such rankings. By



19/27

19

contrast, sellers may feel cheated if their good is ranked lower than they feelit should be. Canola grades, for example, permit buyers to purchase low-

grade seed at a lower cost.At the same time, some farmers may believe thatranking is applied unfairly (Daun 1993b). To a lesser degree than is the casein the Olympic competitions, these ranks indicate the relative power, prestige,and status of the participants in the subsector.

Finally, divisions mark differences among actors without any associationwith goodness or badness. Farmers may choose to plant rapeseed in athree-year rotation cycle instead of a four-year cycle. This change need notmake them either good or bad canola farmers. Therefore, they can

equallyshare power, prestige, and status in the subsector.Whereas canola is subjected to all the rites in the series, humans are not.

Humans, however, are subjected to different rites if they inhabit differentworlds (Boltanski and Tb6venot 1991). Put differently, these measures of

goodness are applicable only within the subsector, and even there they maybe hotly contested. They are not necessarily applicable in other social worlds.For example, Farmer John may be a poor farmer based on his canola harvestbut a

greatcook as demonstrated

byhis first

prizein the

cookingcontest at

the previous years county fair. He may also be regarded as a great farmer byproponents of conventional methods but a poor one by proponents of organicapproaches. Similarly, CompanyA may be a good crushing company asmeasured by its consistently high yield of oil but regarded as a poor companyby virtue of poor employee relations.

Making Markets, Making Economics

The examination of standards in commodity subsectors permits twotheoretical and empirical &dquo;openings&dquo; that link the study of scientific andtechnical knowledge to other fields of inquiry and practical concerns of

contemporary society. These include (1) clarification of the nature ofmodern

capitalist markets and the peculiar role of transaction costs and (2) reestab-lishment of the relationship between goods and the good. Let us examine

each of these briefly in turn.

Markets and Transaction Costs

Some years ago, Williamson (1975) rejuvenated the virtually moribundfield of institutional economics by arguing that exchanges could take placeeither in markets or through hierarchies (i.e., organizations). Williamsonobserved correctly that the cost of a complex and/or an uncertain transaction



20/27

20

was often higher in a market than it was in an organization. Furthermore, heobserved that the decision as to which approach to use should be based on

the relative efficiency of each in a given context.3 However, Williamson issilent on the question ofhow capitalist markets are made possible; his workassumes the existence of a world in which no new markets ever come into

existence and in which the choice of market or hierarchy is always available

(Dietrich 1994).Consider that in the central market of El Obeid, Sudan, there are usually

several hundred people selling grain sorghum. Each has a large enameledbowl filled with sorghum. The sorghum ranges in color from white to brownto red. It ranges from being clean and free of insect and disease damage to

being dusty and damaged by insects and diseases. Sellers employ tin cans ofdifferent sizes and shapes as measures in the transactions. Moreover, somesell level canfuls, others rounded canfuls, and still others heaping canfuls of

grain.One might ask, under these circumstances, what is the price of sorghum?

Of course, with some equipment and time, one might arrive at an average

price.However, such an

averagewould be

quiteuseless because it would not

reflect any &dquo;real&dquo; price. It would be analogous to adding the prices of applesand oranges and calculating the price of fruit. One could do it, but no one eats

fruit; rather, they eat apples and/or oranges. Moreover, the only possible wayto engage in exchanges in this type of market is by the physical presence ofboth buyer and seller.

