Through a succession of liberal and state-socialist regimes in Hungary, the interconnections of gender, class, and soil management established much of the social framework within which soil scientists produced constructs that affected scientific explanations of and prescriptions to soil-degradation problems. Various metaphors, analogies, conflations, and externalisations shaped notions of soil productivity, the producing subject, and the nature of soils. Their legitimacy and justification emerged from the evolving interplay of rural processes, the economic policies of succeeding regimes, and capitalist world-system dynamics. The results of the study suggest that physical scientists have actively promoted regime ideologies, that gendered scientific constructs need not be grounded in dualistic syllogisms, and that industrialised state-socialist scientific practices largely conformed to bourgeois principles.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrolI PNambiarKKM, 1997, “Fertility management of Indian soils: A historical perspective”, in History of Soil Science: International Perspectives (Advances in GeoEcology 29) Eds YaalonD HBerkowiczS (Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen) pp 293–309.
2.
AgarwalB, 1992, “The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India”Feminist Studies18119–158.
AndorkaRHarcsaI, 1983, “Changes in village society during the last ten years”New Hungarian Quarterly2430–44.
5.
MorellAsztalos I, 1999Emancipation's Dead-end Road? Studies in the Formation and Development of the Hungarian Model for Agriculture and Gender (1956–1989) (Elanders Gotab, Stockholm).
BánkiM, 1988, “The place of legislation on the protection of the environment within the Hungarian legal system”, in Environmental Control and Policy Eds TamásALodnerD (Centre for Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Science, Pécs) pp 39–54.
10.
BaranyaiFFeketeAKovácsI, 1987A magyarországi talajtápanyag-vizsgálatok eredményei [The results of soil-nutrient analysis in Hungary] (Mezőgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest).
11.
BenetI, 1988, “Hungarian agriculture in the 1970s and 1980s”, in Socialist Agriculture in Transition: Organizational Response to Failing Performance Eds BradaJ CWädekinK-E (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 183–198.
12.
BerendI T, 1996Central and Eastern Europe, 1944–1993: Detour from the Periphery to the Periphery (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
13.
BlaikiePBrookfieldH, 1987Land Degradation and Society (Methuen, London).
14.
BöröczJ, 1992, “Dual dependency and property vacuum: Social change on the state socialist semiperiphery”Theory and Society2177–104.
15.
BuolS WHoleF DMcCrackenR J, 1989Soil Genesis and Classification (Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA).
16.
ButoracA, 1994, “Conservation tillage in Eastern Europe”, in Conservation Tillage in Temperate Agroecosystems Eds CarterM R (Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL) pp 357–374.
17.
CastreeN, 2003, “Commodifying what nature?”Progress in Human Geography27273–297.
18.
Chase-DunnC, 1982Socialist States in the World-system (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).
Engel-Di MauroS, 2002, “Gender relations, political economy, and the ecological consequences of state-socialist soil science”Capitalism, Nature, Socialism5192–118.
25.
EnyediGZentaiV, 1986Environmental Policy in Hungary (Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Pécs).
26.
FehérI, 1995A soknemzetiségu Baranya a 20. században [Multicultural Baranya in the 20th century] (Pannónia Könyvek, Pécs).
FeketeZHargitaiLZsoldosL, 1967Talajtan és agrókémia [Soil science and agrochemistry] (Mezőgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest).
29.
FélEHóferT, 1969Proper Peasants: Traditional Life in a Hungarian Village (Aldine, Chicago, IL).
30.
FodorÉ, 2003Working Difference: Women's Working Lives in Hungary and Austria, 1945–1995 (Duke University Press, Durham, NC).
31.
FrankA G, 1969Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil (Monthly Review Press, New York).
32.
GondaB, 1983, “A kemizálás a magyar mezőgazdaság fejlesztésében” [Chemicals and the development of Hungarian agriculture]Agrár Történeti Szemle27 (1–2) 255–338.
33.
GundaB, 1977, “Gathering of wild plants among the Hungarian people”Acta Ethnographica261–24.
34.
GyániG, 1998, “Patterns of women's work in Hungary 1900–1930”European Review of History5 (1) 25–37.
35.
HarveyD, 1996Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference (Blackwell, Oxford).
KováchI, 1998, “Hungary: Cooperative farms and household plots”, in Many Shades of Red: State Policy and Collective Agriculture Ed. MeursM (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD) pp 125–149.
42.
KrupenikovI A, 1981History of Soil Science: From its Inception to the Present (Amerind Publishing, New Delhi).
43.
KutílekMNovákV, 1997, “Aspects of the development of soil physics in Central and Eastern Europe and the impact of a totalitarian ideology upon it”, in History of Soil Science: International Perspectives (Advances in GeoEcology 29) Eds YaalonD HBerkowiczS (Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen) pp 241–259.
44.
