An Introduction: Ethnographic Accounts of
“The Middle” in Anthropological Studies of
(Agri)Culture
Ashley Stinnett and Jennifer Jo Thompson
This special issue of CAFE draws on regular conver-
sations between the authors over the course of several
years about the need for greater theoretical and ethno-
graphic attention to an area of agriculture and food
systems increasingly called “Agriculture of the Middle.”
Since the discipline’s formation, anthropologists
have contributed substantially to research on peasant
and subsistence livelihood strategies across the globe
(Douglas 1966; Evans-Pritchard [1940] 1981; Malinowski
[1935] 2003, Mintz 1960). More recently, growing bodies
of interdisciplinary research have developed in response
to rapid, global shifts in the agro-food industrial com-
plex (Bokusheva and Kimura. 2016; Lowder, Skoet, and
Raney 2016), and to growing numbers of small-scale
producers and emerging community food movements
(DeLind 2011; Hinrichs 2000). In fact, we find that the
majority of social science research (and policy) frames
agriculture in the binary—small-scale and local vs.
large-scale and global. Yet time and again, we have
encountered ethnographically grounded spaces that dis-
rupt this forked narrative—suggesting that researchers
are not attending to the entirety of human experience in
relation to agro-food systems.
Throughout our own work and in conversations
with colleagues, we find that “the middle” occupies a
vast territory—and is often ill-defined in theory,
research, and policy. We continue returning to the fol-
lowing two questions: Why is the middle absent in
anthropology, in policy, and, increasingly, on the
ground? And given its presence in our ethnographic
work, what are some productive frameworks for con-
ceptualizing or rendering the middle?
Ashley Stinnett is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Western
Kentucky University in the Department of Folk Studies and
Anthropology.
Jennifer Jo Thompson is an Assistant Research Scientist in the Depart-
ment of Crop and Soil Sciences at the University of Georgia and
adjunct faculty in the Department of Anthropology.
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment ISSN 2153-9553, eISSN 2153-9561. © 2018 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights
reserved. DOI: 10.1111/cuag.12172
The articles in this special issue draw upon ethno-
graphic fieldwork to examine the actors, organizations,
practices, and values that comprise “the middle” in
U.S. agro-food systems. Together, they expand theoret-
ical territory toward a conceptualization of “the
middle” with regard to agricultural production, pro-
cessing, and consumption from an anthropological and
ethnographically grounded perspective. In the intro-
ductory essay, Thompson and Stinnett synthesize
current scholarship on an “Agriculture of the Middle,”
by considering what anthropologists can contribute
theoretically and methodologically, and by providing
brief exemplars from their ethnographic work. They
address two main areas of import: How researchers
across (related) disciplines conceptualize and write
about “scale” in food production and consumption and
what can anthropologists uniquely contribute toward
the development of an “Anthropology of the Mid-
dle”—especially in terms of the experiences and
practices embedded in navigating network positionali-
ties and the incongruities of scale.
Stinnett presents ethnographically grounded evi-
dence from meat production research conducted in the
United States (U.S.), supporting findings of a definitive
gap between agro-industrial scale and small-scale meat
processors. In recent years, the push for local, sustain-
able and ethically produced meat is on the rise, yet
scaling up from niche meat processing to address this
demand has been met with policy and organizational
barriers, resulting in a lack of mid-sized processing
facilities nationwide. Yet, despite these obstacles, com-
munities of producers are crafting alternative middles.
Thompson draws on ethnographic work to examine
the re-emergence of “the middle” in efforts to bring
local foods into school lunch as a part of trending
“farm to school” programs. Although initial efforts
emphasized the social and economic value of direct
purchases from small farms, structural and practical
barriers have made this difficult in practice and have
fueled increasing demand for intermediaries—whether
local distributors or food hubs—to absorb the risks and
streamline the purchase of local foods.
The next set of articles examines the complexities
of scale: Wilson examines intersecting constructions of
scale (e.g., geographic distance, production volume)
that trouble definitions of “local food” in the agro-
industrial Palouse region of the northwest U.S., where
mid-sized producers are often at the upper end of a
porous local food network. Janssen conceptualizes “the
middle” in terms of practice, rather than scale, and
examines the process by which “small” and “alterna-
tive” producers in Iowa adopt conventional practices
of mechanization and specialization. In a collaboration
between anthropologist and extension faculty, Thomp-
son and Gaskin examine whether small farmers can
maintain their commitment to small-scale and “alterna-
tive” production values (e.g., building soil health and
maintaining crop diversity) even as they shift produc-
tion practices to gain access to more profitable
wholesale markets.
The remaining papers consider the role and position
of intermediaries in mid-scale agro-food systems. Brislen
examines the process of “scaling up” alternative food net-
works and the role of food hubs and other values-based
supply chains as intermediaries and support structures in
this process. She argues that “scaling up” requires far
more than technical support, and that values-based net-
works, like food hubs, are positioned to broker trust,
along with the social and cultural knowledge necessary
for “scaling up.” Tewari et al. examine the emergence of
“mission driven intermediaries,” hybrid non-profit and
for-profit enterprises that connect mid-scale and sustain-
able producers with mainstream markets. Through an in-
depth case study of one such entity, they examine the
way this unusual institutional structure supports rela-
tionships based on shared values while also enabling
organizational and financial resilience.
Finally, the special issue is capped by a commen-
tary by De Master that outlines the scholarship in
“Agriculture of the Middle” beyond anthropology. The
author reviews the deepening bifurcation in U.S. agri-
culture, including structural drivers and the emergence
of alternative food movements. She highlights areas in
which ethnography and anthropological research can
intersect with “values-based supply chains” research
and identifies areas for future research and scholarship
on “the middle” in agriculture.
Most of the articles included here were initially
presented at the American Anthropological Associa-
tion Meetings in Minneapolis, MN in November 2016
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
and have been revised and expanded upon for CAFE.
The contributors represent a fraction of the scholars
researching culture, food, and agriculture; neverthe-
less, we hope that this special edition will inspire
continued conversation and investigation into the ide-
ology of scale in agro-food systems, particularly with
regard to ethnographic interactions with research par-
ticipants on the ground and in “the middle.”
References
Bokusheva, Raushan, and Shingo Kimura. 2016. Cross-Country
Comparison of Farm Size Distribution, OECD Food. Agriculture
and Fisheries Papers 94. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Brislen, Lilian. 2018. “Meeting in the Middle: Scaling-Up and Scaling-
Over in Alternative Food Networks.” Culture, Agriculture, Food and
Environment. https://doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12176.
DeLind, Laura B. 2011. “Are Local Food and the Local Food
Movement Taking Us Where We Want to Go? Or Are We Hitching
Our Wagons to the Wrong Stars?” Agriculture and Human Values
28: 273–83.
DeMaster, Kathryn. 2018. “New Inquiries into the Agri-Cultures of
the Middle.” Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment. https://d
oi.org/10.1111/cuag.12219.
Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of
Purity and Taboo. London: Routledge.
Evans-Pritchard, Edward E. [1940] 1981. The Nuer: A Description of the
Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hinrichs, Clare C. 2000. “Embeddedness and Local Food Systems:
Notes on Two Types of Direct Agricultural Market.” Journal of
Rural Studies 16: 295–303.
Janssen, Brandi. 2018 “Small Farms, Big Plans: Mechanization and
Specialization as Measures of ‘The Middle.’“ Culture, Agriculture,
Food and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12221.
Lowder, Sarah K., Jakob Skoet, and Terri Raney. 2016. “The Number,
Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family
Farms Worldwide.” World Development 87: 16–29.
Malinowski, Bronislaw. [1944] 2013. Coral Gardens and Their Magic: A
Study of the Methods of Tilling the Soil and of Agricultural Rites in the
Trobriand Islands. Hamburg: Severus Verlag.
Mintz, Sidney. 1960. Worker in the Cane. A Puerto Rican Life History.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tewari, Meenu, Sophie Kelmenson, Andrew Guinn, Gabriel Cumming,
and Rudolph Colloredo-Mansfeld. 2018. “Mission-Driven
Intermediatries as Anchors of the Middle Ground in the American
Food System: Evidence from Warrenton NC.” Culture, Agriculture,
Food and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12175.
Thompson, Jennifer Jo, and A. Ashley Stinnett. 2018. “Confronting
the Goldilocks Problem: Encountering “The Middle” in Anthro-
pological Studies of Food and Agriculture.” Culture, Agriculture, Food
and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12173.
Thompson, Jennifer Jo, and Julia Gaskin. 2018. “An Extension
Specialist’s Reflections from the Field: Discovering Ag of the
Middle in the Shift from Direct Wholesale to Vegetable
Production.” Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment. https://
doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12220.
Wilson, Troy M. 2018. “Alongside the Grain: Conceptualizing Scale
and the Upper Threshold of Local in the Agro-industrial Palouse.”
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment. https://doi.org/10.
1111/cuag.12174.
2