Our daily activities rely on a proliferating number of things that are subject to decay. As stressed in a growing body of literature, repair is critical to the smooth functioning of material infrastructure. However, this scholarship has overlooked a crucial dimension: things become fragile not only due to material degradation but also as a result of regulatory change. This article introduces the notion of “legal repair” to describe how, in the face of legal change, certain actors reassemble the material world. We elaborate on this concept through an analysis of the domestication of European Union (EU) animal welfare legislation by the French pig sector. While it was feared that stricter pig housing standards would fragilize the existing farms, pig farmers complied using technical systems that failed to significantly improve animal welfare. We analyze this domestication of EU legislation as a process of legal repair. Alongside the political work of the leaders of the pig sector, agricultural advisers also played a key role. Their work reveals the relational nature of legal repair: in the production of “local specifications” matching the demands of existing farming systems, in the negotiation of the finer points of the legislation, and in the redefinition of farming performance.
BermanElizabeth Popp. 2022. Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in U.S. Public Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2.
BertinCaroleRamonetYannick. 2016. “Etat des Lieux des bâtiments d’élevage de porcs en Bretagne chez les naisseurs-engraisseurs en 2015.” Journées de la recherche porcine48: 1–6.
3.
BillowsSebastianBuchterLisaPélisseJérôme. 2019. “Introduction: The Microfoundations of Legal Intermediation in Organizational Contexts.” In Legal Intermediation: A Processual Approach to Law and Economic Activity, edited by AustinSarat, 1-9. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
4.
BockBettinaBullerHenry. 2013. “Healthy, Happy and Humane: Evidence in Farm Animal Welfare Policy.” Sociologia Ruralis53 (3): 390–11.
5.
BourblancMagali. 2011. “Emancipated Instruments: Dependence on Instruments in the Management of Agricultural Water Pollution in the Côtes-d’Armor Department (1990-2007).” Revue Française de Science Politique61 (6): 25–45.
6.
BrunierSylvain. 2016. “The Work of Agricultural Advisers: Between Technical Instruction and Political Mobilisation (1950-1990).” Sociologie du travail58 (s1): e21–40.
7.
CailleMarie-Estelle. 2010. “Truies en groupe. Nourrir les truies en une seule fois pour des truies plus calmes.” Journée “Truies: en groupe toutes!” Chambres d’agriculture de Bretagne.
8.
CareyRachelParkerChristineScrinisGyorgy. 2020. “How Free Is Sow Stall Free? Incremental Regulatory Reform and Industry Co-optation of Activism.” Law & Policy42 (3): 284–309.
9.
DeKromMichielP. M. M., 2015. “Governing Animal-human Relations in Farming Practices: A Study of Group Housing of Sows in the EU.” Sociologia Ruralis55 (4): 417–37.
10.
DenisJérômePontilleDavid. 2015. “Material Ordering and the Care of Things.” Science, Technology, & Human Values40 (3), 338–367.
11.
DenisJérômePontilleDavid. 2019. “Why Do Maintenance and Repair Matter?” In The Routledge Companion to Actor-network Theory, edited by BlockAndersFariasIgnacioRobertsCelia, 283–93. Abingdon: Routledge.
12.
DenisJérômePontilleDavid. 2022. Le Soin des choses. Politiques de la maintenance. Paris, France: La Découverte.
13.
DéplaudeMarc-Olivier, 2023. “Diluting the Law: Time and the Production of Compliance with European Environmental Standards.” Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies104: 193–216.
14.
DucourantSam, 2023. “Science or Ignorance of Animal Welfare? A Case Study: Scientific Reports Published in Preparation for the First European Directive on Animal Welfare (1979-1980).” Science, Technology, & Human Values48 (1): 136–66.
15.
EdelmanLauren. 2016. Working Law: Courts, Corporations, and Symbolic Civil Rights. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
EdgertonDavid. 2006. The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
ElzenBoelieGeelsFrank W.LeeuwisCeesMierloBarbara van. 2011. “Normative Contestation in Transitions ‘in the Making’: Animal Welfare Concerns and System Innovation in Pig Husbandry.” Research Policy, 40 (2): 263–75.
18.
FortanéNicolas. 2017. “Naissance et déclin de l’écopathologie (années 1970—années 1990). L’essor contrarié d’une médecine vétérinaire alternative.” Regards Sociologiques50–51: 133–50.
19.
FrickelScottMooreKelly. 2006. “Prospects and Challenges for a New Political Sociology of Science.” In The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, And Power, edited by FrickelScottMooreKelly, 3–34. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
20.
GérardClaudine. 1998. “Ce cher bien-être!” Réussir Porc, November.
21.
GoffmanErving. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.
22.
GrahamStephenThriftNigel. 2007. “Out of Order: Understanding Repair and Maintenance.” Theory, Culture & Society24 (3): 1–25.
23.
GuthmanJulie. 2019. Wilted: Pathogens, Chemicals, and the Fragile Future of the Strawberry Industry. Oakland: University of California Press.
24.
HattaMasayuki. 2020. “The Right to Repair, the Right to Tinker, and the Right to Innovate.” Annals of Business Administrative Science19 (4): 143–57.
25.
HaynesRichard P.2008. Animal Welfare: Competing Conceptions and Their Ethical Implications. London, UK: Springer.
26.
HenkeChristopher. 2000. “The Mechanics of Workplace Order: Toward a Sociology of Repair.” Berkeley Journal of Sociology44: 55–81.
27.
HenkeChristopher. 2008. Cultivating Science, Harvesting Power: Science and Industrial Agriculture in California. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
HenryEmmanuelThomasValentinAguitonSara AngeliDéplaudeMarc-OlivierJasNathalie. 2021. “Introduction: Beyond the Production of Ignorance: The Pervasiveness of Industry Influence through the Tools of Chemical Regulation.” Science, Technology, & Human Values46 (5): 911–24.
29.
HeugebaertSarahCalvarCatherine. 2010. “Résultats d’enquête sur les truies en groupe: à chacun sa conduite.” Journée “Truies: en groupe toutes!”Chambres d’agriculture de Bretagne.
30.
HouserMatthewGundersonRyanStuartDianaDennyRiva C. H.. 2020. “How Farmers ‘Repair’ the Industrial Agricultural System.” Agriculture and Human Values37 (4): 983–97.
31.
HuisingRuthanneSilbeySusan S.. 2011. “Governing the Gap: Forging Safe Science through Relational Regulation.” Regulation & Governance5 (1): 14–42.
32.
JacksonSteven J.2014. “Rethinking Repair.” In Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, edited by GillespieTarletonBoczkowskiPablo J.FootKirsten A., 221–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
JasanoffSheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
JasanoffSheila. 1998. “The Eye of Everyman: Witnessing DNA in the Simpson Trial.” Social Studies of Science28 (5-6): 713–40.
35.
JensenKarin H.PedersenBjarne K.PedersenLene J.JørgensenErik. 1995. “Well-being in Pregnant Sows: Confinement versus Housing with Electronic Sow Feeding.” Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A—Animal Science45 (4): 266–75.
36.
JulienCécile. 2012. “Quel impact du mode de logement sur les performances?” Terra, March.
37.
KeelerJohn T.S. 1987. The Politics of Neocorporatism in France: Farmers, the State, and Agricultural Policy-making in the Fifth Republic. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38.
KirchhelleClaas. 2021. Bearing Witness: Ruth Harrison and British Farm Animal Welfare (1920-2000). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillian.
39.
KirkRobert G. W.2016. “Care in the Cage: Materializing Moral Economies of Animal Care in the Biomedical Sciences, c. 1945-.” In Animal Housing and Human-animal Relations: Politics, Practices and Infrastructures, edited by BjørkdhalKristianDruglitrøTone, 167–84. London, UK: Routledge.
40.
LamineClaireBellonStéphane. 2009. “Conversion to Organic Farming: A Multidimensional Research Object at the Crossroads of Agricultural and Social Sciences: A Review.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development29 (1): 97–112.
41.
LatourBruno. 1992. “Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by BijkerWiebe E.LawJohn, 225–58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42.
LienMarianne Elisabeth. 2015. Becoming Salmon: Aquaculture and the Domestication of a Fish. Oakland, California: University of California Press.
43.
Ministère de l’Agriculture. 1985. “Structure de la production porcine en 1981.” Collections de Statistique Agricole241: 1–72.
44.
NelsonRobert L.NielsenLaura Beth. 2000. “Cops, Counsel, and Entrepreneurs: Constructing the Role of Inside Counsel in Large Corporations.” Law & Society Review34 (2): 457–94.
45.
OrrJulian E.1996. Talking about Machines: Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
46.
PélisseJérôme. 2019. “Varieties of Legal Intermediaries: When Non-legal Professionals Act as Legal Intermediaries.” In Legal Intermediation: A Processual Approach to Law and Economic Activity, edited by AustinSarat, 101–28. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
47.
PierreÉric. 2007. “Réformer les relations entre les hommes et les animaux: fonction et usages de la loi Grammont en France (1850-1914).” Deviance et Société31 (1): 65–76.
48.
PossasMario LuizSalles-FilhoSergioMaria da SilveiraJosé. 1996. “An Evolutionary Approach to Technological Innovation in Agriculture: Some Preliminary Remarks.” Research Policy25 (6): 933–45.
49.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1992. “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology97 (5): 1295–45.
50.
Scientific Veterinary Committee. 1997. The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs. Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Commission, Document XXIV/B3/ScVC/0005/1997.
51.
ScovilleCaleb. 2022. “Constructing Environmental Compliance: Law, Science, and Endangered Species Conservation in California’s Delta.” American Journal of Sociology127 (4): 1094–50.
52.
SladeGiles. 2006. Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
StokesElen. 2012. “Nanotechnology and the Products of Inherited Regulation.” Journal of Law and Society39 (1): 93–112.
TaleshShauhinPélisseJérôme. 2019. “How Legal Intermediaries Facilitate or Inhibit Social Change.” Studies in Law, Politics, and Society79: 111–45. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
56.
TertreAnaïsRamonetYannick. 2014. “Evaluation de l’activité motrice des truies en groupes en élevages de production.” Journées de la Recherche Porcine46: 267–68.
57.
TraïniChristophe. 2016. The Animal Rights Struggle: An Essay in Historical Sociology. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
58.
VieuilleCarolineCarioletRolandMadecFrançoisMeunier-SalaünMarie-ChristineVaudeletJ.C.SignoretJean-Pierre. 1996. “Evaluation du bien-être en élevage chez la truie gestante. Approche comparative dans quatre systèmes de logement.” Journées de la recherche porcine, 28: 307–18.
59.
VielLuc. 1999. “Guillaume Roué: Un groupe de pression à lui tout seul.” Porc Magazine, June.
60.
WilkinsDavid B.2013. “Legislation in the European Union.” In The Global Guide to Animal Protection, edited by LinzeyAndrew, 237–38. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
61.
WolffHendrik. 2014. “Keep Your Clunker in the Suburb: Low-emission Zones and Adoption of Green Vehicles.” The Economic Journal124 (578): F481–12.
62.
WoodsAbigail. 2012. “From Cruelty to Welfare: The Emergence of Farm Animal Welfare in Britain, 1964–71.” Endeavour36 (1): 14–22.