LamplandM, 1995The Object of Labor: Commodification in Socialist Hungary (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
45.
LengyelZs, 1982Mezogazdaság, szövetkezetek, parasztság a hetvenes években [Agriculture, co-operatives, and peasantry in the 1970s] (Kossuth Könyvkiadó, Budapest).
46.
MerchantC, 1989Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender, and Science in New England (University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC).
47.
MészárosZs E, 1998, “Vidékfejlesztés és a nok” [Women and rural development]A Falu13 (4) 63–75.
48.
MiesM, 1986Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour (Zed Books, London).
49.
MiesMShivaV, 1993Ecofeminism (Zed Books, London).
50.
MoghadamV M, 1994, “Women in societies”International Social Science Journal46 (1) 95–115.
51.
MolnárM, 1977, “Work organization of a peasant farm (Tarpa, 1940)”Acta Ethnographica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae2679–108.
52.
O'ConnorJ, 1998Natural Causes (Guilford Press, New York).
53.
OrolinZs, 1977, “Hungarian agriculture and problems with the supply of labour”, in Economic Studies on Hungary's Agriculture Eds BenetIGyenisJ (Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest) pp 64–84.
54.
ŐrszighetyE, 1993, “Női munka a falusi szabadság határai közt-huszadik századi pályaképek Besenyőtelekről” [Women's labour in the context of rural freedom: Twentieth-century career portraits from Besenyôtelek]Tér és Társadalom789–102.
55.
PavlínekPPicklesJ, 2000Environmental Transitions: Transformation and Ecological Defence in Central and Eastern Europe (Routledge, New York).
56.
PlumwoodV, 1993Feminism and the Mastery of Nature (Routledge, London).
57.
PostKWrightP, 1989Socialism and Underdevelopment (Routledge, London).
58.
PostoneM, 1997Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
59.
RépássyH, 1991, “Changing gender roles in Hungarian agriculture”Journal of Rural Studies723–29.
60.
RocheleauDThomas-SlayterBWangariE, 1996, “Gender and environment: A feminist political ecology perspective”, in Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences Eds RocheleauDThomas-SlayterBWangariE (Routledge, London) pp 3–26.
61.
SallehA, 1997Ecofeminism as Politics: Nature, Marx and the Postmodern (Zed Books, London).
62.
SasJ H, 1976Életmód és család: Az emberi viszonyok alakulása a családban [Lifestyle and family: The formation of social relations in the family] (Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest).
63.
SeagerJ, 1993Earth Follies: Coming to Feminist Terms with the Environmental Crisis (Routledge, New York).
64.
SimontonD, 1998A History of European Women's Work, 1700 to the Present (Routledge, London).
65.
SmithN, 1990Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space (Blackwell, Oxford).
66.
SoaneB Dvan OuwerkerkC, 1994, “Soil compaction problems in world agriculture” in Soil Compaction in Crop Production Eds SoaneB Dvan OuwerkerkC (Elsevier, New York) pp 1–21.
SzalaiJ, 1991, “Some aspects of the changing situation of women in Hungary”Signs17152–170.
71.
Szent-GyörgyiK A, 1993, “Embourgeoisement and the ‘cultural capital’ variable: Rural enterprise and concepts of prestige in Northeastern Hungary”Man28515–523.
72.
TreitzP, 1942Talajtérképek és hasznuk a mezőgazdaságban [Soil maps and their utility to agriculture] (Stephaneum Nyomda, Budapest).
73.
ÚjhelyiT, 1988, “Hungary as a trade partner for socialist and market economies”, in Socialist Agriculture in Transition: Organizational Response to Failing Performance Eds BradaJ CWädekinK-E (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 373–384.
74.
VárallyayGy, 1989, “Land evaluation in Hungary—scientific problems, practical applications”, in Land Qualities in Space and Time Eds BoumaJBregtA K (Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen) pp 241–252.
75.
VárallyayGySzűcsLMurányiARajkariKZilahyP, 1980, “Magyarország termohelyi adottságait meghatározó talajtani tényezők 1:1000 000 méretarányú térképe. II” [The soil factors defining the productive characteristics of Hungary through a 1:1000 000 scale map 2]”Agrokémia és Talajtan29 (1–2) 35–71.
76.
VarjúS, 1998Nagycenk gazdasági néprajza [An economic ethnography of Nagycenk] (Hillebrand Nyornda Kft, Sopron).
77.
VölgyesIVölgyesN, 1977The Liberated Female: Life, Work, and Sex in Socialist Hungary (Westview Press, Boulder, CO).
78.
WallersteinI, 1979Capitalist World-economy: Essays (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
79.
WarrenK, 2000Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What it is and Why it Matters (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD).
80.
WhelanE, 2001, “Politics by other means: Feminism and mainstream science studies”Canadian Journal of Sociology26535–581.
