When good smells go bad: a sociohistorical ...

4 downloads 68 Views 149KB Size Report
Having provided a glimpse at the social underbelly of odor perception, we turn to the empirical case study. Here, public understandings of agricultural odors are ...
Environment and Planning A 2008, volume 40, pages 1235 ^ 1249

doi:10.1068/a39218

When good smells go bad: a sociohistorical understanding of agricultural odor pollution Michael S Carolan

Department of Sociology, B236 Clark, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1784, USA; e-mail: [email protected] Received 30 June 2006; in revised form 17 September 2006

Abstract. In this paper, I seek to add to the sociological and geographical literature on odor by documenting the processes through which perceptions of agricultural odors are mediated and contested. Specifically, its empirical focus is on how residents living near a large-scale hog facility within the state of Iowa actively `do' smell. In doing this, this papers draws not only from the historical, anthropological, and sociological literature on odor, but also from the field of animal (rural) geography. The findings of this research are organized around the following themes: (1) rural ^ urban transgressions; (2) inside ^ outside policing; (3) ties to local social network; (4) perceptions of agriculture; (5) a sense of powerlessness; and (6) shaping smell through sight. When taken together, an understanding of agricultural odor is provided that is both active (in that it is something we `do') and historical (recognizing that such `doing' always occurs within a particular sociohistorical milieu).

Introduction An extensive and growing literature surrounds the topic of how individuals perceive and to a certain degree socially construct `pollution'. Yet, most of this research centers on the topics of air and water contamination to the near complete exclusion of odor pollution (eg Bickerstaff and Walker, 1999; 2001; 2003; Bush et al, 2001; 2002; Demeritt, 2001; Haw et al, 2000). We thus still possess only a minimal understanding of how odors are constructed and negotiated, particularly in regard to those viewed as problematic. We have all experienced situations were individuals disagree over certain odors. Whether it be the scent of a new perfume, the smell of freshly brewed coffee, or the odor of manure, people often do not see eye-to-eye (or, more accurately, nose-to-nose) when it comes to assessing odors. Admittedly, in some instances this may be a rather mundane observation, such as in the case of two people disagreeing over which cologne is the most fragrant. In other instances, however, as in the case of agricultural odors (and the smell of hog manure in particular), the conflicts that can arise over such divergent perceptions can become quite heated (Furuseth, 1997; Johnsen, 2003). This gap is surprising given how such controversies speak to literatures in both sociology and geography. Yet, while socioenvironmental scholars have provided keen insights into the politics of pollution, discussions often stop short of addressing the phenomenon of odor. Similarly, the topic of large-scale animal facilities, in terms of their social, environmental, and health impacts, has been a popular issue of late among rural scholars (eg Mackenzie and Krogman, 2005; McMillian and Schulman, 2003; Novek, 2003; Thu and Durrenberger, 1998). Yet, even here the literature is surprisingly silent when it comes to providing a contextual understanding of how agricultural odors are negotiated `on the ground'. This paper adds to this still fledgling area of study by documenting the processes through which perceptions of agricultural odors are mediated and contested. Specifically, its empirical focus is on how residents living near a large-scale hog facility within

1236

M S Carolan

the state of Iowa actively `do' smell. This is in recognition that smelling, like all sociocorporeal activities (Elias, 2000; Turner, 1984), is a thoroughly social and thus performative act (Low, 2005). And, as such, it is a highly relevant subject for sociological study. The goal of this paper is to situate agricultural odor pollution in a historical and contemporary context. In doing this, I draw not only from the historical, anthropological, and sociological literature on odor, but also from the field of animal (rural) geography. I begin by providing a brief overview of how odor perceptions are imbued with social and cultural meaning. Attention then turns to the empirical case study, beginning with a discussion of methods. The findings of this research are organized according to the following emergent themes: (1) rural ^ urban transgressions; (2) inside ^ outside policing; (3) ties to local social network; (4) perceptions of agriculture; (5) a sense of powerlessness; and (6) shaping smell through sight. When taken together, an understanding of agricultural odor is provided that is both active (in that it is something we `do') and historical (recognizing that such `doing' always occurs within a particular sociohistorical milieu). The paper concludes by discussing the implications of this analysis for understanding livestock odors in particular and problematic smells more generally. Contextualizing the problem: the cultural status and significance of odor While the natural sciences continue to dominate discussions pertaining to our understandings of odor, a number of thoughtful works have emerged in recent decades in which it is argued that odor can only be understood when placed within its proper sociohistorical context (eg Carlisle, 2004; Classen et al, 1994; Corbin, 1986). As such works highlight, odors are repressed not because they are inherently inferior to other odors. Rather, the root of such repression, historically speaking, has often been that offensive odors are viewed as a threat to social order and morally significant boundaries. Odor perception, in other words, is a thoroughly social process. Another culturally significant aspect of odor is its ability to evade visual detection. The Enlightenment further reified the West's preoccupation with surfaces and sight (hence its long love affair with such ways of knowing as empiricism and phenomenology) (Jay, 1988). Conversely, representing a belief that predates the Enlightenment, odor has historically been viewed as getting at the inner truth (or essence) of things (Low, 2005). Thus, given the value placed upon being able to see things, it should not be surprising that there has emerged a cultural aversion to that which we cannot see yet know is there. Odor has the ability to display such propertiesöof experience devoid of sight. Relatedly, odors transgress boundaries and thus cannot be easily contained. One of the most abhorrent examples of this comes from Nazi Germany during World War II. While the Nazis were able to keep the sights and sounds of their atrocities toward the Jews largely under control, the odor of the crematoriums always managed to penetrate the boundaries they had created. As Rudolf Hess, the commanding officer at Auschwitz, wrote: ``During bad whether or when a strong wind was blowing, the stench of burning flesh was carried for many miles and caused the whole neighborhood to talk about the burning of the Jews, despite official counter-propaganda'' (as quoted in Classen et al, 1994, page 173). Historical and anthropological investigations have also highlighted the mutability of attitudes between symbolic systems toward `good' and `bad' odor. Take, for example, the Serer Ndut of Senegal (in West Africa). While the Serer Ndut find the scent of visiting Europeans repulsive, the visiting Europeans find the Serer Ndut to be

