Translated by Louise Pain

This text is a slightly modified excerpt from Chapter 2.1 of the summa cum laude doctoral thesis Agrarian Humanities – landwirtschaftliche Perspektiven auf die sozial-ökologische Krise des Mensch-Natur-Verhältnisses (Agricultural Perspectives on the Socio-Ecological Crisis of the Human-Nature Relationship), authored by Sophie von Redecker.

I grew up on a strawberry farm, and yes, it was every bit as romantic as it sounds. In the mornings, before school, I would sneak out of bed and run to the strawberry fields, where picking would begin as early as four o’clock. Someone would invariably have to go out and hunt me down to make sure I actually made it to school. Some evenings, I would go to bed with dirty feet because I had stayed outside so long that there was simply no time left to wash them. On those occasions, I would simply pull on a pair of socks in the hope that the bed would not get dirty. Our farm was located not far from the Baltic Sea, and even today, I wear a hat almost all the time, having grown accustomed to the Baltic wind, which was always blowing, either as a gentle breeze or a stiff gale. Our strawberries, which were themselves unable to wear hats, were all the healthier and more delicious as a result of the salty sea air. The wind also meant that we had considerably fewer issues with fungal diseases, which is one of the main causes of crop failure in commercial strawberry farming. I grew up hearing names like Botrytis cinerea (grey mould), Phytophthora cactorum (leather rot and crown rot), and Sphaerotheca macularis (powdery mildew). However, thanks to the combination of the Baltic sea air, extremely sandy soil, a well-balanced crop rotation, and carefully calibrated organic farming practices, the threat posed by these harmful fungi remained relatively low, even though the underlying worry about a potential outbreak remained ever-present in our minds.

The relationship between the Baltic Sea winds and successful strawberry cultivation illustrates what Jane Bennett articulates from the perspective of new materialism: ‘an actant never really acts alone. Its efficacy or agency always depends on the collaboration, cooperation, or interactive interference of many bodies and forces’ (2010, p. 21). What I hope to convey with this anecdote is how I approach the agrarian humanities: I seek not only to write about agriculture or theorise it, but to think with it—to bring an agrarian ‘perspective’ into an academic context and to weave it into scholarly thought. Agricultural practices teach us that ‘the locus of agency is always a nonhuman-human-working group’ (Bennett, 2010: xvii). An agricultural perspective therefore challenges the very foundations of the Western Enlightenment, which placed the human subject at the centre and designated humans as the sole agents capable of action (Braidotti, 2013).

At the heart of this perspective lies an ontological shift: away from a worldview that positions humans at the centre as the all-dominating subject, and in which humankind and the natural world are understood as fundamentally separate from one another. It is possible to justify this shift in theoretical terms: new materialisms, posthumanist approaches, queer ecologies, and Indigenous cosmologies all challenge the dichotomy between human and nature, and between nature and culture, while foregrounding planetary agency. Rather than deriving an agricultural perspective from these theories, however, I propose to approach it from within agriculture itself, and from the particular vantage point that agricultural practice offers. An agricultural perspective, in this sense, can never be detached from a specific place. It emerges through a process of ‘thinking-with’ (Haraway, 2016) and, drawing on Donna Haraway’s concept of ‘situated knowledges’, is necessarily always (only) ‘partial’ (1988, p. 583). As Haraway writes, ‘We become-with each other or not at all. That kind of material semiotics is always situated, someplace and not noplace, entangled and worldly’ (2018, p. 13). Agriculture—the cultivation of a piece of land—is precisely this: a worldly, entangled situatedness in a specific place, in which ‘the human’ constitutes one particular element in a web of relations and processes of ‘becoming-with’. As Katharina Hoppe observes in relation to Haraway’s concept of situated knowledges, an agricultural perspective, like ‘any form of knowledge production […] enters into connections with the world and with others’ (Hoppe, 2024, p. 42).

As far as agrarian approaches go, the small-scale farming movement La Via Campesina offers a useful illustration of what Haraway writes about partial perspectives: ‘Situated knowledges are about communities not about isolated individuals. The only way to find a larger vision is to be somewhere in particular’ (1988, p. 590). Building on critiques of essentialising feminist (standpoint) theories, it is important to emphasise that there is no single, homogeneous agricultural perspective. Rather, each perspective is rooted in a particular place while also being embedded in a network of global agricultural relations and shaped by a range of other factors. Beyond this situatedness—which I have so far approached here primarily from the position of the human subject—an agricultural perspective is also heterogeneous, even internally fractured, to the extent that it is characterised by the entanglement of human and more-than-human elements. As Emily O’Gorman and Andrea Gaynor note in relation to the term ‘more-than-human’, ‘“More-than-human” is not a synonym for “nature” or “nonhuman” but, rather, a term that highlights the primacy of relations over entities (including the “human”)’ (2020, p. 717). In this sense, an agricultural perspective is always ‘more-than-human’, since neither becoming nor growth is possible without this kind of relationality.

When I first explained the theories I was engaging with to my mother, who has run a farm for more than forty years, she was utterly unimpressed by my introduction to new materialisms or by the idea of humans and more-than-human beings ‘becoming-with’ each other. Drawing on her own agricultural understanding of the world, she simply responded ‘Yeah, that’s just how the world works.’ In this article, I seek to emphasise just how much we can and should learn from this relational perspective. Within the context of the agrarian humanities, an agricultural perspective also means recognising more-than-human contexts as powerful forces in their own right: as bearers and mediators of knowledge that humans have the capacity to ‘read’, hear, perceive, and comprehend; as something that expresses itself; and, beyond that, as something that facilitates our thought and informs how we think. This understanding resonates strongly with Vanessa Watts’s concept of ‘Place-Thought’. Drawing on a Mohawk/Anishinaabe perspective, Watts defines the concept as ‘the non-distinctive space where place and thought were never separated because they never could or can be separated. Place-Thought is based upon the premise that land is alive and thinking and that humans and non-humans derive agency through the extensions of these thoughts’ (2013, p. 21).

This connection is also reflected in the fact that the majority of ideas I developed for my doctoral thesis emerged not at a desk, but while gardening or doing farm work. In a sense, the acres of farmland where I engaged in participatory thinking should probably be considered co-authors of my work. My agricultural labour, together with everything that went with it and all the knowledge I gained from it, consistently shaped and grounded my theoretical thinking in the social sciences and humanities. It was through agricultural practice that I came to understand approaches such as new materialisms, posthumanist perspectives, and poststructuralist theories, including queer ecologies. When I was conducting my doctoral research, it was during conversations conducted on an alpine pasture, surrounded by 500 sheep, seven livestock guardian dogs, and two herding dogs, that theory finally took root in solid ground. Getting up in the middle of the night to bottle-feed a five-day-old lamb vividly illustrates more-than-human relations of care and the relations of interdependence within which we all exist. The conflict involved in fighting for the fragile life of a young lamb, while its commonly used designation in agricultural jargon—‘meat sheep’—reduces the animal to a mere resource, highlights a particular complexity. Donna Haraway captures this complexity when she writes ‘The task is to make kin in lines of inventive connection as a practice of learning to live and die well with each other in a thick present’ (2016, p. 9).

An agricultural perspective teaches us to conceive of the more-than-human not merely as something to be talked about, but to incorporate the knowledge of what we call ‘nature’, to take it in and allow it to resonate within us in a way that guides our actions.

In many of my lectures, I have spoken about something my father taught me in passing when I was still a young child, and that I would encounter again many years later in a sentence by Carla Hustak and Natascha Myers: ‘This requires reading with our senses attuned to stories told in otherwise muted registers’ (2012, p. 77). When my father and I walked across the fields together, he would bend down, scoop up a handful of soil, and let it trickle through his fingers as we continued on our way. By doing this, he was able to ‘read’ what the soil needed. The question I would later explore theoretically, ‘Can nature speak?’, had already found a practical answer in my early childhood—one that has stayed with me throughout all my subsequent agricultural endeavours. I wanted to find a theoretical foundation for this experiential knowledge, this way of understanding the world. What had otherwise been taken for granted in agricultural practice evolved into a political, academic, and activist project, because this agrarian understanding of and relationship to what we term ‘nature’ differes from hegemonic perspectives and harbours its own subversive, transformative potential. Farmers always take what is called ‘nature’ into account when making decisions. Every decision about cultivation, every act of soil management, every sowing is made in accordance with soil composition, topography, rainfall, and plant growth. Farmers learn to ‘read’ the plants, soil, and animals on their farms. In so doing, they attune themselves not only to different semiotic systems, but also to different timescales. As Maria Puig de la Bellacasa explores in Matters of Care (2015), caring for the soil requires us to engage with non-anthropocentric temporalities. The timescales on which soil microbes live, humus forms, and soil regenerates compel us to rethink care, responsibility, and the future from a more-than-human perspective.

This capacity to perceive and engage is a necessary precondition for care. Care begins with perception, and this is a skill that we must also learn to practise in ecological contexts. When, after thirty-five years of organic farming, the land we had leased was sold to someone who practiced conventional farming methods, we were heartbroken. Above all, we knew that the humus we had built up and the wealth of biodiversity that had developed over decades would, within a matter of years, quite literally be ploughed under and destroyed by pesticides. The soil bore the imprint of how it had been cultivated over those thirty-five years. It felt as though all the history that had been embedded in the land was now set to be erased, rendered invisible. Even if the land had been given back to us after three years, it would no longer have been the same; the loss of biodiversity and humus could not simply be reversed. We mourned the life that had found a habitat and refuge on and within these fields. As Donna Haraway writes, ‘Perhaps the outrage meriting a name like Anthropocene is about the destruction of places and times of refuge for people and other critters’ (2015, p. 160). Thom van Dooren (2025) points out that processes of extinction entail not only the loss of what once existed, but also the foreclosure of a possible future that will forever remain unknown. What might have become of this land, of the diverse and seemingly invisible life within its soil, if organic farming practices had continued to nurture it for decades to come? At the same time, as we mourned the loss of life within the soil, we felt that a part of us had died along with it. Why did we feel this way? To draw on the thoughts of Thom van Dooren (ibid.), we might summarise it thus: when something dies, it is not merely an individual being or element that is lost; relationships are destroyed, too.

This story underscores the fact that relations between humankind and the natural world—even those that challenge hegemonic understandings—do not simply amount to a harmonious merging. Rather, we need to keep questioning the fragile categories of ‘human’ and ‘nature’—which are constructed as ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ within a Western-socialised understanding of the world—by examining exactly how these categories are produced. As van Dooren et al. write, ‘[…] [T]hat is, to pay attention to differences of all kinds as well as to the powerful work that various modes of differentiating and distinguishing do in shaping worlds’ (2016, p. 13). An agricultural perspective helps us to recognise our planetary interdependence in everyday practice, to question what we mean by ‘human’ and ‘nature’, and to become more aware of the interactions, agencies, and power relations at play. This is not a question of harmony or becoming one. It is about how we engage with those things that we are not, but that are also not entirely ‘other’ to us either. This story brings to mind something that Karen Barad, referencing Trinh Minh-ha, articulates: ‘What is needed, Trinh emphasizes, is a disruption of the binary, a way to figure difference differently. If this is to be the case then difference cannot be positioned in opposition to sameness, not in any absolute sense, for this would reiterate the same problematic logics. As Trinh puts it: a non-binary conception of difference is “not opposed to sameness, nor synonymous with separateness”’ (2014, p. 170).

Dr Sophie von Redecker currently works as a postdoctoral researcher in the field of Sociology of Diversity, a specialised social sciences department at the University of Kassel. An academic, activist, and gardener in a FLINTA* community-supported agriculture (CSA) collective, von Redecker recently completed her PhD in the field of agrarian humanities. Her research focuses in depth on agricultural perspectives toward the socio-ecological crisis and on relationships between humans and the natural world in the Anthropocene epoch.

References

Barad, K. (2014) ‘Diffracting Diffraction: Cutting Together-Apart’, Parallax 20 (3), pp. 168–187, https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623.

Bennett, J. (2010) Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke University Press.

Braidotti, R. (2013) The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Haraway, D. (1988) ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’, Feminist Studies 14 (3), pp. 575–599.

Haraway, D. (2015) ‘Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin’, Environmental Humanities 6 (1), pp. 159–165.

Haraway, D. (2016) Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press.

Haraway, D. (2018) Unruhig bleiben: Die Verwandtschaft der Arten im Chthuluzän. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

Hoppe, K. (2024) Donna Haraway zur Einführung, 2nd unrevised edition. Hamburg: Junius.

Hustak, C. and Myers, N. (2012) ‘Involutionary Momentum: Affective Ecologies and the Sciences of Plant/Insect Encounters’, differences 23 (3), pp. 74–118.

O’Gorman, E. and Gaynor, A. (2020) ‘More-Than-Human Histories’, Environmental History 25 (4), pp. 711–735.

Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017) Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

van Dooren, T. (2025) ‘Multispecies Storytelling in Catastrophic Times’, https://www.thomvandooren.org/2025/06/24/multispecies-storytelling-in-catastrophic-times/ (Accessed 28 October 2026).

van Dooren, T., Kirksey, E., and Münster, U. (2016) ‘Multispecies Studies: Cultivating Arts of Attentiveness’. Environmental Humanities 8 (1), pp. 1–23.

Watts, V. (2013) ‘Indigenous Place-Thought and Agency amongst Humans and Non-Humans (First Woman and Sky Woman Go on a European World Tour!)’, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 2 (1), pp. 20–34.