This noncapitalist market lacks standards for grain quality, weight, kernel

size, and so on that are virtually omnipresent in capitalist markets and make

it possible to &dquo;entera

world familiarto

economists&dquo; (Callon 1991,152). Suchstandards serve to reduce transaction costs in Williamsons terms, but theyalso serve to create simultaneously both the (capitalist) market with itsrestricted number of well-defined commodities and the ability ofeconomiststo analyze it. In short, global standards are what differentiates capitalistmarkets from noncapitalist ones. Standards are entirely local (i.e., mutable

immobiles) in noncapitalist markets, whereas they are global (i.e., immutable

mobiles) in capitalist markets. The development of universal monetary

exchanges, measurements (e.g., weight, size, quality), arithmetic, andma-

chines and tools for measurement made it possible to extend standards fromlocal to global markets. 14

To return to our example, canola was initially a highly diverse crop aboutwhich farmers and processors complained bitterly. Over a period of fiftyyears, it was transformed into a highly standardized commodity that couldbe traded on international commodity exchanges. This occurred largelybecause the standards described here were put into place. These standards



21/27

21

permitted Japanese purchasers to buy canola-sight unseen-in large quan-tities for processing in Japan. In short, their transaction costs were reduced

markedly. However, standards also literally created the market for canola asan internationally traded commodity. Put differently, standards turned canolafrom a singularity into a commodity (Appadurai 1986). Finally, they madepossible the regular collection and compilation of economic statistical dataabout canola-data that are the reports of other tests-to create a macroeco-

nomics of canola.

Neoclassical economics, including the special twist on it that Williamson

gives, presumes that standards that turn things into commodities already exist

(e.g.,Adam Smiths pin factory). It also assumes that all aspects of transac-tions such as power, status, and goodness ofhuman and nonhuman actors canbe subsumed under the notion of price. Thus Williamson (1990) cites approv-ingly Barnards theory of organizations as planned cooperation while he usesDeBeers domination of the world diamond industry to attempt to show that

power is an unnecessary concept for economics (Williamson 1989).Yet, Williamson fails to understand that the measurements of economics

are meaningful and interpretable only because standards exist. Standardsmake it possible to analyze the market using the tools of neoclassicaleconomics by papering over all the negotiation, persuasion, and coercion that

go into the production and reproduction of the standards, In addition, theuse of market analyses and macroeconomic indicators generated by econo-mists enables human actors in the canola subsector to develop strategies forfurther transforming their activities and canola itself to further reduce costsand increase efficiency, thereby fulfilling the ideal of the neoclassical model

by turninghumans into rational economic actors.

Without the standards and the endless monitoring that their enforcement

involves, economics as we know it is simply impossible. The process ofstandardization of a commodity creates the capitalist market, a market inwhich transaction costs are relatively low. Standards allow human actors to

engage in exchange with other distant human actors while transformingnonhuman actors (and sometimes &dquo;labor&dquo;) into immutable mobiles, knownas commodities, that can be exchanged in the market. FarmerA can be certainthat 1

kilogram of Westar canolaseed from a certified seed

companycontains

the same quality of seed as does the one Farmer B bought two days ago.FarmerA does not need to open every sack of canola seed to choose the one

that he or she wants.A crushing company can negotiate the price of canola

per unit of weight and grade regardless of the origin of the seed becausestandards that the elevators follow ensure the uniformity of the seed that the

company receives. Tools for grading can be sold to any grain elevator to

perform the same tests. Put differently, universal standards define the capi-



22/27

22

talist market. They create the objectivity that allows capitalist markets to existand allows economists to study them.

The process of creating standards usually involves two successive humanactors (e.g., farmers and elevator operators; crushers and food processors)with particular interests, needs, and demands. These negotiations reflect the

power relations that exist between the two human actors and the malleabilityor recalcitrance of the nonhuman actors because a change in a standard leadsto changes in their behavior.

Goods and the Good

Our analysis also reestablishes the link between goods and the good byemphasizing how each test of a nonhuman is also a test of the persons whointeract with it. In a commodity subsector such as that for canola, no partycan afford to ignore totally the common good that is involved in the produc-tion ofgoods. Thus although the Japanese processors might attempt to dictatewhat solvent should be used to measure oil quality, their power is limited bytheir need to keep the entire subsector together. To some extent this is

self-interest, but it cannot be explained away as merely that. Indeed, largecorporate actors that trample on other actors are diminished in the eyes of all.Whereas corporations may conflate doing good with public relations, failureto do good is likely to lead (eventually) to corporate failure.

