Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement?
Identifieur interne : 000E11 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000E10; suivant : 000E12Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement?
Auteurs : Peter Martin ; Darren HalpinSource :
- Journal of Rural Studies [ 0743-0167 ] ; 1998.
Abstract
This paper explores the political relevance of the Landcare movement in Australia in an attempt to understand the capacity of rural people to develop political outcomes through social action in civil society. We relate Claus Offe's notion of a politically relevant new social movement to movement development in Landcare and discuss the implications of this in terms of movement stability, relationships with the state and neo-liberal governance in Australia. Landcare has many of the characteristics attributed to new social movements. People involved in Landcare typically express a commitment to participatory forms of action and coordination, believe in a ‘win-win’ approach to conflict and are opposed to government ‘telling them what to do’. Forms of limited protest and conflict with government occur when core values of autonomy and participation are perceived to be under threat and these values are perceived to be universal rather than just applying to movement participants. However, in contrast to the attributes associated with new social movements, Landcare does not have an outwardly ‘oppositional’ character and a high proportion of movement members in Landcare are farmers and close to the imperatives of agricultural commodity production. Further, the state has had a central role in the initiation and ongoing support of the ‘movement’. These two latter points of difference, however, confer the most ‘political relevance’ to the movement. The role of the state in catalysing Landcare and promoting the ‘program’ in terms of its participatory values, confers significant legitimacy on the outcomes of participatory Landcare fora. Further, the increased transparency and learning of the environment through Landcare activities by farmers can lead to a questioning of the current economic orthodoxy that underpins rural policy.
Url:
DOI: 10.1016/S0743-0167(98)00014-X
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:DD94808C4A4F0C5F743532D4C05E236305584A8CLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement?</title><author><name sortKey="Martin, Peter" sort="Martin, Peter" uniqKey="Martin P" first="Peter" last="Martin">Peter Martin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Agriculture and Rural Development; University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW 2753 Australia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Halpin, Darren" sort="Halpin, Darren" uniqKey="Halpin D" first="Darren" last="Halpin">Darren Halpin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Agriculture and Rural Development; University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW 2753 Australia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:DD94808C4A4F0C5F743532D4C05E236305584A8C</idno><date when="1998" year="1998">1998</date><idno type="doi">10.1016/S0743-0167(98)00014-X</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/DD94808C4A4F0C5F743532D4C05E236305584A8C/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000E11</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000E11</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement?</title><author><name sortKey="Martin, Peter" sort="Martin, Peter" uniqKey="Martin P" first="Peter" last="Martin">Peter Martin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Agriculture and Rural Development; University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW 2753 Australia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Halpin, Darren" sort="Halpin, Darren" uniqKey="Halpin D" first="Darren" last="Halpin">Darren Halpin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Agriculture and Rural Development; University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW 2753 Australia</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Rural Studies</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">RUST</title><idno type="ISSN">0743-0167</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="1998">1998</date><biblScope unit="volume">14</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="445">445</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="457">457</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0743-0167</idno></series><idno type="istex">DD94808C4A4F0C5F743532D4C05E236305584A8C</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1016/S0743-0167(98)00014-X</idno><idno type="PII">S0743-0167(98)00014-X</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0743-0167</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">This paper explores the political relevance of the Landcare movement in Australia in an attempt to understand the capacity of rural people to develop political outcomes through social action in civil society. We relate Claus Offe's notion of a politically relevant new social movement to movement development in Landcare and discuss the implications of this in terms of movement stability, relationships with the state and neo-liberal governance in Australia. Landcare has many of the characteristics attributed to new social movements. People involved in Landcare typically express a commitment to participatory forms of action and coordination, believe in a ‘win-win’ approach to conflict and are opposed to government ‘telling them what to do’. Forms of limited protest and conflict with government occur when core values of autonomy and participation are perceived to be under threat and these values are perceived to be universal rather than just applying to movement participants. However, in contrast to the attributes associated with new social movements, Landcare does not have an outwardly ‘oppositional’ character and a high proportion of movement members in Landcare are farmers and close to the imperatives of agricultural commodity production. Further, the state has had a central role in the initiation and ongoing support of the ‘movement’. These two latter points of difference, however, confer the most ‘political relevance’ to the movement. The role of the state in catalysing Landcare and promoting the ‘program’ in terms of its participatory values, confers significant legitimacy on the outcomes of participatory Landcare fora. Further, the increased transparency and learning of the environment through Landcare activities by farmers can lead to a questioning of the current economic orthodoxy that underpins rural policy.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>elsevier</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Peter Martin</name><affiliations><json:string>School of Agriculture and Rural Development; University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW 2753 Australia</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Darren Halpin</name><affiliations><json:string>School of Agriculture and Rural Development; University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW 2753 Australia</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>social movements</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>rural social change</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>landcare</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>environmental groups</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>neo-liberalism</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>citizen participation</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>Full-length article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>This paper explores the political relevance of the Landcare movement in Australia in an attempt to understand the capacity of rural people to develop political outcomes through social action in civil society. We relate Claus Offe's notion of a politically relevant new social movement to movement development in Landcare and discuss the implications of this in terms of movement stability, relationships with the state and neo-liberal governance in Australia. Landcare has many of the characteristics attributed to new social movements. People involved in Landcare typically express a commitment to participatory forms of action and coordination, believe in a ‘win-win’ approach to conflict and are opposed to government ‘telling them what to do’. Forms of limited protest and conflict with government occur when core values of autonomy and participation are perceived to be under threat and these values are perceived to be universal rather than just applying to movement participants. However, in contrast to the attributes associated with new social movements, Landcare does not have an outwardly ‘oppositional’ character and a high proportion of movement members in Landcare are farmers and close to the imperatives of agricultural commodity production. Further, the state has had a central role in the initiation and ongoing support of the ‘movement’. These two latter points of difference, however, confer the most ‘political relevance’ to the movement. The role of the state in catalysing Landcare and promoting the ‘program’ in terms of its participatory values, confers significant legitimacy on the outcomes of participatory Landcare fora. Further, the increased transparency and learning of the environment through Landcare activities by farmers can lead to a questioning of the current economic orthodoxy that underpins rural policy.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8</score><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>605 x 821 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>6</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1845</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>7595</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>51424</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>13</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>276</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement?</title><pii><json:string>S0743-0167(98)00014-X</json:string></pii><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><serie><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Johnstone Centre of Parks, Recreation and Heritage, Report no. 12</title></serie><host><volume>14</volume><pii><json:string>S0743-0167(00)X0015-0</json:string></pii><pages><last>457</last><first>445</first></pages><issn><json:string>0743-0167</json:string></issn><issue>4</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Journal of Rural Studies</title><publicationDate>1998</publicationDate></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>planning & development</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>social sciences</json:string><json:string>geography</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>1998</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1998</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1016/S0743-0167(98)00014-X</json:string></doi><id>DD94808C4A4F0C5F743532D4C05E236305584A8C</id><score>0.04010345</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DD94808C4A4F0C5F743532D4C05E236305584A8C/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DD94808C4A4F0C5F743532D4C05E236305584A8C/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/DD94808C4A4F0C5F743532D4C05E236305584A8C/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement?</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><availability><p>ELSEVIER</p></availability><date>1998</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content">Section title: Article</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement?</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Peter</forename><surname>Martin</surname></persName><affiliation>School of Agriculture and Rural Development; University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW 2753 Australia</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Darren</forename><surname>Halpin</surname></persName><affiliation>School of Agriculture and Rural Development; University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW 2753 Australia</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of Rural Studies</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">RUST</title><idno type="pISSN">0743-0167</idno><idno type="PII">S0743-0167(00)X0015-0</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="1998"></date><biblScope unit="volume">14</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="445">445</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="457">457</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">DD94808C4A4F0C5F743532D4C05E236305584A8C</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1016/S0743-0167(98)00014-X</idno><idno type="PII">S0743-0167(98)00014-X</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1998</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>This paper explores the political relevance of the Landcare movement in Australia in an attempt to understand the capacity of rural people to develop political outcomes through social action in civil society. We relate Claus Offe's notion of a politically relevant new social movement to movement development in Landcare and discuss the implications of this in terms of movement stability, relationships with the state and neo-liberal governance in Australia. Landcare has many of the characteristics attributed to new social movements. People involved in Landcare typically express a commitment to participatory forms of action and coordination, believe in a ‘win-win’ approach to conflict and are opposed to government ‘telling them what to do’. Forms of limited protest and conflict with government occur when core values of autonomy and participation are perceived to be under threat and these values are perceived to be universal rather than just applying to movement participants. However, in contrast to the attributes associated with new social movements, Landcare does not have an outwardly ‘oppositional’ character and a high proportion of movement members in Landcare are farmers and close to the imperatives of agricultural commodity production. Further, the state has had a central role in the initiation and ongoing support of the ‘movement’. These two latter points of difference, however, confer the most ‘political relevance’ to the movement. The role of the state in catalysing Landcare and promoting the ‘program’ in terms of its participatory values, confers significant legitimacy on the outcomes of participatory Landcare fora. Further, the increased transparency and learning of the environment through Landcare activities by farmers can lead to a questioning of the current economic orthodoxy that underpins rural policy.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>social movements</term></item><item><term>rural social change</term></item><item><term>landcare</term></item><item><term>environmental groups</term></item><item><term>neo-liberalism</term></item><item><term>citizen participation</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1998">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DD94808C4A4F0C5F743532D4C05E236305584A8C/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Elsevier, elements deleted: tail"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//ES//DTD journal article DTD version 4.5.2//EN//XML" URI="art452.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><converted-article version="4.5.2" docsubtype="fla"><item-info><jid>RUST</jid><aid>9800014X</aid><ce:pii>S0743-0167(98)00014-X</ce:pii><ce:doi>10.1016/S0743-0167(98)00014-X</ce:doi><ce:copyright type="unknown" year="1998"></ce:copyright></item-info><head><ce:dochead><ce:textfn>Article</ce:textfn></ce:dochead><ce:title>Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement?</ce:title><ce:author-group><ce:author><ce:given-name>Peter</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Martin</ce:surname></ce:author><ce:author><ce:given-name>Darren</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Halpin</ce:surname></ce:author><ce:affiliation><ce:textfn>School of Agriculture and Rural Development; University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW 2753 Australia</ce:textfn></ce:affiliation></ce:author-group><ce:abstract><ce:section-title>Abstract</ce:section-title><ce:abstract-sec><ce:simple-para>This paper explores the political relevance of the Landcare movement in Australia in an attempt to understand the capacity of rural people to develop political outcomes through social action in civil society. We relate Claus Offe's notion of a politically relevant new social movement to movement development in Landcare and discuss the implications of this in terms of movement stability, relationships with the state and neo-liberal governance in Australia.</ce:simple-para><ce:simple-para>Landcare has many of the characteristics attributed to new social movements. People involved in Landcare typically express a commitment to participatory forms of action and coordination, believe in a ‘win-win’ approach to conflict and are opposed to government ‘telling them what to do’. Forms of limited protest and conflict with government occur when core values of autonomy and participation are perceived to be under threat and these values are perceived to be universal rather than just applying to movement participants. However, in contrast to the attributes associated with new social movements, Landcare does not have an outwardly ‘oppositional’ character and a high proportion of movement members in Landcare are farmers and close to the imperatives of agricultural commodity production. Further, the state has had a central role in the initiation and ongoing support of the ‘movement’.</ce:simple-para><ce:simple-para>These two latter points of difference, however, confer the most ‘political relevance’ to the movement. The role of the state in catalysing Landcare and promoting the ‘program’ in terms of its participatory values, confers significant legitimacy on the outcomes of participatory Landcare fora. Further, the increased transparency and learning of the environment through Landcare activities by farmers can lead to a questioning of the current economic orthodoxy that underpins rural policy.</ce:simple-para></ce:abstract-sec></ce:abstract><ce:keywords><ce:section-title>Keywords</ce:section-title><ce:keyword><ce:text>social movements</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>rural social change</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>landcare</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>environmental groups</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>neo-liberalism</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>citizen participation</ce:text></ce:keyword></ce:keywords></head></converted-article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement?</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement?</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Peter</namePart><namePart type="family">Martin</namePart><affiliation>School of Agriculture and Rural Development; University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW 2753 Australia</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Darren</namePart><namePart type="family">Halpin</namePart><affiliation>School of Agriculture and Rural Development; University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW 2753 Australia</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="Full-length article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1998</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1998</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">This paper explores the political relevance of the Landcare movement in Australia in an attempt to understand the capacity of rural people to develop political outcomes through social action in civil society. We relate Claus Offe's notion of a politically relevant new social movement to movement development in Landcare and discuss the implications of this in terms of movement stability, relationships with the state and neo-liberal governance in Australia. Landcare has many of the characteristics attributed to new social movements. People involved in Landcare typically express a commitment to participatory forms of action and coordination, believe in a ‘win-win’ approach to conflict and are opposed to government ‘telling them what to do’. Forms of limited protest and conflict with government occur when core values of autonomy and participation are perceived to be under threat and these values are perceived to be universal rather than just applying to movement participants. However, in contrast to the attributes associated with new social movements, Landcare does not have an outwardly ‘oppositional’ character and a high proportion of movement members in Landcare are farmers and close to the imperatives of agricultural commodity production. Further, the state has had a central role in the initiation and ongoing support of the ‘movement’. These two latter points of difference, however, confer the most ‘political relevance’ to the movement. The role of the state in catalysing Landcare and promoting the ‘program’ in terms of its participatory values, confers significant legitimacy on the outcomes of participatory Landcare fora. Further, the increased transparency and learning of the environment through Landcare activities by farmers can lead to a questioning of the current economic orthodoxy that underpins rural policy.</abstract><note type="content">Section title: Article</note><subject><genre>Keywords</genre><topic>social movements</topic><topic>rural social change</topic><topic>landcare</topic><topic>environmental groups</topic><topic>neo-liberalism</topic><topic>citizen participation</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Rural Studies</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>RUST</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><originInfo><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">199810</dateIssued></originInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0743-0167</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0743-0167(00)X0015-0</identifier><part><date>199810</date><detail type="volume"><number>14</number><caption>vol.</caption></detail><detail type="issue"><number>4</number><caption>no.</caption></detail><extent unit="issue pages"><start>393</start><end>500</end></extent><extent unit="pages"><start>445</start><end>457</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">DD94808C4A4F0C5F743532D4C05E236305584A8C</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1016/S0743-0167(98)00014-X</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0743-0167(98)00014-X</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>ELSEVIER</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata></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 000E11 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000E11 | 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:DD94808C4A4F0C5F743532D4C05E236305584A8C
|texte= Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement?
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.28. |  |