SisAgriV1, Istex, Corpus, bibRecord, 000D13

The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India

Identifieur interne : 000D13 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000D12; suivant : 000D14

The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India

Auteurs : Tomiko Yamaguchi ; Craig K. Harris

Source :

Discourse & Society [ 0957-9265 ] ; 2004-07.

RBID : ISTEX:7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8

Abstract

Among the various transgenic crops being researched and developed for India, Bt cotton is the only crop commercialized at present. Social actors in various professions and positions have been expressing their expectations of what will or will not happen if agrifood biotechnologies are or are not commercially introduced. In their discourse, these social actors have identified diverse and complex issues extending from questions of equity (how the benefits of commercialization will be distributed between growers in different social and economic strata, and how the environmental or health risks will be distributed and redistributed among different groups in the population) to questions of development (how to improve agricultural productivity so as to meet the growing food demands, and how to maintain national autonomy in agricultural technology). This article explores the discourse concerning Bt cotton in India by examining the interpretations advocated by various social actors. The concept of frame is used to analyze the content of print media and interviews. Analysis of the Bt cotton discourse shows that the dominant actors have shifted over time away from government and industry officials and toward farmers, and that the dominant frame has shifted over time from governmental process to economic impact.

Url:

https://api.istex.fr/document/7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8/fulltext/pdf