This apparent mystery is explained by the fact that corporate actors act

only through individuals and things. Indeed, one of the often neglectedaspects of studies of subsector organization is that the parties to various

exchanges in the subsector are not the anonymous buyers and sellers of the

mythical free market. On the contrary, they are usually well acquainted witheach other and value the acquaintance and the familiarity that comes with it.

Particularly in wholesale markets, buyers and sellers know each other well,often enjoy recreational activities together, and expect to engage in repeatedsales.And, even in retail sales, consumers tend to quickly develop habitual

patterns of shopping and retailers work hard to maintain store loyalty. Most

large retailers would not consider risking the loss of such loyalty to make a

marginalincrease in short-term

profits.Similarly, the company that produces shoddy merchandise soon gets a

reputation for doingjust that. This reflects back on the company itself, whichis increasingly viewed as a shoddy company by the public at large. Ironically,the larger and more visible the company, the more it is concerned about theseissues precisely because it is in the public eye.6



23/27

23

Conclusions: The Power of Tests and the Tests of Power

What can we learn from examining the rites of passage that are imposedon a thing? Most importantly, we can see that the creation of a test establishesthe power of some actor to control the behavior of other actors-both human

and nonhuman. Such testing has become ubiquitous in contemporary society(Hanson 1993).As Marx (1906) noted, there is a tendency for machines tocontrol not only the things they produce but the workers as well. More

recently, Foucault (1979) wrote of the new kind ofpower that bears the stampof the modern age-a power that is focused on minute detail. The networks

of which Latour (1987) speaks also imply means of control, as suggested bythe concept of enrollment.And Rouse (1987, xi) has noted that

the very practices that account for the growth of scientific knowledge mustalso be understood in political terms as power relations that traverse thesciences themselves and that have a powerful impact on our other practicesand institutions and ultimately upon our understanding of ourselves.

Tests of the sort described here create, maintain, and change canola as a

commodity and monitor, control, and organize the behavior of each of theactors in the commodity subsector. These tests also create and maintain

capitalist markets and generate data necessary to modern economics.

Moreover, because multiple actors are implicated in tests, (certain) testslink actors together into networks.As noted earlier, grain grades link farmersto elevator operators. Seed quality tests link seed producers to farmers.Measures of oil content and composition link large sellers to buyers of canola.Measures of shelf life link processors to retailers. Thus the rites of passage

described here serve both to mark the changes in canola throughout its &dquo;lifecourse&dquo; and to mark the points of exchange within the subsector. They testthe behavior of both canola and the other actors involved in each exchange.

People care about tests of things because they are also tests of people.Tests are measures of nature at the same time as they are measures of culture.

Protagoras once argued, in language now outmoded, that &dquo;[m]an is themeasure of all things.&dquo; However, he failed to recognize that we coconstructnature and society but not just as we would like it. Nature resists. Yet, the

only nature that exists (for us) is the one we perceive. Hence it is ours. Weand our world are coconstructed. This means that our view of the world is

always fundamentally anthropocentric, even when we wish to avoid that

position. 17Tests, then, are best understood as measures of the value of our world.

Indeed, the readings on the meters, dials, and gauges of machines designedto measure facts are known collectively as values. Put differently, we value



24/27

24

facts because they show the facticity of values. To update Protagoras, ourrelations with our world are the measure of all things.

Notes

1. The literature on commodity chains and subsectors focuses on the circulation of things(i.e., commodities) among human actors but does not adequately deal with the interactionbetween humans and nonhumans.

2. Note also that Ploeg (1990) defines the classes of farmers by reference to intensivity and

extensivityproperties of farms, not farmers.

3. We use the term "subsector," borrowed from economics, to refer to all of the actorsassociated with a given commodity through its transformation from creation to consumption(Marion 1986). For an anthropological view, seeAppadurai (1986).

