This paper builds on prior critical scholarship on Agriculture 4.0—an umbrella term to reference the utilization of robotics and automation, AI, remote sensing, big data, and the like in agriculture—especially the literature focusing on issues relating to equity and social sustainability. Critical agrifood scholarship has spent considerable energy interrogating who gets what, how decisions get made, and who counts as a “stakeholder” in the context of decision making, questions relating to distributive justice, procedural justice, and representative justice, respectively. Less attention, however, has been paid in this literature to the subject of recognition justice. Recognition justice asks the question, “Who are subjects of justice?” That query, however, is easily to oversimplify. As subjectivity is neither monolithic nor fixed, implied in these discussions are deeper questions having to do with the characteristics of one’s subjectivity that deserve moral recognition. This act of translation, from justice-in-theory to justice-in-practice, also complicates the evaluation of whether Agriculture 4.0 platforms are just, or not. These recognition justice tensions are explored by leveraging qualitative data collected through forty-two face-to-face interviews with individuals on farms located in the US states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming who utilize these platforms. The study design intentionally oversampled for persons with disabilities, which highlights another distinguishing characteristic of the paper relative to critical Agriculture 4.0 scholarship. In addition to exposing certain ableist assumptions in these discussions, the sampling technique proved invaluable for interrogating how we think about labor, work, and leisure in agriculture. The paper specifically discusses how Agriculture 4.0, for example, shapes conceptions of what it means to be “able to work,” “willing to work,” “hard working,” etc.

本文建立在之前关于农业 4.0 的重要学术成果的基础上，农业 4.0 是指机器人技术和自动化、人工智能、遥感、大数据等在农业中的应用的总称，尤其是关注公平和社会可持续性相关问题的文献。批判农业食品学术花费了大量精力来探讨谁得到什么、如何做出决策以及在决策背景下谁算作“利益相关者”，以及分别与分配正义、程序正义和代表正义相关的问题。然而，这些文献对承认正义这一主题的关注较少。承认正义提出了这样一个问题：“谁是正义的主体？” 然而，这个查询很容易过于简单化。由于主体性既不是单一的也不是固定的，这些讨论中隐含着更深层次的问题，这些问题与一个人的主体性特征有关，值得道德承认。这种从理论上的正义到实践中的正义的转换行为，也使农业4.0平台是否正义的评估变得更加复杂。这些认可正义的紧张局势是通过利用对美国亚利桑那州、加利福尼亚州、科罗拉多州、新墨西哥州和怀俄明州农场中使用这些平台的个人进行四十二次面对面访谈收集的定性数据来探讨的。该研究设计有意对残疾人进行过采样，这凸显了该论文相对于关键农业 4.0 学术的另一个显着特征。除了在这些讨论中揭露某些能力主义假设之外，事实证明，抽样技术对于询问我们如何看待农业中的劳动、工作和休闲具有无价的价值。例如，本文具体讨论了农业 4.0 如何塑造“能够工作”、“愿意工作”、“努力工作”等概念。