DOI: 10.1177/0957926504043711

Links to Exploration step

ISTEX:7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India</title>
<author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Yamaguchi, Tomiko" sort="Yamaguchi, Tomiko" uniqKey="Yamaguchi T" first="Tomiko" last="Yamaguchi">Tomiko Yamaguchi</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Michigan State University</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: yamaguc3@msu.edu</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Harris, Craig K" sort="Harris, Craig K" uniqKey="Harris C" first="Craig K." last="Harris">Craig K. Harris</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Michigan State University</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8</idno>
<date when="2004" year="2004">2004</date>
<idno type="doi">10.1177/0957926504043711</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8/fulltext/pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000D13</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000D13</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India</title>
<author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Yamaguchi, Tomiko" sort="Yamaguchi, Tomiko" uniqKey="Yamaguchi T" first="Tomiko" last="Yamaguchi">Tomiko Yamaguchi</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Michigan State University</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: yamaguc3@msu.edu</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Harris, Craig K" sort="Harris, Craig K" uniqKey="Harris C" first="Craig K." last="Harris">Craig K. Harris</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Michigan State University</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series><title level="j">Discourse & Society</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0957-9265</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1460-3624</idno>
<imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher>
<pubPlace>London</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="2004-07">2004-07</date>
<biblScope unit="volume">15</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="467">467</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="491">491</biblScope>
</imprint>
<idno type="ISSN">0957-9265</idno>
</series>
<idno type="istex">7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.1177/0957926504043711</idno>
<idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_0957926504043711</idno>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0957-9265</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass></textClass>
<langUsage><language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Among the various transgenic crops being researched and developed for India, Bt cotton is the only crop commercialized at present. Social actors in various professions and positions have been expressing their expectations of what will or will not happen if agrifood biotechnologies are or are not commercially introduced. In their discourse, these social actors have identified diverse and complex issues extending from questions of equity (how the benefits of commercialization will be distributed between growers in different social and economic strata, and how the environmental or health risks will be distributed and redistributed among different groups in the population) to questions of development (how to improve agricultural productivity so as to meet the growing food demands, and how to maintain national autonomy in agricultural technology). This article explores the discourse concerning Bt cotton in India by examining the interpretations advocated by various social actors. The concept of frame is used to analyze the content of print media and interviews. Analysis of the Bt cotton discourse shows that the dominant actors have shifted over time away from government and industry officials and toward farmers, and that the dominant frame has shifted over time from governmental process to economic impact.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<istex><corpusName>sage</corpusName>
<author><json:item><name>Tomiko Yamaguchi</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Michigan State University</json:string>
<json:string>E-mail: yamaguc3@msu.edu</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>Craig K. Harris</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Michigan State University</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
</author>
<subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>agricultural development</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>agrifood biotechnology</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>Bt cotton</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>discourse analysis</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>farmers</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>frame</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>governance</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>Gujarat</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>India</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>social actors</value>
</json:item>
</subject>
<articleId><json:string>10.1177_0957926504043711</json:string>
</articleId>
<language><json:string>eng</json:string>
</language>
<originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string>
</originalGenre>
<abstract>Among the various transgenic crops being researched and developed for India, Bt cotton is the only crop commercialized at present. Social actors in various professions and positions have been expressing their expectations of what will or will not happen if agrifood biotechnologies are or are not commercially introduced. In their discourse, these social actors have identified diverse and complex issues extending from questions of equity (how the benefits of commercialization will be distributed between growers in different social and economic strata, and how the environmental or health risks will be distributed and redistributed among different groups in the population) to questions of development (how to improve agricultural productivity so as to meet the growing food demands, and how to maintain national autonomy in agricultural technology). This article explores the discourse concerning Bt cotton in India by examining the interpretations advocated by various social actors. The concept of frame is used to analyze the content of print media and interviews. Analysis of the Bt cotton discourse shows that the dominant actors have shifted over time away from government and industry officials and toward farmers, and that the dominant frame has shifted over time from governmental process to economic impact.</abstract>
<qualityIndicators><score>7.876</score>
<pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion>
<pdfPageSize>595 x 842 pts (A4)</pdfPageSize>
<refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative>
<abstractCharCount>1322</abstractCharCount>
<pdfWordCount>10516</pdfWordCount>
<pdfCharCount>62878</pdfCharCount>
<pdfPageCount>25</pdfPageCount>
<abstractWordCount>198</abstractWordCount>
</qualityIndicators>
<title>The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India</title>
<genre><json:string>research-article</json:string>
</genre>
<host><volume>15</volume>
<publisherId><json:string>DAS</json:string>
</publisherId>
<pages><last>491</last>
<first>467</first>
</pages>
<issn><json:string>0957-9265</json:string>
</issn>
<issue>4</issue>
<genre><json:string>journal</json:string>
</genre>
<language><json:string>unknown</json:string>
</language>
<eissn><json:string>1460-3624</json:string>
</eissn>
<title>Discourse & Society</title>
</host>
<categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string>
<json:string>sociology</json:string>
<json:string>psychology, multidisciplinary</json:string>
<json:string>communication</json:string>
</wos>
<scienceMetrix><json:string>arts & humanities</json:string>
<json:string>communication & textual studies</json:string>
<json:string>languages & linguistics</json:string>
</scienceMetrix>
</categories>
<publicationDate>2004</publicationDate>
<copyrightDate>2004</copyrightDate>
<doi><json:string>10.1177/0957926504043711</json:string>
</doi>
<id>7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8</id>
<score>0.044152454</score>
<fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension>
<original>true</original>
<mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8/fulltext/pdf</uri>
</json:item>
<json:item><extension>zip</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/zip</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8/fulltext/zip</uri>
</json:item>
<istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India</title>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority>
<publisher>Sage Publications</publisher>
<pubPlace>London</pubPlace>
<availability><p>SAGE</p>
</availability>
<date>2004</date>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India</title>
<author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Tomiko</forename>
<surname>Yamaguchi</surname>
</persName>
<email>yamaguc3@msu.edu</email>
<affiliation>Michigan State University</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Craig K.</forename>
<surname>Harris</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Michigan State University</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr><title level="j">Discourse & Society</title>
<idno type="pISSN">0957-9265</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1460-3624</idno>
<imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher>
<pubPlace>London</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="2004-07"></date>
<biblScope unit="volume">15</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="467">467</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="491">491</biblScope>
</imprint>
</monogr>
<idno type="istex">7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.1177/0957926504043711</idno>
<idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_0957926504043711</idno>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><creation><date>2004</date>
</creation>
<langUsage><language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
<abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Among the various transgenic crops being researched and developed for India, Bt cotton is the only crop commercialized at present. Social actors in various professions and positions have been expressing their expectations of what will or will not happen if agrifood biotechnologies are or are not commercially introduced. In their discourse, these social actors have identified diverse and complex issues extending from questions of equity (how the benefits of commercialization will be distributed between growers in different social and economic strata, and how the environmental or health risks will be distributed and redistributed among different groups in the population) to questions of development (how to improve agricultural productivity so as to meet the growing food demands, and how to maintain national autonomy in agricultural technology). This article explores the discourse concerning Bt cotton in India by examining the interpretations advocated by various social actors. The concept of frame is used to analyze the content of print media and interviews. Analysis of the Bt cotton discourse shows that the dominant actors have shifted over time away from government and industry officials and toward farmers, and that the dominant frame has shifted over time from governmental process to economic impact.</p>
</abstract>
<textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head>
<item><term>agricultural development</term>
</item>
<item><term>agrifood biotechnology</term>
</item>
<item><term>Bt cotton</term>
</item>
<item><term>discourse analysis</term>
</item>
<item><term>farmers</term>
</item>
<item><term>frame</term>
</item>
<item><term>governance</term>
</item>
<item><term>Gujarat</term>
</item>
<item><term>India</term>
</item>
<item><term>social actors</term>
</item>
</list>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
<revisionDesc><change when="2004-07">Published</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
</istex:fulltextTEI>
<json:item><extension>txt</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>text/plain</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8/fulltext/txt</uri>
</json:item>
</fulltext>
<metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration>
<istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType>
<istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">spdas</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">DAS</journal-id>
<journal-title>Discourse & Society</journal-title>
<issn pub-type="ppub">0957-9265</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Sage Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0957926504043711</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">10.1177_0957926504043711</article-id>
<article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group><article-title>The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yamaguchi</surname>
<given-names>Tomiko</given-names>
</name>
<aff>Michigan State University <email xlink:type="simple">yamaguc3@msu.edu</email>
</aff>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Harris</surname>
<given-names>Craig K.</given-names>
</name>
<aff>Michigan State University</aff>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>07</month>
<year>2004</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>15</volume>
<issue>4</issue>
<fpage>467</fpage>
<lpage>491</lpage>
<abstract><p>Among the various transgenic crops being researched and developed for India,                 <italic>Bt</italic>
 cotton is the only crop commercialized at present. Social actors in                 various professions and positions have been expressing their expectations of what                 will or will not happen if agrifood biotechnologies are or are not commercially                 introduced. In their discourse, these social actors have identified diverse and                 complex issues extending from questions of equity (how the benefits of                 commercialization will be distributed between growers in different social and                 economic strata, and how the environmental or health risks will be distributed and                 redistributed among different groups in the population) to questions of development                 (how to improve agricultural productivity so as to meet the growing food demands,                 and how to maintain national autonomy in agricultural technology). This article                 explores the discourse concerning <italic>Bt</italic>
 cotton in India by examining the                 interpretations advocated by various social actors. The concept of frame is used to                 analyze the content of print media and interviews. Analysis of the <italic>Bt</italic>
                 cotton discourse shows that the dominant actors have shifted over time away from                 government and industry officials and toward farmers, and that the dominant frame                 has shifted over time from governmental process to economic impact.</p>
</abstract>
<kwd-group><kwd>agricultural development</kwd>
<kwd>agrifood biotechnology</kwd>
<kwd>Bt cotton</kwd>
<kwd>discourse analysis</kwd>
<kwd>farmers</kwd>
<kwd>frame</kwd>
<kwd>governance</kwd>
<kwd>Gujarat</kwd>
<kwd>India</kwd>
<kwd>social actors</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>sagemeta-type</meta-name>
<meta-value>Journal Article</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
<custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>search-text</meta-name>
<meta-value> A B S T R A C T. Among the various transgenic crops being researched and             developed for India, Bt cotton is the only crop commercialized at present. Social actors             in various professions and positions have been expressing their expectations of what             will or will not happen if agrifood biotechnologies are or are not commercially             introduced. In their discourse, these social actors have identified diverse and complex             issues extending from questions of equity (how the benefits of commercialization will be             distributed between growers in different social and economic strata, and how the             environmental or health risks will be distributed and redistributed among different             groups in the population) to questions of development (how to improve agricultural             productivity so as to meet the growing food demands, and how to maintain national             autonomy in agricultural technology). This article explores the discourse concerning Bt             cotton in India by examining the interpretations advocated by various social actors. The             concept of frame is used to analyze the content of print media and interviews. Analysis             of the Bt cotton discourse shows that the dominant actors have shifted over time away             from government and industry officials and toward farmers, and that the dominant frame             has shifted over time from governmental process to economic impact. K E Y W O R D S :             agricultural development, agrifood biotechnology, Bt cotton, discourse analysis,             farmers, frame, governance, Gujarat, India, social actors Introduction In March 2002,             the interministerial Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the Government of             India approved the commercial distribution and cultivation of several varieties of a             genetically modified cotton developed jointly by the Indian seed company, Mahyco, and             the transnational agrichemical company Monsanto, which holds the license for this             technology. This article explores the social discourse that led up to the approval by             the GEAC in 2002, and A RT I C L E 467 The economic hegemonization of Bt cotton             discourse in India T O M I KO YA M AG U C H I A N D C R A I G K . H A R R I S M I C H I             G A N S TAT E U N I V E R S I T Y Discourse & Society Copyright © 2004 SAGE             Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com Vol             15(4): 467491 10.1177/ 0957926504043711 suggests some of the dynamics that will             continue to drive the discourse over the next few years. After a brief introduction to             the background of cotton in India, we outline our conceptual and methodological             approach. We then present our findings in terms of changes over time and differences             across social scale, and we conclude with some suggestions about the future of the             discourse. Nationally, cotton is the most significant agricultural commodity in India;             it sustains the Indian economy by bringing in foreign currency and creating jobs.             