Between Past, Present, and Future—The Temporality of Sociotechnical Futures in India’s GM Crops Debate

  • Andreas MitzschkeEmail author
Part of the Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society book series (TEWG)


This chapter explores the enduring controversy about genetically modified crops in India. It asks what role different interpretations of past agricultural development play in the construction of contested sociotechnical futures with(out) transgenic crops. The theoretical frame for this analysis combines the ‘social construction of technology’ with the concept of ‘sociotechnical imaginaries’ to understand temporal scales in the construction of such futures. Based on document analysis and semi-structured interviews, the chapter identifies four sociotechnical imaginaries in the debate. These are shaped by different interpretations of India’s agricultural past. The author argues for a greater role of temporality in studying technological controversies.


  1. Adam, B. (2006). Time. Theory, culture, society, 23(2–3), 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large. Cultural dimensions of globalisation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (Trans. M. Ritter). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brooks, S. (2005). Biotechnology and the politics of truth: From the green revolution to an evergreen revolution. Sociologia Ruralis, 45(4), 360–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter, J. E. (2011). Impact of GM crops on biodiversity. GM Crops, 2(1), 7–23. Scholar
  7. Choudhary, B., & Gaur, K. (2012). Socio-economic and farm level impacts of Bt cotton in India 2002–2010.,%202002%20to%202010-11%20aug%20final.pdf.
  8. Collins, H. M. (1983). The sociology of scientific knowledge: Studies of contemporary science. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CropLifeInternational. (2014). CropLife international-About.
  10. Dorhout, D. L., & Rice, M. E. (2010). Intraguild comeptition and enhanced survival of Western Beat Cutworm (Lepidoptera Noctuidae) on Transgenic Cry1Ab (MON 810) Bacillus Thuringiensis Corn. Journal of Economic Entomology, 103, 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Express, T. I. (29 Aug. 2013). Seeds of change. The Indian Express.
  12. Frankman, E., & Weinberger, J. (2014). Vandana Shiva, voice of the Anti-GMO debate. The Take Away.
  13. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Glover, D. (2010). Is Bt cotton a pro-poor technology? A review and critique of the empirical record. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10(4), 482–509. Scholar
  15. Grant, H. (Ed.). (2008). Monsanto CEO grant discusses impact of genetically engineered crops on human health. Accessed 28 Aug 2008.
  16. Gruère, G., & Sengupta, D. (2011). Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India: An evidence-based assessment. Journal of Development Studies, 47(2), 316–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, J. R. (1980). The time of history and the history of time. History and Theory, 19(2), 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heller, C., & Escobar, A. (2003). From pure genes to GMOs. Transnational gene landscapes in the biodioversity and transgenic food networks. In A. Goodman, D. Heath, & M. S. Linde (Eds.), Genetic nature/culture. Anthropology and science beyond the two culture divide. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, M. (2010). Biotechnology and the critique of globalisation. Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology, 67(2), 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47, 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (2013). Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture, 22(2), 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imagianries and the fabrication of power. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaviraj, S. (2011). Introduction to the enchantment of democracy and India. The enchantment of democracy and India (pp. 1–24). Bangalore: Permanent Black.Google Scholar
  26. Kuruganti, K. (2012). Bt cotton, a bitter havest for farmers: Suicide and despair in India.
  27. Marcus, G. E. (Ed.). (1995). Technoscientific imaginaries: Conversations, profiles, and memories. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Padmanaban, G. (2013, September 2). Sow the wind, reap a storm, opinion. The Hindu.
  29. Peled, M. X. (2011). Bitter seeds. An examination of the debate surrounding biotechnology and the future of farming. San Francisco: ITVS.
  30. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 399–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems. New direction in the sociology of technology (pp. 17–50). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Powerbase. (2014). Powerbase public interest investigations. Profile: CropLife international.
  33. Pritchard, B., Rammohan, A., & Sekher, M. (2013). Food security as a lagging component of India’s human development: A function of interacting entitlement failures. South Asia-Journal of South Asian Studies, 36(2), 213–228. Scholar
  34. Quartz, J. (2011). Constructing Agrarian alternatives. How a creative dissent project engages with the vulnerable livelihood conditions of marginal farmers in South India. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.Google Scholar
  35. Ranjith, M. T., Prabhuraj, A., & Srinivasa, Y. B. (2010). Survival and reproduction of natural populations of Helicoverpa Armigera on Bt-cotton hybrids in Raichur, India. Current Science, 99(11), 1602–1606.Google Scholar
  36. Rao, C. K. (2013). Genetically engineered crops would ensure food security in India. In D. J. Bennett & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful agricultural innovation in emerging economies. New genetic technologies for global food production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Roulston, K. (2010). Considering quality in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research, 10(2), 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sainath, P., & Bhatia, D. (2009). Nero’s guests. Amsterdam & New Delhi.
  39. Schurman, R., & Munro, W. A. (2010). Fighting for the future of food. Activists versus agribusiness in the struggle over biotechnology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sen, A. (2005). The argumentative Indian. Writings on Indian culture, history and identity. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  41. Shah, E. (2005). Local and global elites join hands: Development and diffusion of genetically modified Bt cotton technology in Gujarat. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(43), 4629+4631–4639.Google Scholar
  42. Shah, E. (2012). A life wasted making dust: Affective histories of dearth, death, and debt and farmers’ suicides in India. Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, boyle and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sharma, D. (2011, January 19). Ground reality: Killer technologies will not increase our food production.
  45. Sharma, D. (2014, February 6). Ground reality: Prime Minister ignores the facts. Openly bats for dangerously risky GM crop technology.
  46. Sharma, S. (2013). Critical rime. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 10(2–3), 312–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shiva, V. (1988). Staying alive: Women, ecology and survival in India. New Delhi: Kali for Women.Google Scholar
  48. Shiva, V. (1991). The violence of the green revolution. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  49. Shiva, V. (Ed.). (2014, Febrary 21). Transcript speech at food otherwise conference.
  50. Shiva, V., Barker, D., & Lockhart, C. (2011). The GMO emperor has no clothes: A global citizen’s report on the state of GMOs-False promises, failed technologies.
  51. Shiva, V., Jafri, A. H., Emani, A., & Pande, M. (2000). Seeds of suicide: The ecological and human costs of globalisation of agriculture. New Delhi: Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.Google Scholar
  52. Smith, E. (2009). Imaginaries of development: The rockefeller foundation and rice research. Science as Culture, 18(4), 461–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Specter, M. (2014, August 25). Seeds of doubt. An activist’s controversial crusade against genetically modified crops. The New Yorker.
  54. Stone, G. D. (2012). Constructing facts. Bt cotton narratives in India. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(38), 62–70.Google Scholar
  55. Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Visvanathan, S. (1997). Footnotes to Vavilov: An essay on gene diversity a carnival for science: Essays on science, technology, and development. Delhi & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wynne, B. (2005). Risk as globalising democratic discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In M. Leach, I. Scoones, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens: Globalisation and the challenge of engagement (pp. 66–82). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  58. Zhao, J. H., Ho, P., & Azadi, H. (2010). Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological change in China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 173(1–4), 985–994.Google Scholar

