Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agroecology’s moral vision

  • Discussion Piece
  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What is agroecology’s moral vision, and what are the larger metaphysical, even theological, implications of it? Even though agroecology as a field now gathers collaborators from across the natural and social sciences, as well as members of farming communities and international movements, there remains relatively little explicit and sustained reflection upon this question. My main contention is that expanding agroecology’s dialogue of wisdoms (diálogo de saberes) to include theological traditions can address this lacuna. To show how, I explore the contribution of one particular theological tradition—Catholic social teaching—and how its account of integral ecology enables agroecologists to deepen their engagement with fundamental questions raised by their own normative commitments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This and all other ecclesial documents cited can be found at www.vatican.va

  2. Bensin focuses upon three main areas: first, agricultural chemistry, which enabled the rise of the chemical fertilizer industry, especially nitrogen fertilizer; second, mechanical engineering and the breakthroughs in mechanization, with the increasing use of farm machinery like tractors, ploughs, harrows, and cultivators; and, third, plant genetics, plant breeding, and the production of improved seed varieties.

  3. For more on the history and development of Catholic social teaching as a tradition, see Calvez and Perrin 1961; Schuck 1991; Curran 2002; Himes 2018. It is important to point out that feminist scholars have long pushed back against sexism in the Christian tradition and in Catholic social teaching. See especially Daly 1986; Reuther 1993; Johnson 1992.

  4. Such a language, Pope Francis observes, also helps us to appreciate how our words both describe and enact our relationship to the world, affecting our choices and shaping our behavior. If we do not speak the language of kinship, we might instead begin to speak the language of lords and masters. “We have only one heart,” and so our relationships with what we love—God, other creatures, and one another—are inescapably interwoven (Pope Francis 2015b).

References

  • Altieri, Miguel. 1990. Why study traditional agriculture? In Agroecology, ed. Ronald Carroll, John H. Vandermeer, and Peter M. Rosset. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, Miguel. 1995. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, Miguel, and Peter Rosset. 2017. Agroecology: Science and politics. Black Point: Fernwood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Colin Ray, Janneke Bruil, M Jahi Chappell, Csilla Kiss, and Michel Patrick Pimbert. 2021. Agroecology now! Transformations towards more just and sustainable food systems. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Azzi, G. 1928. Agricultural ecology. Turin: Edition Tipografia Editrice Torinese.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrios, Edmundo, Barbara Gemmill-Herren, Abram Bicksler, Emma Siliprandi, Ronnie Brathwaite, Soren Moller, Caterina Batello, and Pablo Tittonell. 2020. The 10 elements of agroecology: Enabling transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food systems through visual narratives. Ecosystems and People 16 (1): 230–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensin, B.M. 1930. Possibilities for international cooperation in agroecology investigation. International Review of Agriculture 21: 277–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borras, S., Jr., M. Edelman, and C. Kay, eds. 2008. Transnational agrarian movements confronting globalization. Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borras, Jr. S. 2004. La Vía Campesina: An evolving transnational movement. Briefing paper series 2004/6. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute.

  • Bremen, H., and C.T. deWitt. 1983. Rangeland productivity and exploitation in the Sahel. Science 221 (4618): 1341–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brokenshaw, D., D. Warren, and O. Werner. 1979. Indigenous knowledge systems in development. Washington: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvez, Jean-Yves., and Jacques Perrin. 1961. The church and social justice. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, Rachel. (1962) 2002. Silent spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, H.C. 1956. Hananoo agriculture. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz, Monica. 2017. “Hasta que la dignidad se haga costumbre” y otras frases memorables de los discursos de Jacinta Francisco y su hija Estela. El País. 21 February, 21. https://verne.elpais.com/verne/2017/02/21/mexico/1487716205_897979.html. Accessed 14 August 2023.

  • Curran, Charles E. 2002. Catholic social teaching, 1891-present: A historical, theological, and ethical analysis. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusato, Michael. 2015. Highest poverty or lowest poverty? The paradox of the Minorite charism. Franciscan Studies 75: 275–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, Mary. 1986. The church and the second sex. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deane-Drummond, Celia. 2016. Laudato si’ and the natural sciences: An assessment of possibilities and limits. Theological Studies 77 (2): 405–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Declaration of Quito, quoted in Martínez-Torres, María Elena, and Peter Rosset. 2010. La Vía Campesina: The birth and evolution of a transnational social movement. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(1): 149–175.

