Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 275–290 | Cite as

The cultural politics of the agroecological transition

  • David MeekEmail author
Article

Abstract

Scholarly attention to sustainability transitions is rapidly increasing. This article explores how cultural politics constrain agricultural change. Cultural politics, or conflicting values about appropriate types of agriculture, are an underexplored variable influencing whether or not farmers adopt agroecological methods. The research focuses on the environmental, cognitive, and relational mechanisms that influence cultural politics. It analyzes the intersection of mechanisms and cultural politics in an Amazonian agrarian reform settlement of the Brazilian Landless Workers’ Movement (MST). Insights into the factors confounding the agroecological transition are derived from an analysis of longitudinal spatial data derived from historic aerial photographs and remotely sensed images, and ethnographic data from participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Drawing on a political ecology of education perspective, the cultural politics surrounding the agroecological transition are traced to the confluence of the region’s historical usage for cattle ranching (environmental mechanisms), farmer’s conceptions of space (cognitive mechanisms) and the combination of agricultural extension and government credit (relational mechanisms). The MST’s agroecological education initiatives hold the promise to drive the sustainability transition, but are also constrained by these cultural politics and associated mechanisms.

Keywords

Political ecology of education Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) Spatial imaginaries Agrarian reform Remote sensing 

Abbreviations

IFPA-CRMB

Federal Institute of Pará-Rural Campus of Marabá

INCRA

National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária)

MST

Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement (O Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra)

PEoE

Political ecology of education

PRONAF

National Program of Strengthening of Family Farming (Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar)

SUDAM

Superintendent of Amazonian Development (Superintendência do Desenvolvimento da Amazônia)

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research would not have been possible without financial support from the National Science Foundation (Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant, BCS#1060888), Social Science Research Council (International Dissertation Research Fellowship), and the Fulbright Foundation. The author gratefully acknowledges the feedback of three anonymous reviewers and Dr. Harvey James, as well as Rafter Ferguson who provided integral suggestions early on in the framing of the literature.