A sociohistorical understanding of agricultural odor pollution

1237

equally malodorous. Moreover, the Serer Ndut perceive the scent of the onion as fragrant, while the opposite perception is held almost universally throughout the West (Carlisle, 2004). If odor was purely a biophysical phenomenon, and thus objectivity given, no such discrepancies in odor perception should exist. Yet they do, so odor cannot be reduced to merely its underlying materiality. For another example take the Dassanetch of Southwestern Ethiopia (Almagor, 1987). The Dassanetch are divided along occupational lines, between cattle-raising pastoralists and fishermen. Each group is also identified by the smell of their occupation. Yet, while many in the West might find the odor emanating from both of these groups offensive, this is not the case among the Dassanetch. Cattle hold special symbolic importance among the Dassanetch and thus so too do their odors (as do those who handle them). To smell like a cow is therefore not only socially acceptable but desirable. As such, the Dassanetch do what they can to identify with this odor, from adults soaking their hands in cattle urine to men rubbing manure on their bodies and females smearing liquid butter on their shoulders, head, and breasts (believing it to be a male attractant). Conversely, fish, fisherman, and the families of fisherman are deemed foul smelling, due to the far lower symbolic status given to fish and those whose occupation is tied to them. Odor thus reflects, and reinforces, social and class boundaries among the Dassanetch. Those who smell of cattle are considered the social elite, while those reeking of fish represent the socially and culturally inferior. Class boundaries are thus rarely transgressed socially and sexually given how the pastoralists find the smell of fisherman and their families to be offensive. The notion of `the other' as foul smelling pervades the sociohistorical literature on odor (eg Carlisle, 2004; Largey and Watson, 1972; Low, 2005). As in the aforementioned example involving the Serer Ndut, `the other' delineates the foul from fragrant. Likewise, in the case of the Dassanetch, the marginal social group (the fishermen and their families) is deemed foul smelling: a plight similar to minority groups historically in both the United States and Europe (Bubandt, 1998; Corbin, 1986). In short, the perceptual frames we use to understand odors are culturally imbued with meaning. Thus, what people smell often reveals as much about the individuals themselves as it does about the compounds being registered by one's olfactory system. Having provided a glimpse at the social underbelly of odor perception, we turn to the empirical case study. Here, public understandings of agricultural odors are revealed for the socially, culturally, and spatially significant entities that they are. Methods A site involving a `mega' hog facility (those involving more than 20 000 animals) was intentionally avoided. While such facilities are frequently the focus of local and statewide newspapers, it was felt that a site containing a smaller operation ö that is to say, a 3000 to 6000 sow, farrow-to-finish unit ö would be more valuable for the goal at hand. I felt such operations would elicit a greater array of odor perceptions than if the operation was of the so-called `factory farm' variety. And it is for this reason that I was also interested in studying an operation that was locally owned and operated. Upon selecting the site, I began calling all the households that fell within a (roughly) 2 mile radius of the hog facility. In each household contacted, all available and willing adults were interviewed. Twenty-one individuals (from fourteen households) were interviewed. Each interview, which was tape-recorded and later transcribed, lasted approximately 30 minutes. Tapes and transcriptions were then coded and analyzed for emergent themes (from December 2004 to April 2005). I then reentered the field in the following spring (May 2005) to conducted further in-depth, personal

1238

M S Carolan

interviews of the same sample population. During this time, I attempted to reinterview those who had been interviewed earlier to explore certain themes that had emerged during the process of data analysis. I also used this opportunity to interview additional household members that were either unable or unwilling to be interviewed over the telephone during the earlier stage of data collection. During this period, five additional individuals were interviewed (who were not interviewed earlier) and nine individuals were reinterviewed. Again, all interviews were tape-recorded and later transcribed. In all, twenty-six individuals were interviewed (and thirty-five total interviews conducted) over the course of both stages of data collection. Questions asked during interviews centered on the following broadly defined topics: the significance of spatial boundaries for understanding odors; embeddedness to local social networks; perceptions of agriculture; attachments to place; and the role of nonolfactory experiential data to inform the olfactory experience. Mapping local understandings of agricultural odors I now discuss the themes that emerged over the course of this research. These themes, in no particular order, are as follows: (1) rural ^ urban transgressions; (2) inside ^ outside policing; (3) ties to local social network; (4) perceptions of agriculture; (5) a sense of powerlessness; and (6) shaping smell through sight. Rural ^ urban transgressions

