Decline of Ddt

DISCOURSE AND DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION:THE DECLINE OF DDT

STEVE MAGUIREMcGill University

CYNTHIA HARDYUniversity of Melbourne

Drawing on institutional theory emphasizing translation and discourse, we exploreoutsider-driven deinstitutionalization through a case study of the abandonment ofwidespread, taken-for-granted practices of DDT use between 1962 and 1972. Ourfindings illustrate how abandonment of practices results from “problematizations”that—through subsequent “translation”—change discourse in ways that undermine theinstitutional pillars supporting practices. This occurs through new “subject positions”from which actors speak and act in support of problematizations, and new bodies ofknowledge, which normalize them. We introduce the concept of “defensive institu-tional work” and illustrate how actors carry out disruptive and defensive work byauthoring texts.

This study examines how the actions of individ-uals in producing, distributing, and consumingtexts can lead to radical change in an institutionalfield. Specifically, we examine the discursive dy-namics associated with the deinstitutionalizationof widespread, taken-for-granted practices of DDTuse. Sales of DDT declined from over 67 millionpounds in 1962, when it was the top-selling insec-ticide in the United States, to 22 million pounds in1972, when a federal ban was announced. Our fo-cus is on outsider-driven deinstitutionalization ini-tiated in response to externalities linked to prac-tices in a given field. The use of DDT waschallenged, not by existing field members, but byactors who were not part of the field, such asRachel Carson, whose influential 1962 book, SilentSpring, was highly critical of DDT use. Outsider-driven deinstitutionalization is especially relevantin today’s world, where calls are increasingly madefor accepted—and profitable—business practicesto be discontinued on the grounds of negative im-pacts on human health and the environment.

Despite its importance, outsider-driven deinsti-tutionalization has not been studied in detail. Infact, empirical studies of any form of deinstitution-alization are rare (Ahmadjian & Robinson, 2001;Scott, 2001). When it has been examined, it has

often been studied indirectly, as a by-product ofresearch on the adoption of new practices. As aresult, little is known “about the work done byactors to disrupt institutions” (Lawrence & Sud-daby, 2006: 238). In addition, most studies of insti-tutional change in a given field have focused onprojects initiated by actors inside the field, so littleis known about the specific challenges outsidersface in bringing about fieldwide change. Studies ofinsider-driven deinstitutionalization tend to pro-vide evidence of changes that are “elaborative”rather than “reconstructive” (Colomy, 1998) in thatthey do not necessarily entail a significant redistri-bution of power, capital, or membership in a field;dominant actors may do things differently, but theyoften remain dominant (Hardy & Maguire, 2008).However, some of the most pressing contemporarysocietal issues in which business is implicated—such as climate change, other environmental prob-lems, and corporate social responsibility—may re-quire more radical change (Bartunek, Rynes, &Ireland, 2006). It is therefore important that schol-ars learn more about outsider-driven deinstitu-tionalization in a world where environmentaland social values increasingly influence businesspractices.

To study outsider-driven deinstitutionalization,we draw on two emerging theoretical streamswithin institutional theory: work that uses the“translation” metaphor to understand institutionalchange (Zilber, 2002), and organizational discoursetheory (Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004). Thetranslation approach is premised on the idea thatinstitutions are formed as meanings come to be

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial sup-port of the Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada (SSHRC award number 410-2004-1665) and the Australian Research Council (Discoveryfunding scheme, project number DP 0771639).

� Academy of Management Journal2009, Vol. 52, No. 1, 148–178.

148

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s expresswritten permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.

shared and taken for granted. In contrast to thediffusion metaphor, which has dominated much ofinstitutional theory and “connotes a transmissionof a given entity,” translation “connotes an interac-tion that involves negotiation between various par-ties, and the reshaping of what is finally beingtransmitted” (Zilber, 2006: 283). It focuses on thenegotiation of shared meanings that make particu-lar practices possible or, in the case of deinstitu-tionalization, make them illegitimate (Oliver,1992). Organizational discourse theory tells us thattexts are integral to the creation of meaning, butthat they do not function individually or indepen-dently; instead, meaning is created from collectionsof texts—or discourses—that evolve from the ongo-ing production, distribution, and consumption ofindividual texts. Because “institutions are consti-tuted through discourse” and discourse analysishas been used fruitfully to theorize institutionaliza-tion processes (Phillips et al., 2004: 635), our studyexplores the role of discourse in outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization.

Our findings illustrate how individual acts oftranslation, cumulatively and over time, canchange discourse at the macro level and, in sodoing, reconfigure power/knowledge relations in afield. In so doing, our study makes a number ofcontributions. First, as an in-depth empirical studyof deinstitutionalization, it adds to understandingof a phenomenon on which there is a “paucity ofliterature” (Ahmadjian & Robinson, 2001: 622).Second, we derive a series of propositions from ourfindings to provide a model of outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization illustrating how translationand discourse are linked. Third, our study extendsthe work of institutional theorists who have exam-ined how the use of language and rhetoric within aparticular text helps to theorize institutionalchange (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005) by expand-ing the scope of study to include a focus on whatsubsequently happens to that text. Fourth, we in-troduce the concept of “defensive institutionalwork,” which is particularly relevant to outsider-driven deinstitutionalization—and institutionalchange, more generally—as insiders attempt to de-fend existing practices. Finally, we identify some ofthe ways in which outsider-driven deinstitutional-ization is likely to differ from deinstitutionalizationdriven by insiders.

INSTITUTIONS ANDDEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

In line with other institutional theorists, we de-fine institutions as “historical accretions of pastpractices and understandings that set conditions on

action” through the way in which they acquire the“status of taken for granted facts which, in turn,shape future interactions and negotiations” (Barley& Tolbert, 1997: 99). They are composed of cogni-tive, normative, and regulative elements that “pro-vide stability and meaning to social life” (Scott,2001: 48). They govern behavior, insofar as depar-tures from institutionalized practices “are counter-acted in a regulated fashion, by repetitively acti-vated, socially constructed controls” that makedeviations from institutionalized practices costlyin one way or another (Jepperson, 1991: 145).

Institutionalized practices are held in place bythree “pillars”—regulative, normative, and cogni-tive—through which legitimacy is established andconformity secured (Scott, 2001). The regulativepillar refers to the authority of certain actors toformally constrain actors’ behavior (Caronna,2004). It involves the ability to establish rules, po-lice conformity and, if necessary, coerce compli-ance (Scott, 2001). Conformity to legal rules, forexample, occurs in response to these coercive pres-sures and is often the result of expedience (Hoff-man, Riley, Troast, & Bazerman, 2002) as actorsseek to avoid the penalties associated with non-compliance (Hoffman, 1999). The normative pillarinfluences behavior by defining what is appropri-ate or expected in a given social situation (Wicks,2001). It consists of values and norms that produceconformity (Caronna, 2004) as a result of socialexpectations and moral obligations (Hoffman et al.,2002; Scott, 2001). The cognitive pillar is based on“shared conceptions that constitute the nature ofsocial reality” and define the prevailing orthodoxy(Scott, 2001: 57). Conformity in this case may beautomatic and unconscious because of “a culturallysupported and conceptually correct basis of legiti-macy which becomes unquestioned” (Hoffman,1999: 353). In these ways, institutional pillars helpto reproduce behavior (Scott, 2001); institutional-ized practices may be held in place at a particularpoint in time by one dominant pillar (Hoffman,1999) or by an alignment of all three (Wicks, 2001).This tendency toward stability and reproductiondoes not, however, preclude change, since it ispossible for the pillars to become misaligned (Ca-ronna, 2004) or for one or more to collapse (Ahm-adjian & Robbins, 2005), making deinstitutionaliza-tion more likely.

Outsider-Driven Deinstitutionalization

Most studies of institutional change focus on theadoption of new practices and insider-drivenchange (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). Our interest,however, is in situations in which outsiders to a

2009 149Maguire and Hardy

field initiate a “direct assault on the validity of along-standing tradition or established activity”(Oliver, 1992: 567) that leads to the abandonmentof existing practices.

Deinstitutionalization refers to the processwhereby previously institutionalized practices areabandoned (Davis, Diekmann, & Tinsley, 1994; Far-joun, 2002), not “merely because better optionspresent themselves” (Ahmadjian & Robinson, 2001:627), but because practices have lost their origi-nal meaning. If an institution is a set of practicesthat has become legitimate and taken for granted(Douglas, 1986), then deinstitutionalization oc-curs when such legitimacy and “taken-for-grant-edness” are called into question and the pillarsthat once held practices in place lose “their grip”(Ahmadjian & Robinson, 2001: 621). The mean-ings of existing institutionalized practices are,however, not easy to change, since they stemfrom belief systems that are well entrenched(Reay & Hinings, 2005). Consequently, some formof purposive “disruptive” institutional work(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006) is necessary to un-dermine these meanings.

Such institutional work is, however, likely topresent outsiders with particular challenges inbringing about fieldwide change. Outsiders to afield are not located in dominant elite positions init and lack the centrality (Farjoun, 2002), commu-nication networks (Lounsbury, 2001), and legiti-macy (Phillips et al., 2004) of those actors whosepractices they are seeking to discredit. In addition,outsiders’ efforts are also likely to encounter—andthus must overcome—“contrary organizational in-tentions to sustain the status quo” (Oliver, 1992:578); that is, opposition and resistance from insid-ers whose interests are threatened by the abandon-ment of existing practices (Anand & Peterson, 2002;Hargadon & Douglas, 2001; Hensman, 2003; Munir,2005). It is therefore important to understand themechanisms involved when outsiders try to bringabout the abandonment of existing practices, andhow they dislodge previously taken-for-grantedmeanings of these practices.

Deinstitutionalization and Discourse

One way to examine the meanings of institution-alized practices is to study the discourse aboutthem (Phillips et al., 2004). Discourses are collec-tions of interrelated texts (Parker, 1992) that “co-here in some way to produce both meanings andeffects in the real world” (Carabine, 2001: 268).Texts are symbolic forms of representation (e.g.,documents, books, media accounts, interviews,speeches, committee reports, etc.) that are in-

scribed by being spoken, written, or otherwise de-picted, thereby “taking on material form and be-coming accessible to others” (Taylor, Cooren,Giroux, & Robichaud, 1996: 7). Discourses provide“a language for talking about a topic and . . . aparticular kind of knowledge about a topic” (duGay, 1996: 43). They define “who and what is ‘nor-mal,’ standard and acceptable” (Merilanen, Tienari,Thomas, & Davies, 2004: 544), as well as acceptableways to think, talk, and act (Hall, 2001). Discoursesthus shape “the strategies and rules by which wecan speak about and act on a domain . . . in sucha way that certain possibilities and outcomes arerealized rather than others” (Reed, 1998: 196). Asa result, discourses produce “power/knowledgerelations, linguistically communicated, histori-cally located, and embedded in social practice”(Heracleous & Barrett, 2001: 757). They are con-stitutive, rather than descriptive, of reality“through the way they make sense of the worldfor its inhabitants, giving it meanings that gener-ate particular experiences and practices” (Phil-lips et al., 2004: 636).

“Discourses that are more coherent and struc-tured present a more unified view of some aspect ofsocial reality which becomes reified and taken forgranted” (Phillips et al., 2004: 644). Accordingly,practices tend to be reproduced when the discourseabout them is “structured”—that is, the texts thatcomprise the discourse draw on one another inwell-established and understandable ways—and“coherent”; that is, these texts converge in theirdescriptions and explanations of social reality(Phillip et al., 2004). In this situation, institution-alized practices are reinforced and reproducedthrough two key mechanisms: “subject positions”(e.g., Oakes, Townley, & Cooper, 1998) and “bodiesof knowledge” (e.g., Covaleski, Dirsmith, Heian, &Samuel, 1998). First, subject positions include bu-reaucratic positions, as well as socially constructedand legitimated “categories of identity” (Bourdieu,1990; Oakes et al., 1998) that “warrant voice” (Pot-ter & Wetherell, 1987). In any discourse, only “alimited number of subject positions are understoodas meaningful, legitimate, and powerful” at a givenpoint in time (Hardy, Lawrence, & Grant, 2005: 65).These subject positions provide the actors that oc-cupy them with rights to speak and act (Maguire,Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004) and an increased likeli-hood that their text production will be consequen-tial by influencing other texts and shaping the dis-course (Phillips et al., 2004). Positions are not fixedbut “negotiated and created by the maneuvering” ofactors; as a result, the ability to influence the fieldmay change over time (Oakes et al., 1998: 260).Second, discourses are not simply a “way of see-

150 FebruaryAcademy of Management Journal

ing”: they reproduce a particular way of seeing as“truth” (Knights & Morgan, 1991: 262); and they“‘hook’ into normative ideas and common-sensenotions” to produce “ideas which convey mes-sages, for example, ‘good’ and ‘bad’, morality andimmorality, and acceptable and inappropriate be-haviours” (Carabine, 2001: 269). Discourse thuscreates bodies of knowledge that normalize cer-tain ways of believing, speaking, and behaving(Barge & Oliver, 2003; Knights, 1992; Townley,1993). In this way, both power and knowledge areimplicated in discourse: “There is no power re-lation without the correlative constitution of afield of knowledge; nor any knowledge that doesnot presuppose and constitute at the same timepower relations” (Foucault, 1979: 2; see also Co-valeski et al., 1998).

In sum, when practices are institutionalized(i.e., taken for granted and repetitively repro-duced), subject positions tend to privilege domi-nant field incumbents who support the statusquo; and bodies of knowledge tend to “construct”practices as effective, beneficial, appropriate, in-evitable, and so on (i.e., as unproblematic). Ifpractices are to be abandoned, the discourseabout them must change (Maguire & Hardy, 2006;Munir, 2005; Phillips et al., 2004), but so far,there is little research that explains how thisoccurs, especially in the case of outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization. Accordingly, our first re-search question is: What role does discourse playin outsider-driven deinstitutionalization?

Discourses are changed through the production,distribution, and consumption of texts (Hardy &Phillips, 2004; Parker, 1992). Thus, our startingpoint for deinstitutionalization is the production oftexts that include claims, arguments, stories, exam-ples, statistics, anecdotes, and so forth that “sub-stantiate and dramatize the ineffectiveness and in-justice of existing practices” (Colomy, 1998: 289).We refer to such claims as “problematizations.” Inthe case of outsider-driven deinstitutionalization,outsiders can produce and distribute texts to pro-mote particular meanings of practices (i.e., as prob-lematic) and build a case for their abandonment.Actors inscribe problematizations of institutional-ized practices in texts in order to allow these ideasto travel in space and time (Callon, 1991; Czar-niawska & Joerges, 1996); that is, across “separateand diverse local settings” (Smith, 1990: 168).