Currently, India is the third largest producer of cotton, following China and the USA,             contributing 5.2 percent of the total world production (Chaturvedi, 2002). Despite its             importance, India's cotton cultivation faces problems of quality and productivity; both             aspects are the lowest among the major cotton growing coun- tries. In addition, the             economic and environmental costs of synthetic pesticides are tremendous, thus imposing             economic burdens on the cotton cultivators and ecological burdens upon the biophysical             environment. In fact, cotton accounts for more than half of the total amount of money             spent in India on pesticides (Cotton Corporation of India [CCI], 2000; ISCI, 1999).             India's western state, Gujarat, has been a cotton-growing area for hundreds of years.             During the 18th century, Gujarati farmers began to use American cotton introduced by the             East India Company (Patel, 1994). In the early 1970s, hybrid cotton was introduced in             combination with tractorization, irrigation facilities, and credit schemes; those Green             Revolution changes, in turn, facilitated rapid socio-economic development in the region.             During the three decades since, hybrid cotton has enabled Gujarati farmers to achieve             better yields than with the traditional varieties, and to receive higher prices for             their cotton by being able to pick and sell cotton earlier than with the traditional             varieties (Rajaram, 1999). Recently, however, farmers in Gujarat have been facing             numerous problems including attacks by various kinds of pest (Subramaniam et al., 2000),             fluctuat- ing cotton prices, and the increasing expense of agricultural input (Rajaram,             1999). In southern Gujarat, where the fieldwork for this article was conducted, cotton             growers also face the problem of the ingress of seawater into the ground- water feeding             irrigation wells. As a consequence, several decades of intensified agriculture have             resulted in the salinization of the soil (Bagchi, 1991). To deal with these multiple             problems, both nationally and regionally, the Indian government decided to introduce Bt             cotton1  popularly known as Zehri Kappas (poisonous cotton) in Gujarat. As noted             earlier, in March 2002, the inter- ministerial GEAC approved the commercial cultivation             of several varieties of Bt cotton. Approval was given after 6 years of continuous             testing of various aspects of the genetically modified varieties. This testing related             to biosafety, agronomic performance and socio-economic impacts, in accordance with the             rDNA Safety Guidelines formulated and issued in 1990 (Government of India, 2002).             Approval also followed 6 years of fairly contentious social discourse. Over the years,             social actors with varied agendas and interests have offered various interpretations of             Bt cotton and its commercialization. Some argued that transgenic technology was             important to the enhancement of productivity and the reduction of pesticide 468             Discourse & Society 15(4) use (Barwale, 2002), whereas others claimed that Bt             cotton would not be eco- nomically viable in the Indian context (Sahai, 2002). Some             argued that Bt cotton poses unacceptable risks to human and environmental health (Shiva,             2002; Shiva et al., 1999), whereas others claimed that the safety guidelines in India             would minimize such risks (Ghosh, 2000). Despite the vision stated by India's Prime             Minister Vajpayee on the occasion of the National Science Congress, that India would             fully capitalize on biotechnology (Gujarat Samachar, 14 January 1999), genetically             modified organisms have come to be viewed by the public as a highly controversial             technology. Conceptual model and methods Discourse analysis provides an analytical             framework with which to characterize a complex social reality. Social reality is seen as             consisting of multiple perspectives (Hannigan, 1995) that interact discursively.             Beginning with an emphasis on acts of speech, discourse analysis came to focus on the             cultural meanings of texts (Manning, 1992). More recently, discourse has been seen to             include seemingly nondiscursive practices and elements, such as regulations and             policies, that enter into the discursive process (Black, 2002; Hay, 1996). In the social             sciences, dis- course analyses have been used inter alia in the study of environmental             problems (Dryzek, 1997; Hajer, 1995; Litfin, 1994) and the study of the social construc-             tion of scientific knowledge (Knorr, 1981; Latour, 1987; Latour and Woolgar, 1979;             Yearley, 1981), as well as in the analysis of social movements in developed countries             (Gamson, 1993; Williams, 1995) and developing countries (Nanda, 1999). Although these             studies share the assumption that the language used, and the meanings and             interpretations held, by social actors are instrumental in producing and reproducing             social structure and institutions, their conceptualiza- tions of the relationship             between social actors and social structure vary. This article will focus more on the             agential aspects of social actors through studying the content of their perceptions and             understandings of the newly available tech- nology, their claims-making activities and             their advocacy of meaning for bring- ing about the outcomes they desire (Best, 1995;             Cress and Snow, 2000; Snow and Benford, 1988; Snow et al., 1986). Social actors do not             passively and uncon- sciously act in accordance with externally imposed structures and             systems; they are active agents who, through the use of interpretations and claims             making, succeed in creating, contesting and recreating social reality. CONCEPTUAL MODEL             In this article, we will examine three major components of social discourse: (i)             interpretations, (ii) social actors, and (iii) the discourse process. These three             components enable us to understand the content of claims and claims-making activities             undertaken by social actors for maintaining, disseminating, and advocating a particular             meaning for a new technology. Yamaguchi and Harris: The economic hegemonization of Bt             Cotton 469 Interpretations Interpretations involve the active efforts of social actors             in the construction of the meanings of situations (von Glasersfeld, 1991). When social             actors characterize an issue, they construct its meanings so that these meanings readily             fit the social actors' generalized understandings. In other words, social actors have '.             . . central organizing schemes that hold together and give coherence and give meaning to             a diverse array of symbols' (Gamson et al., 1992: 384). In some cases, an organiz- ing             scheme can reflect attributes (e.g. modern/indigenous, hard/soft) of the categories             (e.g. technology, law), and in other cases it can reflect the cultural backgrounds of             the social actors (e.g. religious, economic). It can also reflect the current local             and/or global political and economic context (e.g. urban/rural,             postindustrial/developing) or the longer term historical context (e.g. imperial/             colonial). When schemes that are presented in public fora contradict, and com- pete             with, one another, issues tend to be politicized (Gamson, 1992), and to be viewed as             controversial (Nelkin, 1992). In the case of agrifood biotechnology in developing             countries, the schemes chosen by social actors not only highlight the socio-economic             (Buttel and Barker, 1985; DaSilva et al., 1992; Qaim, 1998), ethical (De Greef, 2001;             Thompson, 1997), and political (Woodhouse, 1992) implications of the technology in             question, but also reflect the colonial (Grove, 1995) and postcolonial (Gupta, 2000)             discourses of science and technology, agri- cultural development, food security, and             biophysical environment. The existence of multiple interpretive schemes will, on the one             hand, provide diverse tools to social actors who can use them to construct a particular             meaning of a particular technology in line with the actors' interests, and, on the other             hand, create ample opportunities for social actors to devise interpretations in ways             designed to influence the understandings of others. Social actors Indian society,             characterized by 'division and hierarchy' (Shah, 1988), consists of social actors with             diverse norms, values, and cultures. This diversity, combined with the impacts of             capitalism and industrialization, has divided social actors in India into an enormous             number of subgroups in line with their socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, with             their professions and positions, and with their interests and agendas. In order to             understand the complex divisions, and alliances, of social actor groups created in the             discourse concerning Bt cotton, we have conceptually identified five major groups: (i)             social actors in nongovern- mental organizations (NGOs), (ii) social actors in industry             and commercial organ- izations, (iii) government officials, (iv) scientists, and (v)             farmers. Social actors in NGOs include individuals and organizations that specialize in             advocacy activities related to such issues as environment, agriculture, population,             gender and devel- opment. Industries and commercial organizations include seed companies             and dealers, pesticide formulators and dealers, agrichemical companies, and associ-             ations of industrial or commercial organizations. Government refers to elected officials             and bureaucrats in various branches of both the central and the state 470 Discourse             & Society 15(4) governments. Scientists are people who hold scientific positions             in the public research system, in the private sector, or in NGOs. Farmers include social             actors who engage in the cultivation of crops, and farmers' unions and associations. Our             conceptualizations imply that these categories are not mutually exclusive, and our field             data confirm that there are overlaps between them. For instance, the same individual             could be both a scientist and an advocate for an NGO, or both a farmer and a government             official.2 The discourse process The discourse process includes various elements of             discourse such as interpret- ations, claims making, and the outcomes of these ongoing             activities. The claims making of social actors may be in advocacy of a particular             position and/or in opposition to a differing position; claims making may be for the             enrollment of potential allies (Callon, 1986) or for the demobilization of opponents             (Snow and Benford, 1988). Discourse is a dynamic process involving social change and the             strategies of social actors. Discourse facilitates or hinders a social change, but at             the same time a social change facilitates or hinders the implementation of dis- cursive             strategies devised by social actors. In other words, discourse is generated by a social             change or a putative social change, and discourse is also an instrument for social             change (Fairclough, 1992). In analyzing the discourse process, the present article             focuses on the concept of frame in understanding interpretations of Bt cotton in India,             both as an ana- lytical schema and as a strategy used by social actors. Deriving from             the work of Goffman (1986), a frame is a way of understanding how an object or an idea             is perceived; frames give different meanings to an issue and help social actors to             organize their thoughts about, and experiences of, an issue. At the same time, social             actors use frames to produce and maintain the meaning of an object or a concept. Frames,             therefore, reflect social values and norms that shape social actors' evaluations of an             issue (Touraine, 2000). Frames become not only the basis for constructing the meaning of             an issue, but also a basis for action (Skillington, 1997; Zald, 1996). They are active             and dynamic phenomena that enable social actors to arrive at a consensus regarding their             collective interests, and to displace and challenge the interpretations of others             (Benford and Snow, 2000). In other words, a frame  an embracing of values, norms, and             interests  becomes a template for a range of positions (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989).             Therefore, a single technology could be interpreted differently either by using dif-             ferent frames or by using the same frame but with a different orientation to the issues.             RESEARCH QUESTIONS The key question for this article concerns the ways in which social             actors define the issues pertaining to an agricultural technology that is newly             available in India, agrifood biotechnology. More specifically, the article will address             two questions: Yamaguchi and Harris: The economic hegemonization of Bt Cotton 471 1 What             kinds of frames did social actors use in evaluating the issues related to the             introduction of Bt cotton in India? 2. What issues are contested by which kinds of             social actors in which contexts? To explore these two questions, the article will             examine the discourse in India concerning Bt cotton over the period leading up to the             government decision to approve its commercial distribution. Our analysis of the             discourse will be based on the contents of the major English-language Indian newspapers             and of several major Gujarati-language newspapers, and on interviews with social actors             who were involved in that discourse. RESEARCH METHODS In Gujarat many texts carry             information about agriculture: specialized science magazines, farm magazines, and daily             newspapers in Gujarati and other Indian languages. However, the English-language dailies             are the most important mass media in terms of influence upon significant social actors             (Jeffrey, 2000). We, therefore, decided to examine the major English-language Indian             newspapers together with two Gujarati-language dailies and the major Gujarati farm news-             paper as our main sources on Indian (national) and Gujarati (regional) discourse             concerning Bt cotton. We excluded the Gujarati editions of English-language Indian             newspapers because their contents mostly duplicate the English-language editions that we             had already covered. Articles were collected from the major English-language Indian             newspapers in the Lexis-Nexis database by searching on the words Bt cotton, India,             terminator technology,3 and field trials. Articles from the three Gujarati newspapers             were collected by visually searching for the same key words, and were translated into             English.4 Articles were identified beginning in 1992 in the English-language newspapers             and coverage of Bt cotton was found beginning in 1999 in the Gujarati newspapers.5 In             addition, in order to obtain more information about the dynamics of the discourse             process, in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 persons identified in the mass media             coverage as significant social actors, and semi-structured inter- views were conducted             with 15 cotton growers in south Gujarat whom a farmer leader from that region identified             as collectively representative of the farmers in the region. All the articles from             newspapers and the transcripts of interviews were coded into categories representing             elements of the discourse process  social actors, actions, events, claims, and             interpretations related to the commercial introduction of Bt cotton. We then identified             emergent concepts and categories for these elements. The concepts and categories that             emerged from the analyses will be discussed in detail later. For the storage and the             analysis of the content of the newspapers and the interviews, a qualitative software             package was used to facilitate the systematic storage of vast and constantly changing             data and to facilitate the immediate retrieval of data in the form needed. 