The industrialization of agriculture can be traced back to the 19th century, and involves, in part, the substitution of fossil fuels and capital intensive production technologies (mechanical, chemical, and most recently biological) for labor. As others have detailed, this process has resulted in the consolidation, concentration, and specialization of farms as operators seek to spread their costs over as large an operation as possible (Buttel et al, 1990; Fitzgerald, 2003). The hog industry provides a classical example of this sociohistorical process. While the number of hogs in the United States has changed little over the last century, the number of farms raising hogs has decreased precipitously. What is perhaps most interesting [and for some most disturbing (Johnsen, 2003)] about this trend is the recent speed it has acquired. For example, the number of farms that raise hogs in the United States has declined from almost 700 000 in 1980 to approximately 78 000 in 2002. At the same time, the percentage of hogs produced by the largest sized farms (greater than 5000 head inventory) rose from 20% of total US production in 1992 to approximately 50% in 2000. Indeed, in the six year period between 1993 and 1999 there was a 250% increase in hog operations containing 5000 or more animals (USDA, 2004). The current state of agricultural odors, however, is a product of both agricultural concentration and dissipation; each represents two sides of the same industrialization coin. This is the effect of a twofold process. First, there are fewer farms today than a generation ago, which places greater distance between neighbors. Yet, secondly, among those farms that do remain, fewer are raising livestock today than was the case a few decades ago. For example, poultry has shrunk from being raised on approximately 78% of all farms in the United States to just 4.6% during the latter half of the 20th century. For hogs, that figure, during the same time period, went from 56% to less than 4% of all farms. And dairy cows went from being raised on 68% of all farms in the mid-century to only 4.3% of all farms fifty years later (USDA, 2004). It is against this historical backdrop that we can begin to understand how odor conflicts are in part a function of shifting human ^ animal relations, specifically in regards to how the humans think of the animals in spatial terms (Cresswell, 1996;

A sociohistorical understanding of agricultural odor pollution

1239

Philo, 1998).(1) Until recently, livestock (and their odors) were deemed `in place' throughout much of the countryside. Today, however, due to the aforementioned changing structure of agriculture and the concomitant changes in human ^ animal relations, the countryside is increasingly becoming a place where livestock (and their odors) are becoming notably `out of place'. According to Douglas (1966), there is no single definition of `pollution' held universally across social and cultural contexts. Definitions of pollution, rather, are culturally variable and reflect societal views of defilement or disorder. This led to her now famous definition of pollution as ``matter out of place'' (1966, page 35). The key for Douglas was that cultural understandings of pollution are reflections of a society's underlying organizational structure. In other words, the categories of `pollution' and `dirt' reflect moral boundaries of social and natural orders öthat is, of what is (and is not) `natural' and thus `right'. Such morally significant spatial boundaries were described by a number of respondents when outlining where animals (and their odors) are in and out of place. ``When you come out to the country you should expect to smell livestock'' (Jack). ``Folks from town think that just because they're out here that [the countryside] should start smelling like a city. Why they dislike the smell of a little hog shit, on the one hand, but seem not to be bothered by smog or automobile pollution is beyond me'' (Lou). ``Manure is a part of life. What could be more natural than animal excrement? Sure, it may not smell as nice as a field of flowers but that doesn't mean it should be demonized either'' (Bill). Thus, those who accepted such odors often did so because they believed that they were `in place' in the countryside, even if sometimes such smells were not found to be all that pleasant. As explained by Pete, ``That's just the way it is [referring to livestock odors in the countryside]. I may not always enjoy that fact of life, but I certainly accept it.'' Yet, just as this dichotomy was used to justify the smell of animal manure in rural space, it was likewise used by some for opposite ends. Utilizing arguments of what the rural should represent spatially, respondents likewise made the case for why offending livestock odors have no place in the countryside. In these quotations, boundaries are being transgressed and pollution is occurring. ``I love living out here. I love the smell of fresh cut grass [mowed lawn] and of the timber nearby. I didn't come out here to smell hog manure'' (Steve). ``I realize that it's unrealistic to say we shouldn't have to smell it [manure] at all. I mean, manure and odors are a part of agriculture. But, honestly, how natural is having thousands of animals confined in a building. That's were I draw the line. That's not what agriculture should be about'' (Ryan). Those who found such odors offensive and unacceptable thus often did so because they represented odors out of place. For these individuals, offending odors represent a state of disorder. They represent a state of the world that should not have been. And, as such, they represent a state of the world that needed to be corrected and thus made right.

(1) These changes arguably go back to early attempts at zoning that sought to exclude animals from within the city limits (except under certain circumstances, such as for use as pets or in zoos) (see for example, Philo, 1998). Animals judged unacceptable for city-space were therefore banished to the countryside.