List of Semi-Structured Interviews

  1. Ganguly, B., activist Timbaktu Collective, conducted at Amritha Bhoomi, Chamaraja Nagar District, Karnataka, 14.02.2013.Google Scholar
  2. Kuruganti, K., Convenor Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), conducted in Bangalore, 16.02.2012.Google Scholar
  3. Kuruganti, K., Convenor Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), conducted in Bangalore, 08.01.2013.Google Scholar
  4. Padmanaban, G., molecular scientists Indian Institute of Science, conducted in Bangalore, 19.02.2012.Google Scholar
  5. Ramanjaneyulu, G. V., Executive Director Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), conducted in Hyderabad, 27.03.2012.Google Scholar
  6. Rao, C. K. General Secretary Foundation for Agricultural Biotechnology and Awareness (FBAE) conducted in Bangalore, 10.01.2013.Google Scholar
  7. Ravikanth, G. scientist Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment, conducted in Bangalore, 07.02.2013.Google Scholar
  8. Sahai, S., Director Gene Campaign, conducted in Delhi, 28.02.2012.Google Scholar
  9. Saldanha, L., Coordinator Environment Support Group (ESG), conducted in Bangalore, 20.02.2012.Google Scholar
  10. Sarangi, activist Living Farms, conducted in Bhubaneswar, 17.03.2012.Google Scholar
  11. Seetharama, N., Executive Director Association of Biotech-Led Enterprises (ABLE), conducted in Delhi, 28.01.2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations