Past, Present and Future 17718 The same applies to Booth as to Harris. From his pen comes an inspiring critique, a heartfelt
search for the possible weak points in the Wageningen approach. Just as in Harris’ case, Booth’s
observations revolve particularly around the question whether an actor-oriented approach excludes
the concept of coercion (whatever its nature or form). See Booth, 1994.
19 Of course, the relations at issue here (the relations among various projects) can differ considerably.
Some will be extremely hierarchical and coercive. This does not imply, however, that one therefore
needs to fall back on structuralist approaches; I attempt to show this in Chapter 6 by means of the
so-called structural development of and in Dutch agriculture (as a result of which more than half
of the farmers had to abandon their farms).
20 Following the work of Giddens, it is tempting to locate such incapability in ‘structure’ (in its Gid-
densian sense). For structure is not only enabling but also constraining. It excludes certain types
of action, certain manifestations of agency, while others become possible. Theoretically, this solu-
tion is hardly satisfactory – empirically, it is unmanageable, as will be shown in note 21.
21 If one looks at contemporary Dutch agriculture, the complications can be seen a mile off; because
there is no other possible interpretation than that agency is ubiquitous. In any case, the presence
of farms, of whatever farm, is inconceivable without the notion of agency. If, in the previous
period, there had not been a determined effort to continue the farm and if one had not succeeded
at this, there would be no individual farms nor a collection of farms as a whole. Every farm is
evidence of the ‘capability of doing things’. In agriculture (and I assume the same applies else-
where) there are no actors walking around in a permanent comatose state. This notion of structure
could be introduced as the counterpart of agency. Apart from the extremely difficult question of
what should be interpreted as structure, a not very satisfactory dichotomy would emerge here.
Structural relations (as ‘both enabling and constraining’) imply that a number of farms are
doomed to vanish, while others can continue (for the time being). The notion of non-agency
would apply to the first group, and agency would apply to the second group. Such a dichotomy
is completely unsatisfactory. First, because it ignores, on the one hand, the fact that a number of
farms are purposefully abandoned (not only intentionally, but also through the corresponding
actions), and, on the other, the situation that a great many farms are continued purely as a matter
of routine (see, inter alia, De Bruin, 1991, who discusses the problematic aspects of farm succes-
sion). Second, it is unsatisfactory because it is hard to understand why and how ‘structurally
impossible farms’ (let me put it in that way for the time being, I refer especially to small or even
very small farms) are sometimes continued or even guided along the cliffs of a very difficult farm
transfer. If ‘structure’ is ‘constraining’ in some cases, it must be in every case; because if it does not
do so in some cases (because dominated by agency), the notion of actor-structure as duality
becomes very problematic. Third, I want to point to the fact that there is an impressive degree of
differentiation among the ‘remaining’ farms; in other words, agency can result in innumerable
‘things’, or else various types and degrees of agency should be introduced. In short, I think that
agency as an undifferentiated concept, as the opposite of structure, is very unsatisfactory.
22 In other words, Law’s principle of symmetry (1994) can and must be applied here as well.
23 This does not imply that these notions, or images of the future, are always fluid, are always vari-
able and changeable in empirical reality. The crux of the large macroprojects and of contemporary
expert systems emerges here: they make the images of the future rigid and unchangeable.
24 Because on the whole, cohesion, fabric and web are very remarkable. More obvious perhaps are
disintegration, the inability to coordinate, ignorance, and so on. Rather than simply taking cohe-
sion for granted, it should be explained.
25 Van der Ploeg (1993) explains in more detail how difficult, if not improbable, it is to innovate
under contemporary conditions.
26 For example Adellijk Bloed by Popta (1962). There is also an incipient critique in there about the
expert system that was beginning to emerge in the world of livestock breeding.
27 This is the comprehensive ‘modernization project’ that was conceived and also materialized in
Dutch agriculture from the 1960s onwards. For more detailed descriptions, see Frouws and Van