1240

M S Carolan

Inside ^ outside policing

Relatedly, these socially constructed moral boundaries also underlie explanations for why hog manure odor is more of a problem in particular spacesösuch as within the home and, more particular still, in specific rooms of the house. As the following quotations describe, some spaces appear to make people more amenable to the odor, while others have the opposite effect. And when odor violates the boundary between these two spaces, it can quickly be construed as a type of pollution. ``I was raised on a farm and don't mind the smell when I'm outside. That's just part of living in the country. But when you start smelling manure when you're lying in bed or eating at the dinner tableöthat's just not right. Then it becomes a problem'' (Lisa). ``I could live with it if I didn't have to smell it in the house. You kind of expect to smell stuff like that out here. But I shouldn't have to smell it when I'm in my house'' (Donny). ``My children have to sleep with that smell some nights. They're [the hog farmers] polluting the very home we live in'' (Sarah). In addition to the above-mentioned reorganization of urban and rural space, contemporary understandings of agricultural odor perception must also be understood as a product of a long-evolving domestic smellscape. As others note, the mass deodorization of private space largely came of age during the 20th century (Fine and Hallett, 2003). While it was often framed as a matter of public health, the real motivation for companies to undertake this war on dirt and odor was profit. The ``commercialization of smell'' (Classen et al, 1994, page 180) has sought to play upon public fears so as to encourage the consumption of products that remove dirt and odor from homes and bodies in the name of protecting families and guaranteeing a certain quality of life (Hoy, 1995). As the 20th century unfolded, people (and women in particular) became conditioned to fear not only the dirt they could see within the home but also that which was invisible to the naked eye (Friedan, 1963). As a result, the boundaries between `indoors' (pure) and `outdoors' (dirty) have become fiercely policed in recent decades. The home has become our sanctuary: the one space we can control in this very chaotic world. In this space, dirt, dust, odor, and pollution of any sort have become our enemy. And we spend millions of dollars a year in machines, concentrates, sprays, and the like fighting this never-ending battle so as to defend this sacred boundary. For homes in the countryside, this boundary is upheld with a particular ferocity given the `pollution' that resides on the other side. Livestock, manure, foul odors, dirt, hordes of flies: all represent entities that, while `in place' in the yard, field, or barn, are noticeably `out of place' when located within the home. And as fewer farms dot the countryside, and those that remain become even further concentrated sources of `pollution', the vigilance in policing these boundaries will only increase as these spacesöbetween the `pure' and the `dirty'öbecome more divergent. This policing of boundaries between the `in here' of the home and the `out there' of the farm appears to be at work shaping odor perception among respondents. In fact, when asked if their perceptions toward their neighbor's odors varied depending upon whether or not they were in their house, the majority of respondents said such odors were less acceptable when smelled within their own homes. Yet, our understanding of such spatial transgressions can be even finer tuned. That is, not only was meaning ascribed to odor based upon whether or not it was located within the home. Also significant was the issue of which spaces within the home were being penetrated by this odor. In the following quotation, an individual points out the degree to which

A sociohistorical understanding of agricultural odor pollution

1241

specific spaces within the homeöand the corresponding moral boundaries ascribed to itöshape perceptions toward odor: ``The only time it really bothers me is in the morning when I'm sitting at the kitchen table eating my breakfast, drinking my coffee, and listening to the radio. The kitchen is just not a place I want to smell hog manure. It just doesn't belong there . ...Yet, when I'm outside, I can smell it, but it doesn't bother me nearly as much'' (Nick). For this respondent, the odor itself was not the problem. Rather, the problem was odor being in the wrong place. When outside, the odor was still present but it did not bother this person ``nearly as much'' as when he was sitting at his kitchen table in the morning drinking his coffee and listening to the radio. It appears that, even within the `clean' or `pure' space of the home, subtle spatial delineations were still being made by respondents, where some spaces where deemed more clean (and in need of being more clean) than others. It seems as though the space within the home reserved for the most significant boundary transgression of all was also most susceptible to odor contamination: the kitchen. Here, the corporeal boundary of the body is transgressed through the act of eating and drinking (and smelling the `in place' odors of food and drink). To therefore smell hog odor in this space, particularly during these acts of permitted boundary crossings (eating and drinking), is to risk defiling the culturally sacred boundary we have erected around `the body' (Turner, 1984). Ties to local social networks

There was a strong positive correlation between how long an individual had resided within the area and how accepting they were of the odors emanating from their neighbor's hog farm. Importantly, this positive relationship held for both farmers and nonfarmers alike. In short, a person's length of tenure appeared to play a significant role in shaping whether he or she viewed the odors in question positively or negatively. In the pollution perception literature we find a significant amount of evidence for what has been called the `neighborhood halo effect'. According to these studies, individuals are more likely to show a reluctance to speak negatively about the quality of the air in areas where they live (Bickerstaff and Walker, 1999; 2001; Francis, 1983; Rankin, 1969). Conversely, other research has shown that those who lack a strong commitment to the neighborhood are more likely to attribute an array of negative attributes to their immediate environment (eg crime or level of cleanliness), which includes how they perceive air pollution (Bickerstaff and Walker, 2003; Burningham and Thrush, 2001). The literature, however, is relatively silent when it comes to explaining the social processes that underlie these divergent perceptions of place. In this case study, these place-based commitments, and the divergent perceptions of odor they evoked, appeared to be a function of local, informal social networks. Thus, the more that people interacted with others in the area, the less likely they were to negatively perceive the odors in question. This was particularly the case when it came to how frequently an individual communicated with members of the family who operated the large hog facility. In short, the more an individual interacted with members from this family, the less likely they were to perceive the odor of their hogs negatively. And, conversely, less interaction with this family resulted in individuals describing their odors in increasingly disapproving ways. In fact, all those who expressed a strong disapproval of the amount of odor coming from the hog operation likewise reported never having met the family.

1242

M S Carolan

``I could see how people living next to a corporate-owned operation would get pretty fed up with its odors. But in this case I know the guy. My girls play with his girls. There's a real person there, a family. Those networks keep me seeing him, even in those days when the smell's rather strong, as a friend rather than a foe'' (Fred). Yet, these odor-shaping social networks went beyond having interactions with the family in question. In general, the more that people considered themselves embedded within local social networks, the less likely they were to describe their neighbor's odors in unfavorable terms. This parallels recent studies of local perceptions of air pollution, which argue that the meaning ascribed to such forms of pollution is influenced by informal social networks (Blake, 1999; Bush et al, 2001; Eden, 1998). Such networks, for example, told individuals, particularly during those times of the year when the odor was particularly strong, that it was not as bad as they might at first think. ``Sometimes the smell gets pretty bad, but then I'll find out from a neighbor that they don't smelling anything. It's easy to forget that what's a problem for you might not be for anyone else because of the direction of the wind . ... Talking to others helps keep me grounded by reminding me that the smell is only temporary '' (Bill). ``There was a stretch late in the summer last year when his [manure] pits really started to stink. But you can't really get mad at them. We're not part of the same crowd, so we're not all that close. My neighbor, though, is . ... She told me once that he drops odor-control additives into his pits. At least it shows that he's trying, that he cares'' (Marcy). ``We all know each other relatively well around here, so you can't stay upset at someone too long without someone stepping in and setting you straight'' (Nick). On the other hand, those who lacked such social networks also lacked this way of `knowing' the odor and farm family in question. This, in turn, often resulted in noticeably different perceptions of both the odor and the family. ``I wonder if they even care about how bad it [their farm] sometimes smells. ... I don't know them and quite frankly I don't want to'' (Max). Further understanding can also be gained by placing this theme against the sociospatial changes mentioned earlier referencing industrialization agriculture. Farmers from generations past were less likely to make a public ordeal over the smell coming from their neighbor's farm, even with the greater farm density that existed back then. This would have been due, in part, to the fact that farm families in the past were more likely to know each other: a family connection that likely went back generations (Hamilton, 1974). This is in stark contrast to what is frequently encountered today. The rural landscape of today is becoming more dominated by absentee landlords, first-generation nonfarmers, and tenants who reside in adjoining counties (Carolan, 2005). And as rural sociologist Paul Lasley has pointed out in reference to the growing conflict over agricultural odors: ``It's easier to file suit against people you don't know'' (Dukes-Lee, 2004, page D4). Perceptions of agriculture

As sociologists of knowledge have argued, there is no `View from Nowhere'öor what others have called a `God's Eye View' (Fox-Keller, 1985; Haraway, 1991; Harding, 1991). Yet, the same can be said for knowing through one's sense of smell: there is no `Smell from Nowhere'. As noted earlier, no smell is inherently `good' or `bad'. For instance, as argued by Miller (1997, page 247), ``good smells can be a cause for suspicion, mistrusted as a mask or a veneer covering something that needs to be hidden'' (such as in the case of a pleasant-smelling freshly deodorized bathroom). Along these lines, some have argued that the acceptability of an odor is a function of one's

A sociohistorical understanding of agricultural odor pollution

1243

knowledge of its origins (Low, 2005). Thus, the odor of ``strong cheese is much more tolerable [knowing it comes from cheese] than if thought to emanate from feces or rank feet'' (Miller, 1997, page 247). Take, for example, Ted. Ted left the family farm after high school to attend college. His initial plans involved leaving the farm and becoming a high school teacher. After college, however, he had a change of heart about agriculture and came back to help his parents farm (in the hopes of eventually taking over the family operation). As Ted describes, ``I went away to college for a few years and I think it [the odor] bothered me during my visits home more than it did before I left.'' ``Why do you think that was?'', I asked. ``It's hard to say. At the time I was sort of down on farming. Prices were really low so my parents were having a hard time making ends meet. I just had really mixed feelings about it all. I guess you could say I was rebelling against it. For a time I was really disgusted with it all. And, well, nothing says farming like hog shit, so I guess my disgust for farming could have colored my views toward the smell of [the neighbor's] farm.'' To know hog odors, then, is to, at least in part, know farming. Thus, when Ted had positive sentiments toward farming, he reported having positive sentiments toward the odors associated with it, including the smell of hog manure. Conversely, when he felt negative feelings toward farming his perceptions toward hog odors changed accordingly. And this appeared to hold for many of the individuals interviewed. All participants expressed various degrees of familiarity with agriculture, with all having spent at least some time on a farm (from simply a visit to actually living on one). Significant differences emerged, however, when they were asked to talk about how they felt about farming. In other words, did they view farmingöas an occupation and way of lifeöin favorable or unfavorable terms? In doing this, as described above with Ted, a positive correlation began to emerge between perceptions of farming and perceptions of farm-related odors (at least when it came to the odors coming from their neighbor's farm). Thus, to find odors acceptable is to find the origins of those odors equally acceptable. This helps to explain why respondents who, on the one hand, expressed acceptance of their neighbor's hog odors frequently spoke negatively about the odors emanating from corporate-owned hog facilities. Participants seemed to hold a double standard when it came to assessing the odors of their neighbor and those coming from a large corporate-owned swine facility in a neighboring county (even though that facility was only slightly larger than that of their neighbor). As one respondent explained, ``I've got a lot of tolerance for livestock odors when it comes to another man trying to make a living for him and his family. But what's going on there [regarding Corporate Hog Facility X], well, that's just another thing entirely. Every time I drive by I wonder what it would be like to have to live next to them; wondering what type of neighbors they'd be. Not very good one's I'd imagine . ... Now there's someone you should interview. Those people have to put up with a lot more stink than we do'' (Pete). It appears, then, that in the process of perceiving odors we are also relating those perceptions to other things that are known to us in an attempt to give those perceptions further meaning. And there is some support for this in the literature. For example, gender scholars note how gender roles have led us to traditionally smell men as `musky' and/or `sweaty', while women are often smelled as being `sweet' and/or `pretty' (Classen, 1993; 1997; Synnott, 1991). Similar research has also documented how

1244

M S Carolan

racist stereotypes have historically shaped how minority groups have been perceived as smelling, typically in negative terms, by the dominant social group (Bubandt, 1998; Largey and Watson, 1972). It appears, then, that similar processes, which involve our drawing upon nonolfactory experiences to shape odor perceptions, were also at work in giving shape to how agricultural odors were perceived among those interviewed (the role of nonolfactory experiences in the shaping of smell is revisited shortly). This brings us back to the issue of local social relationships. When individuals knew the farmer in question, they tended to perceive the operation öand importantly the odorsöas legitimate. Such positive perceptions were likewise typically accompanied by sentiments of trustönamely, that the operator in question could be trusted to `do the right thing'. As Lou explains, ``I just feel better knowing [their neighbor] as well as I do. I trust him to do the right thing. And because of that, when the smell might be a little strong some days it's not because he's managing his farm inappropriately.'' When set against the aforementioned changing structure of agriculture, this theme should not elicit optimism for future livestock producers. For, as production agriculture continues to concentrate into the hands of fewer farmers, so too will the number of individuals who have an immediate familiarity working on a farm with livestock decrease in a parallel fashion. And, for a growing majority of people, the only direct experience of a livestock farm will likely be a negative one, coming in the form of driving by, or living near, a large-scale livestock facility. A sense of powerlessness

Perceptions related to one's sense of agencyö specifically in terms of feelings of powerlessness ö also appeared to shape, in certain instances at least, how individuals perceived their neighbor's odors. A significant amount of research has already been conducted that examines the interrelationship between power, inequality, and the intersubjective and intrasubjective meanings given to environmental problems (eg Bullard, 1990; Bickerstaff and Walker, 2001; Hofrichter, 1993; Samson and South, 1996). While the sample population of this research was homogenous in terms of race (all respondents were white), age (and to a lesser extent gender) emerged as having some relationship to expressions of powerlessness: perceptions which, as noted, helped to negatively shape how those individuals perceived the odors in question. Admittedly, the topic of power rarely came up over the course of the interviews. Yet, when it did, it was a significant variable in helping to explain why those respondents viewed their neighbor's odors as they did. Significant also was the fact that this theme emerged only during interviews with individuals over the age of sixty, and in interviews with females (three times) more than males (once). Specifically, while the term was never used, a sense of powerlessness was described by respondents in their descriptions of being marginalized from local social networks. ``What are we supposed to do? Who can we complain to about the smell? We don't know the family [of the hog farm] and even if we did I doubt they'd listen . ... They'd just think we're a pair of grouchy old neighbors'' (Elizabeth). ``I don't know what bothers me more, the smell or the fact that we've got no control over what goes on around us. Another even bigger [hog] operation could open up right next to us and we'd just have to watch it happen'' (Sam). One individual in particular spoke at length on this theme. Betty lives alone in a house that she has lived in for over fifty years. Since her husband passed away a number of years ago, she has spent much of her time alone. As she told me, ``Most of my friends, not to mention my husband, have died.'' As Betty explained,

A sociohistorical understanding of agricultural odor pollution

1245

``My body just can't take that smell [of hog manure] anymore. I have asthma and worry about how it might affect me . ... I'm all alone here and don't really keep in regular contact with anyone, so if something where to happen to me I could really be in trouble . ... Once I get a hint of that smell I immediately close the house up. Even a light whiff gets me worried.'' Then, later in the interview, Betty remarked, ``It's not like I could ever move [to another house]. Heck, even if I wanted to I couldn't afford it.'' ``If you could afford to move, would that change your attitude toward the smell?'', I asked. Her response was both frank and insightful, ``It would probably make me feel better about things, yes. By knowing that, if it got worse, I mean really bad, that I could just leave, yes, I could take a degree of comfort in that.'' For these individuals, social and economic capital öor the lack thereof ögave shape to their understanding of odors. Having access to social and economic resources was understood, at least by some, as providing an avenue for action öof controlöin he event of the odors becoming too strong. These resources could then be turned to, as a source of recourse, to mitigate any perceived threat. Shaping smell through sight

Many respondents also reported that the mere sight of the hog facility could evoke negative perceptions of its smell. ``I don't think the smell would be as bad if I didn't see those buildings every time I looked out my kitchen window'' (Jane). ``It's hard to forget about it [the hog odor] with those buildings always there, in your line of sight. They're hard to miss, I mean, they're always there . ... So even on good days, when the odor might not be all that bad, I think the mere sight of those buildings makes me think it's [the hog odor] worse than it actually is'' (Mike). Similarly, simply seeing the farmer in his field applying chemicals, even if it might not have been hog manure, evoked a sense of olfactory unease among some respondents. ``I get a little uneasy every time I see him out there [in his field]. I may not always know what he's putting on his field. But every time I see him out there the smell of manure seems to always get worse. Maybe I'm just imagining things, but that's what it seems like at least'' (Betty). ``When I see [the hog farmer] out there spraying manure [on his fields] it always brings the odor back to the forefront of my consciousness. It's weird, there are days when I start to forget about it, push it to the back of my mind. But then I'll see him out there, and then, like a switch, I start smelling it again. And then for the rest of the day, for whatever reason, it just seems to stick with me'' (Joe). These findings have some support in the air pollution perception literature. Within this literature, we see positive correlations detailed between the tangible and observable features of air pollution (for example, seeing particulate matter or smoke billowing from a smokestack) and negative public perceptions toward air quality (Bickerstaff and Walker, 2001; Bush et al, 2002; McDonald et al, 2002). Along similar lines, research has documented how local temperatures (which could be viewed as a tangible and observable feature of one's local environment) can influence journalists' coverage of global warming (Shannahan and Good, 2000). Relatedly, a number of respondents pointed to observable, tactile features of their environment to justify a response to the hog odor that might have been more negative than if they relied upon their olfactory system alone. In other words, they used

1246

M S Carolan

observable features of the environmental around them to better `see' odors, which often resulted in them perceiving the odors in a more negative light. Respondents, in other words, on occasion placed other senses önamely, that of sight and hearingöabove that of smell as they sought to determine just how bad the odors in question were [thus also lending support to the argument some have made concerning the low status of smell in the sensory hierarchy (Synnott, 1991)]. ``For one thing, there are fewer birds. You just don't hear them like in other places. And they don't come to my [bird] feeders like they used to . ... For the most part, as an objective smell, it's [hog manure] tolerable, for the most part. But then I think about those birds and I can't help to think that it might be worse than my nose leads me to believe'' (Ned). ``I've got a small farm pond . ... The frogs have almost disappeared [from it] since he [the hog farmer] expanded his operation. At night it used to sound like a symphony down there. Not anymore. I know what's happened to those frogsöthat smell is what'' (Mike). From this, we can see how odor is a highly mutable, subjective, and corporeal activity: a point that earlier themes also help to support. Thus, perceptions of odor do not merely change over relatively large timescales. But also, as highlighted above, those perceptions can change from day to day, depending upon the various lived, embodied experiences taking place at that moment. It is interesting to note that the use of sight to augment one's sense of smell appeared to occur (or at least was expressed) most often in those instances where social ties were lacking. As noted earlier, we all rely upon various experiential forms to make sense of scent. In those instances where respondents knew and trusted the operator of the hog farm, such trust weighed heavily in their understanding of the odors emitted from his farm. The affect, therefore, of seeing the hog building from a kitchen window or of the farmer spraying manure on neighboring fields would thus likely have little impact on how these individuals perceived associated odors. For such visual cues would likely not outweigh the trust they expressed having in that individual: trust that instills within them the belief that this farmer will (to utilize a phrase from an individual quoted earlier) `do the right thing' when it comes to managing the hog farm and its associated odors. Conclusion Millions of dollars a year are allocated to the (physical) scientific study of odors. Here, the goal is to develop objective, standardized measures for this thing we call `odor'. Yet, far less money is available to fund odor-related research with a social science focus, which I can only take to mean that such knowledge is assumed to be less important for understanding the issue. I hope this paper illustrates the naivety of this assumption. The topic of odor pollution must be approached from different disciplinary angles. I mention this because, as the above-mentioned findings indicate, agricultural odor conflicts are in part products of deeper controversies and broader organizational shifts. Such controversies may be over, for example, what industrialized agriculture fundamentally means for individuals in terms of rural community vitality, environmental sustainability, and/or animal welfare. They may be over differing definitions of what `nature' or `rural life' should be. They may be a product of changing animal geographies, which are slowly creating a concept of countryside where animals (and their odors) are `out of place'. Or, relatedly, they could be manifestations of changing human geographies, where farmers and their neighbors cease to interact with each other, which, in turn, results in a loss of trust between parties.

A sociohistorical understanding of agricultural odor pollution

1247

As this paper illustrates, odor is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon. Odor is something we `do', and that `doing' is situated within a particular historical and cultural milieu. Much of the literature on odor, which approaches the subject from a sociohistorical framework, has tended to give greater attention to the latter point than to the former (eg Carlisle, 2004; Classen et al, 1994; Corbin, 1986; Elias, 2000; Largey and Watson, 1972; Rindisbacher, 1995). That is to say, many of the well-known works in this area have situated odor historically and culturally. Yet, in doing so they have concomitantly neglected to also speak to how odor is negotiated `on the ground' by individuals. Thus, while the empirical focus of this paper is livestock odors, it also provides suggestive insights into our understanding of problematic smells in general. This is not to suggest that the analysis has been exhaustive in its scopeöfor example, the notion of odor as a corporeal experience has at best been only implied. Rather, through example, I have argued that odor is best understood when the investigation has an eye (or nose) toward analytic balance, viewing odor in both historical and performative terms. Such an analysis will in turn have an affect on future historical understandings of odor. As a result of this, future odor scholars will be able to better tease apart how the `doing' of smell both affects and is an effect of broader sociohistorical structures and evolving spatial patterns. When we smell, we imbue that perception with the weight of both the past and the present, which, in aggregate, constitutes the history through which future perceptions will be shaped. Understanding how the past and present couple up in ways that allow divergent odor perceptions to emerge remains a subject that needs to be further explored by social scientists. References Almagor U, 1987, ``The cycle and stagnation of smells: pastoralists ^ fishermen relationships in an East African society'' RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 14 106 ^ 121 Bickerstaff K, Walker G, 1999, ``Clearing the smog: public responses to air quality information'' Local Environment 4 279 ^ 294 Bickerstaff K, Walker G, 2001, ``Public understandings of air pollution: the `localisation' of environmental risk'' Global Environmental Change 11 133 ^ 145 Bickerstaff K,Walker G, 2003, ``The place(s) of matter: matter out of placeöpublic understandings of air pollution'' Progress in Human Geography 27 45 ^ 67 Blake J, 1999, ``Overcoming the `value ^ action gap' in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience'' Local Environment 4 257 ^ 278 Bubandt N, 1998, ``The odour of things: smell and the cultural elaboration of disgust in Eastern Indonesia'' Ethnos 63 48 ^ 80 Bullard R, 1990 Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) Burningham K, Thrush D, 2001 `Rainforests are a Long Way from Here': The Environmental Concern of Disadvantaged Groups (University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey) Bush J, Moffatt S, Dunn C, 2001, ``Keeping the public informed? Public negotiation of air quality information'' Public Understandings of Science 10 213 ^ 229 Bush J, Moffatt S, Dunn C, 2002, ``Contextualisation of local and global environmental issues in north-east England: implications for debates on globalisation and the `risk society' '' Local Environment 7 119 ^ 133 Buttel F H, Larson O F, Gillespie G W, 1990 The Sociology of Agriculture (Greenwood Press, New York) Carlisle J, 2004 Common Scents: Comparative Encounters in High-Victorian Fiction (Oxford University Press, New York) Carolan M S, 2005, ``Barriers to the adoption of sustainable agriculture on rented land: an examination of contesting social fields'' Rural Sociology 70 387 ^ 413 Classen C, 1993 Worlds of Sense: Exploring the Senses in History and Across Cultures (Routledge, London)