472 Discourse             & Society 15(4) Bt cotton discourse in the national arena The key word search in             the Lexis-Nexis database found 390 articles between 1992 and 2002 in national             English-language Indian newspapers. The analysis of this coverage reveals that several             years before government approval of commer- cial distribution of any variety of Bt             cotton, the idea of introducing transgenic seeds had stirred the hearts and minds of             influential social actors. Figure 1 demonstrates that, especially after the end of 1998,             the number of articles reporting on Bt cotton increased rapidly. During the 5-year             period (19982002) preceding GEAC approval of the sale of Bt cotton seeds, the             English-language Indian newspapers covered various related episodes such as the many             suicides of cotton growers in Andhra Pradesh, the protests of farmers in Karnataka             against the field trials being conducted by a joint venture firm, the government's             decision to ban the entry of seeds with terminator genes, and the government's decision             to ban the harvesting of cotton from seeds that had not been approved. ACTORS AND FRAMES             IN THE NATIONAL ARENA Actors In the early years, the Department of Biotechnology (DBT)             in the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Government of India was the only             visible actor in the national public fora. Bt cotton was portrayed as a promising             technology with which to correct or reduce the problems that India was facing in the             cotton sector. Government optimism surrounding Bt technology is reflected in the             following comments reported in the newspaper: India will have to pay about 4m dollars to             Monsanto to get the gene transfer know- how, which will be India's first import of             technology for genetic engineering to create improved plant species. Incorporation of             the Bt genes into major varieties of cotton Yamaguchi and Harris: The economic             hegemonization of Bt Cotton 473 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 1992 1993 1994 1995             1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 First experiment of transgenics Riot leading to             halting of field trials GEACís decision to require another year of field trials, Gujarat             controversies Approval F I G U R E 1. Number of articles appearing in the             English-language newspapers (1992 to 2002) No.ofarticles will help cut down by half the             use of insecticides and save cotton worth 510bn rupees [approximately 100m to 200m US             dollars] annually, the DBT said in a report. (BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 14             October 1992) Then from the end of 1998 onward, a variety of social actors  from both             within and outside the system governing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), some of             whom supported and some of whom opposed GMOs  brought various com- peting             interpretations of Bt cotton into the public fora. These new voices included people             representing other parts of the government, scientists working within the national             agricultural research system and in industry and NGOs, people repre- senting             cooperatives, and leaders in NGOs. Speaking for the government, for example, officials             from the DBT were joined by officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of             Textiles, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests. At the same time, representatives             of environmental and food policy- related NGOs, as well as spokespersons of various             farmers' unions, made visible declarations related to Bt cotton. As scientists, not only             plant breeders and geneti- cists, but also persons who were trained in physics or             engineering made claims about Bt cotton. The claims made by these various groups were             not consistent, even within some of the groups themselves. More detailed information             about the social actors, and about their changing prevalence over time, are discussed in             Yamaguchi et al. (2003). Frames and issues Some actors argued about how the benefits             would be distributed among cotton growers from different social and economic strata, and             how the environmental and health risks would be distributed among different groups in             the population, whereas other actors made competing claims about how best to improve             agricul- tural productivity so as to meet growing food demands and to challenge global             competition. Some actors pointed out that the Indian government's approval of Bt cotton             would benefit only multinational corporations, whereas others con- tended that India did             not possess sufficient resources to develop its own GM crops. Some expressed concerns             about the secrecy of the government, and particularly about the perceived tendency of             government spokespersons to give out infor- mation only if it emphasized the benefits of             the technology and thus only if it negated the need for a critical review of the             benefits and costs of the technology. Others contended that, because India is a             democratic country, there is no secrecy to the processes for the evaluation of new             technology and the review process is transparent. Bt cotton technology was interpreted,             and claims about Bt cotton were artic- ulated, in ways that allowed us to see the             differences between the positions of different social actors. The examples also suggest             that the interpretations and positions even of social actors who were in the same             category also varied. First, a newspaper reports the claim of an actor in government who             suggested that India needs to take a cautious approach to GMOs unless a proper             intellectual property 474 Discourse & Society 15(4) rights regime is             established. He does not explicitly oppose GMOs, but this claim suggests that his             interpretation and the position of an organization he is repre- senting differ from the             positive ones expressed by DBT in the earlier quotation. At the recent Science Congress,             the ICAR Director General, Dr. R. S. Paroda, cau- tioned that the country could play             into the hands of the developed countries, unless it has a strong intellectual property             rights regime. (Business Line, 29 January 1999) The second and third extracts, from             interviews with officials of farmers' groups, show how some of the farmers' unions             interpret GMOs as a threat to India, while other farmers associations have been adamant             in support of GMOs. . . . [at the conference] I made a point that why GM should be             dumped on us. Where is the market to sell GMOs? What is the point in bringing in the new             technology in the given situation where we have sufficient food? . . . the farmers must             have the freedom [of] access to technology. While the govern- ment was trying to deny or             holding it back, when the technology [became] available all over the world, and it is             not available in India. That means the Indian farmers are at certain disadvantage. We             don't want that. The entrance into the discourse process of diverse social actors and             the equally diverse interpretations and positions advocated by these actors suggest that             the discourse concerning Bt cotton had become extremely complex and that Bt cotton had             become a highly controversial and contentious technology. Frames and issues and actors             over time We begin our presentation of the results of the analysis with an overview of             the five conceptual frames of agrifood biotechnology discourse that emerged out of the             empirical coding of the texts and transcripts  (i) governance, (ii) society, (iii)             science and technology, (iv) economy, and (v) ecology. The frame of governance focuses             on the regime that governs the research, development, production and distribution of Bt             cotton seeds and Bt cotton. The frame of society includes moral and ethical concerns             related to Bt cotton. It includes claims about decision- making processes, democratic             participation in rule making, and the compatibility of agrifood biotechnology with             Indian farming. The frame of science and tech- nology includes such topics as the             methods utilized to develop Bt cotton, the scientific description of Bt genes, and the             scientific explanation of why Bt cotton has resistance against bollworms. The frame of             economy relates to claims about the acreage of land planted with Bt cotton, the             increase/decrease of agricultural inputs and yield, and the projected areas where Bt             cotton will be planted in India. The frame of ecology refers to such issues as the             long-term impact of Bt cotton on the biophysical environment.6 Table 1 shows the number             of claims appearing in national English-language Indian newspapers by frames by             quarters. Actors who were actively participating in the national discourse and who were             geographically and organizationally Yamaguchi and Harris: The economic hegemonization of             Bt Cotton 475 closer to policy-making about GMOs were most likely to use the frame of             gover- nance to identify the issues associated with the commercial introduction of Bt             cotton; one-third of all the claims that were made concern governance, and gov- ernance             is the most commonly used frame in half of the quarters. Social actors put less emphasis             on the issues in other frames, such as the development of insect pest resistance to Bt             (science), the possibility of gene flow from transgenic plants to other plants             (ecology), and the socio-economic benefits and costs of the use of Bt cotton (economy),             all of which tended to receive more focus in academic jour- nals. In fact, an NGO actor             pointed out that he had been making 'conscious efforts to attack against the existing             system and the structure which governs the 476 Discourse & Society 15(4) TA B L             E 1. Number of claims by frames by quarters Governance Society S&T Economy             Ecology 1992 1st 0 0 1 0 0 2nd 0 0 0 0 0 3rd 0 0 0 0 0 4th 0 0 0 1 0 1998 1st* 0 0 2 0 0             2nd 0 0 0 0 0 3rd 0 0 0 0 0 4th 29 19 13 3 7 1999 1st 22 15 9 5 10 2nd 6 0 7 5 0 3rd 0 8             6 3 0 4th 7 0 0 6 0 2000 1st 8 7 7 3 4 2nd 20 12 8 5 8 3rd 22 16 23 7 4 4th 7 8 5 7 0             2001 1st 13 14 13 5 7 2nd 13 8 8 6 7 3rd 24 20 7 10 8 4th 0 5 0 0 0 2002 1st 25 10 5 3             11 2nd 8 15 5 3 4 3rd 42 29 23 42 15 4th 15 2 8 2 0 Total (n) 261 188 150 116 85 *As             shown in Figure 1, no claims appeared in 19931997. GMOs in India'. Many of the             interviewees of other types, such as actors in industry, also pointed out that they were             most concerned with the system and structure. In describing the issues surrounding Bt             cotton, the majority of the government and industry actors who were interviewed offered             an elaborate and extensive explanation of the existing guidelines, the government             committees, and the division of labour among concerned governing bodies.7 In the early             years of the Bt controversy, many of the reported claims con- cerned the open             field-testing of Bt cotton (one step before the commercial release of a new variety).             One of the major issues that actors contested hinged on the question of who gets             involved in the monitoring, and the evaluation, of the data generated through the             field-testing of Bt cotton. Social actors in NGOs, who were very much outside these             evaluation processes, were demanding that the system for evaluating Bt cotton should not             be external to the civil society. An actor in a NGO argued that, . . . the system should             become more open so that independent organizers like us can scrutinize the real risks             and benefits of GMOs . . . we have the right to know what criteria have been used when             it is approved. We have been asking to share the data . . . [we have been asking] why             the data on gene-flow is not publicly available? Claims such as these reflect             frustrations felt by the social actors who were not central in the system. The Freedom             of Information Act, enacted in January 2003, could provide a legal basis on which             excluded social actors could demand the disclosure of information that will enable them             to participate in the evaluation processes; however, it is too soon to observe what             kinds of impacts the Act will have. Rather than waiting for the system to be in place             and to be effective, social actors in NGOs have been continuously attacking the system.             Spatial situation of the discourse Recent (20012002) discourse in the national arena is             characterized by the emergence of social actors who are closely associated with the             state of Gujarat. In the early years of the Bt cotton controversy in India, national             actors did not locate the issues of Bt cotton in the state of Gujarat, nor did they             associate issues of Bt cotton with Gujarati farmers. Neither news reports in             English-language Indian newspapers from those years nor informants interviewed in 2000             grounded Bt cotton controversies either in any specific aspects of cotton farming in             Gujarat or with cotton growers in Gujarat. Rather, actors associated issues with three             other places  New Delhi, where most of the policy-making concern- ing Bt cotton was             taking place, the state of Andhra Pradesh, where many suicides of cotton growers             occurred, and the state of Karnataka where farmers damaged private property to             demonstrate their opposition to the commercial introduction of Bt cotton. It was only             towards the end of 2001 that the coverage in the national fora began to associate Bt             cotton with the state of Gujarat, when large-scale culti- vation of an unapproved             variety of Bt cotton occurred. Various types of actors in Yamaguchi and Harris: The             economic hegemonization of Bt Cotton 477 Gujarat became visible in the national             discourse. For instance, the headline of the Economic Times (13 October 2001) begins             'Gujarat government in the dark on Bt cotton issue'; the accompanying article reports             claims by two officials from the State Government of Gujarat. Similarly, other types of             actors  people represent- ing the Gujarat State Seeds Producers' Association,             representatives of the Gujarat Pesticides Formulators' Association, scientists in the             state agricultural universi- ties, and farmer leaders of Gujarat inter alia  have all             surfaced in the English- language mass media. One of the significant issues that has             emerged in recent discourse relates to the concerns about what actually will happen on             the ground once various genetically engineered crops  not only Bt cotton but also food             crops  begin to come onto the Indian market. The discourse is frequently framed in             terms of who would, and who should, be accountable for any social, ecological and             ethical consequences of the implementation of Bt cotton. The question of accountability             has been raised in various contexts: Who would be accountable if negative environmental             effects occurred (Financial Express, 25 October 2001)?; who should be accountable for             the compensation of farmers if and when the govern- ment uproots standing crops of             unapproved GMO varieties (Financial Express, 25 October 2001)?; and who should be held             accountable for the mass cultivation of unapproved GMO varieties (Hindu Business Line,             20 October 2001; Economic Times, 29 October 2001; Business India, 23 November 2001)?             These and other concerns that relate to the implementation of GMOs on the ground have             led actors in NGOs to criticize the governing system of Bt cotton: From our point of             view, we feel that India is [not] yet ready to adopt GMOs. We have no clear policy, and             no particular legislation. Everything is carried out in the ad hoc basis. You know that             GEAC is headed by the IAS [Indian Administrative Services] offi- cer, who does not know             about science. He will not know how to address contradicting claims and so forth. Mahyco             has pointed out that Bt has 30% higher yield than the conventional hybrid but who can             address and validate these claims. This quotation suggests that although accountability             was a new problem being raised for discussion, like previous issues it was interpreted             in the frame of governance. Bt cotton discourse in the local arena A keyword search of             the Gujarati language newspapers found 77 articles between 1999 and 2002. The issues             surrounding Bt cotton became more visible in the local public fora from the end of 2001;             96 percent of the articles over the 4 years were concentrated in 2001 and 2002. Both the             frequency of claims and the content and emphasis of discourse have changed since 2001             when the story of the unapproved Bt cotton in the state of Gujarat began to enter into             the national discourse, and when the issues of Bt cotton began to enter into the local             discourse of Gujarat. In order to understand this discourse in the local arena, it is             necessary to understand the circumstances surrounding the unapproved Bt 478 Discourse             & Society 15(4) cotton; so we will first describe the events in Gujarat and then             describe the content of the local discourse, particularly by examining the frames used             most frequently. The mass media's association of Bt cotton with the state of Gujarat             resulted from a coincidence of several rather unlikely circumstances. A variety called             Navbharat 151 (Nb151) had been marketed in the state of Gujarat since 1998. Initially,             the seeds were marketed as a new hybrid variety but later it was found that they contain             Cry1Ac,8 a microbial gene construct for which Monsanto con- trols the usage rights. Not             many growers or other social actors in the downstream segments of the cotton commodity             chain had noticed the nature of Nb151 until 2001 when the climatic conditions caused a             massive bollworm irruption all across Gujarat. In interviews in Bhadharpur,9 the             majority of the farmers said that they had never experienced such heavy bollworm attacks             in their lifetimes. Despite efforts to control the pests by the frequent spraying of             pesticides, those who did not plant Nb151 in 2001 were unable to control what was             happening. Some farmers spent Rs. 40005600 (approximately US $90125) per acre on             synthetic insecticides, a sum that was three to four times greater than what they spent             during their normal seasons, and yet they reported that pests had not been controlled.             