178 Participatory Processes
der Ploeg, 1973; Van der Ploeg, 1995, 1996. It may seem confusing at first that I present and
analyse this ‘modernization project’ as a shining example of a ‘postmodern’ approach. Just as in
the social sciences (see earlier in this chapter), however, it applies here that one’s own projects are
decorated with the colours and terms of the past. Agriculture had of course been modern for a
long time before mid-20th century. See the convincing work of historians such as Bieleman,- Hofstee’s work (1985) is significant in this: he shows how a ‘modern cultural pattern’
emerged in the clay region of Groningen in early 19th century. However, as if this had never hap-
pened, the induced changes in the latter half of the 20th century are just as easily called ‘mod-
ernization’. If one takes a magnifying glass and watches various processes, it would show that the
term repeatedly re-emerges during and after this period. Time and again, the ‘need for moderniza-
tion’ is mentioned: at every land consolidation, at every adjustment in arable agriculture, at every
introduction of new technology, every time one has to face adverse market conditions. The power
of the word is probably in the suggestion that undesired situations can be overcome once and for
all in a single operation.
28 See, inter alia, Van Egmond et al, 1996; Nijhof et al, 1996; Langman et al, 1997.
29 The greatest upheaval emerges, I know this from my own administrative experience, if one allows
participants other than the usual ones to join the conversation about the definition of the ‘agenda’.
Conversely, many examples in and around agriculture and the countryside indicate how certain
voices are regrettably turned into a predominant, if not the only possible, routine.
30 In other words, one should avoided equating the eventual ordering, or its effects, with the initial
mode of ordering/strategy as such. In those cases where Law speaks of ‘imputation’, such a danger
becomes far from imaginary. What occurs as ‘practice’, as state of affairs, as material effect, at
moment T and in place P will never be the unilinear effects of one mode of ordering, of one
strategy, but rather of the encounter, the interaction, the mutual influencing, conditioning and
often the mutual transformation of several modes of ordering, i.e. several strategies – of several
interlocking projects. However, Law does indeed hint at this, for example when he discusses
‘interordering effects’ (1994, p22). The empirical setting within which Law conducted research
(one large laboratory) was probably less encouraging to further explicate the issue touched on
here.
31 In the fourth chapter of his study, Law presents four modes of ordering: enterprise, administra-
tion, vision and vocation. He stresses that they cannot be defined in terms of persons, or in terms
of personal attributes. They are strategies. It is the same point with which we have often struggled
in the farming styles group. For the sake of recognition, we have modes of ordering reduced to
and attributed to nouns instead of verbs. In English texts, however, this is not the case. There, for
example, ‘the strategy of farming economically’ is used consistently, rather than ‘economical farm-
ers’. In Law’s analysis, those four modes of ordering are present in constantly changing combina-
tions in the laboratory. The great difference is, of course, that agriculture is concerned with sole
proprietor businesses. Therefore, there will rather be only one style, only one strategy, on family
farms. (However, partnerships and corporations are interesting phenomena; in the case of several
siblings, you will certainly find that one pursues one strategy, the other pursues another. Further-
more, there is of course the tension between men and women: various principles that are balanced
against one another. See De Rooij et al, 1995.) Law stresses that enterprise and administration are
antithetical modes of ordering. This emerges notably from various farming style analyses too. The
‘economical’ versus the ‘ambitious’ (to elaborate on one’s own resources versus to mobilize as many
external resources as possible; see Van der Ploeg et al, 1992). The same applies to the styles of
cowmen vs machinemen; as well as to skill-oriented vs mechanical technologies (Bray, 1986) and
to intensity vs scale (Van der Ploeg, 1987). Thus a mutual, although ever changing, influencing of
modes of ordering occurs within the laboratory. Furthermore, Law shows that interlocking with
projects (or modes of ordering) of clients, financiers, ministries, universities etc. is also going on.
All in all, ‘interactive systems’ (Booth, 1994), i.e. ‘interlocking projects’ (Long and Van der Ploeg,
1994), become decisive.