1248

M S Carolan

Classen C, 1997, ``Foundations for an anthropology of the senses'' International Social Science Journal 153 401 ^ 412 Classen C, Howes D, Synnott A, 1994 Aroma: The Cultural History of Smell (Routledge, New York) Corbin A, 1986 The Foul and The Fragrant: Odour and the French Social Imagination (Berg, New York) Cresswell T, 1996 In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology, and Transgression (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN) Demeritt D, 2001, ``The construction of global warming and the politics of science'' Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91 307 ^ 337 Douglas M, 1966 Purity and Danger (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London) Dukes-Lee J, 2004, ``Hog odor battles head to Court'' The Des Moines Register 21 March, pages D3 ^ D4 Eden S, 1998, ``Environmental issues: knowledge, uncertainty and the environment'' Progress in Human Geography 22 425 ^ 432 Elias N, 2000 The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations (Blackwell, Oxford) Fine G, Hallett T, 2003, ``Dust: a study in sociological miniaturism'' The Sociological Quarterly 44 1 ^ 15 Fitzgerald D, 2003 Every Farm a Factory: The Industrial Ideal in American Agriculture (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT) Fox-Keller E, 1985 Reflections on Gender and Science (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT) Francis R, 1983, ``Attitudes towards industrial pollution: strategies for protecting the environment, and environmental economics trade-offs'' Journal of Applied Social Psychology 13 310 ^ 327 Friedan B, 1963 The Feminine Mystique (W W Norton, New York) Furuseth O, 1997, ``Restructuring of hog farming in North Carolina: explosion and implosion'' The Professional Geographer 49 391 ^ 403 Hamilton C, 1974 In No Time at All (Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA) Haraway D, 1991 Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (Routledge, New York) Harding S, 1991 Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY) Haw, M, Cocklin C, Mercer D, 2000, ``A pinch of salt: landowner perception and adjustment to the salinity hazard in Victoria, Australia'' Journal of Rural Studies 16 155 ^ 169 Hofrichter R (Ed.), 1993 Toxic Struggles: The Theory and Practice of Environmental Justice (New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC) Hoy S, 1995 Chasing Dirt: The American Pursuit of Cleanliness (Oxford University Press, New York) Jay M, 1988, ``In the empire of the gaze: Foucault and the denigration of vision in twentieth-century French thought'', in Foucault: A Critical Reader Ed. D C Hoy (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 175 ^ 204 Johnsen, C, 2003 Raising a Stink: The Struggle Over Factory Hog Farms in Nebraska (University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE) Largey G, Watson D, 1972, ``The sociology of odors'' American Journal of Sociology 77 1021 ^ 1034 Low K, 2005, ``Ruminations on smell as a sociocultural phenomenon'' Current Sociology 53 397 ^ 417 McDonald, J, Hession M, Rickard A, Nieuwenhuijsen M, Kendall M, 2002, ``Air quality management in UK local authorities: public understanding and participation'' Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45 571 ^ 590 Mackenzie J, Krogman N, 2005, ``Public involvement processes, conflict, and challenges for rural residents near intensive hog farms'' Local Environment 10 513 ^ 524 McMillian M, Schulman M, 2003, ``Hogs and citizens: a report from the North Carolina front'', in Communities of Work, Eds W Falk, M Schulman, A Tickamyer (Ohio University Press, Athens, OH) pp 219 ^ 239 Miller W, 1997 The Anatomy of Disgust (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Novek J, 2003, ``Intensive hog farming in Manitoba: transnational treadmills and local conflicts'' The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 40 3 ^ 26 Philo C, 1998, ``Animals, geography, and the city: notes on inclusions and exclusions'', in Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature ^ Culture Borderlands Eds J Wolch, J Emel (Verso, New York) pp 51 ^ 71 Rankin R, 1969, ``Air pollution control and public apathy'' Journal of Air Pollution Control Association 19 565 ^ 569 Rindisbacher H, 1995 The Smell of Books: A Cultural-historical Study of Olfactory Perception in Literature (University of Michigan Press, Ann Abor, MI)

A sociohistorical understanding of agricultural odor pollution

1249

Samson C, South N (Eds), 1996 The Social Construction of Social Policy: Methodologies, Racism, Citizenship and the Environment (Macmillan, London) Shannahan J, Good J, 2000, ``Heat and hot air: influence of local temperature on journalists' coverage of global warming'' Public Understanding of Science 9 285 ^ 285 Synnott A, 1991, ``A sociology of smell'' The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 28 437 ^ 459 Thu K, Durrenberger E (Eds), 1998 Pig, Profits and Rural Communities (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY) Turner B, 1984 The Body and Society: Exploration in Social Theory (Basil Blackwell, Oxford) USDA, 2004 2002 Census of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

ß 2008 Pion Ltd and its Licensors

Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the E&P website for personal research by members of subscribing organisations. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or other online distribution system) without permission of the publisher.