4. The typifications are drawn from interviews with participants and published literature.For more details, see Busch et al. (1994).

5. No assertion is made here about the likelihoodor desirability of a so-called "free market."6. Distinctiveness refers to the ability to distinguish a given variety from others. Homoge-

neity refers to the degree of identity among plants grown at a given point in time and space.Stability refers to the same property over time. It is worth noting that these properties are not

natural propertiesof the seed but

requireconsiderable effortand skill on the

partof seed

companystaff. For example, to ensure homogeneity, nonconforming plants grown for seed will beremoved from the field by hand before harvest.

7. The government and research community in China hope to switch to low erucic acid andlow glucosinolate rapeseed varieties (canola). However, high erucic acid and high glucosinolatevarieties remain dominant in rapeseed production.

8.According to the joint Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nationsand World Health Organizations (WHO) Codex Standard, the maximum level of the erucic acidcontent is limited to 5 percent inLEAR oil and to 5-60 percent in rapeseed oil (FAO/WHO 1993).

9. Specific reasons for these changes need not concern us here.

10. Sclerotia is a plant body infected with sclerotinia.11. Busch and Tanaka (1994) analyze the controversy over the alleged toxicityof erucic acid.12. Perhaps other types exist as well; further empirical study will be necessary to develop

further distinctions.

13. Of course, one need not be a neoclassical economist to accept the notion that exchangesinvolve costs and that markets may have lower costs in some cases and organizations than theydo in others.

14. It is important to note that, as with all other aspects of standards, what is local and whatis global depends on the situation. To say that standards are global is not to say that they are

international; they may be global only within a region. International standards (i.e., FAO/WHO)apply only to those commodities traded globally. This is historically true as well. Capitalistmarkets did not simply appear full blown one day but are the product of prolonged and continuingefforts at standardization. See, for example, Hadden (1994) and Swetz (1987).

15. The illusion (or delusion) of neoclassical economics lies in assuming that the regularitiesand identities it observes are the product of some natural process rather than the natural/socialcoconstructions of humans in particular worlds. Then it turns those regularities into laws that

appear to govern human existence.



25/27

25

16.American companies seem to understand this to a lesser degree than do European andJapanese companies. The organization of a subsector promotes both altruism and the interestsof the actors involved. Thus it is actually in the interests of large companies to be seen as servingthe public good, and the most effective way to be seen as serving the public good is by doingprecisely that. This includes corporate contributions to charities, but it also includes thedevelopment of high-quality products and responsiveness to public demand rather than devel-oping new products and then trying to foist them on a perhaps unenthusiastic public.

17. Norton (1987) makes this point in the context of the debate over biodiversity.

References

Appadurai,Arjun, ed. 1986. The social life of things: Commodities in social perspective.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bijker, Wiebe, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, eds. 1987. The social construction oftechnological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cam-

bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bloor, David. 1976. Knowledge and social imagery. London: Roudedge & Kegan Paul.Boltanski, Luc, and Laurent Thvenot. 1991. De la justification: Les economies de la grandeur.

Paris: Gallimard.

Boulter, G. S. 1983. The history and marketing ofrapeseed oil in Canada. In High and low erucicacid rapeseed oils, edited by John K. G. Kramer, Frank D. Sauer, and Wallace J. Pigden,61-83. Toronto:Academic Press Canada.

Busch, Lawrence. 1980. Structure and negotiation in the agricultural sciences. Rural Sociology45:26-48.

Busch, Lawrence, Valerie Gunter, Theodore Mentele, Masashi Tachikawa, and Keiko Tanaka.1994. Socializingnature: Technoscience and the transformation of rapeseed into canola. CropScience 34(3):607-14.