  • Denevan, W.M., J. Tracy, and J.B. Alcorn. 1984. Indigenous agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon: Examples of Bora Indian swidden fallows. Interciencia 96: 346–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descola, Philippe. [2005] 2013. Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Desmarais, Annette Aurelie. 2007. Globalization and the power of peasants. Black Point: Fernwood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorr, Donal. 2012. Option for the poor and for the earth: Catholic social teaching. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doula, S.M. 2000. Redes de movimientos campesinos en la Ameérica Latina contemporanea: Identidad en la lucha. Universum 15: 365–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dove, Michael, Rubber kills the land and saves the community. 2011. Beyond the sacred forest: Complicating conservation in Southeast Asia. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, Joseph. 1997. Back to the rough ground: Practical judgment and the lure of technique. South Bend: Notre Dame University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, M. 1998. Transnational peasant politics in Central America. Latin American Research Review. 33 (3): 49–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, M. 2001. Social movements: Changing paradigms and forms of politics. Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 285–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, Deborah. 2010. Every farm a factory: The industrial ideal in American agriculture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, C., D. Rickerl, G. Lieblein, R. Salvador, S. Gliessman, M. Wiedenhoeft, T.A. Breland, S. Simmons, N. Creamer, P. Allen, R. Harwood, M. Altieri, L. Salomonsson, C. Flora, J. Helenius, and R. Poincelot. 2003. Agroecology: The ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22 (3): 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pope Francis. 2014. Address to participants in the world meeting of popular movements.

  • Pope Francis. 2015a. Address to participants in the second world meeting of popular movements.

  • Pope Francis. 2015b. Encyclical letter Laudato si’.

  • Pope Francis. 2016. Address to participants in the third world meeting of popular movements.

  • Pope Francis. 2020. Post-synodal apostolic exhortation Querida Amazonia.

  • Friederichs, K. 1930. Die Grundfragen und Gesetzmäßigkeiten der landund forstwirtschaftlichen Zoologie. Berlin: Verlagsbuchhandlung Paul Parey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaarde, Ingeborg. 2017. Peasants negotiating a global policy space: La Vía Campesina in the Committee on World Food Security. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giraldo, Omar Felipe. 2018. Ecología política de la agricultura: Agroecología y posdesarrollo. San Cristóbal de Las Casas: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliessman, S.R. 2007. Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliessman, S.R. 2018. Defining agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42 (6): 599–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González de Molina, M., P.F. Petersen, F.G. Peña, and F.R. Caporal. 2019. Political agroecology: Advancing the transition to sustainable food systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, David, Bernardo Sorj, and John Wilkinson. 1987. From farming to biotechnology: A theory of agro-industrial development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, Susannah. 1995. The evolution of agroecological thought. In Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture, ed. Miguel Altieri. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hénin S. 1967. Les acquisitions techniques en production végétale et leurs applications. Paris, France: Économie Rurale, SFER.

  • Henke, Christopher R. 2008. Cultivating science, harvesting power: Science and industrial agriculture in California. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández Castillo, Rosalva Aída. 2001. Organic growers: Agro-ecological Catholicism and the invention of traditions. In Histories and stories from Chiapas: Border identities in Southern Mexico, ed. A. Ahdf. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Himes, Kenneth R., ed. 2018. Modern Catholic social teaching: Commentaries and interpretations. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HLPE (High-Level Panel of Experts) on Food Security and Nutrition. 2019. Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. Rome.

  • Hütter, Reinhard. 2019. We are not God. Nova Et Vetera 17 (3): 639–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Elizabeth. 1992. She who is: The mystery of God in feminist theological discourse. Chestnut Ridge: Crossroad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, Rachel Bezner, J. Liebert, M. Kansanga, and D. Kpienbaareh. 2022. Human and social values in agroecology: A review. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 10 (1): 00090.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klages, K.H.W. 1942. Ecological crop geography. New York: Macmillan Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, Hugh. 1999. Is science value free?: Values and scientific understanding. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, Hugh. 2005. Values and objectivity in science: The current controversy over transgenic crops. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, Hugh. 2013. Value neutrality in science. In Encyclopedia of philosophy and the social sciences, vol. 2, ed. A. Adf. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, Hugh. 2014a. On the co-unfolding of scientific knowledge and viable values. In Logic, methodology and philosophy of science. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, Hugh. 2014b. Science, respect for nature, and human well-being: Democratic values and the responsibilities of scientists today. Foundations of Science 21 (1): 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, Hugh. 2014c. Scientific research, technological innovation and the agenda of social justice, democratic participation and sustainability. Scientiae Studia 12: 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, Hugh. 2015. Science, emancipation, and the variety of forms of knowledge. Review of Boaventura De Sousa Santos, Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. Metascience 24 (1): 159–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantigua, David. 2020. The steep cost of super development to the environment and human dignity. Church Life Journal. 2 July 2020. https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-steep-cost-of-superdevelopment-to-human-dignity/. Accessed 15 August 2023.