Actors can try to make problematizations morepersuasive to their audiences through the use of, forexample, various rhetorical strategies (e.g., Sud-daby & Greenwood, 2005) or particular collectiveaction frames (Benford & Snow, 2000) to “providean interpretation of the situation and frame courses

of action that appeal to existing interests” (Flig-stein, 2001: 112). In these ways, individuals try tomanage meaning and delegitimize the status quo(Pettigrew, 1979). Meaning is, however, neither un-equivocal nor inherent to a text, nor is it simplypassed intact from one text to another; instead, it isnegotiated between the text’s author and its readers(Czarniawska, 1997) as the text is consumed (i.e.,read and interpreted). This has been referred to as“translation,” a concept derived from the Frenchphilosopher Michel Serres (Brown, 2002; Czar-niawska & Sevon, 1996) that has been widely usedin actor-network theory (Callon, 1986; Latour,1986) and adopted in organization studies by Czar-niawska and Sevon (1996) and Zilber (2006) toexplore institutionalization. The notion of transla-tion is used to break away from the diffusion modeland to draw attention to the way that meanings,rather than being passed on intact, inevitablychange as they travel in space and time (Zilber,2006). “To translate is to transform, and in the actof transforming a breaking of fidelity towards theoriginal source is necessarily involved” (Brown,2002: 7).

In the context of our study, the concept of trans-lation refers to how problematizations—claims (La-tour, 1986), generic rational myths (Zilber, 2006),and other forms of ideas (Czarniawska & Joerges,1996)—do not diffuse intact and unchangedthrough a field but are transformed as actors read atext and interpret the problematizations that it con-tains. If the readers then go on to author and dis-tribute their own texts, they will restate the prob-lematizations in different ways and with varyingdegrees of fidelity to the original (Brown, 2002).For example, opponents may try to deny prob-lematizations by articulating “counter-narrativesto discredit the project and its advocates” (Co-lomy, 1998: 290). Supporters, by interpretingproblematizations in different ways (i.e., agreeingwith some aspects and disagreeing with others orby presenting them for different audiences) arelikely to change them in the texts they produceand distribute. Each individual translation maythen itself be translated as it, too, is subsequentlyconsumed, and so on. Cumulatively, these indi-vidual acts of translation add up to an ongoingprocess of translation.

The question that remains is, if outsiders are tobring about the abandonment of practices, whathappens to their problematizations during this pro-cess of translation? Although a considerableamount of work examines how framing and rheto-ric can be incorporated into individual texts tomaximize the appeal of particular problematiza-tions (e.g., Benford & Snow, 2000; Suddaby &


Greenwood, 2005), little research has been con-ducted on what happens to problematizations aftertexts are produced; that is, whether and how prob-lematizations are translated in ways that lead todeinstitutionalization at the level of the field. Thus,our second research question is: What role doesthe process of translation play in outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization?

CASE STUDY AND METHODS

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichlorethane), originallysynthesized in 1874, became the top-selling insec-ticide in the United States. Large-scale manufactureand use began during the Second World War toprotect troops from typhus, malaria, and other in-sect-borne diseases. After the war, DDT was re-leased into the civilian economy and, on the rec-ommendation of the Department of Agriculture,widely used on crops, including cotton, tobacco,and many foodstuffs. DDT was also used on thefarm to protect livestock against insects; in thehome, against flies, roaches, and bedbugs; in for-estry, against insects that defoliated trees; and insuburban neighborhoods, against mosquitoes andbark beetles, which spread Dutch elm disease. Inaccordance with the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fun-gicide, and Rodenticide Act, manufacturers wererequired to register the labels of their products withthe Department of Agriculture before commercial-izing them, and to provide evidence of the prod-ucts’ safety and efficacy when they were used ac-cording to their labels. Tolerances for acceptablelevels of DDT residues on foodstuffs were estab-lished by the Food and Drug Administration, partof the Federal Security Agency (which in 1953became the Department of Health, Education, andWelfare). Sales grew quickly as more DDT was ap-plied than any other insecticide—U.S. usage

peaked in 1959 at 79,000,000 pounds (Environmen-tal Protection Agency [EPA], 1975: 149)—and itremained the top-selling insecticide into the early1960s. Figure 1 illustrates this pattern.

DDT was credited with saving millions of livesduring the war, and Paul Muller, the researcherwho discovered its insect-killing properties in1939, was awarded the 1948 Nobel Prize in medi-cine. From the 1950s, however, evidence concern-ing problems with DDT started to accumulate: itsefficacy against certain pests was called into ques-tion because of such developments as resistance,resurgence, and secondary pests, and some toxicol-ogists were questioning DDT’s safety for humans,especially after it was established that DDT resi-dues were accumulating in the fat of U.S. citizens.In addition, because measurable quantities werebeing detected in birds, fish, and wildlife as well asin soil and water, government reports (especiallyby the Fish and Wildlife Service, part of the Depart-ment of the Interior) and articles in specializedscientific journals were beginning to catalogue theubiquity of exposure to, and possible risks posedby, DDT.

Despite these studies, widespread practices ofDDT use changed little until the appearance in1962 of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, serial-ized in the New Yorker in June and July, and pub-lished in September. It describes in detail the prob-lems that pesticides, including DDT, posed forhuman health and the environment, directly chal-lenging taken-for-granted practices of pesticide use.It opens with an apocalyptic tale, describing a fic-tional town marked by “a shadow of death” as aresult of problems caused by pesticides, including“new kinds of sickness” and the deaths of children.Instead of spring birdsong, “only silence lay overthe fields and woods and marsh” (Carson, 1962: 2).The chapter closes by noting that this “town does

FIGURE 1Volume of DDT Usage, by Yeara

a Source: EPA (1975), page 149.


not actually exist” but could “easily become astark reality” if practices of pesticide use werenot changed (Carson, 1962: 3). Subsequent chap-ters describe a range of problems associated withpesticides, some affecting farmers but most af-fecting the public and the environment— birds,fish, and wildlife, as well as the ecosystems inwhich they live. The concluding chapter makes acase for replacing DDT and other chemicals withbiological control of insects, although Carson(1962: 12) did clarify that it “is not my contentionthat chemical insecticides must never be used”(1962: 12).

The book was widely reviewed, and sales sur-passed 500,000 copies by April 1963. It caught theattention of the scientific community and was re-viewed in scientific journals such as Ecology andScience. It provoked strong reactions from agribusi-ness and the chemical industry, which counteredwith their own texts challenging its claims, andtriggered a flurry of activity in the political arena.Portions of the New Yorker serialization were readdirectly into the Congressional Record; politicianswrote to Carson for advice; and President Kennedy,who answered a reporter’s question on pesticidesby referring to Carson by name, instructed his Pres-ident’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) to in-vestigate. PSAC’s 1963 report called for the elimi-nation of DDT and other pesticides, and othergovernment reports followed (e.g., Mrak, 1969;Ribicoff, 1966). Nongovernmental organizations(NGOs), such as the Environmental Defense Fund,pressured governments to take action against DDT.In 1968, Wisconsin held hearings that concludedthat DDT was a water pollutant under state lawand, by 1969, several states had enacted local bansaffecting various uses. In response to a 1971 courtorder issued as a result of a petition by the Envi-ronmental Defense Fund, the EPA, which had beencreated in 1970, initiated hearings on DDT’s status.In 1972, the EPA banned DDT nationwide, effectivefrom 1973. By this time, however, DDT use hadalready been largely abandoned voluntarily, havingdiminished by more than 67 percent from 1962levels.

Research Design, Site Selection, andData Collection

We used a single, exploratory case study, fol-lowing a common research method for buildingtheory (Dyer & Wilkins, 1991; Yin, 2003). Studiesin which researchers have used single cases tostudy institutional change include research usingthe translation metaphor, in which a deep, inter-pretive, and holistic understanding was required

(e.g., Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005; Zilber, 2002).We selected this particular case because it is aclear, well-documented example of outsider-driven deinstitutionalization for which data col-lection and analysis were feasible; many primarytexts are in the public domain and detailed his-torical accounts exist. In addition, because of theacknowledged role of Silent Spring in the aban-donment of practices of DDT use, as well as thefact that subsequent struggles around its problemati-zations are well documented, discursive changes andthe process of translation were “transparently observ-able” (Eisenhardt, 1989: 537).

We began by collecting data in the form of sec-ondary accounts (Blodgett, 1974; Bosso, 1987; Dun-lap, 1981; Lear, 1997) to ensure convergence andtriangulation on events. From these, key primarysources were identified and a series of texts assem-bled for analysis (e.g., Silent Spring; a CBS televi-sion documentary, “The Silent Spring of RachelCarson,” broadcast in April 1963; book reviews;government reports; transcripts; and scientific arti-cles). In 1998–99, we interviewed several individ-uals: Shirley Briggs, a longtime friend of Carsonand retired head of the Rachel Carson Council; twoEPA employees from the time of the ban (an insec-ticide expert and an economist); and an eminententomologist who had served on government com-mittees addressing DDT. We also accessed, fromthe Wisconsin State Historical Society, tape record-ings of seven interviews conducted in 1971–72 bythe historian Thomas Dunlap with participants inhearings held on DDT in Wisconsin in 1968, in-cluding members of the Environmental DefenseFund who opposed DDT, supporters of DDT, andthe hearing examiner.

Data Analysis

We first developed a narrative account (Eisen-hardt & Bourgeois, 1988) that chronicled theabandonment of institutionalized practices ofDDT use. We constructed an event history data-base (Van de Ven & Poole, 1990), using the inter-views and secondary sources, chronologically or-dering descriptions of the process leading to theabandonment of DDT and juxtaposing accountsfrom different sources to ascertain convergence.This analysis captured “who did what, andwhen.” For each event, we identified relevantprimary sources (government reports, scientificpublications, hearing transcripts, etc.) and chro-nologically ordered them to comprise a “discur-sive event history database” (Maguire, 2004)—capturing “who said what, and when.” Fromthese analyses, we prepared a narrative account


of the process through which practices of DDTuse were deinstitutionalized, which in turnformed the basis of our case study description,presented above.

In the second stage of our analysis, we ana-lyzed the structure of Carson’s book; summarizedthe content of each chapter; and, by coding thesesummaries, identified whether and how they“problematized” existing institutionalized prac-tices. We identified three meanings of DDT use,taken for granted at the time, that were problema-tized in the book: DDT was (1) safe, (2) effective,and (3) necessary. Figure 2 presents an overviewof how Carson’s problematizations are presentedin her book. These problematizations led Carsonto call for legislative change on the basis of bothscientific evidence (Figure 2 shows the number ofscientific citations given for each chapter) andher critique of the morality of practices of DDTuse in relation to environmental values and indi-vidual rights. She wrote that “enormous numbersof people” were subjected to “contact with thesepoisons, without their consent and often withouttheir knowledge” (Carson, 1962: 12). In combin-ing factual arguments, ethical reasoning, and cri-tiques of the legislative status quo, Silent Springrepresented an attempt to undermine each of thecognitive, normative, and regulative pillars sup-porting practices of DDT use.

Our next stages of analysis addressed whetherand how changes in the discourse of practices ofDDT use occurred. The third stage of analysis wascross-sectional. We identified texts we couldcompare at two points in time: in 1962, whenSilent Spring appeared and DDT was the top-selling insecticide, with usage practices taken forgranted; and in 1972, when DDT was banned. Forthe regulative pillar, we compared the contents offederal legislation in effect in 1962 and 1972. Forthe cognitive pillar, we compared the content oftextbooks from two scientific disciplines: appliedentomology, which might be expected to be bi-ased in favor of DDT; and ecology, which mightbe expected to be biased against it. We soughttextbooks for which different editions had beenpublished before and after Silent Spring andbased our final selection on advice from col-leagues in entomology and ecology. It was moredifficult to identify relevant texts that could becompared at the two points in time in relation tothe normative pillar. In the end, we opted tocompare the 1962 New York Times editorial fol-lowing the publication of Silent Spring with thisnewspaper’s 1972 editorial following the ban, asan indicator of opinion concerning the “right-ness” or “wrongness” of practices of DDT use. In

our analysis of each pillar, we coded for whetherand how these texts constructed DDT as safe,effective, and necessary at the two points in time.In this way, we were able to identify new bodiesof knowledge.

Our fourth stage involved a longitudinal inves-tigation in which we identified some texts ad-dressing DDT use between 1939 (when DDT’sinsect-killing properties were first discovered)and 1972 (when DDT was banned) and associatedwith each of the three pillars. For the regulativepillar, we examined the texts of all federal regu-lations and administrative rulings affecting prac-tices of DDT use between 1939 and 1972. For thecognitive pillar, because the scientific literatureon DDT consisted of a massive volume of texts,we analyzed doctoral dissertations, to capture thefrontiers of scientific knowledge, and articles inScience, to capture additions to scientific knowl-edge considered important by the scientific com-munity. Using two databases, Proquest Disserta-tions and Theses and the Reader’s Guide toPeriodical Literature, we retrieved dissertationsand Science articles from 1939 to 1972 with“DDT” in their titles or as a database keyword.For the normative pillar, we examined a range oftexts, including all New York Times editorialsfrom 1939 to 1972 mentioning DDT; texts pro-duced by NGOs, which made ethical argumentsagainst DDT; and reports produced by ad hocgovernment advisory committees whose recom-mendations, although they had no legal weight ordirect legislative impact, drew conclusions aboutthe appropriateness of practices of DDT use(Mrak, 1969; PSAC, 1963; Ribicoff, 1966).1 Wecomplemented our analyses of these texts withsecondary data on letters written to editors andpublishers in response to Silent Spring. Wecoded these texts for whether and how they con-structed DDT as safe, effective, and necessaryover time to identify the specific ways in whichthe problematizations were translated. We alsoexamined changes in the pattern of text author-ship to establish whether new actors began toproduce texts. By further examining whether thetexts of new actors were consequential—whether

1 We categorized government reports as normativerather than regulative because they were merely advi-sory: the government was neither bound by their conclu-sions nor obliged to implement their recommendations.Any impact of these reports is thus normative rather thancoercive. We considered texts that were backed by thecoercive power of government, such as administrativerulings, court orders, and acts of legislation, in connec-tion with the regulative pillar.


FIG

UR

E2

Str

uct

ure

and

Pro

blem

atiz

atio

ns

ofS

ilen

tS

pri

ng

Ch

apte

r N

um

ber

and

Tit

le

Ch

apte

r S

um

mar

y N

um

ber

of C

itat

ion

s in

Sci

enti

fic

Ch

apte

r

(1)

“A F

able

for

T

omor

row

” V

isio

n o

f a

wor

ld p

oiso

ned

by

agri

cult

ura

l ch

emic

als.

0

Ove

rvie

w o

f arg

uem

ents

Apo

caly

ptic

vis

ion

(2)

“Th

e O

blig

atio

n t

o E

nd

ure

” O

verv

iew

of

them

es a

nd

ar

gum

ents

. 4

(3)

“Eli

xirs

of

Dea

th”

Intr

odu

ctio

n o

f D

DT

an

d o

ther

ag

ricu

ltu

ral

chem

ical

s.

70

(4)

“Su

rfac

e W

ater

s an

d

Un

der

grou

nd

Sea

s”

Imp

acts

on

gro

un

d a

nd

su

rfac

e w

ater

s, a

quat

ic l

ife.

17

(5)

“Rea

lms

of t

he

Soi

l”

Imp

acts

on

soi

l an

d s

oil

orga

nis

ms.

17

(6)

“Ear

th’s

Gre

en

Man

tle”

Imp

acts

on

pla

nts

an

d

vege

tati

on.

42

(7)

“Nee

dle

ss H

avoc

” Im

pac

ts o

n w

ild

life

, in

clu

din

g so

me

bird

s.

17

(8)

“An

d N

o B

ird

s S

ing”

Im

pac

ts o

n b

ird

s.

49

(9)

“Riv

ers

of D

eath

” Im

pac

ts o

n f

ish

. 41

(10)

“In

dis

crim

inat

ely

from

th

e S

kies

” A

eria

l sp

rayi

ng

cam

pai

gns.

47

(11)

“B

eyon

d t

he

Dre

ams

of t

he

Bor

gias

” R

esid

ues

an

d d

ay-t

o-d

ay

exp

osu

re i

n t

he

hom

e.

14

(12)

“T

he

Hu

man

Pri

ce”

Imp

acts

on

hu

man

hea

lth

. 26

(13)

“T

hro

ugh

a N

arro

w

Win

dow

” C

ell-

leve

l im

pac

ts;

rep

rod

uct

ion

; mu

tage

nic

ity.

59

(14)

“O

ne

in E

very

Fou

r”

Can

cer;

car

cin

ogen

ic e

ffec

ts

of a

gric

ult

ura

l ch

emic

als.

57

(15)

“N

atu

re F

igh

ts B

ack”

Im

pac

ts o

n in

sect

pre

dat

or-p

rey

rela

tion

s.

34

(16)

“T

he

Ru

mbl

ings

of

an A

vala

nch

e”

Imp

acts

on

gen

etic

s of

tar

get

spec

ies

pop

ula

tion

s.

32

(17)

“T

he

Oth

er R

oad

” S

ucc

essf

ul

biol

ogic

al

alte

rnat

ives

. 60

Pr

oble

mat

izat

ion

of ne

cess

ity

Safe

ty fo

r

Neg

ativ

e im

pact

s on

no

nhum

an s

peci

es

Safe

ty fo

r hu

man

s

Spra

ying

and

ubi

quit

y

of e

xpos

ure

in

envi

ronm

ent

Prob

lem

atiz

atio

n

of ef

fica

cy

Prob

lem

atiz

atio

n

of sa

fety

Res

idue

s an

d ub

iqui

ty

of

exp

osur

e in

hom

e

Neg

ativ

e im

pact

s on

hu

man

s

Intr

oduc

tion

of a

gric

ultu

ral

ch

emic

als

Prob

lem

s of

res

urge

nce

and

seco

ndar

y pe

sts

Prob

lem

s of

res

ista

nce

envi

ronm

ent

their texts influenced and were referenced inother texts, whether the groups were viewed aslegitimate, and whether power/knowledge rela-tions were changed—we were able to identifynew subject positions.

Our final stage involved an analysis of countertexts. Because of the large volume of counter textsthat existed, we focused on key texts identifiedfrom our discursive event history database, includ-ing scientific texts submitted in evidence to formalhearings on behalf of industry and government;articles in trade journals; and scientific journal ar-ticles. We then coded these texts for whether andhow they countered the problematizations pro-moted in Silent Spring.

FINDINGS

Silent Spring problematized practices of DDTuse—as not safe, effective, or necessary—and, in sodoing, made a case for institutional change. Ourfindings illustrate that the pillars supporting tak-en-for-granted practices were not dismantled sin-gle-handedly by Silent Spring but as a result ofthe process of translating its problematizations.Over time, the discourse that gave practices ofDDT use their meaning changed, leading to theabandonment of DDT: new subject positionsemerged from which actors spoke and acted insupport of problematizations, which then becamenormalized in new bodies of knowledge. Ourfindings are organized around the pillars to illus-trate how each of them was undermined, despiteefforts to defend them.

The Cognitive Pillar

Texts associated with the cognitive pillar can beparticularly consequential in a case such as thisbecause their authors (as scientific “experts”) aretypically considered authoritative. As a result, theyplay an important role in constructing scientificorthodoxy through “fact-making” (Maguire, 2004).Our analysis indicates that Silent Spring provokeda flurry of scientific texts that, collectively and overtime, weakened the cognitive pillar as existing“facts” about DDT were increasingly contested byscientists outside the discipline of economic ento-mology, where DDT had traditionally been re-searched. In this way, new subject positionsemerged in the discourse of DDT, and the prob-lematization of DDT’s safety for the environmentsurvived the process of translation as assertions ofDDT’s environmental impacts became normalizedas new scientific “facts.”

Normalization of problematizations. SilentSpring and the controversy it generated promptednew patterns in the production, distribution, andconsumption of scientific texts; it was reviewed inscientific journals; and its claims were studied andevaluated in countless other research reports. Overthe period beginning in the mid 1940s and endingin 1972, the increased number and proportion ofdoctoral dissertations and Science articles address-ing DDT’s safety (that is, its impacts on noninsectlife such as birds, fish, and mammals, includinghumans), as opposed to its efficacy (its impacts oninsects), evidence these new patterns. Figures 3aand 3b respectively show 1946–72 doctoral disser-tations and 1944–72 Science articles divided into

FIGURE 3aNumber of Doctoral Dissertations on DDT, by Topic, by Year

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972

Birds Chemistry/biochemistry Fish (including

other marine

life) Insects (including

other pests)Mammals (including man) Persistence and environmental fate Regulation


the following topic categories: birds, fish, mammals(including humans), environmental persistence, in-sects, regulation, and chemistry. These categoriesbroadly correspond to safety, efficacy, and neces-sity: texts on insects address efficacy; those onbirds, fish, mammals, and environmental persis-tence address safety; those on regulation addresssafety and necessity.2 Prior to 1962, insects (re-search on DDT’s efficacy) was the dominant cate-gory, addressed in 84 percent of dissertations and57 percent of Science articles. There was relativelylittle research on DDT’s safety; only 3 percent ofdissertations and 18 percent of articles addressedDDT’s impacts on birds, fish, and mammals or itspersistence. Publications addressing these lattertopics increased significantly during 1962–72 tocomprise 67 percent of dissertations and 70 percentof articles, while those addressing DDT’s efficacyagainst insects declined to only 27 percent of disser-tations and 4 percent of articles. This analysis sug-gests that scientific texts addressing DDT’s safetymade up an increasingly larger proportion of DDTdiscourse after the publication of Silent Spring. Sci-ence articles on regulation also increased in propor-tion after 1962, indicating that DDT’s necessity be-came part of the research agenda.

This is not to say that the scientific communityimmediately or completely accepted the problema-tizations in Silent Spring. The 1962 review in Sci-ence was negative, labeling Carson’s treatment of

the issue as unbalanced in that it ignored the ben-efits of pesticides, and claiming that “most scien-tists who are familiar with the field . . . feel that thedanger of damage [to humans and wildlife] isslight” (Baldwin, 1962: 1042). Other scientific textsalso countered the problematizations in SilentSpring. Over time, however, as more scientific textswere produced, distributed, and consumed, countertexts became more selective about which problema-tizations they criticized and how they criticizedthem. As a result, the problematization of DDT’spresumed safety for the environment survived theprocess of translation to become normalized; asser-tions of DDT’s environmental impacts were trans-formed into facts that appeared in textbooks, to betaught by academics and read by students as part ofthe new scientific orthodoxy on DDT.

Table 1a presents evidence of this process bycomparing the 1962 and 1971 editions of a textbookon applied entomology. Whereas the earlier editionnotes only a few “disadvantages” affecting farmersand none affecting the environment, the later edi-tion acknowledges environmental problems withDDT: persistence in soil, accumulation in organ-isms, and biological magnification via food chainsare all asserted. Table 1b provides similar evidencefrom a comparison of two editions of an ecologytextbook: the later edition asserts “the poisoning ofentire food chains” (Odum, 1971: 445) as well asDDT’s negative impacts on bird populations with-out qualification and with explicit reference to Si-lent Spring, and it links DDT to “one of the world’smost serious pollution problems” (Odum, 1971:446) because of its negative impacts. The problema-tization of human safety also survives the transla-

2 Research addressing chemistry is not directly relatedto safety, efficacy, or necessity; it is concerned with howto synthesize DDT and how to identify it in samples ofbiological materials.

FIGURE 3bNumber of Articles on DDT in Science, by Topic, by Year


tion process but in qualified form: the entomologytextbook qualifies it by expressing “concern” onlyin relation to “possible” chronic impacts (Pfadt,1971: 208); the ecology textbook qualifies it by say-ing the threat is “not yet demonstrated” but “could”occur (Odum, 1971: 446). With respect to efficacy,both the entomology and ecology textbooks hadalready acknowledged problems of resistance priorto Silent Spring and continued to do so in the latereditions; however, there is little evidence that con-cern over this problem was significant or changedmuch: the ecology text makes only passing refer-

ence to resistance, and the entomology textbookminimizes the problematization of efficacy by stat-ing that resistance is “limited to relatively smallareas” (Pfadt, 1971: 349). Our analysis yielded noevidence that the problematization of DDT’s neces-sity promoted in Silent Spring survived the trans-lation process: coverage of biological controls wassimilar—and quite limited—in both editions ofboth textbooks.

New subject positions. Changes in the pattern ofauthorship of scientific texts also occurred: prior to1962, economic entomologists produced the major-

TABLE 1aComparison of the Editions of an Applied Entomology Textbook Available in 1962 and 1972a, b

Pfadt, 1962 (1st edition) Pfadt, 1971 (2nd edition) Significance

“There are several advantages and afew disadvantages in using DDT.. . . It acts as both a contact andstomach poison and is stableunder most conditions. Itsresidual action is usually anadvantage, but may also be adisadvantage when it gets intofood products.” (183)

“DDT is a stable product which does not break downreadily and thus tends to remain in theenvironment. It is highly insoluble in water anddoes not leach to any extent from the soil. Itaccumulates in fat and thus becomes stored in thebodies of animals. This latter fact has been theprime reason for the several cases of banning ofDDT. Organisms in the food chain accumulateDDT and pass it on to their consumers. Theincrease in chemical concentration as it passesthrough the food chain is called biologicalmagnification.” (208)

Evidence that problematization ofenvironmental safety survivesthe translation process: the“few disadvantages” describedin 1962 affect farmers only,whereas a longer list ofproblems is described in 1971,and these affect theenvironment, i.e. persistence insoil, accumulation in animals,and biological magnificationvia food chains.

“DDT is a relatively safeinsecticide.” (183)

“[DDT] has relatively little acute toxicity tomammals. But there is concern about possiblechronic effects in mammals exposed to low levelsof DDT over a long period of time.” (208)

Evidence that problematization ofhuman safety survives thetranslation process but inqualified form: human safety isparsed into acute and chronictoxicity, and the latter is“possible.”

Resistance is addressed in oneparagraph with specific mentionof organochlorines (includingDDT); 12 insects with resistanceare enumerated (323)

“[DDT] is effective against a widerange of insects, but severalspecies have developed resistanceto it.” (183)

Resistance is addressed in one paragraph withspecific mention of organochlorines (includingDDT); 16 insects with resistance are enumerated;“entomologists have now found resistance in 20species . . . mainly to chlorinated hydrocarboninsecticides [which include DDT]”

There is specific mention of resistance to DDT in thebollworm. “Resistance of the majority of thesespecies is limited to relatively small areas. Nospecies is known to be resistant throughout itsentire distribution.” (349 & 352)

Evidence that problematization ofefficacy survives the translationprocess but in minimized form:resistance is acknowledged in1962 and has increasedsomewhat by 1972, but limitsare put on its scale and scope.

Biological controls are addressed inapproximately 4 pages (excludingphotos); chemical controls areaddressed in a chapter of 32pages.

Biological controls are addressed in approximately 3pages (excluding photos); chemical controls areaddressed in a chapter of 29 pages.

No evidence thatproblematization of necessityhas survived translation:coverage of biological andchemical controls is similar inboth editions, and the former islimited.

a The textbook is R. E. Pfadt, Fundamentals of Applied Entomology. See the References for bibliographic details.b Numbers in parentheses following selections refer to pages.


ity of our sampled texts; after 1962, scientists fromother disciplines were producing texts. We foundthat of the 69 dissertations appearing prior to 1962,61 percent were from entomologists or agriculturalscientists, and only 17 percent were from biologistsor zoologists. In contrast, of the 102 dissertationsfrom 1962–72, only 22 percent came from entomol-ogy or agricultural science; 54 percent came from awide range of disciplines concerned with the im-pact of DDT on human health and the environment,

including biology, ecology, ecotoxicology, nutri-tion, soil science, and zoology. Similarly, of the 67articles published in Science prior to 1962, 43 per-cent were from entomologists or agricultural scien-tists, and 18 percent were from biologists or zoolo-gists. Of the 71 articles from after 1962, only 10percent came from entomology or agricultural sci-ence; 65 percent came from disciplines concernedwith DDT’s safety for humans and the environment.

The changes in patterns of authorship indicate

TABLE 1bComparison of the Editions of an Ecology Textbook Available in 1962 and 1972a, b

Odum, 1959 (2nd edition) Odum, 1971 (3rd edition) Significance

“DDT, ecology of” is the onlygermane entry in the indexand is indexed to twopages (530).

“DDT, in food chains” is indexed to two pages; “DDT,poisoning of birds by” is indexed to one page;“DDT, worldwide pollution by” is indexed to onepage. (561)

Evidence that problematization ofenvironmental safety survivestranslation: DDT’s presence infood chains and poisoning ofbirds is highlighted in theindex.

There is no reference toSilent Spring, which hadyet to be written.

“And the poisoning of entire food chains wasdramatically brought to public attention in 1962 byRachel Carson’s famous book, Silent Spring.” (445)

“The end result of the widespread use of DDT is thatwhole populations of predatory birds . . . are beingwiped out.” (75)

The “poisoning of entire foodchains” is asserted withoutqualification, with explicitreference to Silent Spring.

DDT’s negative impacts on birdpopulations are assertedwithout qualification.

Environmental pollution isaddressed in one paragraph(425–426).

Environmental pollution is addressed in a new,dedicated chapter of 18 pages (432–450). Within it,the “Insecticides” section is entirely devoted toDDT and other organochlorine insecticides with thefollowing assertion: “These substances haveproduced one of the world’s most serious pollutionproblems.” (446)

A new chapter places particularemphasis on DDT and otherpersistent insecticides, thenegative impacts of which areaccepted without qualificationand characterized as “one ofthe world’s most seriouspollution problems.”

There is no mention ofhuman safety indiscussions of DDT andother pesticides.

“While direct effects [of DDT and otherorganochlorines] on the hormone balance in manhave not yet been demonstrated, concentrationlevels in human tissue are now high enough thatsuch effects, and also cancer and deleteriousmutuations, could occur in the future.” (446;emphasis in original)

Evidence that problematization ofhuman safety survivestranslation in qualified form:potential threat isacknowledged, but moreresearch is said to be needed.

“Excessive use of insecticidesis creating other problemssuch as . . . thedevelopment of resistancein pests themselves.” (426)

“Unheeded warnings of an entomological backlash(i.e. pest outbreaks) actually induced by sprayingwere voiced in the 1950s.” (445).

Evidence that problematization ofefficacy survives translation butin minimized form: Resistanceis described in both editions,but only in passing.

Biological control of insectsis indexed to two pages(527).

Biological control of pests is indexed to two pages.(559)

No evidence thatproblematization of necessitysurvives translation: coverageof biological controls is low inboth editions.

a The textbook is P. Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology. See the references for bibliographic details.b Numbers in parentheses following selections refer to pages.


that scientists working in disciplines other thaneconomic entomology had begun to participatemuch more actively in scientific discussions ofDDT, challenging the previously dominant eco-nomic entomologists. As these researchers pub-lished more dissertations and articles, their re-search and expertise became more valuable toothers involved in decision making, and their textswere widely consumed. For example, Dr. Charles F.Wurster Jr., a biology professor who studied theimpact of pesticides on birds, addressed DDT inScience eight times between 1965 and 1972,worked closely with the Environmental DefenseFund, and testified against DDT at formal hearings.Dr. Joseph J. Hickey, a wildlife ecologist whosework linked DDT to the thinning of eggshells, alsopublished in Science and testified at formalhearings.

The problematization of DDT’s safety for the en-vironment in Silent Spring thus played an impor-tant role in the emergence of new subject positionsin the discourse about DDT; Carson’s book was animportant catalyst in the development of ecotoxi-cology (Wright & Welbourne, 2002) and ecology(Kudlinski, 1988), from which flowed a growingstream of increasingly consequential scientifictexts describing DDT’s negative impacts. As legiti-mate, authoritative voices, these disciplines chal-lenged the previously dominant position of economicentomology by speaking and acting in support ofproblematizations and, in so doing, creating a newbody of scientific knowledge about DDT.

In summary, the cognitive pillar that supportedexisting DDT practices was undermined as previ-ously taken-for-granted facts underpinning DDT’spresumed safety for the environment were initiallycontested and, over time, replaced by new ones.Subsequent to Silent Spring, more individual sci-entists from outside economic entomology startedto participate in scientific discussions of the pesti-cide by conducting research and publishing arti-cles. Over time, new subject positions emerged inthe discourse of DDT, as disciplines such as ecol-ogy and ecotoxicology became established as ongo-ing contributors to knowledge about it. The emer-gence of these positions led to even more researchon the negative impacts of DDT, which in turngenerated more texts that increasingly converged intheir descriptions of reality: that DDT was not safefor the environment became normalized in a newbody of scientific knowledge.

The Normative Pillar

Our analysis illustrates how Silent Spring sparkeda public debate generating a large volume of texts

that collectively and over time weakened the nor-mative pillar, as individual actors increasingly con-tested the appropriateness and desirability of DDTuse. Over time, new subject positions—the publicas well as environmentalist NGOs and politiciansspeaking on its behalf—emerged in the discourse ofDDT, and the problematization challenging DDT’spresumed safety for the environment survived theprocess of translation to become normalized in anew body of knowledge, making a moral case forthe abandonment of DDT use.

Normalization of problematizations. SilentSpring was widely consumed in the public arena;sales of the book exceeded half a million copies inthe first year, and CBS’s documentary reached over10 million people. As a result, members of thepublic increasingly saw themselves as having aninterest in curtailing practices of DDT use, and theyresponded by speaking out against it. According tosecondary sources, many thousands of citizenswrote letters to Carson, her publisher, the NewYorker, CBS television, newspapers, and govern-ment agencies, with the vast majority voicing sup-port for Silent Spring’s problematizations and nor-mative conclusions (Coit Murphy, 2005; Lear,1997). For example, 98 percent of the publishedand unpublished letters to the New Yorker praisedthe book or its serialization (Coit Murphy, 2005).By producing and distributing their own texts (i.e.,writing letters to editors and politicians, participat-ing in call-in radio debates, signing petitions to haltspraying campaigns), the public began to questionthe appropriateness and desirability of DDT.

Editorials from the New York Times also indi-cated growing support for banning DDT use. Priorto 1962, there had been no call for a ban, and mosteditorials had praised DDT’s insect-killing proper-ties, with only two (in 1959 and 1961) mentioningpossible negative impacts. In July 1962, an editorialreported on Silent Spring, praising it for initiating apublic debate about DDT. Table 2 presents evi-dence that, in 1962–72 editorials, the problemati-zation of environmental safety was taken up duringthe process of translation (i.e., negative impacts onthe environment were asserted); the problematiza-tion of human safety was qualified (i.e., negativeimpacts on human health were “possible”); theproblematization of DDT’s efficacy was of littleconcern in the public debate; and the problemati-zation of necessity was subverted insomuch asother chemicals, criticized in Silent Spring, wereviewed as acceptable substitutes for DDT, whereasbiological controls were viewed as requiring moreresearch and development.

NGOs also produced texts questioning the appro-priateness of using DDT on moral grounds. The


Environmental Defense Fund existed, in the wordsof one member, to “define human rights throughresearch, education and litigation” (Woodwell,quoted in Dunlap, 1981: 147). It maintained that

practices of DDT use were inappropriate becauseeveryone had the right “to full benefit, use andenjoyment of the national natural resource treasure. . . without degradation or diminution in value

TABLE 2Comparison of 1962–72 New York Times Editorials

Date and Page ofEditorial

Is DDT’s Safety forEnvironment Questioned?

Is DDT’s Safety forHumans

Questioned?Is DDT’s Efficacy

Questioned?Is DDT’s Necessity

Questioned?

Is MoreRegulation

Recommended?

July 2, 1962: 28 YesMay 17, 1963: 32 Yes Yes YesMay 27, 1964: 38 Yes Yes: Safer chemical

substitutes areavailable.

Yes

April 27, 1965:36

Yes Yes: Biologicalcontrols can bedeveloped.

January 24, 1969:46

Yes Yes

April 20, 1969:E12

Yes Yes: Safer chemicalsubstitutes areavailable.

Yes

May 3, 1969: 34 Yes Yes, possiblethreat exists.

Yes

May 25, 1969:E16

Yes Yes

June 2, 1969: 44 Yes Yes, possiblethreat exists.

Yes: Safer chemicalsubstitutes areavailable.

Yes

July 7, 1969: 32 Yes Yes, possiblethreat exists.

Yes Yes

November 29,1969: 32

Yes Yes

February 17,1970: 42

Yes Yes

June 23, 1970: 42 Yes YesJuly 3, 1970: 24 Yes Yes YesAugust 23, 1970:

E12Yes Yes: But there is a

need for cost-effectivechemicalsubstitutes andbiologicalcontrols.

Yes

November 26,1971: 36

Yes Yes, possiblethreat exists.

Yes Yes: But there is aneed forbiologicalcontrols.

Yes

June 18, 1972: E5 Yes Yes, possiblethreat exists.

Yes

Significance Evidence that problematizationof environmental safety istaken up during the processof translation.

Evidence thatproblematizationof human safetyis qualifiedduring theprocess oftranslation:“possible” threatexists.

Little evidence thatproblematizationof efficacy is ofconcern or takenup during theprocess oftranslation.

Evidence thatproblematizationof necessity issubverted duringthe process oftranslation: otherchemicals areseen asacceptablesubstitutes.

Consistent callfor moreregulation.


resulting from the use of the broad spectrum, per-sistent, chemical biocide DDT”; and it invokedintergenerational equity to extend this right to“generations yet unborn” (Henkin, Mertle, & Sta-ples, 1971: 16). Similarly, members of the AudubonSociety were exhorted to “stop this gambling withthe balance of nature and the lives of people. . . .Why must innocent creatures and valuable plantlife suffer? Just so a small minority can makemoney? Thank God for crusaders such as RachelCarson!” (Long, 1962: 299).

Political opinion also began to change: no gov-ernment text had recommended the elimination ofDDT prior to 1962; in fact, the Department of Agri-culture recommended it to farmers for use on awide variety of crops. But three important govern-ment advisory reports subsequently recommendedabandonment of DDT use, supporting the conclu-sions in Silent Spring that it was inappropriate andundesirable. Table 3 indicates that the problemati-zation of DDT’s safety for the environment wastaken up during the process of translation and ap-pears in all three reports (i.e., DDT’s negative im-pacts on the environment are asserted); the prob-lematization of DDT’s safety for humans wasqualified (i.e., DDT’s negative impacts on humanswere regarded as not proven, but neither was itssafety); the problematization of DDT’s efficacy wasof little concern in the advisory reports; and theproblematization of necessity was subverted (i.e.,all reports were skeptical of the viability of biolog-ical controls and advocated other chemicals alsocriticized in Silent Spring but which were moretargeted and less persistent than DDT).

New subject positions. Over time, a number ofnew subject positions emerged. One important newsubject position was that of the public, which cameto be accepted as a legitimate contributor to thedebate over DDT. Following the publication of Si-lent Spring, members of the public wrote letters tonewspapers, government agencies, and politiciansin support of its problematizations (Coit Murphy,2005; Lear, 1997). NGOs and politicians also thenbegan authoring texts in support of problematiza-tions, speaking on behalf of the public. They toobecame accepted, ongoing contributors to the de-bate over practices of DDT use, resulting in othernew subject positions. One prominent environmen-tal NGO, for example, was the Environmental De-fense Fund, mentioned above, which was formedin 1967 specifically to address DDT use. In addi-tion, existing conservation organizations, such asthe Audubon Society, grew in membership andjoined the fight against DDT, largely as a result ofSilent Spring (Bosso, 1987). These NGOs producedmore texts that challenged the continued use of

DDT on moral grounds, asserting its negative im-pacts on the environment and humans and callingfor a ban. NGOs’ texts were increasingly conse-quential, informing the public, the media, and for-mal hearings, as NGOs launched campaigns andfound arenas in which the restriction or abandon-ment of DDT use could be formally debated. Forexample, the Brookhaven Town National Re-sources Committee made an unsuccessful attemptto halt the spraying of DDT by the Suffolk CountyMosquito Control Commission in New York in1966; and the Citizens’ Natural Resources Associa-tion of Wisconsin and the Environmental DefenseFund were successful in having DDT declared as awater pollutant in Wisconsin in 1970.

The other new subject position was that of envi-ronmental politicians: as they began to acknowledgethat the public “warranted voice” on the matter ofpesticides, and that DDT was a legitimate issue forthe political agenda, politicians also started to au-thor consequential texts problematizing DDT use.Immediately following its publication, portions ofSilent Spring were read into the CongressionalRecord; state legislatures across the United Stateswere presented with some 40 bills addressing pes-ticides; and in 1965, Senator Gaylord Nelson ofWisconsin tried to introduce (ultimately unsuc-cessful) legislation seeking to ban DDT. He alsotestified against the pesticide at the Wisconsinhearings in 1968.

To summarize, the normative pillar that sup-ported existing DDT practices was undermined, aspreviously taken-for-granted conclusions regardingthe appropriateness and desirability of this chemi-cal were challenged and members of the public,individual NGOs, and politicians made a moralcase for its abandonment. All of these actors be-came accepted as ongoing contributors to discus-sions of DDT and produced consequential texts.Together, these three new subject positions repre-sented an environmental lobby that acted as acounterweight to the powerful agricultural lobbythat defended practices of DDT use. As texts con-verged in their descriptions of DDT as inappropri-ate because of its negative impacts on the environ-ment, and in their recommendations that DDT bereplaced by other chemicals, the opinion that DDTwas not safe for the environment or necessary be-came normalized in a new body of lay and politicalknowledge.

The Regulative Pillar

In 1962, the federal legislation governing the useof pesticides was the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fun-gicide and Rodenticide Act, which did not single


TABLE 3Comparison of Three Government Advisory Reportsa, b

PSAC, 1963 Ribicoff, 1966 Mrak, 1969 Significance

The committee recognizes “thewide distribution andpersistence of DDT.” (5)

“Mortalities among birds haveapproached 80 percent inareas heavily treated withDDT. . . . Fish losses havebeen extensive . . . usingDDT.” (10)

Carson is mentioned regardingsafety for environment. (1)

There is acknowledgementthat “birds die from eatingpesticide-contaminatedearthworms” (24) and “toooften we alter theenvironment [withpesticides] before weunderstand what is goingon.” (25)

“Abundant evidence provesthe widespreaddistribution of DDT . . . inman, birds, fish, otheraquatic organisms,wildlife. . . . Evidence alsodemonstrates that thesematerials are highlyinjurious to somenontarget species andthreaten other species andbiological systems.” (9)

Evidence that problematizationof environmental safety istaken up during the processof translation (although theRibicoff Report is morecautious): negative impactsof DDT on the environmentare asserted.

Carson is mentioned regardingsafety for humans. (23)

But “[DDT’s] toxicity to man islow” with “no evidence oftumor induction” (12). But“possible long-term effectscannot be predicted.” (9)

“While [chronic toxicity]experiments to date havedetected no adverse effectsthe evidence is not yetsufficient for finaljudgment.” (23)

DDT is “positive fortumorigenicity”;however, “DDT can beregarded neither as aproven danger as acarcinogen for man noras an assuredly safepesticide.” (471)

Evidence that problematizationof human safety is qualifiedduring the process oftranslation: negative impactsof DDT are regarded as notproven, but neither is itssafety.

Resistance is addressed in twosentences in the 25-pagereport.

Resistance is addressed in twoparagraphs in the 86-pagereport.

Resistance is mentioned inpassing as “having agrowing influence on theuse of pesticides.” (22)

Evidence that problematizationof efficacy is minimizedduring the process oftranslation: resistance ismentioned only briefly.

“Nonchemical methods forpest control . . . haveweaknesses.” (14)

The committee calls for moreresearch on “selectivelytoxic chemicals, (b)nonpersistent chemicals, (c)selective methods ofapplication, and (d)nonchemical controlmethods.” (21)

“There appears to be noalternative to chemicalpesticides which will nothave some drawbacks of itsown or replace one problemwith another.” (26)

The recommendations includeencouraging “the chemicalindustry to developchemical pesticides whichare safer for human beings;accelerate the developmentof non-chemical pest-controlmethods.” (68)

“Chemicals, includingpesticides . . . are of suchimportance in modernlife that we must learn tolive with them.” (3)

“Recommendation 11:Provide incentives toindustry to encourage thedevelopment of morespecific pest controlchemicals.” (17)

“Non-insecticidal controltechniques are not likelyto have a significantimpact on the use ofinsecticides in theforeseeable future.” (21)

Evidence that problematization ofnecessity is subverted duringthe process of translation: allthree reports are skeptical ofthe viability of biologicalcontrols and advocate moretargeted, less persistentchemical substitutes.

One recommendation is:“Elimination of the use ofpersistent toxic pesticidesshould be the goal.” (20)

“While most agreed that weshould endeavor to shiftaway from the use ofpersistent toxic pesticideswhere possible, fewbelieved that their completeelimination was a practicalor reasonable goal.” (30)

One recommendation is:“Eliminate within twoyears all uses of DDT andDDD in the United Statesexcepting those usesessential to thepreservation of humanhealth or welfare.” (8)

All three reports drawnormative conclusions thatexisting practices areinappropriate andundesirable; and theyrecommend elimination(although Ribicoff isskeptical of practicality offull abandonment).

a For bibliographic details on the three reports—PSAC; Ribicoff; and Mrak—see the References.b Numbers in parentheses refer to pages.


out DDT for special attention. Our analysis suggeststhat Silent Spring provoked a series of texts backedby the coercive power of government that, collec-tively and over time, undermined the regulativepillar. Some of these texts were authored by newgovernment actors, most notably the EPA, an im-portant new subject position, which issued the1972 ban. The text of the ban indicates that theproblematization of DDT’s presumed safety forthe environment survived the process of translationto become normalized in a new body of law restrict-ing its use.

Normalization of problematizations. Contem-porary actors credited Silent Spring with giving riseto a range of legislative texts: “Rachel Carson usedher superb writing skill and the inspired allegory ofa bird’s song to tap a full reservoir of public anxietyover chemical pesticides in our environment. Thereaction to the raising of this issue extendedthroughout Government. . . . New legislation waspassed and the executive agencies realined [sic]their policies to deal with the problem” (Ribicoff,1966: 1–2). These texts included a 1964 amend-ment of the 1947 act governing pesticides to close aloophole and prevent manufacturers from register-ing these substances under protest. This made iteasier for the Department of Agriculture to cancelpesticide registrations, which it did. From 1967 to1970, citing concerns over DDT’s negative impactson the environment, the Department of Agricultureissued cancellation notices affecting DDT use in aseries of minor markets.

In 1972, the Administrator of the EPA announceda ban on the use of DDT. The text of his “Opinionand Order” refers directly to some of Silent Spring’sproblematizations. Table 4 suggests that the prob-lematization of DDT’s safety for the environmentsurvived the process of translation: DDT’s negativeimpacts on the environment, such as its thinning ofbird eggshells, are asserted. The problematizationof DDT’s safety for humans also survived the pro-cess of translation, although in qualified form: DDTwas noted as a “potential” carcinogen. DDT’s effi-cacy was not a consideration; its necessity, on theother hand, was: the issue of substitutes figuresprominently in the Opinion and Order. The prob-lematization of DDT’s necessity survived the pro-cess of translation but in subverted form. The EPAadministrator found that DDT was not necessary—not because DDT could be economically replacedwith biological controls, as advocated in SilentSpring—but because it could be replaced by otherchemicals that had been criticized in Carson’sbook.

New subject positions. One new subject positionwas created as a result of the 1964 Interdepartmen-

tal Agreement on Coordination of Activities Relat-ing to Pesticides, signed by the Department of Ag-riculture, the Department of the Interior, and theDepartment of Health, Education, and Welfare andcreating the Federal Committee on Pest Con-trol—an outcome that was attributed to SilentSpring (Ribicoff, 1966). The Committee replacedthe Federal Pest Control Review Board and wasgiven greater authority to address regulation, re-search, and information programs, in addition topest control programs. By far, the most significantnew subject position, however, was the EPA,whose creation in 1970 has also been directly at-tributed to Silent Spring (Lewis, 1985; Wilson,2002). As compared to the Federal Committee onPest Control, the EPA was far larger (during 1970–72, the EPA’s budget and workforce more than dou-bled to almost $2.5 billion and 8,358 employees)and more powerful. Pesticides were a key priorityfor the EPA—the Pesticides Office was the only oneof five programmatic offices to focus on a particularindustry and its products.3 Moreover, DDT use was aparticular concern because of the intense public andpolitical interest in the topic. It also represented anopportunity for the new agency to send an early mes-sage about how staunchly it would protect theenvironment.

The EPA took over responsibility for pesticideregistrations from the Department of Agriculture;research on the safety of pesticides for humans andthe setting of pesticide residue tolerances from theDepartment of Health, Education, and Welfare; andresearch on the safety of pesticides for the environ-ment from the Department of the Interior. For thefirst time, a single agency was responsible for con-sidering the interests of the public and the environ-ment, in addition to those of farmers, in regulatingpesticides. The agency thus represented a majorrealignment of both interests and authority in thefield. As its first administrator said, “EPA is anindependent agency. It has no obligation to pro-mote agriculture or commerce; only the critical ob-ligation to protect and enhance the environment”(Ruckelshaus, 1970). Accordingly, the EPA repre-sented a powerful new subject position in the dis-course of DDT: a legitimate government unit man-dated to exercise voice and to act to protect theenvironment, whose texts were extremely conse-quential, particularly in the case of the ban.

To summarize, the regulative pillar that had pre-viously sanctioned practices of DDT use was un-

3 Other areas, such as the Water Quality and Air Pol-lution Control offices, were concerned with pollution asan unintended by-product of industrial processes.


dermined, as legal texts increasingly restricted itsuse on the basis of problematizations from SilentSpring. Over time, new subject positions emerged,the most important of which was the EPA. As legaltexts converged in their descriptions of DDT asinappropriate, because of its negative impacts onthe environment, and as replaceable by other chem-icals, the conclusions that DDT was neither safe forthe environment nor necessary became normalizedin a new body of law proscribing its use.

Defending the Institutional Pillars

To counter the growing number of texts assertingDDT’s negative impacts, characterizing practices of

DDT use as inappropriate, and calling for restric-tions, a number of actors produced counter textsand, in so doing, mounted a defense of the institu-tional pillars supporting practices of DDT use. Forexample, the National Agricultural Chemicals As-sociation (NACA) produced a pamphlet, Fact andFancy, that directly countered Carson’s “allega-tions” with the industry’s “facts” (NACA, 1962).The National Pest Control Association sent a col-lection of negative reviews of Silent Spring to itsmembers and included a song parody, which in-cluded the lines, “Hunger, hunger, are you listen-ing / To the words from Rachel’s pen? / Wordswhich taken at face value / Place lives of birdsabove those of men” (reprinted in Lear, 1997: 435).

TABLE 4Problematizations in the 1972 Regulatory Decision to Ban DDTa

Extracts from Ruckelshaus, 1972 Significance

“Public concern over the widespread use of pesticides was stirred by RachelCarson’s book, “Silent Spring,” and a natural outgrowth was theinvestigation of this popular and widely sprayed chemical.” (13369)

Evidence of impact of problematizationspromoted in Silent Spring.

“Administrator’s order regarding DDT: In accordance with the foregoingopinion, findings and conclusions of law, use of DDT on cotton . . . iscancelled as of December 31, 1972.” (13375)

Basic findings regarding chemical properties, activity in food chain andimpact on organisms, and toxicological effects: “DDT can persist in soilsfor years and even decades”; “DDT can persist in aquatic ecosystems”;“DDT is a contaminant of fresh waters, estuaries and the open ocean”;“DDT is concentrated in organisms and transferred through food webs”;“DDT is toxic to fish”; “Birds can mobilize lethal amounts of DDTresidues”; “DDT can cause thinning of bird eggshells and thus impairreproductive success.” (13375)

Evidence that problematization ofenvironmental safety survivestranslation: negative impacts areasserted.

Basic finding regarding toxicological effects: “DDT is a potential humancarcinogen.” (13375)

Evidence that problematization ofhuman safety survives translation inqualified form: DDT is a “potential”carcinogen.

No mention of resistance. Efficacy of DDT for certain crops is asserted. No evidence that problematization ofefficacy survives translation.

Basic findings regarding benefits and matters relating to methyl parathion:“Methyl parathion and other organophosphate chemicals are effective forthe control of cotton pests”; “methyl parathion is a substitute for mostcrop uses of DDT.”

Ultimate finding regarding benefits: “The use of DDT is not necessary forthe production of crops listed in finding (I)7 [cancelled uses at issue inthe hearing, including cotton and fresh market corn] except that it may benecessary to produce those crops listed in . . . [three minor uses, whereusers were granted 30 days to supplement the record beforecancellation].” (13375)

Evidence that problematization ofnecessity survives translation insubverted form: the promotedsubstitutes for DDT are not biologicalcontrols advocated in Silent Spring,but rather methyl parathion and otherorganophosphates, which werecriticized in Silent Spring.

a Ruckelshaus (1972) refers to the “Opinion and Order of the Administrator,” a document outlining the conclusions the then-administrator of the EPA drew from the federal hearings on DDT. See the References for full bibliographic details.

b Numbers in parentheses refer to pages.


Monsanto parodied the opening chapter of SilentSpring with a publication that described a “deso-late” world of plagues and starvation without pes-ticides (Monsanto, 1962: 9). Dr. Robert White-Stevens of American Cyanamid warned, in the1936 CBS documentary “Rachel Carson’s SilentSpring, that “if man were to faithfully follow theteachings of Miss Carson, we would return to theDark Ages, and the insects and diseases would onceagain inherit the earth.” Time’s review of SilentSpring called it an “emotional and inaccurate out-burst (Time, 1962: 48). A physician, William Beanconcluded that Silent Spring, which he read “withsome trauma,” reminded him of “trying to win anargument with a woman. It cannot be done”(1963: 65).

In defending the cognitive pillar, counter textsused science to challenge the factual basis of theproblematizations. For example, in countering theproblematization of DDT’s safety for the environ-ment, Time invoked the National Academy of Sci-ence, which had sponsored a “careful” study thatconcluded that DDT’s negative impact on the envi-ronment, “though always regrettable, is not disas-trous” (1962: 48). In relation to the problematiza-tion of DDT’s safety for humans, Jamie L. Whitten,chair of the House Appropriations Subcommitteeon Agriculture, reported on interviews of 185 “out-standing” scientists and 23 physicians in his bookThat We May Live. It stated that “the AmericanMedical Association and other authorities advised. . . that there is no proof that traces of chemicalpesticides cause either cancer or sterility in hu-mans” (Whitten, 1966: 127). Max Sobelman of theMontrose Chemical Corporation argued that the at-tacks against DDT were “emotional in nature” and“the arguments used are based on half-truths, exag-geration and innuendo,” while those who defendedDDT were “qualified scientists and responsible in-dustry spokesmen” (Sobelman, 1970: ii). The prob-lematization of necessity (i.e., the availability ofacceptable alternatives) was also challenged viascience: Agricultural Chemicals argued that DDTwas needed because research on biological controlshadn’t “shown much” and would “probably onlycome very slowly” (1967: 21) and that substitutechemicals “cannot be produced or used as cheaplyas DDT” (1967: 23). In contrast to these problema-tizations, DDT’s efficacy attracted far less attention:resistance did not feature greatly. Table 5 providesillustrations of how each of the problematizationswas countered in texts by Dr. Robert White-Stevens, who worked for American Cyanamid andwhose texts serve as good examples because he

“functioned more than anyone else as spokesmanfor the industry” (Coit Murphy, 2005: 95).

In defending the cognitive pillar and calling intoquestion the factual basis of the problematizations,it became easier to defend the normative pillar: ifthere was no scientific basis for questioning itssafety or necessity, then the use of DDT was en-tirely appropriate. Advocates for DDT also invokedethical arguments to defend the normative pillar.Counter texts employing utilitarian logic arguedthat, even if the existence of negative impacts onthe environment or human health was accepted,they were small compared to the major benefits ofusing DDT. For example, Martin Candau, WorldHealth Organization director-general, said in 1969that malaria eradication rested “completely on its[DDT’s] continued use” (Sobelman, 1970: 365), andothers said that horrible consequences would en-sue if DDT were abandoned—“disease, epidemics,starvation, misery, and suffering” (Darby, 1962: 60).

Defense of the cognitive and normative pillarsfrom the problematizations facilitated defense ofthe regulative pillar. After challenging the asser-tions and normative conclusions of DDT’s oppo-nents, counter texts typically went on to argue thatthere was no case for abandoning DDT and cer-tainly none for doing so through legal change.

[Opponents of a ban have cited] the record of safetythat DDT has compiled throughout the years, andpoint to the negative findings of epidemiologicaland feeding studies carried out over the years onindustrial workers and volunteers exposed to con-centrated levels of DDT . . . introduced expert testi-mony to the effect that DDT’s chronic toxicity toman or animals has not been established by ade-quate proof . . . contend[ed] that whatever harm tothe environment that might be attributed to DDT, itresults from misuse and overdosing that occurred inyears past . . . [and] attempted to prove that DDT iseffective and that its use is more desirable than theorganophosphates which are more acutely toxic andcostly than DDT. (Ruckelshaus, 1972: 13370)

In concluding our findings, we note that, despitecounter texts, certain problematizations promotedin Silent Spring survived the process of translation.The problematization of DDT’s safety for the envi-ronment (i.e., assertions of negative impacts) be-came normalized in the discourse of DDT. Theproblematization of DDT’s necessity also becamenormalized, but in subverted form: it becamewidely accepted that other chemicals, and not bio-logical controls, could substitute for DDT. Theproblematization of DDT’s safety for humans sur-vived, but in qualified form (i.e., as a possiblethreat); it was still being contested and had not


been normalized. The problematization of efficacywas minimized in the debate over abandonment.As a result, the discourse changed and, by 1972,DDT was neither safe for the environment nor nec-

essary. This change was sufficient to underminethe pillars that had previously held practices inplace and led to voluntary and, later, coercedabandonment.

TABLE 5Illustrative Quotes from Texts Countering Problematizations from Silent Springa

Selected Extracts from White-Stevens, 1962a, 1962b,1970a, 1970b, 1970c, 1972 Significance

“Some of these incredibly false assertions are: Great areas of our arable soiland forest lands have already been irrevocably contaminatedpermanently with synthetic chemical poisons. (1962b: 36)

Countering problematization of environmental safety onscientific grounds, i.e., claiming evidence of negativeimpacts is missing, poor or exaggerated.

“The assertion that DDT is ubiquitous over the planet is not of anyenvironmental, biological significance and may well be grosslyexaggerated by confounding of the analyses with polychlorobiphenylswhich yield coincident peaks in the chromatographs.” (1970b: 363)

“The evidence that DDT and derivatives elicit impaired egg shells is, asyet, confused and equivocal.” (1970b: 363)

“Concern over the impact of pesticides upon terrestrial wildlife,particularly birds . . . has been exaggerated out of all proportion to actualfacts.” (1972: 20)

“Some of these incredibly false assertions are: DDT is a carcinogen andmutagen.” (1962b: 36)

“There is no valid evidence that, when applied by approved methods, DDThas injured any human being or terrestrial animal among the hundredsof millions that have been exposed to it over the past quarter century.”(1970a: 345)

“There is no valid evidence that DDT is a carcinogen.” (1970b: 363)

“No evidence of injury, cancer or death to the one billion humans whohave been exposed to DDT has ever been authoritatively reported after25 years of use.” (1972: 19)

Countering problematization of human safety onscientific grounds, i.e., claiming evidence of negativeimpacts is missing, poor or exaggerated.

“DDT is known to be a useful, safe, effective, economical and thoroughlyresearched pesticide.” (1970a: 345)

Countering problematization of efficacy directly, i.e.asserting effectiveness of DDT.

“The attacks on the use of chemicals in food production have created anatmosphere which has made possible legislation that, if interpretedliterally, could reduce farm progress to a veritable shambles.” (1962a: 28)

“Some of these incredibly false assertions are . . . where no chemicals areemployed, nature will provide more effective and safer control ofinsects, diseases, weeds, and predators by exerting biological control.”(1962b: 36)

“Although current food production might be sustained with other pestcontrol agents, the quality would decline and the cost rise.” (1970a: 345)

“It is ridiculous to summon and collate inaccurate, exaggerated emotionaland essentially irrelevant evidence to ban the correct, safe, andscientifically established uses of certain pesticides when theoverwhelming facts dictate that our food supply, our health and theentire measure of our living standards would clearly be threatened andultimately impaired by such rash and illconsidered legislation.” (1970b:347)

“In the eastern states the gypsy moth is extending its epizootic relentlesslyeven in the face of the widescale use of the so-called DDT substitutes.”(1970c: 928)

Countering problematization of necessity on scientificgrounds i.e., citing research that shows lack ofefficacy of alternatives (biological controls andchemical substitutes); and on moral grounds usingutilitarian logic, i.e., pointing to negativeconsequences of abandonment in terms of highercosts, lower living standards, and threat to health.

a The cited works by White-Stevens, who worked for American Cynamid, appeared in various sources. Full bibliographic details are inthe References.


A MODEL OF OUTSIDER-DRIVENDEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

In this section, we derive propositions from ourfindings. We also discuss how deinstitutionaliza-tion driven by outsiders to a field compares withdeinstitutionalization initiated by members of afield, by comparing our findings with those of otherstudies. The latter include studies of institutionalchange that, although not directly focusing on dein-stitutionalization, nonetheless offer insights intohow and why practices are abandoned. Our studyillustrates how—through a process of translatingproblematizations—the discourse about practicesof DDT use changed, undermining institutional pil-lars and leading to the abandonment of those prac-tices. In 1962, the discourse about DDT was rela-tively structured and coherent; that is, a more orless delimited set of field members produced textsthat constructed practices of DDT use as safe, effec-tive and necessary, and these meanings werewidely shared and taken for granted. By 1972, how-ever, the discourse had changed: it was no longerwidely accepted that DDT was safe for the environ-ment or necessary for insect control. Thus, our firstand overarching proposition is the following:

Proposition 1. In the case of outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization, the abandonment ofpractices results from their problematization,which, through a subsequent process of trans-lation, changes the discourse about practicesin ways that undermine the institutional pil-lars supporting them.

Our findings suggest that outsider-driven deinsti-tutionalization commences with “disruptive institu-tional work,” which, Lawrence and Suddaby argued,can have three aims: “undermining assumptions andbeliefs” about practices; “disassociating moral foun-dations” from practices; and “disconnecting sanc-tions” from practices through changes in legal orprofessional regulations (2006: 235). Our findingsillustrate how this disruptive work is carried out;that is, through the authoring of texts that prob-lematize existing practices in three specific waysdesigned to undermine each of the institutionalpillars. In our case, texts asserted that DDT hadnegative impacts on human health and on the en-vironment, thereby undermining existing assump-tions and beliefs regarding the safety of DDT; cate-gorized practices of DDT use as unethical,undesirable, and inappropriate because it was notsafe, thereby disassociating the use of DDT from itsmoral foundations; and called for legal restrictionsto disconnect practices from the existing legislationthat sanctioned the use of DDT.

Proposition 2. In the case of outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization, disruptive institutionalwork is carried out through the authoring oftexts that problematize practices by (a) assert-ing their negative impacts, (b) categorizingthem as unethical, undesirable, or inappropri-ate because of their negative impacts, and (c)calling for regulatory change to mitigate theirnegative impacts.

Our study thus contributes to the understandingof disruptive institutional work by illustrating howactors undermine assumptions and beliefs aboutpractices, disassociate practices from their moralfoundations, and disconnect practices from legalsanctions (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006)—that is, byauthoring texts that problematize practices by asso-ciating them with negative impacts. Further, wecan identify a number of differences in the waysthat disruptive institutional work achieves thesethree aims in the case of outsider-driven deinstitu-tionalization by comparing our findings with stud-ies of insider-driven deinstitutionalization.

First, in relation to undermining assumptionsand beliefs, our study suggests that in outsider-driven deinstitutionalization, disruptive institu-tional work highlights the negative impacts of ex-isting practices and, in so doing, increases the costsof continuing them, especially in relation to socialcosts. Hensman (2003: 363) found a similar situa-tion in his study of the music industry, in whichchallengers originating from outside the field, suchas Napster, tended to use arguments about justiceand “notions of fairness and impartiality, democ-racy and equality” to promote the abandonment oftraditional practices of music distribution. In con-trast, many studies of insider-driven deinstitution-alization have shown that existing practices areabandoned primarily as a result of a growing aware-ness of economic advantages afforded by new prac-tices (e.g., Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002;Leblebici, Salancik, Copay, & King, 1991; Lee &Pennings, 2002; Thornton, 2002). So, for example,“connect-time” pricing was abandoned in the on-line database industry following changes in finan-cial incentives that helped to overcome “the initialresistance of producers and users, who were wor-ried that they would be worse off” (Farjoun, 2002:863). Positive market feedback also encouragedDutch accounting firms to abandon earlier forms ofgovernance in favor of the partnership associateform (Lee & Pennings, 2002).

Second, in relation to the disassociation of moralfoundations, Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) arguedthat the elite and most powerful members of a fieldtypically carry out insider-driven deinstitutional-


ization. For example, leading accounting firms ad-vocated new organizational forms in the Canadianaccounting industry (Greenwood et al., 2002); theEuropean Union’s Single Market Program waschampioned by its president (Fligstein, 2001); andchefs “in the centre of the French culinary worldwho had received honors from the French state andhad garnered plaudits from the Guide Michelin”introduced nouvelle cuisine (Rao, Monin, & Du-rand, 2003: 804). Further, these actors tend to pro-mote “the gradual undermining of the moral foun-dations of institutions, rather than their wholesaleturnover” (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006: 236; em-phasis added). In contrast, our study suggests thatwhen outsiders work to disassociate practices fromtheir moral foundations, they do so through directattacks. For example, as discussed in the findings,the identification of negative impacts associatedwith the continuation of existing practices of DDTuse provided a powerful weapon with which toattack moral foundations directly. Furthermore, inthe case of outsider-driven deinstitutionalization,elite actors in a field are often the target of such directattacks. In our case, for example, the Department ofAgriculture and the chemical industry were the sub-jects of considerable criticism for continuing prac-tices increasingly deemed to be unethical.

Third, in relation to disconnecting sanctionsfrom practices, Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) ar-gued that insider-driven deinstitutionalization isalso driven by field elites who can force regulatorybodies to act in accordance with their own ends,perhaps because they control sufficient resourcesto impose change (Dorado, 2005) or are of sufficientsize and scope to evade formal regulation and toeffectively make up their own rules. For example,Greenwood and Suddaby showed how the majorCanadian accounting firms were “too large to beeffectively regulated by their profession” (2006:40). In such a situation, it is conceivable that asingle field member or a small group of field mem-bers can bring about regulatory change and theabandonment of practices. In contrast, our findingssuggest that outsider-driven deinstitutionalizationrequires a wider and heterogeneous set of actors topress for regulatory change before sanctions be-come disconnected from practices.

Our study also suggests that, in outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization, field members seeking tomaintain the status quo react to disruptive institu-tional work originating from outside the focal fieldand promoting the abandonment of existing prac-tices. We define this reaction as “defensive institu-tional work”: the purposive action of individualsand organizations aimed at countering disruptiveinstitutional work. In our case, certain actors—

most notably in industry—sought to defend theinstitutional pillars by producing their own textscountering assertions of negative impacts, the inap-propriateness of practices, and the need for regula-tion. Our findings illustrate that defensive institu-tional work also takes the form of authoring textsbut, instead of promoting problematizations, thesetexts dispute them in an attempt to legitimize ex-isting practices, and with an eye toward defendingthe institutional pillars.

Proposition 3. In the case of outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization, defensive institutionalwork is carried out through the authoring oftexts that contest problematizations of prac-tices by (a) countering assertions of negativeimpacts of practices; (b) countering categoriza-tions of practices as unethical, undesirable, orinappropriate; and (c) countering calls for reg-ulatory change.

Defensive institutional work is an important newconcept and contribution to the literature. We dis-tinguish it from institutional work undertaken to“maintain” institutions, which is accomplished byactors “largely unaware of the original purpose, orultimate outcome, of their actions,” who engage “inthe routines and rituals of reproduction” (Lawrence& Suddaby, 2006: 234). In contrast, our study indi-cates that defensive institutional work is a con-scious and strategic response to disruptive work.Defensive work is particularly relevant to outsider-driven deinstitutionalization which, we observed,is characterized by a wholesale attack on the pillarssupporting existing practices. We suggest that theconcept of defensive institutional work also appliesto insider-driven deinstitutionalization; a numberof studies of institutional change have reportedsome form of resistance to the latter phenomenon(e.g., Farjoun, 2002; Maguire & Hardy, 2006; Reay &Hinings, 2005). This concept is therefore importantfor understanding both the adoption of new prac-tices and the abandonment of old ones because itfocuses attention on the discursive struggle likelyto ensue when either insiders or outsiders seekchanges in practices in which existing field mem-bers’ interests are vested, as well as on the specificways field members respond to and resist initia-tives for institutional change. More research is re-quired, however, before firm conclusions can bedrawn about whether and how defensive institu-tional work performed in response to changedriven by existing field members resembles or dif-fers from that carried out to counter the changeefforts of outsiders.

Disruptive institutional work results in an in-crease in the number and range of texts problema-


tizing practices in a field and contradicting previ-ously widespread and taken-for-granted meanings;defensive institutional work means that morecounter texts, efforts to defend existing meanings,circulate in the field. In this way, the ongoing pro-cess of translating problematizations destabilizesthe existing discourse in the field in two ways.First, the discourse about practices becomes less“structured” (Phillips et al., 2004): texts are nolonger produced only by actors in a delimited andpredictable set of established subject positions, andtexts no longer draw on each other in well-estab-lished ways. Instead, a range of new actors producetexts that support and promote problematizations; ,existing actors begin to produce counter texts; andthe number of both problematizing texts andcounter texts increases. Second, as problematiza-tions are reinterpreted in different ways, and asproblematizing texts and counter texts contradicteach other, the discourse about practices becomesless “coherent”: the discourse no longer presents aunified view of social reality (cf. Phillips et al.,2004).

Proposition 4. In the case of outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization, the process of translat-ing problematizations leads to a loss, in thediscourse about practices, of both (a) structureand (b) coherence.

Existing work has tended to examine how highlystructured and coherent discourses hold institu-tions in place (e.g., Phillips et al., 2004). Our studyextends this idea to suggest that outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization relies on an initial break-down in both the structure and coherence of adiscourse to enable possibilities for abandoningpractices to become negotiable. In contrast, only aloss of coherence may be involved in some cases ofinsider-driven deinstitutionalization. For example,a study of institutional change in the Alberta healthcare system indicated a loss of coherence of thediscourse as texts changed a focus on “the patient”to a focus on “the consumer” in advocating a “‘con-sumer relationship’ as the appropriate model forproviding health services” (Reay & Hinings, 2005:360). However, actors located in established subjectpositions, such as the government health depart-ment, produced these texts (Reay & Hinings, 2005).

Breakdown in the structure and coherence of adiscourse occurs as practices are called into ques-tion, which means that they are no longer taken forgranted. This shift alone is unlikely to be sufficientto cause their abandonment. Our study indicatesthat outsider deinstitutionalization depends uponrestabilization of a discourse in a changed form.Stabilization occurs through two mechanisms.

First, new subject positions emerge in the discourseas new types of actors continue to engage in dis-ruptive institutional work and the flow of textsproblematizing practices from these new sources ismaintained. Over time, these actors become widelyrecognized as having an interest in practices andaccepted as legitimate contributors to the debateover them. Second, texts problematizing practicesaccumulate and problematizations become “nor-malized”—that is, taken for granted and con-structed as “truth.”

Proposition 5. In the case of outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization, the discourse aboutpractices is changed by the emergence of both(a) new subject positions, from which actorsspeak and act in support of problematizations;and (b) new bodies of knowledge, which nor-malize problematizations.

Our study suggests that outsider-driven deinsti-tutionalization requires the emergence of both newsubject positions and new bodies of knowledge in adiscourse about practices. First, new subject posi-tions are necessary because outsiders are unlikelyto have sufficient power in the field to successfullychallenge insiders who defend existing practices.In our case, only as ecology and ecotoxicology be-came established as disciplines producing relevantknowledge about the impacts of practices of DDTuse were scientists working in them able to chal-lenge the traditional dominance of entomologistswithin the discourse of DDT. Similarly, recognitionof the public’s legitimate interest in practices ofDDT use and the taking up of their cause by envi-ronmental NGOs and politicians provided an effec-tive challenge to industrial and agricultural lob-bies. In fact, in the case of outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization, some outsiders become in-siders as the boundaries of a field are redrawnduring the process: by 1972, for example, it wasinconceivable that ecotoxicologists or environmen-tal NGOs would be excluded from discussions ofpractices of using DDT and other pesticides. AsHensman pointed out, the more successful outsid-ers are in securing the abandonment of practices,the more they “become what they disavow: domi-nant incumbents” (2003: 373). Furthermore, newbodies of knowledge must be constituted, in whichproblematizations, in some form, are normalized(as with the problematization of DDT’s safety forthe environment, in our case). Of course, this con-stitution of new knowledge does not mean that allproblematizations must survive the translation pro-cess or that those that do must survive in exactlytheir original form: they may be qualified (as withhuman safety, in our case), minimized (as with


efficacy), or even subverted (as with necessity). Ifproblematizations do not survive the translation pro-cess but are successfully refuted by counter texts anddisappear, deinstitutionalization will not occur, andpractices will not be abandoned.

In the case of insider-driven deinstitutionaliza-tion, it seems likely that new bodies of knowledgeabout existing practices will be required—fieldmembers are unlikely to abandon practices if theirmeaning does not change—but the emergence ofnew subject positions may not always be necessary.When field members promote change from estab-lished subject positions, there may be no need fornew subject positions to emerge (e.g., Greenwood &Suddaby, 2006; Thornton, 2002); in fact, dominantactors often initiate institutional change in order toprotect their existing position (Hardy & Maguire,2008). Even when peripheral groups initiatechange, subject positions may not change radically.For example, in Leblebici et al.’s (1991) study of theradio broadcasting industry, central members of thefield appropriated innovations by peripheral mem-bers in order to retain their dominant position. Onthe other hand, some studies of insider-drivendeinstitutionalization have indicated the emer-gence of new subject positions, such as the regionalhealth authorities in the Alberta health care system(Reay & Hinings, 2005). So, although the discoursewas initially destabilized and its coherence re-duced by actors proposing change from existing sub-ject positions (i.e., the government health depart-ment), an important new subject position dideventually emerge: the regional health authority. Fur-ther research would be useful, therefore, to investi-gate the circumstances in which insider-driven dein-stitutionalization involves the emergence of newsubject positions.

As new subject positions emerge and problema-tizations are normalized in new bodies of knowl-edge—reconfiguring power-knowledge relations ina field—the discourse about practices is changed inways that undermine institutional pillars. Our find-ings illustrate that, through a process of translatingproblematizations, new “facts” about negative im-pacts of practices undermine the cognitive pillar;new “opinions” regarding the appropriateness ofpractices undermine the normative pillar; and thenew facts and opinions combine to provide govern-ment with a premise for making new formal“rules,” undermining the regulative pillar.

Proposition 6. In the case of outsider-drivendeinstitutionalization, changes in the dis-course about practices undermine the institu-tional pillars supporting practices, resulting intheir abandonment.

Our study found evidence of both voluntary andcoerced abandonment of practices as the DDT usediscourse changed and suggests a temporal rela-tionship between them. Early abandonment oc-curred as the cognitive and normative pillars wereundermined, and this abandonment was voluntary.For example, most farmers producing food crops,for whom consumers’ concerns about the safety ofDDT residues were especially salient, abandonedDDT use prior to 1972. As these markets dwindled,industry also engaged in voluntary abandonment ofDDT: production became directed toward exportmarkets and, in the case of five manufacturers be-tween 1965 and 1971, ceased completely (EPA,1975), leaving only one domestic producer. Later,abandonment occurred through coercion, as theregulative pillar was undermined: the ban forcedcotton growers, the single remaining large marketfor DDT, to switch to substitutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our first research question asked: What role doesdiscourse play in outsider-driven deinstitutional-ization? Our study answers this question by illus-trating how changes in the discourse about prac-tices of DDT use led to the abandonment of thesepractices. In 1962, the discourse about DDT wasstructured and coherent: it was widely taken forgranted that DDT was safe, effective, and necessary.By 1972, the meaning of practices of DDT use hadchanged: DDT was not considered safe for the en-vironment or necessary for agriculture, given theavailable chemical substitutes. These problemati-zations had become normalized in new bodies ofscientific, lay, and legal knowledge that were sup-ported and maintained as “truth” by actors speak-ing from powerful new subject positions in thediscourse about DDT, undermining the institu-tional pillars supporting existing practices. AsFoucault argued, truth is what a society “acceptsand makes function as true” through “mecha-nisms and instances which enable one to distin-guish true and false statements,” techniques andprocedures that accord “value in the acquisition oftruth,” and “the status of those who are chargedwith saying what counts as true” (1980: 131).

To answer the second research question, regard-ing the role of translation, we explored the specificform of the problematizations that became acceptedas new societal “truths.” Two outcomes of thetranslation process were particularly important.First, the problematization of DDT’s safety for theenvironment survived relatively intact; that is, as-sertions of the negative impacts of DDT on theenvironment became “facts” normalized in the dis-


course about DDT. Second, the problematization ofDDT’s necessity also became normalized but insubverted form—it became widely accepted thatDDT could be replaced, but by other chemicalsrather than by the biological controls advocated inSilent Spring. It was the survival of these particularproblematizations through the translation process,albeit in a form different from that promoted inSilent Spring, that accounts for the abandonmentof DDT.

To explain the abandonment of practices, re-searchers must therefore examine changes in thediscourse about them and the fates of particularproblematizations during the translation process.Our study illustrates these dynamics in the case ofDDT, and there is evidence to suggest that they alsoapply to other situations. For example, practices ofchlorofluorocarbon (CFC) use were abandoned asatmospheric scientists took up new subject posi-tions in the field and as problematizations linkingCFC use and ozone depletion became normalized(Levy, 1997). In contrast, if a discourse does notchange and problematizations do not become nor-malized, practices are unlikely to be abandoned.For example, in the case of climate change, disrup-tive institutional work carried out by outsiders(e.g., Al Gore’s documentary, An InconvenientTruth) has been met with counter texts on the partof “climate change skeptics.” These skeptics havesought “to attack the science” (see Union of Con-cerned Scientists, 2008) and prevent the consensusthat would see problematizations of current prac-tices of energy production and use normalized innew bodies of knowledge. Although the discoursesof current practices of energy production and usehave clearly lost coherence and structure as a resultof the debate over climate change—practices are nolonger taken for granted—there is as yet little evi-dence of widespread abandonment of current prac-tices. This may be starting to change, however, withthe United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change appearing to assume an importantnew subject position in energy discourse, winningthe Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, and with greaterconvergence in scientific reports linking climatechange and man-made greenhouse gas emissions.We cannot assume, however, that discourses willnecessarily restabilize within a given time frame.For example, the problematization of DDT’s humansafety continues to be contested (Rogan & Chen,2005), a situation that contributes to the continueduse of DDT for malaria control in some countries(Maguire, 2008).

Our study also indicates how, in the case of out-sider-driven deinstitutionalization, for practices tobe abandoned the changed discourse must not only

construct existing practices as inappropriate be-cause of their negative impacts; it must also con-struct alternative practices as acceptable. In ourcase, the subversion of the problematization ofDDT’s necessity played an important role in facili-tating its abandonment. Had the question of DDT’snecessity continued to be problematized in terms ofbiological controls as alternatives, the threat to in-dustry would have been much greater and likelyprompted more sustained defensive institutionalwork. Thus, critics of practices need to be attentiveto problematizations of necessity and how they aretranslated—that is, critics need to attend not just tothe ways in which existing practices are problema-tized, but also to how alternatives are discursivelyconstructed. Our study therefore has important im-plications for the institutional literature on organi-zations and the natural environment: the transitionto an ecologically sustainable economy can be use-fully viewed as the deinstitutionalization of exist-ing unsustainable, or “brown,” practices. For this tooccur, disruptive institutional work must not onlyfocus on the negative impacts of existing practices,but also on the acceptability of sustainable, or“green,” alternatives.

Our study also contributes to the understandingof the nature, role, and limits of agency in institu-tional change. The focus of much of the existingresearch is on “describing the characteristics of in-stitutional logics and demonstrating their spread”through fields (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006: 245)and, as Zilber noted, “research is still needed toexplore the role of agency in translation” (2006:300). We highlight the importance of authorialagency in deinstitutionalization by illustratinghow disruptive institutional work is carried outthrough the production and distribution of textsthat problematize practices. At the same time, bysystematically tracking the process of translatingproblematizations after an intervention, we illus-trate some of the limits to disruptive (and defen-sive) institutional work.

Whereas previous work has shown how actorscan attempt to manage the meaning of practices byproducing texts made persuasive through framingand rhetoric (Benford & Snow, 2000; Suddaby &Greenwood, 2005), our study indicates that, regard-less of how persuasive a text is, actors cannot con-trol whether or how other actors will translate theirproblematizations in subsequent texts. As a result,the translation process may result in a range ofunintended outcomes. In our case, the problemati-zation of efficacy was minimized: it failed to benormalized. The problematization of human safetydid survive the process of translation but in highlyqualified form (i.e., as a possible threat). In this


way, the scope of problematizations may be mini-mized. Moreover, although Silent Spring problema-tized all chemical pesticides, as its problematiza-tions were translated, DDT was singled out forattention and evaluated in relation to chemicalrather than biological alternatives. In this regard,the chemical industry may have lost the battle overDDT, but not the war over pesticides, since chem-icals continue to be extensively used for pest con-trol today. It is also important to note, however,that the translation process can broaden the scopeof problematizations: Silent Spring focused on pes-ticides, but also played an important role in galva-nizing the wider environmental movement (Wright& Welbourne, 2002).

Our study illustrates some of the limits to agencythat arise from the process of translation: despitethe attention that Silent Spring attracted, our studyindicates that it did not single-handedly lead to theabandonment of practices of DDT use. We thereforesuggest that a single actor is unlikely to be respon-sible for the success of outsider-driven deinstitu-tionalization or of institutional entrepreneurshipmore generally (Garud, Hardy, & Maguire, 2007),despite the tendency of much existing research tofocus on the actions of particular “heroic” actors(Levy & Sculley, 2007) and “ignore the non-coop-erative reactions of other members of the field”(Hardy & Maguire, 2008: 210). Our study indicatesthat actors do disruptive and defensive institu-tional work strategically but, equally, institutionaloutcomes depend upon many actors other than theinstigators of change.

By incorporating the sociology of translation intoinstitutional theory (as Lawrence and Suddaby[2006] advocated), our study illustrates the precar-ious nature of problematizations as they are trans-lated. Latour expressed concern that many contem-porary studies informed by actor network theory(ANT) have lost sight of the “series of transforma-tions” that occur during translation and equate ac-tor networks with “transport without deformation”and “an instantaneous, unmediated access to everypiece of information” (1999: 15). By systematicallytracking problematizations in texts associated witheach of the institutional pillars over time and iden-tifying different outcomes, our study also avoidsattributing an overly strategic role to translators,who are sometimes “seen as Machiavellian manip-ulators who use every trick in the book to buildalliances around their definitions of the world”(Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007: 184).

Another contribution stems from combining dis-course and translation in a single study of institu-tional change. Translation lends itself to a textualapproach: researchers have acknowledged that the

inscription of ideas in texts is the mechanism bywhich the ideas “travel in time and space” (e.g.,Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996). Discourse theorythus complements and strengthens work based onthe translation metaphor in a number of ways.First, it draws attention to how texts do not func-tion individually or independently and, hence, em-phasizes the importance of systematically studyingbodies of texts. In this way, discourse theory pro-vides the basis of a robust methodology with whichto follow the process of translation; that is, bystudying bodies of texts associated with each ofScott’s (2001) traditional institutional pillars. Sec-ond, by emphasizing the production and distribu-tion of texts as the mechanism through which dis-courses evolve and, as a result, change the ways inwhich people speak and act, discourse theory pro-vides a basis for illustrating how actors can exerciseagency: that is, by authoring texts to carry out dis-ruptive and defensive institutional work. Third, byfocusing on the consumption of texts, in additionto their production and distribution, it allows forinterpretation; that is, the transformation of prob-lematizations as meanings are negotiated be-tween author and reader. In sum, by combiningtranslation and discourse, we are better able toconceptualize and systematically investigate on-going processes of translation through whichproblematizations are transformed in variousways as they travel through institutional fields,as well as the different outcomes from this pro-cess in terms of effects on discourse and, ulti-mately, on institutional practices.

Our study has a number of limitations. First, inusing a single exploratory case study to build the-ory, one must draw generalizations with care. Wealso recognize that our case is unusual, in that asingle text has been credited with “causing” thedeinstitutionalization of DDT use. This already ex-isting attribution provided a methodological oppor-tunity, insofar as it gave us a feasible starting pointfor tracking how the problematizations in this par-ticular text were translated; we could not possiblyhave investigated the translations of all the prob-lematizations in all texts on DDT use. Also, likeZilber (2006), we focused our analysis on textsabout practices rather than on practices per se, andso we are unable to offer any insights as to whetherpractices undergo similar translation processes.

In focusing on texts, we had to select which textsto analyze. In some cases (e.g., the relevant legisla-tion), the choice was relatively straightforward. Inother cases, it was more complex. With reference tothe normative pillar, we could only examine a se-lection of possible texts and, even with scientifictexts such as doctoral dissertations, journal articles,


and textbooks, we could only examine a small pro-portion of all the available texts, albeit one that wefeel is representative of the larger scientific corpus.The choice of texts was probably most challengingin the case of counter texts and, although we tooksteps to conduct a wide search to identify relevanttexts, it is clear that we could only directly examinea small subset of the population of counter texts. Inaddition, we relied on archival texts and, despitesome interviews, were unable to complement ourunderstanding with real-time data; collecting real-time data could be possible in a more contemporarycase such as climate change.

Another limitation of the study concerns ouridentification of the three problematizations in Si-lent Spring to be tracked through the translationprocess. Although informed by systematic coding,this analysis was necessarily interpretive. In effect,it represents our translation of Carson’s problema-tizations and a simplification of the complex argu-ments in her book.

Despite these limitations, there is considerableopportunity for future research to engage with andextend the contributions of this study. One obviousavenue is the exploration of our propositions andassessment of whether or not they apply to othersettings, and why. Our case concerns deinstitution-alization driven by environmental impacts and val-ues; the environment plays a role in many contem-porary problems, such as climate change, toxicpollution, and declining biodiversity. Not only arethese areas important ones for society in general—and thus areas about which researchers need toknow more—they also offer the opportunity forreal-time studies. There is also the opportunity toexplore to what extent our model applies to situa-tions in which outsiders attempt to secure the aban-donment of practices for purely economic reasons,such as the case of electronic firms attempting toredefine the field of photography in order to enterthe industry (Munir, 2005). Is disruptive and defen-sive institutional work done in the same way as inour case in these situations? If not, how and whydoes it differ? Other research settings that mightprove interesting case studies for elaborating thediscursive dynamics of institutional change arethose in which the science has been greatly con-tested. Examples might include attempts to bansmoking and the controversy over certain types ofbreast implants. In these situations, the “facts” are(or have been) unclear, and it seems likely thatvarious actors have undertaken considerable defen-sive and disruptive institutional work to influencethe way in which research has been carried out,interpreted, and acted upon. Studies could alsoaddress failures of outsider-driven deinstitutional-

ization, such as the case of prohibition, in whichattempts to legislate drinking practices out of exis-tence failed, possibly because problematizations ofliquor consumption were not normalized in thediscourse about drinking. Future research couldalso focus on the systematic comparison of insider-and outsider-driven deinstitutionalization. Work isalso needed to ascertain in more detail the similar-ities and differences between these two forms ofdeinstitutionalization, as well as whether there aredifferences in institutional work when actors’ pri-mary aim is the problematization of existing prac-tices as opposed to the promotion of new practices.Institutional change is an important research areafor organization and management theory, and casessuch as climate change and other environmentalproblems have significant implications for society,so a more complete understanding of outsider-driven deinstitutionalization is vital.

REFERENCES

Agricultural Chemicals. 1967. Agricultural Chemicals fo-rum: Part 1—Persistent pesticides. AgriculturalChemicals, June: 20–23.

Ahmadjian, C. L., & Robbins, G. E. 2005. A clash ofcapitalisms: Foreign shareholders and corporate re-structuring in 1990s Japan. American SociologicalReview, 70: 451–471.

Ahmadjian, C. L., & Robinson, P. 2001. Safety in num-bers: Downsizing and the deinstitutionalization ofpermanent employment in Japan. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 46: 622–636.

Anand, N., & Peterson, R. A. 2002. When market infor-mation constitutes fields: Sensemaking of markets inthe commercial music industry. Organization Sci-ence, 11: 270–284.

Baldwin, I. L. 1962. Chemicals and pests. Science, 137:1042–1043.

Barge, J. K., & Oliver, C. 2003. Working with appreciationin managerial practice. Academy of ManagementReview, 28: 124–142.

Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. 1997. Institutionalizationand structuration: Studying the links between actionand institution. Organization Studies, 18: 93–117.

Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. 2006. Whatmakes management research interesting, and whydoes it matter. Academy of Management Journal,49: 9–15.

Bean, W. B. 1963. The noise of Silent Spring. Archives ofInternal Medicine, 114: 308–311.

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. 2000. Framing processes andsocial movements: An overview and assessment. InK. Cook & J. Hagan (Eds.), Annual review of sociol-ogy, vol. 26: 611–639. Palo Alto, CA: AnnualReviews.


Blodgett, J. E. 1974. Pesticides: Regulation of an evolvingtechnology. In S. S. A. Epstein & R. D. Grady (Eds.),Legislation of product safety: 197–287. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Bosso, C. J. 1987. Pesticides and politics: The life cycleof a public issue. Pittsburgh: University of Pitts-burgh Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1990. The logic of practice [R. Nice, trans.].Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.

Brown, S. D. 2002. Michel Serres. Science, translationand the logic of the parasite. Theory, Culture &Society, 19(3): 1–27.

Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of trans-lation: Domestication of the scallops and the fisher-man of St. Briene Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, actionand belief: A sociology of knowledge. London:Routledge.

Callon, M. 1991. Techno-economic networks and irre-versibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters:Essays on power, technology and domination: 132–161. London: Routledge.

Carabine, J. 2001. Unmarried motherhood 1830–1990: Agenealogical analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, &S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for an-alysts: 267–310. London: Sage.

Caronna, C. A. 2004. The misalignment of institutional“pillars”: Consequences for the U.S. health carefield. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45:45–59.

Carson, R. 1962. Silent spring. New York: HoughtonMifflin.

CBS. 1963. The silent spring of Rachel Carson (video).New York: CBS News Archives.

Coit Murphy, P. 2005. What a book can do: The publi-cation and reception of Silent Spring. Amherst:University of Massachusetts Press.

Colomy, P. 1998. Neofunctionalism and neoinstitution-alism: Human agency and interest in institutionalchange. Sociological Forum, 13: 265–300.

Covaleski, M. A., Dirsmith, M. W., Heian, J. B., & Samuel,S. 1998. The calculated and the avowed: Techniquesof discipline and struggles over identity in Big Sixpublic accounting firms. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 43: 293–327

Czarniawska, B. 1997. Narrating the organization: Dra-mas of institutional identity. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. 1996. Travel of ideas. In B.Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating organ-izational change: 13–48. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Czarniawska, B., & Sevon, G. 1996. Introduction. In B.Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating organ-izational change: 13–48. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Darby, W. J. 1962. Silence, Miss Carson. Chemical &Engineering News, October 1: 60–63.

Davis, G. F., Diekmann, K. A., & Tinsley, C. H. 1994. Thedecline and fall of the conglomerate firm in the1980s: The deinstitutionalization of an organization-al form. American Sociological Review, 59: 547–570.

Denis, J. L., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. 2007. Strategizingin pluralistic contexts: Rethinking theoreticalframes. Human Relations, 60: 179–215.

Dorado, S. 2005. Institutional entrepreneurship, partak-ing, and convening. Organization Studies, 26: 385–414.

Douglas, M. 1986. How institutions think. New York:Syracuse University Press.

Du Gay, P. 1996. Consumption and identity at work.London: Sage.

Dunlap, T. R. 1981. DDT: Scientists, citizens and publicpolicy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Dyer, W. B., & Wilkins, A. L. 1991. Better stories, notbetter constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoin-der to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Re-view, 16: 613–619.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from casestudy research. Academy of Management Review,14: 532–550.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. 1988. Politics ofstrategic decision making in high-velocity environ-ments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy ofManagement Journal, 31: 737–770.

EPA. 1975. DDT: A review of scientific and economicaspects of the decision to ban its use as a pesticide(EPA-540/1–75-022). Washington, DC: EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

Farjoun, M. 2002. The dialectics of institutional devel-opment in emerging and turbulent fields: The his-tory of pricing conventions in the on-line databaseindustry. Academy of Management Journal, 45:848–874.

Fligstein, N. 2001. Social skill and the theory of fields.Sociological Theory, 19(2): 105–125.

Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and punish. Harmond-sworth, U.K.: Penguin.

Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected inter-views and other writings 1972–1977. Brighton,U.K.: Harvester Press.

Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. 2007. Institutionalentrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduc-tion to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28:1055–1077.

Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutional entre-preneurship in mature fields: The big five account-ing firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49:27–48.

Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Therole of professional associations in institutional


change. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 58–80.

Hall, S. 2001. Foucault: Power, knowledge and dis-course. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.),Discourse theory and practice: A reader: 72–81.London: Sage.

Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Grant, D. 2005. Discourseand collaboration: The role of conversations and col-lective identity. Academy of Management Review,30: 1–20.

Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. 2008. Institutional entrepreneur-ship. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K.Sahlin-Andersen (Eds.), Handbook of organization-al institutionalism: 198–217. London: Sage.

Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. 2004. Discourse and power. In D.Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.),Handbook of organizational discourse: 219–318.London: Sage.

Hargadon, A., & Douglas, Y. 2001. When innovationsmeet institutions: Edison and the design of the elec-tric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46:476–501.

Henkin, H., Merta, M., & Staples, J. 1971. The environ-ment, the establishment, and the law. New York:Houghton Mifflin.

Hensman, M. 2003. Social movement organizations: Ametaphor for strategic actors in institutional field.Organization Studies, 24: 355–381.

Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. 2001. Organizational changeas discourse: Communicative actions and deepstructures in the context of information technologyimplementation. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 44: 755–778.

Hoffman, A. J. 1999. Institutional evolution and change:Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry.Academy of Management Journal, 42: 351–371.

Hoffman, A. J., Riley, H. C., Troast J. G., & Bazerman,M. H. 2002. Cognitive and institutional barriers tonew forms of cooperation on environmental protec-tion: Insights from Project XL and Habitat Conserva-tion Plans. American Behavioral Scientist, 45:820–845.

Jepperson, R. L. 1991. Institutions, institutional effects,and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMag-gio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organization-al analysis: 143–163. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

Knights, D. 1992. Changing spaces: The disruptive im-pact of new epistemological location for the study ofmanagement. Academy of Management Review,17: 514–536.

Knights, D. & Morgan, G. 1991. Strategic discourse andsubjectivity: Towards a critical analysis of corporatestrategy in organizations. Organization Studies, 12:251–273.

Kudlinski, K. V. 1988. Rachel Carson: Pioneer of ecol-ogy. New York: Puffin.

Latour, B. 1986. The powers of association. In J. Law(Ed.), Power, action and belief: 264–280. London:Routledge..

Latour, B. 1999. On recalling ANT. In L. Law & J. Hassard(Eds.), Actor network theory and after: 15–25.Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.

Lawrence, T., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutions and insti-tutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Law-rence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organiza-tion studies: 215–254. London: Sage.

Lear, L. 1997. Rachel Carson: Witness for nature. NewYork: Henry Holt.

Leblebici, H., Salancik, G., Copay, A., & King, T. 1991.Institutional change and the transformation of interor-ganizational fields: An organizational history of theU.S. radio broadcasting industry. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 36: 333–363.

Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. 2002. Mimicry and the market:Adoption of a new organizational form. Academy ofManagement Journal, 45: 144–162.

Levy, D. 1997. Business and international environmentaltreaties: Ozone depletion and climate change. Cali-fornia Management Review, 39(3): 54–71.

Levy, D., & Scully, M. 2007. The institutional entrepreneuras modern prince: The strategic face of power in con-tested fields. Organization Studies, 28: 971–991.

Lewis, J. 1985. The birth of EPA. EPA Journal, 11(9). http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm. AccessedJuly 7, 2006.

Long, R. K. 1962. Letter to editor. Audubon Magazine,64(November–December): 299.

Lounsbury, M. 2001. Institutional sources of practicevariation: Staffing college and university recyclingprograms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46:29–56.

Maguire, S. 2004. The coevolution of technology and dis-course: A study of substitution processes for the insec-ticide DDT. Organization Studies, 25: 113–134.

Maguire, S. 2008. Contested icons: Rachel Carson andDDT. In L. Sideris & K. D. Moore (Eds.), On nature’sterms: The legacy and challenge of Rachel Carson:194–214. New York: SUNY Press.

Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. 2006. The emergence of newglobal institutions: A discursive perspective. Orga-nization Studies, 27: 7–29.

Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. 2004. Institutionalentrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDStreatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 47: 657–679.

Merilainen, S., Tienari, J., Thomas, R., & Davies, A. 2004.Management consultant talk: A cross-cultural com-parison of normalizing discourse and resistance. Or-ganization, 11: 539–564.


Monsanto. 1962. The desolate year. Monsanto Maga-zine, October: 4–9.

Mrak, E. 1969. Report of the secretary’s commission onpesticides and their relationship to environmentalhealth (parts I and II). Washington, DC: HEW.

Munir, K. A. 2005. The social construction of events: Astudy of institutional change in the photographicfield. Organization Studies, 26: 93–112.

NACA. 1962. Fact and fancy. Washington, DC: NationalAgricultural Chemicals Association.

Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. 1998. Businessplanning as pedagogy: Language and control in achanging institutional field. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 43: 257–292.

Odum, P. 1959. Fundamentals of ecology (2nd ed.).Philadelphia: Saunders.

Odum, P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology (3rd ed.). Phil-adelphia: Saunders.

Oliver, C. 1992. The antecedents of deinstitutionaliza-tion. Organization Studies, 13: 563–588.

Parker, I. 1992. Discourse dynamics: Critical analysisfor social and individual psychology. London: Rou-tledge.

Pettigrew, A. M. 1979. On studying organizational cultures.Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 57–81.

Pfadt, R. E. 1962. Fundamentals of applied entomology.New York: Macmillan.

Pfadt, R. E. 1971. Fundamentals of applied entomology(2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Phillips, N., Lawrence, T., & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourseand institutions. Academy of Management Review,29: 1–18.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. 1987. Discourse and socialpsychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior. Lon-don: Sage.

PSAC. 1963. The use of pesticides—President’s ScienceAdvisory Committee report. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. 2003. Institutionalchange in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an iden-tity movement in French gastronomy. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 108: 795–843.

Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2005. The recomposition of anorganizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organi-zation Studies, 26: 351–384.

Reed, M. 1998. Organizational analysis as discourse anal-ysis: A critique. In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.),Discourse and organization: 193–213. London:Sage.

Ribicoff, A. 1966. Pesticides and public policy (Report ofthe Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Sen-ate, 89th Congress, 2nd session, report 1379). Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Rogan, W. J., & Chen, A. 2005. Health risks and benefits

of bis(4-chorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT).Lancet, 366: 763–773.

Ruckelshaus, W. D. 1970. First administrator on estab-lishment of EPA (press release, December 16).Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.

Ruckelshaus, W. D. 1972. Consolidated DDT hearings:Opinion and order of the administrator. FederalRegister, 37(July 7): 13369–13376.

Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, D. E. 1990. Texts, facts, and femininity: Explor-ing the relations of ruling. New York: Routledge.

Sobelman, M. (Ed.). 1970. Selected statements fromState of Washington DDT hearings held in SeattleOctober 14, 15, 16, 1969, and other related papers.Torrance, CA: DDT Producers of the United States.

Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategiesof legitimacy Administrative Science Quarterly,50: 35–68.

Taylor, J. R., Cooren, F., Giroux, N., & Robichaud, D.1996. The communicational basis of organization:Between the conversation and the text. Communica-tion Theory, 6(1): 1–39.

Thornton, P. H. 2002. The rise of the corporation in acraft industry: Conflict and conformity in institu-tional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45:81–101.

Time. 1962. Pesticides the price for progress. September28: 45–48.

Townley, B. 1993. Foucault, power/knowledge and itsrelevance for human resource management. Acad-emy of Management Review, 18: 518–545.

Union of Concerned Scientists. 2008. The science ofglobal warming. http://www.ucsusa.org/global�warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html).Accessed January 9, 2008.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 1990. Methods forstudying innovation development in the Minnesotainnovation research program. Organization Sci-ence, 1: 313–334.

White-Stevens, R. H. 1962a. Faddists hamperingprogress. Agricultural Chemicals, September: 28ctnd.

White-Stevens, R. H. 1962b. Communications createunderstanding. Agricultural Chemicals, October:34–36 ctnd.

White-Stevens, R. H. 1970a. The case for DDT. In M.Sobelman (Ed.), Selected statements from Stateof Washington DDT Hearings held in Seattle Oc-tober 14, 15, 16, 1969, and other related papers:345. Torrance, CA: DDT Producers of the UnitedStates.

White-Stevens, R. H. 1970b. The economic and environ-mental impact of pesticides. In M. Sobelman (Ed.),Selected statements from state of Washington DDT


Hearings held in Seattle October 14, 15, 16, 1969,and other related papers: 346–364. Torrance, CA:DDT Producers of the United States.

White-Stevens, R. H. 1970c. DDT ban: A judgment ofemotion and mystique. Science, 170: 928.

White-Stevens, R. H. 1972. A perspective on pesticides.USGA Green Section Record, 10(4): 17–21.

Whitten, J. L. 1966. That we may live. New York: VanNostrand.

Wicks, D. 2001. Institutionalized mindsets of invulnera-bility: Differentiated institutional fields and the an-tecedents of organizational crisis. OrganizationStudies, 22: 659–692.

Wilson, E. O. 2002. Afterword. In R. Carson, Silentspring: 357–363. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Wright, D. A., & Welbourne, P. 2002. Environmentaltoxicology. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study research: Design & methods(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Zilber, T. B. 2002. Institutionalization as an interplaybetween actions, meanings and actors: The case of arape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 45: 234–254.

Zilber, T. B. 2006. The work of the symbolic in institu-tional processes: Translations of rational myths inIsraeli hi-tech. Academy Management Journal, 49:281–303.

Steve Maguire ([email protected]) is an associateprofessor of strategy and organization in the DesautelsFaculty of Management at McGill University. He holdsa Ph.D. from HEC–Montreal. His research focuses oninstitutional and technological change resulting whencommercial, scientific, and political struggles intersectaround social or environmental issues.

Cynthia Hardy ([email protected]) is a professorof management at the University of Melbourne and anhonorary professor at Cardiff Business School. Her Ph.D.is from Warwick University. Her research interests re-volve around discourse, identity, institutions and interor-ganizational collaboration, and she is particularly inter-ested in how power and politics occur within a largerdiscursive context.


Decline of Ddt

Documents

Transcript of Decline of Ddt