Busch, Lawrence, and Keiko Tanaka. 1994. Metaphors and measurements: Determining the

toxicity of erucic acid. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological

Society, Portland, OR,August.Callon, Michel. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops

and the fishermen of St. Brieux Bay. In Power, action and belief:A new sociology ofknowledge?, edited by John Law, 196-229. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

. 1991. Technoeconomic networks and irreversibility. InAsociology of monsters : Essayson power, technology, and domination, edited by John Law, 132-61. London: Routledge &Kegan Paul.

Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. 1992. Dont throw the baby out with the Bath School!A replyto Collins and Yearley. In Science as practice and culture, edited byAndrew Pickering,

343-68. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Canadian General Standards Board. 1987. Canola oil, crude, degummed and refined.CAN/CGSB-32.300-M87. Ottawa: CGSB.

Collins, H. M., and Steven Yearley. 1992. Epistemological chicken. In Science as practice andculture, edited byAndrew Pickering, 301-26. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Daun, J. K. 1993a. Oilseeds: Production. In Grains and oilseeds: Handling, marketing, process-ing, 831-81. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Canadian International Grains Institute.

. 1993b. Personal interview with the author, 19 July.



26/27

26

Dietrich, Michael. 1994. Transaction cost economics and beyond: Toward a new economics ofthe firm. London: Routledge.

Erucic acid content of LEAR oil limited to 2%. 1985. Food Chemical News, February, 20-24.Food andAgriculture Organization. 1992. FAO production yearbook, 1992. Rome: FAO.Food andAgriculture Organization/World Health Organization. 1993. FAO/WHO Shipin

biaozhun fadian. Beijing: Zhongguo Qinggongye Chupanshe.Feed Regulations (amendment). 1983. Canada Gazette, SOR/DORS/83-593.Food and DrugRegulations (amendment). 1974. Canada Gazette, SOR/DORS/75-293, schedule

305.

Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York. VintageBooks.

Gereffi, Gary, and Miguel Korzeniewicz. 1994. Commodity chains and global capitalism.

Westport, CT: Praeger.Hadden, Richard W. 1994. On the shoulders of merchants: Exchange and the mathematical

conception of nature in early modem Europe.Albany: State University ofNew York Press.

Hanson, F.Allan. 1993. Testing testing: Social consequences of the examined life. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Kondra, Z. P. 1985. Canola production and cultivar development in Canada.Agriculture and

Forestry Bulletin, September, 3-6. (Faculty ofAgriculture and Forestry, University ofAlberta, Edmonton)

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of

ChicagoPress.

Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society.Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

. 1993a. La clef de Berlin: Et autres leons dun amateur de sciences. Paris: LaDcouverte.

. 1993b. We have never been modem. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

MacIntyre,Alasdair. 1984.After virtue. 2nd ed. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre DamePress.

Mag, T. K. 1990. Further processing of canola and rapeseed oil. In Canola and rapeseed:Production, chemistry, nutrition and processing technology, edited by Fereidoon Shahidi,251-76. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Marion, Bruce W. 1986. The organization and performance of the U.S. food system. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books.

Marx, Karl. 1906. Capital. New York: Modern Library.Norton, Bryan G. 1987. Why preserve natural variety? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

OConnell, Joseph. 1993. The creation of universality by the circulation of particulars. SocialStudies of Science 23:129-73.

Oil content: Methodology makes a difference. 1984. Canola Digest, January, 8.

Pigden, Wallace J. 1983. World production and trade ofrapeseed and rapeseed products. In Highand low erucic acid rapeseed oils, edited by John K. G. Kramer, Frank D. Sauer, and WallaceJ. Pigden, 21-59. Toronto:Academic Press Canada.

Pinch, Trevor. 1993. Testingone,two, three ... testing: Toward a sociology of testing. Science,

Technology, & Human Values 18:25-41.

Pirsig, R. M. 1974. Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. New York: Bantam Books.

Ploeg, Jan Douwe van der. 1990. Labor, markets, and agricultural production. Boulder, CO:Westview.



27/27

Busch Constructing Qualities

Documents

Transcript of Busch Constructing Qualities