  • Latour, Bruno. 1993. We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 2008. Will non-humans be saved? An argument in ecotheology. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15: 459–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Torres, María Elena., and Peter Rosset. 2010. La Vía Campesina: The birth and evolution of a transnational social movement. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (1): 149–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moggach, Douglas, and Paul Leduc Browne. 2000. The social question and the democratic revolution: Marx and the legacy of 1848. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morales, Helda. 2021. Agroecological feminism. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 45 (7): 955–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norget, Kristin. 2011. Surviving conservation: La Madre Tierra and indigenous moral ecologies in Oaxaca, Mexico. In New natures: Critical intersections for environmental management and conservation in Latin America. Santa Fe: School of American Research.

  • Nyéléni. 2007. Forum for Food Sovereignty. Sélingué, Mali, February 23–27.

  • Nyéléni. 2015. Forum for Food Sovereignty. Sélingué, Mali, February 24–27.

  • Philipps, Anne. 2015. The politics of the human. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. 2004. Compendium of the social doctrine of the Church. Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

  • Reuther, Rosemary R. 1993. Sexism and God talk: Toward a feminist theology. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, A. 1939. Land, labor and diet in Northern Rhodesia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous agricultural revolution: Ecology and food production in West Africa. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, Óscar. A. 2005. Homilías: Monseñor Óscar A. Romero, vol. 4. San Salvador: UCA Editores.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, John Augustine, and Raymond Augustine McGowan. 1921. A catechism of the social question. Mahwah: Paulist Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuck, Michael J. 1991. That they be one: The social teaching of the papal encyclicals (1740–1989). Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevilla Guzmán, Eduardo, and Graham Woodgate. 2013. Agroecology: Foundations in agrarian social thought and sociological theory. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (1): 32–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischler, W. 1965. Agrarökologie. Jena, Germany: Gustav Fischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toledo, Víctor. 1990. The ecological rationality of peasant production. In Agroecology and small farm development. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toledo, Víctor. 2022. Agroecology and spirituality: Reflections about an unrecognized link. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 46 (4): 626–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travieso, Emilio. 2015. Agroecology, Aristotle, and value(s). Unpublished manuscript, Oxford Department of International Development.

  • Travieso, Emilio. 2018. Reason to hope: Economic, social, and ecological virtuous cycles in Chiapas, Mexico. Doctoral Dissertation, Oxford University.

  • Trevilla Espinal, Diana Lilia, María Lorena. Soto Pinto, Helda Morales, and Erin Ingrid Jane. Estrada-Lugo. 2021. Feminist agroecology: Analyzing power relationships in food systems. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 45 (7): 1029–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly. 2007. Declaration on the rights of indigenous people.

  • van der Ploeg, Jan Douwe. 2008. The new peasantries: Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. Sterling: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, M. 1983. Silent violence. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement, and a practice: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29: 503–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wezel, A., B.G. Herren, R.B. Kerr, E. Barrios, A.L. Rodrigues Gonçalves, and F. Sinclair. 2020. Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 40 (40): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, Matthew Philipp. 2020a. Blood in the fields: Óscar Romero, Catholic social teaching, and land reform. Washington: Catholic University of America Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, Matthew Philipp. 2020b. Agroecology and natural law. Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 40 (1): 127–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, Matthew Philipp. 2021. Agroecology, biological control, and Catholic social teaching. Modern Theology 37 (2): 410–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worster, Donald. 1993. Wealth of nature: Environmental history and ecological imagination, 1993. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Julia, ed. 2021. Subtle agroecologies: Farming with the hidden half of nature. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaremba, Haley, Marlène Elias, Anne Rietveld, and Nadia Bergamini. 2021. Toward a feminist agroecology. Sustainability 13 (20): 11244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Natalie Carnes, Celia Deanne-Drummond, Carmody Grey, Jenny Howell, Austen Ivereigh, Jonathan Lett, Pete Jordan, Brittany McComb, Bethany Sollereder, Jonathan Tran, and Emilio Travieso for helpful conversations about and comments upon previous drafts of this article. Thanks also to the Laudato Si’ Research Institute (LSRI) at Oxford University for a fellowship which afforded the opportunity to engage with scholars at Campion Hall and at Oxford University on my research related to Catholic social teaching and agroecology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Honors College, Baylor University, Morrison Hall, One Bear Place #97181, Waco, TX, 76798-7181, USA

    Matthew Philipp Whelan

  2. Laudato Si’ Research Institute, Campion Hall, Oxford University, Brewer Street, Oxford, UK, OX1 1QS

    Matthew Philipp Whelan

Authors
  1. Matthew Philipp Whelan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Philipp Whelan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whelan, M.P. Agroecology’s moral vision. Agric Hum Values (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10516-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10516-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation