The Suzhi farmer: Constructing and contesting farming Subjectivities in post-Socialist China

Abstract

This paper analyses the use of the cultural convention of suzhi in attempts to improve biosecurity practices in the Chinese pig industry. Suzhi loosely refers to 'quality' and has been used to define the appropriate conduct of citizens during the era of market reforms. Like other forms of agricultural governmentality, suzhi provides a way of distinguishing 'good farming' and creating entrepreneurial subjectivities. However, in other policy areas, suzhi has been shown to marginalise the poor and reinforce social inequalities. This paper examines the extent to which discourses of suzhi in a biosecurity context contributes to the use of preventive animal health practices, amongst pig farmers in Chongming Island, Shanghai. Drawing on documentary evidence and interviews with 33 farm animal breeders and 3 pig veterinary surgeons, the paper examines how suzhi contributes to the creation of 'good farming' subjectivities in order to modernise the animal health practices of pig farmers. The paper shows how suzhi contributes to the valourisation and stigmatization of different pig farming subjectivities, suggesting that it reinforces existing socio-economic inequalities. Moreover, the paper describes the ways in which modes of conduct associated with suzhi are negotiated and challenged and reduced to a symbolic 'cloak' that disguises the reality of preventive animal health practices.1 It is one of the primary objectives of the 11 th Five-Year (2006-10) policy program to develop the Chinese countryside with advanced production, a comfortable livelihood, a civilised lifestyle, clean and tidy villages and democratic administration. This program aims at combining agricultural modernisation, rural governance innovation, the expansion of social welfare, the strengthening of rural education and fiscal reform (See also in Schubert and Ahlers, 2012, p70). 2 This is a policy to improve rural people livelihoods and transform Chinese villages into well-off and civilised places. 3 The discourse of 'Building of Beautiful China' is emphasised by the 18 th National Congress of the Central Planning Commission. It is defined as "the sum of the beauty of the environment, the beauty of the times, the beauty of life, the beauty of society and the beauty of common people" (See Marlinelli, 2018, p14).

On-farm biosecurity in livestock production: farmer behaviour, cultural identities and practices of care

“…trust, relationships with government officials, stockmanship) and farm materials (e.g. technological systems, infrastructure, waste treatment facilities) influence farmers' decision-making regarding biosecurity behaviours [25,31,32,33]. Fatalism and luck also play a part.…”

“…Biosecurity practices such as following animal health standards, farm assurance schemes and codes of practices are symbols of 'good farming'. Previous studies have also identified good on-farm biosecurity practices as achieving high husbandry productivity with a clean environment, developing knowledge on the local environment and geographies around their farms, the production of healthy animals and better manure management [32,40,38]. Farmers may adopt their behaviours to attain good farming identity, approval and social recognition from other farmers [12,41].…”

Transition Pathways Toward the Prudent Use of Antimicrobials: The Case of Free-Range Broiler Farmers in France

“…All in all, farmers' knowledge and practices, among which their attitudes toward AMU, are associated with farming subjectivities which are equipping farmers with a certain sense of good farming, that is to say attributing positive values to a certain type of farming ( 56 ). Of course, these subjectivities are also the product of larger social structures which in our case mostly relate to the professional network and the FO, but in some cases can be more directly connected to national agricultural policies ( 57 ). For instance, farmers' identity has been used as a driver for change by one of the FO analyzed, which clearly stated an objective of changing the “culture” or “state-of-mind” of farmers to accompany them toward a reduction of AMU.…”

Politics of smell: Constructing animal waste governmentality and good farming subjectivities in colonial Hong Kong

“…environmental discourse and waste treatment standard) to shape the behaviour of individual farmers (Lemke, 2001; Rose, 1991; Rutherford, 1999: 113). For instance, Chan and Enticott (2019) elucidate how the idea of personal ‘quality’ becomes a discursive governing strategy that allows governing institutions to cultivate environmental awareness in Chinese pig farmers. Yeh (2009) also explores how the State problematised grazing practices and transformed the behaviours of pastoralists in Western regions in China.…”

“…For instance, during the Mao era (between 1949 and 1978) Chinese farmers and politicians valued the utility of pigs primarily as ‘fertiliser factories’ rather than for their meat production (Schneider, 2018: 236). Yet, industrialised pig raising during the post 1978 Market Reform period in China was perceived as ‘filthy’, ‘stinky’ and ‘polluted’ (Chan and Enticott, 2019). Phillips (2007) and Stibbe (2003) have elucidated how perceptions of pigs changed over time and space, coming to be constructed negatively as ‘dangerous’ and ‘filthy’ after a previously enjoying a relatively ‘close’ relationship with humans.…”