Constructing food sovereignty in Catalonia: different narratives for transformative action
- 509 Downloads
Food sovereignty can be conceptualized as a political proposal for social change in the field of agri-food relations. However, specific strategies of how to achieve this transformative potential are diverse, and context-dependent. The paper explores this diversity by examining discourses on the food sovereignty construction process in Catalonia. Using Q methodology we have explored visions held by individuals participating in the social movement for food sovereignty, identifying five discourses: activism, anti-purism, self-management, pedagogy, and pragmatism. Key strategies of transformation include social mobilization, institutional negotiation, self-management, education to foster value change, and politics of the possible. The relevance assigned to ideological affinity explains different views on the subject of transformation, particularly regarding the involvement of the administration and the productive sector. As regards transformative strategies, discourses assign differing importance to the role of agency for effecting social transformation, which influences their assessment of individual actions as an effective means for social change. Forms of individualized and classic collective action currently coexist within the Catalan agri-food movement, but such diversity is not acknowledged as an effective alliance towards food sovereignty. Moreover, all discourses agree to a dual definition of food sovereignty, both as a process, that is, as democratization of the decision-making process in the agri-food sector, and as a result, that is, establishing an agri-food model alternative to the neo-liberal one. However, the discourses share an unclear view of democracy as decentralized collective decision-making that does not make explicit how this model should be implemented to achieve social control of the agri-food system.
KeywordsFood sovereignty Social transformation Q methodology Catalonia
Catalonia Peoples’ Food Sovereignty Alliance
La Vía Campesina
This research was conducted in collaboration with Josep-Lluís Espluga and Marta G. Rivera, whom we would also like to thank for comments on earlier drafts. This work contributes to the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training Network ENTITLE Project (Number: 289374).
- Addams, H., and J.L.R. Proops. 2000. Social discourse and environmental policy: An application of Q methodology. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
- Blue, G. 2009. On the politics and possibilities of locavores: Situating food sovereignty in the turn from government to governance. Politics and Culture 2. http://www.politicsandculture.org/issue/2009-issue-2/. Accessed 13 Dec 2011.
- Calle, A. 2005. Nuevos movimientos globales. Hacia la radicalidad democrática. Madrid: Editorial Popular.Google Scholar
- Calle, A., M. Soler, and M.G. Rivera-Ferre. 2011. Soberanía alimentaria y agroecología emergente: la democracia alimentaria. In Aproximaciones a la democracia radical, ed. A. Calle, 213–237. Barcelona: Icaria.Google Scholar
- Catalan Statistics Institute. n.d. Labor force survey. http://www.idescat.cat/treball/epa?tc=4&id=ic0724&lang=es. Accessed 19 April 2013.
- DeLind, L.B. 2003. Considerably more than vegetables, a lot less than community: The dilemma of community supported agriculture. In Fighting for the farm: Rural America transformed, ed. J. Adams, 192–206. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
- FCCUC (La Federació de Cooperatives de Consumidors i Usuaris de Catalunya). 2010. Els grups i les cooperatives de consum ecològic a Catalunya. Diagnòstic de la situació i promoció del cooperativisme. http://www.ecoconsum.org/webfm_send/2. Accessed 4 Feb 2011.
- Hollis, M. 1997. The philosophy of social science. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lang, T. 1998. Towards a food democracy. In Consuming passions: Food in the age of anxiety, ed. S. Griffiths, and J. Wallace, 13–23. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
- Lipschutz, R.D., and J.K. Rowe. 2005. Globalization, governmentality, and global politics: Regulation for the rest of us?. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Ortega-Cerdà, M., and M.G. Rivera-Ferre. 2010. Indicadores internacionales de Soberanía Alimentaria. Nuevas herramientas para una nueva agricultura. Revista de la Red Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica 14: 53–77.Google Scholar
- Schmolck, P. 2002. PQMethod, version 2.11. http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~schmolck/qmethod/downpqx.htm. Accessed 21 Nov 2011.
- Shaw, R. 2013. The activist’s handbook: Winning social change in the 21st century. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Stephenson, W. 1953. The study of behavior: Q technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Tongco, M.D.C. 2007. Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research & Applications 5: 147–158.Google Scholar
- Webler, T., S. Danielson, and S. Tuler. 2009. Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Social and Environmental Research Institute. http://www.seri-us.org/sites/default/files/Qprimer.pdf. Accessed 13 Oct 2011.
- Windfuhr, M., and J. Jonsén. 2005. Food sovereignty. Towards democracy in localized food systems. FIAN-International, ITDG Publishing. http://www.ukabc.org/foodsovereignty_itdg_fian_print.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov 2011.