References

  1. Aldrich, S.R., C.S. Walker, M.Caldas Simmons, and S. Perz. 2012. Contentious land change in the Amazon’s arc of deforestation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102(1): 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonge, A.J., and R.A. Martin. 1995. Assessment of the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: Implications for agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education 36(3): 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altieri, M.A., and V.M. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(3): 587–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez, S.E., D. Evelina, and A. Escobar. 1998. The cultural and political in Latin American social movements: Cultures of politics/politics of cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, A.C., P. Jensen, and D.A. Kolb. 2002. Learning and conversation. In Conversational learning: An experiential approach to knowledge creation, ed. A.C. Baker, P.J. Jensen, and D.A. Kolb, 1–15. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  6. Barcellos, S.B. 2009. A formação discursiva agroecológica do MST: O caso do assentamento Santa Rosa-RS. Cadernos de Agroecologia 4(1): 2059–2063.Google Scholar
  7. Binswanger, H.P. 1991. Brazilian policies that encourage deforestation in the Amazon. World Development 19: 821–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Branford, S., and J. Rocha. 2002. Cutting the wire: The story of the landless movement in Brazil. London: Latin America Bureau.Google Scholar
  9. Borges, J. L. 2007. A transição do MST para a Agroecologia. Dissertação (Ciências Sociais). Londrina: Universidade Estadual de Londrina.Google Scholar
  10. Borges, J. L. 2010. MST: Do Produtivismo a Agroecologia. São Paulo: Ed. da PUC Goiás.Google Scholar
  11. Bowman, M.S., S. Britaldo, F. Merry, D. Nepstad, H. Rodrigues, and O.T. Almeida. 2012. Persistence of cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: A spatial analysis of the rationale for beef production. Land Use Policy 29(3): 558–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowman and Zilberman. 2013. Economic factors affecting diversified farming systems. Ecology and Society 18(1): 33.Google Scholar
  13. Brunner, E., I. Sanders, and D. Esminger (eds.). 1945. Farmers of the world: The development of agricultural extension. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Caldart, R.S. 2001. O MST e a formação dos Sem Terra: O movimento social como princípio educativo. Estudos Avançados 43: 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carolan, M.S. 2006. Social change and the adoption and adaptation of knowledge claims: Whose truth do you trust in regard to sustainable agriculture? Agriculture and Human Values 23(3): 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caron, P., E. Bienabe, and E. Hainzelin. 2014. Making transition towards ecological intensification of agriculture a reality: The gaps in and the role of scientific knowledge. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8: 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cash, D.W. 2001. “In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information”: Agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Science, Technology and Human Values 26(4): 431–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cochran, J.B., and R. Bonnell. 2005. Patterns of sustainable agriculture adoption/non-adoption in Panamá. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 27(3): 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coenen, L., and B. Truffer. 2012a. Places and spaces of sustainability transitions: Geographical contributions to an emerging research and policy field. European Planning Studies 20(3): 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coenen, L., and B. Truffer. 2012b. Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy 41(6): 968–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Costabeber, J.A., and E. Moyano. 2000. Transição agroecológica e ação social coletiva. Agroecologia e Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável. 1(4): 50–60.Google Scholar
  22. Coughenour, C.M. 2003. Innovating conservation agriculture: The case of no-till cropping. Rural Sociology 68(2): 278–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. de Oliveira Rocha, A. C. 2010. O Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra no Pará: da Luta Posseira à Construção de um Bloco Histórico Camponês (19842009). Master’s Thesis (Social Movement Studies). Belem: Federal University of Pará.Google Scholar
  24. Delgado, A. 2008. Opening up for the participation in agro-biodiversity conservation: The expert-lay interplay in a Brazilian social movement. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21: 559–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Delgado, A., and K. Rommetveit. 2012. ‘Our strength is diversity’: Imaginaries of nature and community in a Brazilian social movement. International Journal of Sustainable Development 15(4): 353–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Desmarais, A.A. 2002. The Via Campesina: Consolidating an international peasant and farm movement. Journal of Peasant Studies 29(2): 91–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Diniz, A.S., and B. Gilbert. 2013. Socialist values and cooperation in Brazil’s Landless Rural Workers’ Movement. Latin American Perspectives 40(4): 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Diniz-Pereira, J.E. 2005. Teacher education for social transformation and its links to progressive social movement: The case of the landless workers movement in Brazil. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 3(2): 91–123.Google Scholar
  29. Doré, T., D. Makowski, E. Malezieux, N. Munier-Jolain, M. Tchamitchian, and P. Tittonell. 2011. Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensification in agronomy: Revisiting methods, concepts and knowledge. European Journal of Agronomy 34: 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Floriani, N., and D. Floriani. 2010. Saber ambiental momplexo: Aportes cognitivos ao pensamento agroecológico. Revista Brasileira de Agroecologia 5(1): 3–23.Google Scholar
  31. Foweraker, J. 1981. The struggle for land: A political economy of the pioneer frontier in Brazil from 1930 to the present day. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Franz, N., F. Piercy, J. Donaldson, R. Richard, and J. Westbrook. 2010. How farmers learn: Implications for agricultural educators. Journal of Rural Social Sciences 25(1): 37–59.Google Scholar
  33. Freire, P. 1973. Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  34. Furtado, C. 1971. The economic growth of Brazil: A survey from colonial to modern times. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gliessman, S. 2013. Networking the national plan for agroecology in Brazil. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38(4): 367–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Golding, B., M. Brown, and A. Foley. 2009. Informal learning: A discussion around defining and researching its breadth and importance. Australian Journal of Adult Learning 49(1): 34–56.Google Scholar
  37. Gray, I., T. Dunn, and E. Phillips. 1997. Power, interests and the extension of sustainable agriculture. Sociologia ruralis 37(1): 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hansen, J.W. 1996. Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept? Agricultural Systems 50(2): 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harvey, D. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hassanein, N. 1999. Changing the way America farms: Knowledge and community in the sustainable agriculture Movement. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hassanein, N., and J.R. Kloppenburg. 1995. Where the grass grows again: Knowledge exchange in the sustainable agriculture movement. Rural Sociology 60(4): 721–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hecht, S. 2012. The new rurality: Globalization, peasants and the paradoxes of landscapes. Land Use Policy 27(2): 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Henke, C.R. 2008. Cultivating science, harvesting power: Science and industrial agriculture in California. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hinrichs, C.C. 2014. Transitions to sustainability: A change in thinking about food systems change? Agriculture and Human Values 31(1): 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ingram, J. 2008. Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: An analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best management practices in England. Agriculture and Human Values 25(3): 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jordan, G., and C. Weedon. 1995. Cultural politics: Class, gender, race and the postmodern world. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Kassie, M., P. Zikhali, K. Manjur, and S. Edwards. 2009. Adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: Evidence from a semi-arid region of Ethiopia. Natural Resources Forum 33(3): 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lamine, C. 2011. Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases from organic farming and IPM. Journal of Rural Studies 27(2): 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lamine, C., and S. Bellon. 2009. Conversion to organic farming: A multidimensional research object at the crossroads of agricultural and social sciences. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 29(1): 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lawhon, M., and J.T. Murphy. 2012. Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions: Insights from political ecology. Progress in Human Geography 36(3): 354–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lee, D.R. 2005. Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption: Issues and policies for developing countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(5): 1325–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lefebvre, H. 1991. The production of space. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  53. Leff, E. 2002. Agroecologia e saber ambiental. Agroecologia e Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável 3(1): 36–51.Google Scholar
  54. Livingstone, D.W. 2006. Informal learning: Conceptual distinctions and preliminary findings. In Learning in places: The informal education reader, ed. Z. Bekerman, N.C. Burbules, and D. Silberman-Keller, 203–228. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  55. Madelrieux, S., and F. Alavoine-Mornas. 2013. Withdrawal from organic farming in France. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33(3): 457–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maia, F.B., J. Garmany, and J.P. Stédile. 2007. Resistance and social reform in Latin America: Speaking with João Pedro Stédile of Brazil’s “O Movimento dos Trabalhdaores Rurais Sem Terra”. Journal of Latin American Geography 6(2): 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marsick, V.J., and K.E. Watkins. 1990. Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Massey, D.B. 1994. Double articulation: A place in the world. In Displacements: Cultural identities in question, ed. Angelika Bammer, 110–122. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Massey, D.B. 2005. For space. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. McAdam, D., S.G. Tarrow, and C. Tilley. 2001. Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McCarthy, J.D., and M. Zald. 1977. Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology 82(6): 1212–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McCarthy, J.D., and M. Zald. 2001. The enduring vitality of the resource mobilization theory of social movements. In Handbook of sociological theory, ed. J.H. Turner, 533–565. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  63. McCowan, T. 2003. Participation and education in the Landless People’s Movement of Brazil. Journal for Critical Education Policy studies 1(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
  64. McMichael, P. 2009. A food regime analysis of the ‘world food crisis’. Agriculture and Human Values 26: 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Meares, A.C. 1997. Making the transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture: Gender, social movement participation, and quality of life on the family farm. Rural Sociology 62(1): 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Meek, D. 2014. Sustainability education: What’s politics got to do with it? Journal of Sustainability Education, 7. http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/content/sustainability-education-whats-politics-got-to-do-with-it_2014_12/.
  67. Meek, D. 2015a. Learning as territoriality: The political ecology of education in the Brazilian Landless Workers’ Movement. Journal of Peasant Studies. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2014.978299.
  68. Meek, D. 2015b. Towards a political ecology of education: The educational politics of scale in southern Pará, Brazil. Environmental Education Research. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2014.993932.Google Scholar
  69. Moran, E.F. 1981. Developing the Amazon. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Morgan, K., and J. Murdoch. 2000. Organic vs. conventional agriculture: Knowledge, power and innovation in the food chain. Geoforum 31(2): 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nerbonne, J.F., and R. Lentz. 2003. Rooted in grass: Challenging patterns of knowledge exchange as a means of fostering social change in a Southeast Minnesota farm community. Agriculture and Human Values 20(1): 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ondetti, G. 2008. Land, protest, and politics: The landless movement and the struggle for agrarian reform in Brazil. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Parra-Lopez, C., T. De-Haro-Girnénez, and J. Calatrava-Requena. 2007. Diffusion and adoption of organic farming in the southern Spanish olive groves. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 30(1): 105–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Patel, R. 2013. Stuffed and starved—From farm to fork: The hidden battle for the world food system. London: Portobello.Google Scholar
  75. Pretty, J., C. Toulmin, and S. Williams. 2011. Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9(1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rhoades, R.E., and R.H. Booth. 1982. Farmer-back-to-farmer: A model for generating acceptable agricultural technology. Agricultural Administration 11(2): 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rigby, D., and D. Cáceres. 2001. Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems 68(1): 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Robbins, P. 2004. Political ecology: A critical introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  79. Roling, N.G., and J. Jiggins. 1998. The ecological knowledge system. In Facilitating sustainable agriculture: Participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty, ed. N.G. Roling, and M.A.E. Wagemakers, 283–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Schmink, M., and C.H. Wood. 1992. Contested frontiers in Amazonia. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Scott, R.V. 1970. The reluctant farmer: The rise of agricultural extension to 1914. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  82. Silva, H.W.S. 2003. Formação e resistência do MST no pará. Mestrado em Sociologia. Belém: Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém.Google Scholar
  83. Simmons, C.S. 2004. The political economy of land conflict in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94: 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Simmons, C. 2005. Territorializing land conflict: Space, place, and contentious politics in the Brazilian Amazon. GeoJournal 64(4): 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Simmons, C.S., R.T. Walker, E.Y. Arima, S.P. Aldrich, and M.M. Caldas. 2007. The Amazon land war in the south of Para. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97(3): 567–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Smith, A., J.P. Voß, and J. Grin. 2010. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy 39(4): 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stedile, J. P. 2012. Statement by João Pedro Stedile in Meeting with President Dilma. 26 January. http://www.mstbrazil.org/news/statement-joao-pedro-stedile-meeting-president-dilma. Accessed March 23, 2015.
  88. Stedile, P. 2013. Prologue by La Vía Campesina. In Agroecological revolution: The farmer-to-farmer movement of the ANAP in Cuba, ed. B.M. Sosa, A.M.R. Jaime, D.R.Á. Lozano, and P.M. Rosset, 1–3. Asociación Nacional de Agricultores Pequeños (ANAP) and La Vía Campesina: Havana.Google Scholar
  89. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, NJ: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  90. Tarrow, S.G. 1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Thompson, J., and I. Scoones. 1994. Challenging the populist perspective: Rural people’s knowledge, agricultural research, and extension practice. Agriculture and Human Values 11(2): 58–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tittonell, P. 2014. Ecological intensification of agriculture—Sustainable by nature. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8: 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Truffer, B., and L. Coenen. 2012. Environmental innovation and sustainability transitions in regional studies. Regional Studies 46(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Vandermeer, J. 1995. The ecological basis of alternative agriculture. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Vergara-Camus, L. 2009. The politics of the MST autonomous rural communities, the state, and electoral politics. Latin American Perspectives 36(4): 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Warner, K.D. 2008. Agroecology as participatory science: Emerging alternatives to technology transfer extension practice. Science, Technology and Human Values 33(6): 754–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Dore, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement, and a practice. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29(4): 503–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wilson, G.A. 2009. The spatiality of multifunctional agriculture: A human geography perspective. Geoforum 40(2): 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wolford, W. 2004. This land is ours now: Spatial imaginaries and the struggle for land in Brazil. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(2): 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wolford, W. 2010. This land is ours now: Social mobilization and the meanings of land in Brazil. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Worth, S.H. 2006. Agriflection: A learning model for agricultural extension in South Africa. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 12(3): 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wright, A., and W. Wolford. 2003. To inherit the earth: The landless movement and the struggle for a new Brazil. Oakland, CA: Food First!.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations