The so-called conventionalisation of organic farming debate revolves around tensions between organic agriculture as an alternative to the dominant agri-food system and the rise of organic agribusiness. A contested issue is the conceptualisation and assessment of the impact of capitalist expansion in the organic sector on the transformative power of alternative agriculture. This article engages with critiques on Guthman's analysis of conventionalisation and the concept of bifurcation. It brings a new perspective to the debate by introducing a case from the Global South, which reveals four different trajectories of organic agriculture development and certification in the Philippines. The expansion of organic farming differs considerably from the general representation in the conventionalisation debate. What becomes central in the debate is not agribusiness dominance but what kind of small farmers are considered the subject and object of organic agriculture development. Rather than rejecting Guthman's political economy approach for creating binary oppositions, the article expands on its analytical potential to understand the empirical heterogeneity of organic forms of production and the conditions for politics that aim to create alternative economic spaces.

所谓有机农业的常规化辩论围绕着有机农业作为占主导地位的农业食品系统的替代品与有机农业企业的兴起之间的紧张关系展开。一个有争议的问题是有机部门中资本主义扩张对替代农业变革力量的影响的概念化和评估。本文对古斯曼对约定化和分叉概念的分析进行了批评。它通过介绍来自全球南方的案例为辩论带来了新的视角，该案例揭示了菲律宾有机农业发展和认证的四种不同轨迹。有机农业的扩张与常规化辩论中的一般代表性有很大不同。辩论的核心不是农业综合企业的主导地位，而是什么样的小农被视为有机农业发展的主体和对象。本文没有拒绝古斯曼的政治经济学方法来创造二元对立，而是扩展了其分析潜力，以了解有机生产形式的经验异质性以及旨在创造替代经济空间的政治条件。