Other farmers simply stopped spraying and uprooted the plants in the middle of the             season, because keeping the plants did not make economic sense and the plants would             provide habitat for future generations of pests. After having had such a bad experience,             a farmer who owned 50 acres of land (a large farm in the context of south Gujarat) and             who had 20 years of experience in growing cotton, decided not to continue cotton             cultivation. The cultivation of cotton on 80 acres of land (50 acres of his own and 30             acres of rented land) in 2001 brought him a financial loss of Rs. 800,000 (approximately             US $18,000). His loss was so tremendous that he remains convinced that discontinuing             cotton culti- vation was the right decision. In the village, virtually all of the hybrid             cotton, except Nb151, was wiped out. At that time, no one, including the growers them-             selves, was fully aware of what Nb151 was and how and why Nb151 had survived the heavy             pest attacks; but the stark contrast between the productivity of Nb151 and that of other             hybrid varieties revealed the fact that Nb151 had similar traits to Bollgard, the Bt             variety developed by MahycoMonsanto. It was only a matter of time until both fellow             farmers in the vicinity and other social actors such as seed dealers, pesticide dealers             and extension agents learned about the seeds that produced the miracle. The central             government stepped in after a complaint was made by Mahyco, and ordered the surviving             plants to be destroyed after it had been proven that Nb151 had the Cry1Ac gene (Deccan             Herald, 12 October 2002; Economic Times, 12 October 2001; Gujarat Samachar, 25 October             2001; Times of India, 9 October 2001). Strong objections against the central             government's directive were raised by various actors involved in the cotton commodity             chain of Gujarat, such as cotton growers (Asian Age, 23 October 2001; Western Times, 25             October 2001), a farmers' leader (Economic Times, 25 October 2001; Gujarat Samachar, 13             Yamaguchi and Harris: The economic hegemonization of Bt Cotton 479 November 2001; Times             of India, 25 October 2001), a cotton cooperative (Business Standard, 24 October 2001),             the Union Textiles Minister from the central govern- ment (Asian Age, 26 October 2001;             Gujarat Samachar, 27 October 2001), and the Chief Minister of Gujarat (Sandesh, 27             October 2001), all of whom claimed that the order was impractical and unethical.             Parallel to these claims, the Gujarat state government indicated that destruction of the             plants should take place only after farmers had been compensated for the destruction             (Business Standard, 24 October 2001), which essentially meant that no interventions             would be made before the lint from Nb151 had got to the market.10 Farmers continued to             pick cotton and to sell it to the cotton traders and cooperatives. The extent of the             area where Nb151 was planted within the state of Gujarat is said to have involved             between 60 and 80 percent of the hybrid cotton growing area, and the number of farmers             who used Bt cotton seeds was somewhere around 13,000; however, there are no official             figures available concerning the extent to which Nb151 was used. In Bhadharpur, some             farmers have been using Nb151 for the past four sea- sons, whereas others only began             using it during the 2002 season. Babubhai Patel11  a large-scale farmer in Bhadharpur             who is an economically, socially, and politically influential person in the village              indicated that more than 80 percent of the cotton growers in the village had used             various generations of Nb151. Despite the central government's directive, none of the             standing plants were destroyed in Bhadharpur. According to the farmers in Bhadharpur,             the state gov- ernment did not even come to any of the villages in their vicinity to             implement the directive of the central government. Parallel to the reports in the             national English-language Indian newspapers, Gujarati newspapers began to report stories             about Bt cotton in October 2001, when Bt cotton controversies erupted in Gujarat.             Various types of social actors in national fora began to appear in the local discourse.             Social actors whose claims were previously mentioned only in the English-language             newspapers, such as the chairman of GEAC (Sahakar Saurabh, 2 April 2002) and the Union             Minister of Textiles (Sandesh, 27 October 2002), began to appear in the local             newspapers. Because Gujarati-language newspapers began to cover the issues of Bt cotton,             a wider group of social actors in Gujarat came to learn about national social actors who             were previously known only to the people who read English-language news- papers. At the             same time, cotton growers emerged in the discourse (Gujarat Samachar, 28 November 2001;             Sahakar Saurabh, 19 November 2002). The discourse in the local arena is characterized by             claims concerning the central government's directive to uproot the standing crops of             Nb151 and by claims deriving from the use of Nb151. A person who occupied a high-ranking             policy-making position in the state government when the controversy of Nb151 was at its             height, pointed out that 'If Bt cotton is harmful, block the production of Bt cotton             itself. Why do we punish farmers [by uprooting the standing crops of Nb151]?' Parallel             to these claims were those that growers made concerning yield improvement, a decrease in             the use of synthetic insecticides, and an increase in profits. Not surprisingly, growers             attempted to make their voices heard through 480 Discourse & Society 15(4)             various means. Cotton growers who were interviewed in Bhadharpur very hap- pily shared             their 'success' stories of the current cotton season  'success' was often defined as             economic profits. According to these stories, both Hindu and Muslim farmers, as well as             small-, medium-, and large-scale farmers,12 had all had positive experiences with Bt             cotton, and the majority of them said they would plant it again next season. These types             of claims have appeared in both English- language Indian newspapers and Gujarati             newspapers. Except for a few claims made by vocal farmers' leaders and their supporters             in opposition to the field trials of multinational corporations (The Hindu, 29 November             1998; Business Line, 11 January 1998), there were virtually no claims by cotton growers             reported in the newspapers between 1998 and 2000. However, more articles about cotton             growers have appeared since then, and most of these more recent articles report that             farmers have had positive economic experiences with Bt cotton (Gujarat Samachar, 16             October 2001; The Hindu Business Line, 21 October 2001; The Indian Express, 21 October             2001; Sandesh, 1 November 2001; Gujarat Samachar, 30 November 2001; Deccan Herald, 22             October 2002). Table 2 shows the number of claims by frames by quarters appearing in the             three Gujarati newspapers between 1998 and 2002. It shows that local discourse             emphasized three frames  governance, society and economy. Issues in the frame of             governance include the state government's refusal to support the central Yamaguchi and             Harris: The economic hegemonization of Bt Cotton 481 TA B L E 2. Number of claims by             frames by quarters in Gujarati newspapers Governance Society S & T Economy             Ecology 1999 1st 1 0 1 0 0 2nd 0 0 0 0 0 3rd 0 0 0 0 0 4th 0 0 0 0 0 2000 1st 0 2 0 0 0             2nd 0 0 0 0 0 3rd 0 0 0 0 0 4th 0 0 0 0 0 2001 1st 0 0 0 0 0 2nd 0 0 0 0 0 3rd 0 0 0 0 0             4th 28 20 2 7 4 2002 1st 12 15 0 10 3 2nd 5 5 0 2 0 3rd 0 0 0 0 0 4th 5 3 1 1 0 Total             (n) 51 45 4 20 7 government's decision to uproot standing crops of Nb151, and politics             within the membership of GEAC. Issues within the frame of society include Gujarati             farmers' disappointment with the central government decision to approve only the variety             connected with a multinational corporation (MNC) and not the variety of a local seed             company, and the social injustice and inequity leading to the suicides of cotton             growers. Issues in the frame of economy include how the yield of Nb151 has been far             better than Bollgard, and how Bt cotton offers more production volume and benefits than             conventional varieties. The two frames of ecology and of science and technology were             relatively less frequent. Issues in the frame of ecology are mostly related to the             relations between the use of GM seeds and soil fertility.13 Issues related to scientific             and technological aspects of Bt cotton have been only a small fraction of the Gujarati             discourse. By combining and synthesizing these issues raised in the Gujarati newspapers,             one can see that Gujarati discourse has an underlying storyline of how farmers have been             pushed to the unjust situation where they are denied legal access to the very seeds that             have enabled them to gain economic profits, and all this despite the apparent absence of             negative consequences for the biophysical environment. Discussion Table 3 shows the             comparison of the proportion of claims by frames between English-language Indian             newspapers and Gujarati newspapers. In terms of the proportion of claims by frames, the             claims appearing in the English-language newspapers and the Gujarati newspapers reveal a             similar pattern  governance is the most frequent of all the frames, and society is the             second; also similarly econ- omy is mentioned roughly 15 percent of the time in both the             national and Gujarat newspapers. We will expand on what these numbers suggest.             GOVERNANCE Although different types of social actors hold different perspectives and             positions towards Bt cotton and although there exist different types of readership for             English-language newspapers and Gujarati-language newspapers, social actors in both fora             seem to agree that the governance system and the political structure are the prime frame             for evaluating GMOs in the context of India, as reflected in Table 3. It was the             dominant frame in both fora in terms of number of claims, and the most contentious in             terms of differences of interpretations advocated by various social actors. The             divisions between proponents and opponents derive 482 Discourse & Society 15(4)             TA B L E 3. Comparison of proportion (%) of claims by frames Governance Society S             & T Economy Ecology N National 32.6 23.5 18.8 14.5 10.6 800 Gujarat 40.2 35.4             3.1 15.7 5.5 127 from two sources. First, actors who support the technology tend to hold             positions in government and industry, and tend to claim that the existing system and             struc- ture governing GMOs in India will address the moral, scientific, economic and             ecological concerns raised by other actors. In contrast, actors who oppose the             technology claim that the existing system is inadequate to deal with environ- mental and             social concerns. In other words, whereas these actors in NGOs emphasize that the current             system is loose and requires improvement, and needs to be changed, the promoters in             government and industry are attempting to dis- miss the claims that the society has to             cast a critical eye on the existing system and structure. One interpretation would be             that actors in NGOs see sloppiness in the system and structure because they see visible             conflicts among the actors involved in the governing system of GMOs. Another             interpretation would be that NGO actors believe that the system and structure are             sloppy, and point to the con- flicts as evidence of the sloppiness. An actor in an NGO             made the following point: There are many parties involved in GEAC . . . Indian Council             of Agricultural Research (ICAR), DBT, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education and             Ministry of Environment and Forests, and then Ministry of Agriculture. The GEAC comes             under the Ministry of Environment and Forests. I feel that ICAR is the institution that             represents farmers' interests but at the outset ICAR was marginalized in the decision             making processes . . . this was in 1999 . . . DBT has attempted to take over . . . But             the current Minister of Agriculture has been very good by saying that testing of             transgenics should go through ICAR . . . he has been very good in empowering ICAR so             that scientists could voice their opinion. The second element that makes the positions             of social actors differ from one another derives from three fundamentally different ways             of thinking about the ideal agricultural development model. The first model emphasizes             government- led agricultural development. Social actors who take on roles as innovators,             such as biotechnology promotion agencies, seed industries and scientists involved in             research on transgenics in the public agricultural system, emphasize that India was one             of the first few developing countries to have recognized the importance of biotechnology             as a tool with which to advance the growth of the agricultural sector. As exemplified in             following passage, they emphasize that India is unique in having a high-level department             that specifically deals with biotechnology. India is the first country in the world to             establish an independent 'Department of Biotechnology' under the Ministry of Science and             Technology . . . This has helped in the promotion of biotechnology research and the             establishment of many foci in the country to do research in modern biotechnology,             medicine and rDNA technology. (Tripathi, 2002: 15) The second model emphasizes             market-led agricultural development with little involvement by a relatively small             government. Social actors who are outside the system, whether they support or oppose the             introduction of Bt cotton, tend to support this second model because they feel that the             governance suggested by the first model, and exemplified by the Government of India, is             not conducive to the Yamaguchi and Harris: The economic hegemonization of Bt Cotton 483             kind of society that they desire. Social actors in NGOs who support Bt cotton express             distrust of the public authorities and government bodies. They raise con- cerns about             the ability of government bodies fully to reap the benefits from a potentially useful             technology, and suggest that India must therefore allow the market to engage the             financial and human resources and scientific expertise in the private sector. On the             other hand, social actors in NGOs who oppose Bt cotton support the second model because             they question whether government bodies should be the sole actors who have the authority             to be involved in the deliberative procedures concerning GMOs. Some actors question             whether government per- sonnel are capable of examining the environmental and             socio-economic conse- quences following from the implementation of GMOs. Therefore, they             feel that they should have access to the data generated through the field-trials so as             to feed their opinions into decisions. Along the same lines, a journalist from a print             media source pointed out that he and others like him cannot find adequate infor- mation             from which to develop an encompassing grasp of what is happening with biotechnology in             India: . . . [the] majority of us including me are not really informed about the             technology that is coming in and the procedure adopted for conducting trial before             introduction . . . there is a mismatch between the information available from Indian             authority and from the multinational corporations. So there is more positive propaganda             material available than actual . . . The third model emphasizes bottom up development.             Social actors who support this model and who are in opposition to the implementation of             Bt cotton are against the modernization of agriculture itself, or they have a different             vision of how agriculture needs to be improved. These actors emphasize such elements as             'science and technology based on local resources', 'science and technology which gives             independence to farmers', and 'innovation of farmers'. '[T]here are no ecol- ogists and             sociologist[s] involved in the committee [GEAC] . . .' an actor in an NGO pointed out.             These claims embody less materialist and utilitarian thinking, which runs against the             agricultural development model that has prevailed in India since the 1960s. It is not a             coincidence that these elements echo the principle of swadeshi14 envisaged by Gandhi             (1937) more than half a century ago. These three models of agricultural development             prevail in many other types of claims. For instance, some point out that, because             financial, human, and other capitals are limited in India, India ought to use market             mechanisms to reap the benefits of cutting-edge technology. These actors claim that the             Chinese govern- ment has swiftly reaped the economic benefits of Bt cotton by tapping             resources from private sectors and now looms as a major player in the global cotton             market. Other social actors in NGOs raise concerns about opening the door to multina-             tional corporations in the agricultural sector; historically, India had a policy of             national self-sufficiency in agricultural science and technology. These actors go on to             claim that the state could lose control over the national agricultural research system             to the powerful multinational corporations. The state has the 484 Discourse &             Society 15(4) power to steer agricultural development in a direction that serves the             well-being of the people. If the research and application of transgenic crops are left             to market mechanisms, the development and realization of the crops that could truly             benefit the majority of India society could lag behind. According to these claimants,             for instance, rather than introduce a cash crop like Bt cotton, the public research             system should use available resources to research and develop such areas as yield             improvements of legumes. ECONOMY Looking at the temporal changes in the number of claims             in the frame of eco- nomy, particularly claims in 2001 and 2002, it becomes clearer that             the trends in both fora are somewhat similar. In the national newspapers, for instance,             43 percent of all claims in 2002 covered economy, whereas while the proportions of other             years ranged from 9 to 19 percent. Similarly, 65 percent of the total claims in economy             derive from claims appearing in 2002. It is not only in Gujarati newspapers but also in             national newspapers that issues of economy became prominent over time. The issues of             economy began to hegemonize the Indian discourse not only because news reporters took an             interest in reporting the claims of farmers, but also because farmers themselves began             to be proactive in maintaining the pres- ence of their agenda in both national and local             public fora. The activities of the farmers' association based in southern Gujarat             constitute just one example and illustrate how farmers enhance their presence in the             local and national dis- courses. Ever since the Bt cotton controversy in the state of             Gujarat erupted, this group has been making deliberate efforts to voice their claims. To             this end, group members have organized various types of activities such as farm visits,             seminars, and consultations with policy-makers. Information about these activities is             generally sent to the newspaper companies by faxes and telephone calls. When a seminar             on the performance of varieties of Bt cotton was held in southern Gujarat, the group             sponsored several news reporters from New Delhi, as well as news reporters from Gujarati             newspapers, to attend the seminar. Afterwards, these newspapers published several             articles on the proceedings. Both farmers whose views appeared in the newspapers and             those whom we interviewed generally emphasized issues in the frame of economy  less             expense for pesticides, less expense for labor costs for applying pesticides, more yield             with Bt cotton, and lower prices for purchasing Nb151 in comparison to Bollgard.             Farmers, and farmer leaders in particular, muted the moral aspects of the use of an             unapproved variety. They attempted to black-box (Latour, 1987) the ethical issues             involved in the marketing of Nb151 and made conscious efforts to gain the support and             sympathy of other social actors by focusing only on economic issues. Whereas actors in             the public fora  both in government and in NGOs  see the moral aspects involved in             Nb151 as a major issue, farmers claim that the distinc- tions between the legal and             illegal varieties are relatively minor. Some argue that there is no such thing as             illegal seeds and they feel that they are completely free to Yamaguchi and Harris: The             economic hegemonization of Bt Cotton 485 choose the seeds that they want to use. They             argue that the two varieties do not differ in their environmental impact, and that,             because the government has already given approval to the MahycoMonsanto Bt cotton, the             biosafety aspects of Nb151 have already been tested. They even go on to argue that by             giving approval only to MahycoMonsanto, the government is fostering a monopoly and thus             putting the growers who buy the seeds at an economic disadvantage. Claims concerning             issues in the frame of economy are much more empirically credible and salient (Benford             and Snow, 2000) than claims in other frames such as governance (e.g. evaluative             procedures governing Bt cotton, democratic repre- sentativeness of the evaluating             committee), or ecology (e.g. gene-flow, pollen drift). Claims made by cotton growers             tend to resonate with the real-life situation of farmers and farming in the society,             whereas claims such as gene-flow and pollen drift, or claims about procedures, are             salient only to a much smaller seg- ment of Indian society, those people who have             specialized knowledge and who are in professional, academic and technical positions. A             large-scale farmer who owns 80 acres of land in Bhadharpur says that he does not             understand why people in Delhi are cautious in introducing Bt cotton: People in             government point out that Bt cotton is potentially harmful to the environ- ment. Most of             the farmers in the village have used pesticides so much during past decade or two that             all the earthworms are gone from our soil. So why all of a sudden, does the government             wake up and make a big deal about environment? I used Bt F1 this season and I sprayed             less. Doesn't it mean that it is better for environment? He not only discusses the             issues in the frame of economy, but also dismisses the government's claims in the frame             of ecology. These types of claims made by an economically and socially prominent farmer             of the village will appeal to his neighbors and will be heard by farmers in other             districts because these types of farmers tend to be well connected beyond their             villages. Moreover, these claims will have a broader appeal to people in general. In the             rural Indian context, the most valued and influential information that people use is             that coming from other farmers (Glendinning et al., 2001; Malhotra et al., 1983). When             people who are viewed as progressive farmers by others make these types of claims, it is             most likely that farmers within the same village and vicinity will accept their claims             and adopt their ideas and agricultural practices. It is also true that social actors in             general, not merely cotton growers, can probably relate themselves to the claims made by             cotton growers because they can supply their own anecdotal 'evidence' (Benford and Snow,             2000). As a result, such actors will harbor greater sympathy for the perspective of             growers. In India, where more than 70 percent of the population is engaged in             agriculture one way or another, the extent of influence generated by these types of             claims is tremendous. Conclusions The above analysis suggests that the governing             structure of transgenics was 486 Discourse & Society 15(4) initially the most             significant frame used by social actors in India in evaluating the commercial             application of Bt cotton. In particular, social actors were concerned about and aware             of, how the system and the structure laid out by the government for testing transgenics             would determine the ways in which the new technology would be implemented. However, when             farmers entered into the discourse, the significance of issues within the frame of             economy gained momentum both nationally and locally. Indeed, the example of Gujarat             indicates that in the upstream portion of cotton commodity chain issues of economy not             only gained currency but hegemonized the discourse by displacing issues in the frames of             gov- ernance, society, and ecology.The analysis presented in this article offers             evidence that evaluation of a new agricultural technology is both a material conflict             over how food and fiber will be produced, and a symbolic contest over which under-             standing of reality will prevail. Our analysis also indicates that, at the same time,             the prevailing understanding is constantly revised to accommodate new interpretations             and new events. AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S This article is based upon work supported             by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No. SBR 9810149 and under a Doctoral             Dissertation Research Improvement Grant SES 0135563. Any opinions, findings, conclusions             or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not             necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would also             like to acknowledge their appreciation to the Institute for Food and Agricultural             Standards and to the Ford Foundation Program for Pre-Dissertation Fieldwork, both at             Michigan State University, and the Institute of Rural Management, Anand for financial             and logistical support of the research on which this article is based. We had helpful             comments on earlier draft from Kameshwar Choudhary, Toby Ten Eyck and an anonymous             reviewer. N O T E S 1. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a species of bacteria that             produces a chemical that is toxic to certain insects and pests. When Bt genes are             transferred to cotton, the plants express the toxin, which is toxic to the bollworm             complex  major pests in the cotton growing regions of India. 2. For analytical purposes             we wanted to separate actors into five conceptual groups. Because of the potential             overlap among the categories, it was necessary to establish a hierarchical scheme for             the allocation of social actors into groups. The assignment was in the following order:             government, industry, farming, science and nongovern- mental organizations. 3.             Terminator technology is a gene protection technology inserted in plants that blocks the             production of fertile seeds. Use of the gene provides seed producers with security             against unauthorized use of new plant varieties. Critics argue that the terminator gene             would compel farmers to purchase seeds from patent holders who own the rights to new             crop varieties. 4. In order to cross-check the accuracy of translation, two persons             worked on the articles. First, one person translated articles from Gujarati into             English, and then the translated articles were translated back into Gujarati by the             second person. Yamaguchi and Harris: The economic hegemonization of Bt Cotton 487 5. No             article was found in the Gujarati-language newspapers before 1999. As men- tioned in the             text, the article in 1999 features the speeches by the Prime Minister of India             concerning India's policy on biotechnology. The content suggests that it is the first             time that issues related to biotechnology had been reported in the regional language             newspapers. Although no records prior to 1998 were available at the news- paper             companies, consultation with the editors confirmed that there had been no articles in             the Gujarati-language newspapers prior to 1998. 6. For a further discussion of the             substantive content of the frames, seeYamaguchi et al. (2003). 7. The system is often             described as a three-tier system (the Institutional Biosafety Committee, the Review             Committee on Genetic Manipulation, and the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee), the             assigned roles of which are to review ongoing research and development of agrifood             biotechnology, to monitor experimental facili- ties, to devise policies for research and             development in rDNA research, to formulate safety guidelines for research, to design the             biosafety program for risk assessment, and to decide whether to approve the commercial             distribution of seed for crop production. 8. Cry1Ac is a particular form of the Bt gene             described in note 2. 9. A pseudonym is used here to maintain the anonymity of the             village where fieldwork was conducted. 10. The cotton season in south Gujarat begins             around May and June and farmers begin to pick cotton and sell it from October to January             and February of the subsequent year. Nb151 is said to be an early variety, which means             that farmers pick it and sell it earlier than they do other hybrid varieties. 11. A             pseudonym. 12. According to India's census of agriculture, farmers are categorized into             four groups: small and marginal (below 5 acres); semi-medium (510 acres); medium (1025             acres); and large (above 25 acres). For the purpose of examining the variations of dis-             course among different land-holding groups, the authors of this article made use of             three categories: small (below 5 acres); medium (5 to 25 acres); and large (above 25             acres). Farmers who were either landless or laborers were excluded from the analysis,             because two pretests conducted in west Gujarat and south Gujarat suggested that they             have less say than the other groups in determining which kinds of seeds are used and             they were less aware of Bt cotton. 13. Although social actors did not relate the use of             GM seeds to soil fertility in the national discourse, the impact on the soil from the             use of GM seeds was the most salient issue raised in the local discourse. The view most             commonly shared among cotton growers is that the continuous use of GM seeds on the same             plot will diminish the levels of nutrients in the soil thus resulting in harder and             dryer land. Although the growers express this view, no growers report that they have             actually experienced such phenomena yet. 14. This is a doctrine that envisages every             village of India to be self-supporting and self- contained through using the services of             the immediate surroundings. R E F E R E N C E S Bagchi, K.S. (1991) 'Drought-Prone             Western India: Gujarat', Drought-Prone India: Problems and Perspectives, Vol. 1, pp.             4109. New Delhi: Agricole. Barwale, R. (2002) 'Transgenic Cotton: A Case Study', in             G.J. Randhawa, R.K. Khetarpal, R.K. Tyagi and B.S. Dhillon (eds) Transgenic Crops and             Biosafety Concerns, pp.15663. New Delhi: National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources.             488 Discourse & Society 15(4) Benford, R.D. and Snow, D.A. (2000) 'Framing             Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment', Annual Review of Sociology             26: 61139. Best, J. (1995) Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems.             New York: De Gruyter. Black, J. (2002) 'Regulatory Conversations', Journal of Law and             Society 29 (1): 16396. Buttel, F.H. and Barker, R. (1985) 'Emerging Agricultural             Technologies, Public Policy, and Implications for Third World Agriculture: The Case of             Biotechnology', American Journal of Agricultural Economics December: 11705. Callon, M.             (1986) 'Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of Scallops and the             Fishermen of St Brieux Bay', in J. Law (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology             of Knowledge? , pp.196229. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Chaturvedi, S.             (2002) Measuring Development in Biotechnology: International Institutions, Status in             India and Agenda Before Developing Countries, RIS Discussion Paper No. RIS-DP 17/2002.             New Delhi: Research & Information System for the Non-Aligned & Other             Developing Countries. Cotton Corporation of India (2000) Indian Cotton: A Profile.             Mumbai: Cotton Corporation of India. Cress, D.M. and Snow, D.A. (2000) 'The Outcomes of             Homeless Mobilization: The Influence of Organization, Disruption, Political Mediation,             and Framing', American Journal of Sociology 105: 1063104. DaSilva, E.J., Ratledge, C.             and Sasson, A. (1992) Biotechnology: Economic and Social Aspects Issues for Developing             Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Greef, W. (2001) 'Agricultural             Biotechnology and Moral Imperatives', Vitro Plant 36(5): 30911. Dryzek, J.S. (1997) The             Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.             Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Gamson,             W.A. and Modigliani, A. (1989) 'Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A             Constructionist Approach', American Journal of Sociology 95(1): 137. Gamson, W.A.,             Croteau, D., Hoynes, W. and Sasson, T. (1992) 'Media Images and the Social Construction             of Reality', Annual Review of Society 18: 37393. Gamson, W.A. (1992) Talking Politics.             New York: Cambridge University Press. Gamson, W.A. (1993) 'Movements and Media as             Interacting Systems', American Academy of Political Social Science 528 (July): 11425.             Gandhi, M.K. (1937) 'Harijan, 9.1.', in R.K. Prabhu (ed.) Panchayat Raj, Vol.14.             Ahmedabad: Navajivan. Ghosh, P.K. (2000) 'Indian Experiments on Bt Cotton', Agro India             4(4): 2830. Glendinning, A., Mahapatra, A. and Mitchell, C.P. (2001) 'Modes of             Communication and Effectiveness of Agroforestry Extension in Eastern India', Human             Ecology 29(3): 283305. Goffman, E. (1986) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization             of Experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Government of India (2002)             Recombinant DNA Safety Guidelines 1990. New Delhi: Department of Biotechnology, Union             Ministry of Science and Technology. Grove, R. (1995) Green Imperialism: Colonial             Expansion, Tropical Island Edens, and the Origins of Environmentalism, 16001860. New             York: Cambridge University Press. Gupta, A. (2000) Postcolonial Developments:             Agriculture in the Making of Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Hajer,             M.A. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the             Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Yamaguchi and Harris: The economic             hegemonization of Bt Cotton 489 Hannigan, J.A. (1995) Environmental Sociology: A Social             Constructionist Perspective. New York: Routledge. Hay, C. (1996) 'Narrating Crisis:The             Discursive Construction of the Winter of Discontent', Sociology 30(2): 25377. Jeffrey,             R. (2000) India's Newspaper Revolution: Capitalism, Politics and the Indian-Language             Press 19771999. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Knorr, K.D. (1980) The Manufacture             of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. New York:             Pergamon Press. Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and             Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. and             Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly             Hills, CA: Sage. Litfin, K.T. (1994) Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global             Environmental Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press. Malhotra, S.P., Saha,             D.K. and Krishna, G.V.S.R. (1983) 'Factors Influencing Information Sources: A Study of             Causal Relationship', Annals of Arid Zone 22: 31317. Manning, P.K. (1992)             Organizational Communication. New York: de Gruyter. Nanda, M. (1999) 'Who Needs             Post-Development? Discourses of Difference, Green Revolution and Agrarian Populism in             India', Journal of Developing Societies 15(1): 531. Nelkin, D. (1992) Controversy:             Politics of Technical Decisions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Patel, U.G. (1994) Research             Highlights: Cotton. Surat: Gujarat Agricultural University, Main Cotton Research             Station. Qaim, M. (1998) Transgenic Virus Resistant Potatoes in Mexico: Potential             Socioeconomic Implications of NorthSouth Biotechnology Transfer. ISAAA Briefs no. 7, p.             48. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA. Rajaram, N. (1999) 'Politics and Cotton Co-Operatives in Central             Gujarat', Economic and Political Weekly 34: 2095103. Sahai, S. (2002, 20 April) 'The Bt             Cotton Case', Mainstream 40(18): 1517. Shah, A.M. (1988) Division and Hierarchy: An             Overview of Caste in Gujarat. New Delhi: Hindustan. Shiva, V. (2002) 'Bioterrorism Makes             Regulation of Genetic Engineering a Security Imperative', Resurgence 211: 423. Shiva,             V., Emani, A. and Jafri, A.H. (1999) 'Globalisation and Threat to Seed Security: Case of             Transgenic Cotton Trials in India', Economic and Political Weekly 34: 60113.             Skillington, T. (1997) 'Politics and the Struggle to Define: A Discourse Analysis of the             Framing Strategies of Competing Actors in a "New" Participatory Forum', British Journal             of Sociology 48: 493513. Snow, D.A. and Benford, R.D. (1988) 'Ideology, Frame             Resonance, and Participant Mobilization', in B. Klandermas (ed.) From Structure to             Action: Social Movement Participation Across Culture. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Snow,             D.A., Rochford, B.E., Worden, S.K. and Benford, R.D. (1986) 'Frame Alignment Processes,             Micromobilization, and Movement Participation', American Sociological Review 51: 46481.             Subramaniam, V.R., Dhake, A.V. and Dere, V.K. (2000) 'IPM in Cotton', Agro India 4(1):             13. Touraine, A. (2000) 'A Method for Studying Social Actors', Journal of World-Systems             Research VI: 90018. Tripathi, K.K. (2002, February) 'Bio-Technology: Government of             India Initiatives', SAKET Industrial Digest 1321. Thompson, P.B. (1997) Food             Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. London: Blackie. 490 Discourse & Society             15(4) von Glasersfeld, E. (1991) 'Knowing Without Metaphysics: Aspects of the Radical             Constructivist Approach', in F. Steier (ed.) Research and Reflexivity, pp. 1229.             Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Williams, R.H. (1995) 'Constructing the Public Good: Social             Movements and Cultural Resources', Social Problems 42: 12444. Woodhouse, E.J. (1992)             'Biotechnology and the Political Sociology of Risk', Industrial Crisis Quarterly 6:             3953. Yamaguchi, T., Harris, C.K. and Busch, L. (2003) 'Agrifood Biotechnology             Discourse in India', Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal Devoted             to the Developing World 8(1): 4772. Yearley, S. (1981) 'Textual Persuasion: The Role of             Social Accounting in the Construction of Scientific Argument', Philosophy of the Social             Sciences 11: 40935. Zald, M.N. (1996) 'Culture, Ideology, and Strategic Framing', in D.             McAdam, J. McCarthy and M. Zald (eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements:             Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings, pp. 26174.             Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. TO M I KO YA M AG U C H I is a PhD candidate in             sociology at Michigan State University. She has conducted field research in India as a             visiting fellow at the Institute of Rural Management, Anand, India. She completed             masters training in international development at the University of Bath and worked for             the United Nations Centre for Regional Development. A D D R E S S : Department of             Sociology, Michigan State University, 316 Berkey Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1111, USA.             [email: yamaguc3@msu.edu] C R A I G K . H A R R I S is an Associate Professor of             Sociology at Michigan State University. He specializes in the sociology of agriculture             and the sociology of international development. His research focuses on the sustainable             use of natural resources in agriculture and fisheries. He has worked extensively on             farmers' understandings of and decisions about farming methods and practices. Yamaguchi             and Harris: The economic hegemonization of Bt Cotton 491</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
</custom-meta-wrap>
</article-meta>
</front>
<back><notes><p>1. <italic>Bt</italic>
 stands for <italic>Bacillus thuringiensis</italic>
, a species of bacteria that             produces a chemical that is toxic to certain insects and pests. When <italic>Bt</italic>
 genes             are transferred to cotton, the plants express the toxin, which is toxic to the bollworm             complex – major pests in the cotton growing regions of India.</p>
<p>2. For analytical purposes we wanted to separate actors into five conceptual groups.             Because of the potential overlap among the categories, it was necessary to establish a             hierarchical scheme for the allocation of social actors into groups. The assignment was             in the following order: government, industry, farming, science and nongovernmental organizations.</p>
<p>3. Terminator technology is a gene protection technology inserted in plants that blocks             the production of fertile seeds. Use of the gene provides seed producers with security             against unauthorized use of new plant varieties. Critics argue that the terminator gene             would compel farmers to purchase seeds from patent holders who own the rights to new             crop varieties.</p>
<p>4. In order to cross-check the accuracy of translation, two persons worked on the             articles. First, one person translated articles from Gujarati into English, and then the             translated articles were translated back into Gujarati by the second person.</p>
<p>5. No article was found in the Gujarati-language newspapers before 1999. As mentioned in             the text, the article in 1999 features the speeches by the Prime Minister of India             concerning India’s policy on biotechnology. The content suggests that it is             the first time that issues related to biotechnology had been reported in the regional             language newspapers. Although no records prior to 1998 were available at the newspaper             companies, consultation with the editors confirmed that there had been no articles in             the Gujarati-language newspapers prior to 1998.</p>
<p>6. For a further discussion of the substantive content of the frames, see Yamaguchi et             al. (2003).</p>
<p>7. The system is often described as a three-tier system (the Institutional Biosafety             Committee, the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation, and the Genetic Engineering             Approval Committee), the assigned roles of which are to review ongoing research and             development of agrifood biotechnology, to monitor experimental facilities, to devise             policies for research and development in rDNA research, to formulate safety guidelines             for research, to design the biosafety program for risk assessment, and to decide whether             to approve the commercial distribution of seed for crop production.</p>
<p>8. <italic>Cry1Ac</italic>
 is a particular form of the <italic>Bt</italic>
 gene described in note 2.</p>
<p>9. A pseudonym is used here to maintain the anonymity of the village where fieldwork was conducted.</p>
<p>10. The cotton season in south Gujarat begins around May and June and farmers begin to             pick cotton and sell it from October to January and February of the subsequent year.             Nb151 is said to be an early variety, which means that farmers pick it and sell it             earlier than they do other hybrid varieties.</p>
<p>11. A pseudonym.</p>
<p>12. According to India’s census of agriculture, farmers are categorized into             four groups: small and marginal (below 5 acres); semi-medium (5–10 acres);             medium (10–25 acres); and large (above 25 acres). For the purpose of examining             the variations of discourse among different land-holding groups, the authors of this             article made use of three categories: small (below 5 acres); medium (5 to 25 acres); and             large (above 25 acres). Farmers who were either landless or laborers were excluded from             the analysis, because two pretests conducted in west Gujarat and south Gujarat suggested             that they have less say than the other groups in determining which kinds of seeds are             used and they were less aware of <italic>Bt</italic>
 cotton.</p>
<p>13. Although social actors did not relate the use of GM seeds to soil fertility in the             national discourse, the impact on the soil from the use of GM seeds was the most salient             issue raised in the local discourse. The view most commonly shared among cotton growers             is that the continuous use of GM seeds on the same plot will diminish the levels of             nutrients in the soil thus resulting in harder and dryer land. Although the growers             express this view, no growers report that they have actually experienced such phenomena yet.</p>
<p>14. This is a doctrine that envisages every village of India to be self-supporting and             selfcontained through using the services of the immediate surroundings.</p>
</notes>
<ref-list><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bagchi, K.S.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1991</year>
) ‘<article-title>Drought-Prone Western India:                 Gujarat</article-title>
’, <source>Drought-Prone India: Problems and                 Perspectives</source>
, Vol. 1, pp. <fpage>4</fpage>
–<lpage>109</lpage>
.                      <publisher-loc>New Delhi</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Agricole</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Barwale, R.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2002</year>
) ‘<article-title>Transgenic Cotton: A Case                 Study</article-title>
’, in                      <name name-style="western"><surname>G.J. Randhawa</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>R.K. Khetarpal</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>R.K. Tyagi</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>B.S. Dhillon</surname>
</name>
                  (eds) <source>Transgenic Crops and Biosafety Concerns</source>
,                 pp.<fpage>156</fpage>
–<lpage>163</lpage>
.                      <publisher-loc>New Delhi</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Benford, R.D.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Snow, D.A.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2000</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Annual Review of Sociology</source>
<volume>26</volume>
:                      <fpage>611</fpage>
–<lpage>639</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Best, J.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1995</year>
) <source>Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social                 Problems</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>DeGruyter</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Black, J.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2002</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Regulatory Conversations</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Journal of Law and Society</source>
<volume>29</volume>
 (<issue>1</issue>
):                      <fpage>163</fpage>
–<lpage>196</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Buttel, F.H.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Barker, R.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1985</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Emerging Agricultural Technologies, Public Policy, and Implications for                         Third World Agriculture: The Case of Biotechnology</article-title>
                 ’, <source>American Journal of Agricultural Economics</source>
<issue>December</issue>
:                      <fpage>1170</fpage>
–<lpage>1175</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Callon, M.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1986</year>
) ‘<article-title>Some Elements of a Sociology of                     Translation: Domestication of Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieux                 Bay</article-title>
’, in                      <name name-style="western"><surname>J. Law</surname>
</name>
                  (ed.) <source>Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?</source>
,                 pp.<fpage>196</fpage>
–<lpage>229</lpage>
.                      <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Routledge & Kegan Paul</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Chaturvedi, S.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2002</year>
) <source>Measuring Development in Biotechnology: International                     Institutions, Status in India and Agenda Before Developing Countries</source>
, RIS                 Discussion Paper No. RIS-DP 17/2002.                      <publisher-loc>New Delhi</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Research & Information                         System for the Non-Aligned & Other Developing Countries</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cotton Corporation of India</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2000</year>
) <source>Indian Cotton: A Profile</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>Mumbai</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Cotton Corporation of India</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cress, D.M.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Snow, D.A.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2000</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>The Outcomes of Homeless Mobilization: The Influence of Organization,                         Disruption, Political Mediation, and Framing</article-title>
                 ’, <source>American Journal of Sociology</source>
<volume>105</volume>
:                      <fpage>1063</fpage>
–<lpage>1104</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>DaSilva, E.J.</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Ratledge, C.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Sasson, A.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1992</year>
) <source>Biotechnology: Economic and Social Aspects Issues for                     Developing Countries</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>Cambridge</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>De Greef, W.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2001</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Agricultural Biotechnology and Moral Imperatives</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Vitro Plant</source>
<volume>36</volume>
(<issue>5</issue>
):                      <fpage>309</fpage>
–<lpage>311</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dryzek, J.S.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1997</year>
) <source>The Politics of the Earth: Environmental                 Discourses</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Fairclough, N.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1992</year>
) <source>Discourse and Social Change</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>Cambridge, MA</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Polity Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gamson, W.A.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Modigliani, A.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1989</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach</article-title>
                 ’, <source>American Journal of Sociology</source>
<volume>95</volume>
(<issue>1</issue>
):                      <fpage>1</fpage>
–<lpage>37</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gamson, W.A.</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Croteau, D.</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Hoynes, W.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Sasson, T.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1992</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Annual Review of Society</source>
<volume>18</volume>
:                      <fpage>373</fpage>
–<lpage>393</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gamson, W.A.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1992</year>
) <source>Talking Politics</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gamson, W.A.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1993</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Movements and Media as Interacting Systems</article-title>
                 ’, <source>American Academy of Political Social Science</source>
<volume>528</volume>
 (<issue>July</issue>
):                      <fpage>114</fpage>
–<lpage>125</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gandhi, M.K.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1937</year>
) ‘<article-title>Harijan, 9.1.</article-title>
’, in                      <name name-style="western"><surname>R.K. Prabhu</surname>
</name>
                  (ed.) <source>Panchayat Raj</source>
, Vol.14.                      <publisher-loc>Ahmedabad</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Navajivan</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ghosh, P.K.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2000</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Indian Experiments on Bt Cotton</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Agro India</source>
<volume>4</volume>
(<issue>4</issue>
):                      <fpage>28</fpage>
–<lpage>30</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Glendinning, A.</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Mahapatra, A.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Mitchell, C.P.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2001</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Modes of Communication and Effectiveness of Agroforestry Extension in                         Eastern India</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Human Ecology</source>
<volume>29</volume>
(<issue>3</issue>
):                      <fpage>283</fpage>
–<lpage>305</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Goffman, E.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1986</year>
) <source>Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of                 Experience</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>Boston, MA</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Northeastern University Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Government of India</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2002</year>
) <source>Recombinant DNA Safety Guidelines 1990</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>New Delhi</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Department of Biotechnology, Union                         Ministry of Science and Technology</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Grove, R.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1995</year>
) <source>Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island                     Edens, and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600–1860.</source>
<publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gupta, A.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2000</year>
) <source>Postcolonial Developments: Agriculture in the Making                     of Modern India</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>New Delhi</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hajer, M.A.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1995</year>
) <source>The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological                     Modernization and the Policy Process</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Clarendon Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hannigan, J.A.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1995</year>
) <source>Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist                 Perspective</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hay, C.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1996</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Narrating Crisis: The Discursive Construction of the Winter of Discontent</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Sociology</source>
<volume>30</volume>
(<issue>2</issue>
):                      <fpage>253</fpage>
–<lpage>277</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jeffrey, R.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2000</year>
) <source>India’s Newspaper Revolution: Capitalism,                     Politics and the Indian-Language Press 1977–1999.</source>
<publisher-loc>New Delhi</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Knorr, K.D.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1980</year>
) <source>The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the                     Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Pergamon Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Latour, B.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1987</year>
) <source>Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and                     Engineers Through Society</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>Cambridge, MA</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Harvard University Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Latour, B.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Woolgar, S.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1979</year>
) <source>Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific                 Facts</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>Beverly Hills, CA</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Litfin, K.T.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1994</year>
) <source>Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global                     Environmental Cooperation</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Columbia University Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Malhotra, S.P.</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Saha, D.K.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Krishna, G.V.S.R.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1983</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Factors Influencing Information Sources: A Study of Causal Relationship</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Annals of Arid Zone</source>
<volume>22</volume>
:                      <fpage>313</fpage>
–<lpage>317</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Manning, P.K.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1992</year>
) <source>Organizational Communication</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>de Gruyter</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Nanda, M.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1999</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Who Needs Post-Development? Discourses of Difference, Green Revolution and                         Agrarian Populism in India</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Journal of Developing Societies</source>
<volume>15</volume>
(<issue>1</issue>
):                      <fpage>5</fpage>
–<lpage>31</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Nelkin, D.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1992</year>
) <source>Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>Newbury Park, CA</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Patel, U.G.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1994</year>
) <source>Research Highlights: Cotton</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>Surat</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Gujarat Agricultural University, Main                         Cotton Research Station</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Qaim, M.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1998</year>
) <source>Transgenic Virus Resistant Potatoes in Mexico:                     Potential Socioeconomic Implications of North–South Biotechnology                     Transfer. ISAAA Briefs</source>
 no. 7, p. <fpage>48</fpage>
.                      <publisher-loc>Ithaca, NY</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>ISAAA</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rajaram, N.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1999</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Politics and Cotton Co-Operatives in Central Gujarat</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Economic and Political Weekly</source>
<volume>34</volume>
:                      <fpage>2095</fpage>
–<lpage>2103</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sahai, S.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2002, 20 April</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>The Bt Cotton Case</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Mainstream</source>
<volume>40</volume>
(<issue>18</issue>
):                      <fpage>15</fpage>
–<lpage>17</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Shah, A.M.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1988</year>
) <source>Division and Hierarchy: An Overview of Caste in                 Gujarat</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>New Delhi</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Hindustan</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Shiva, V.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2002</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Bioterrorism Makes Regulation of Genetic Engineering a Security Imperative</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Resurgence</source>
<volume>211</volume>
:                      <fpage>42</fpage>
–<lpage>43</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Shiva, V.</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Emani, A.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Jafri, A.H.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1999</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Globalisation and Threat to Seed Security: Case of Transgenic Cotton Trials                         in India</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Economic and Political Weekly</source>
<volume>34</volume>
:                      <fpage>601</fpage>
–<lpage>613</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Skillington, T.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1997</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Politics and the Struggle to Define: A Discourse Analysis of the Framing                         Strategies of Competing Actors in a “New” Participatory Forum</article-title>
                 ’, <source>British Journal of Sociology</source>
<volume>48</volume>
:                      <fpage>493</fpage>
–<lpage>513</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Snow, D.A.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Benford, R.D.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1988</year>
) ‘<article-title>Ideology, Frame Resonance, and                     Participant Mobilization</article-title>
’, in                      <name name-style="western"><surname>B. Klandermas</surname>
</name>
                  (ed.) <source>From Structure to Action: Social Movement Participation Across                 Culture</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>Greenwich, CT</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>JAI Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Snow, D.A.</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Rochford, B.E.</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Worden, S.K.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Benford, R.D.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1986</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation</article-title>
                 ’, <source>American Sociological Review</source>
<volume>51</volume>
:                      <fpage>464</fpage>
–<lpage>481</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Subramaniam, V.R.</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Dhake, A.V.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Dere, V.K.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2000</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>IPM in Cotton</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Agro India</source>
<volume>4</volume>
(<issue>1</issue>
):                      <fpage>13</fpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Touraine, A.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2000</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>A Method for Studying Social Actors</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Journal of World-Systems Research</source>
<volume>VI</volume>
:                      <fpage>900</fpage>
–<lpage>918</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Tripathi, K.K.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2002, February</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Bio-Technology: Government of India Initiatives</article-title>
                 ’, <source>SAKET Industrial Digest</source>
<fpage>13</fpage>
–<lpage>21</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Thompson, P.B.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1997</year>
) <source>Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective</source>
.                      <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Blackie</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>von Glasersfeld, E.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1991</year>
) ‘<article-title>Knowing Without Metaphysics: Aspects of                     the Radical Constructivist Approach</article-title>
’, in                      <name name-style="western"><surname>F. Steier</surname>
</name>
                  (ed.) <source>Research and Reflexivity</source>
, pp.                 <fpage>12</fpage>
–<lpage>29</lpage>
.                      <publisher-loc>Newbury Park, CA</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Williams, R.H.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1995</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Constructing the Public Good: Social Movements and Cultural Resources</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Social Problems</source>
<volume>42</volume>
:                      <fpage>124</fpage>
–<lpage>144</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Woodhouse, E.J.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1992</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Biotechnology and the Political Sociology of Risk</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Industrial Crisis Quarterly</source>
<volume>6</volume>
:                      <fpage>39</fpage>
–<lpage>53</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yamaguchi, T.</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Harris, C.K.</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>Busch, L.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>2003</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Agrifood Biotechnology Discourse in India</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Science, Technology and Society: An International                     Journal Devoted to the Developing World</source>
<volume>8</volume>
(<issue>1</issue>
):                      <fpage>47</fpage>
–<lpage>72</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yearley, S.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1981</year>
) ‘                     <article-title>Textual Persuasion: The Role of Social Accounting in the Construction of                         Scientific Argument</article-title>
                 ’, <source>Philosophy of the Social Sciences</source>
<volume>11</volume>
:                      <fpage>409</fpage>
–<lpage>435</lpage>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Zald, M.N.</surname>
</name>
                  (<year>1996</year>
) ‘<article-title>Culture, Ideology, and Strategic                 Framing</article-title>
’, in                      <name name-style="western"><surname>D. McAdam</surname>
</name>
                 ,                      <name name-style="western"><surname>J. McCarthy</surname>
</name>
                  and                      <name name-style="western"><surname>M. Zald</surname>
</name>
                  (eds) <source>Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political                     Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings</source>
, pp.                 <fpage>261</fpage>
–<lpage>274</lpage>
.                      <publisher-loc>Cambridge</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>
                 .</citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
</istex:document>
</istex:metadataXml>
<mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India</title>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Tomiko</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Yamaguchi</namePart>
<affiliation>Michigan State University</affiliation>
<affiliation>E-mail: yamaguc3@msu.edu</affiliation>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Craig K.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Harris</namePart>
<affiliation>Michigan State University</affiliation>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre>
<originInfo><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher>
<place><placeTerm type="text">London</placeTerm>
</place>
<dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2004-07</dateIssued>
<copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2004</copyrightDate>
</originInfo>
<language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm>
</language>
<physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType>
</physicalDescription>
<abstract lang="en">Among the various transgenic crops being researched and developed for India, Bt cotton is the only crop commercialized at present. Social actors in various professions and positions have been expressing their expectations of what will or will not happen if agrifood biotechnologies are or are not commercially introduced. In their discourse, these social actors have identified diverse and complex issues extending from questions of equity (how the benefits of commercialization will be distributed between growers in different social and economic strata, and how the environmental or health risks will be distributed and redistributed among different groups in the population) to questions of development (how to improve agricultural productivity so as to meet the growing food demands, and how to maintain national autonomy in agricultural technology). This article explores the discourse concerning Bt cotton in India by examining the interpretations advocated by various social actors. The concept of frame is used to analyze the content of print media and interviews. Analysis of the Bt cotton discourse shows that the dominant actors have shifted over time away from government and industry officials and toward farmers, and that the dominant frame has shifted over time from governmental process to economic impact.</abstract>
<subject><genre>keywords</genre>
<topic>agricultural development</topic>
<topic>agrifood biotechnology</topic>
<topic>Bt cotton</topic>
<topic>discourse analysis</topic>
<topic>farmers</topic>
<topic>frame</topic>
<topic>governance</topic>
<topic>Gujarat</topic>
<topic>India</topic>
<topic>social actors</topic>
</subject>
<relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Discourse & Society</title>
</titleInfo>
<genre type="journal">journal</genre>
<identifier type="ISSN">0957-9265</identifier>
<identifier type="eISSN">1460-3624</identifier>
<identifier type="PublisherID">DAS</identifier>
<identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">spdas</identifier>
<part><date>2004</date>
<detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption>
<number>15</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption>
<number>4</number>
</detail>
<extent unit="pages"><start>467</start>
<end>491</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="istex">7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8</identifier>
<identifier type="DOI">10.1177/0957926504043711</identifier>
<identifier type="ArticleID">10.1177_0957926504043711</identifier>
<recordInfo><recordContentSource>SAGE</recordContentSource>
</recordInfo>
</mods>
</metadata>
<serie></serie>
</istex>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Agronomie/explor/SisAgriV1/Data/Istex/Corpus

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000D13 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000D13 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Agronomie
   |area=    SisAgriV1
   |flux=    Istex
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     ISTEX:7684DA66F4BF5A36E7F9503D5B9551AE61F759B8
   |texte=   The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.28.
Data generation: Wed Mar 29 00:06:34 2017. Site generation: Tue Mar 12 12:44:16 2024

	Système d'information stratégique et agriculture (serveur d'exploration)
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Système d'information stratégique et agriculture (serveur d'exploration)

The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India

The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India

Source :

Abstract

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri