Abstract
In science and environmental studies, there is a general concern for the democratization of the expert-lay interplay. However, the democratization of expertise does not necessarily lead to more sustainable decisions. If citizens do not take the sustainable choice, what should experts and decision makers do? Should the expert-lay interplay be dissolved? In thinking about how to shape the expert-lay interplay in a better way in agro-biodiversity conservation, I take the case of the MST (Movimento Sem Terra/Landless People’s Movement), possibly the largest rural movement in Latin America. The MST is in a process of turning towards environmentalism. It has adopted agroecology, a democratically oriented knowledge field. However, not all of the farmers were willing to adopt new environmentalist ideas and practices. Through ethnographic research, I analyze how expertise was recognized and redistributed within the MST, attending particularly to the role of MST coordinators and technicians. I explore how participation was framed and put into action. The adoption of agroecology brought to the MST a new and more inclusive map of expertise, but it also influenced new social distinctions within the communities. In part, farmers’ knowledge was labeled as ignorance. This may close down possibilities for dialogue as well as for sustainability. The paper suggests that experts’ power for discriminating among lay knowledges should come together with a responsibility for opening spaces for dialogue and action. One way of doing so could be by adding “interactional reflexivity” to experts’ expertise.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26, 413–439.
Agrawal, A. (2002). Indigenous knowledges and the politics of classification. International Social Science Journal, 173, 325–336.
Agrawal, A. (2005). Technologies of government and the making of subjects (new ecologies for the twenty-first century). Duke: Duke University Press.
Altieri, M. (1983). Agroecology. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Altieri, M. (1995). Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Softbound: Westview Press.
Arias Maldonado, M. (2007). An imaginary solution? The green defense of deliberative Democracy. Environmental Values, 16, 233–252.
Caporal, F. R., & Costabeber, J. A. (2000). Agroecologia e desenvolvimento rural sustentável: Perspectivas para uma nova extensão rural. Agroecologia e desenvolvimento rural sustentável, 1, 16–37.
Carolan, M. S. (2006). Sustainable agriculture, science and the co-production of “expert” knowledge: The value of interactional expertise. Local Environment, 11, 421–431.
Cohen, A. P. (1993). Segmentary knowledge: A Whalsay sketch. In M. Hobart (Ed.), An anthropological critique of development. The growth of ignorance (pp. 31–43). London: Routledge.
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies. Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235–296.
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Delgado, G. (2001). Expansão e modernização do setor agropecuário no pós-guerra: Um estudo da reflexão agrária. Estudos Avançados, 15, 157–172.
Delgado, A. (Forthcoming). Activist trust: The diffusion of green expertise in a Brazilian landscape. Accepted in Public Understanding of Science.
Deuffic, P., & Candau, J. (2006). Farming and landscape management: How French farmers are coping with the ecologization of their activities. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 563–585.
Devos, Y., Ámesele, P., Reheul, D., Van Speybroeck, L., & De Waele, D. (2007). Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (re) quest for sense and sensibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 29–61.
Dickson, D. (2005, June). The case for a ‹deficit model’ of science communication. Paper presented at the Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference. Working Symposium on ‹Strategic Issues in Science and Technology Communication’, Beijing.
Dryzek, J. (2002). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Liberals, critics and contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T. A., Creamer, N., Harwood, R., et al. (2003). Agroecology: The ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22, 99–118.
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 735–755.
Gallopín, G., & Vessuri, H. (2006). Science for sustainable development. In Â. Guimarães Pereira, S. Guedes Vaz & S. Tognetti (Eds.), Interfaces between science and society (pp. 35–51). Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Gliessman, S. R. (1978). Agroecosistemas con enfasis en el estudio de tecnologia agricola tradicional. Cardenas, Mexico: Colegio Superior de Agricultural Tropical.
Gliessman, S. R. (1998). Agroecology: Ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. Michigan: Ann Arbor Press.
Gogol, E. (2002). The concept of other in Latin American liberalization. Fusing emancipatory philosophic thought and Social Revol. Maryland: Lexington Books.
Guzmán Casado, G., González de Molina, M., & Sevilla Guzmán, E. (1999). Introducción a la agroecología como desarrollo rural sostenible. Madrid: Mundi Prensa.
Hajer, M. (1997). Politics of the move: The democratic control of the design of sustainable technologies. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), Comparative science and technology policy (pp. 565–577). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Healy, S. (2003). Epistemological pluralism and the politics of choice. Futures, 35, 689–701.
Hobart, M. (Ed.). (1993). An anthropological critique of development. The growth of ignorance. London: Routledge.
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science. A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 1–18.
Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‹new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, 299–320.
Irwin, A., & Michael, M. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Irwin, A. & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jamison, A. (2002). The making of green knowledge. Environmental politics and cultural transformation. Port Chester: Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244.
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Konder Comparato, B. (2003). A ação política do MST. São Paulo: Expressão Popular.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1998). To modernize or to ecologise? That’s the question. In N. Castree & B. Braun (Eds.), Remaking reality. Nature at the millenium (pp. 221–243). London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (2004). The politics of nature. How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Le Preste, P. G. (Ed.). (2002) Governing global biodiversity: The evolution and implementation of the convention on biological diversity. Sydney: Ashgate.
Leach, M., & Fairhead, J. (2002). Manners of contestation: “Citizen science” and “Indigenous Knowledge” in West Africa and the Caribbean. International Social Science Journal: 173, 299–312.
Lengwiler, M. (2008). Participatory approaches in science and technology. Historical origins and current practices in critical perspective. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33, 186–200.
Londres, F., (2006). A Nova Legislação de sementes e mudas no Brasil e seus impactos sobre a agricultura familiar: Grupo de Trabalho sobre Biodiversidade. Articulazão Nacional de Agroecologia. www.agroecologia.org.br/modules/articles/article.
Lousa da Fonseca, M. T. (1985). Das origens, dos fundamentos teoricos e da implantacão da extensão rural na America Latina. A extensão rural no Brasil, um projeto educativo para o capital. São Paulo: Edicões Loyola.
Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27, 268–291.
Masseli, M. (1997). Extensão rural entre os Sem-Terra. São Paulo: UNIMEP.
Michael, M. (1996). Ignoring science: The discourse of ignorance in the public understanding of science. In A. Irwin & B. Wynne (Eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 107–126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MST. (1996). Principios do educação no MST. Veranópolis: Iterra.
MST. (2000). Nossos Valores. Veranópolis: Iterra.
MST. (2002). Pedagogia da Terra. Veranópolis: Iterra.
MST. (2004). Método Pedagógico. Veranópolis: Iterra.
MST/Bionatur. (2005). Sementes Patrimônio. dos Povos a Serviço da Humanidade. São Paulo: Pontocom.
Pinassi, M. O., Cabral, F., & Lourencão, M. C. (2000). An interview with João Pedro Stédile. Latin American Perspectives, 27, 46–62.
Porsborg Nielsen, A., Lassen, J., & Sandøe, P. (2007). Democracy at its best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20, 13–35.
Potvin, C., Revéret, J. P., Patenaude, G., & Hutton, J. (2002). The role of Indigenous Peoples in conservation actions: A case study of cultural differences and conservation priorities. In P. G. Le Preste (Ed.), Governing global biodiversity: The evolution and implementation of the convention of biological diversity (pp. 159–177). Sydney: Ahgate.
Raby, D. L. (2006). Democracy and revolution. Latin America and socialism today. London: Pluto Press.
Stacey, R. D. (2000). Strategic management and organizational dynamics: The challenge of complexity. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Stedile, J. P., & Fernandes, B. M. (2003). Brava gente, la trayectoria del MST y la lucha por la tierra en Brasil. Argentina, Brasil: Barbarroja.
Stirling, A. (2005). Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In M. Leach, I. Scoones & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens. Globalization and the challenge of engagement (pp. 118–132). London: Zed Books.
Strand, R. (2002). Complexity, ideology and governance. Emergence, 4, 164–183.
Torgerson, D. (2003). Democracy through policy discourse. In M. Hajer (Ed.), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 113–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
United Nations Environmental Program. (1992). Convention on biological diversity. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/.
United Nations Environmental Program. (2003). Convention on biological diversity. Report of the expert body on the ecosystem approach. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/doc/?mtg=SBSTTA-12.
Uphoff, N. (Ed.). (2002). Agroecological innovations, increasing food production with participatory development. London and Sterling: Earthscan.
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science. Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
Wolford, W. (2003). Producing community: The MST and land reform settlements in Brazil. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3, 500–520.
Wright, N., & Nerlich, B. (2006). The use of the deficit model in a shared culture of argumentation: The case of foot and mouth science. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 331–342.
Wright, A. L., & Wolford, W. (2003). To Inherit the Earth: The Landless Movement and the struggle for a new Brazil. Oakland: Food First Books.
Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361–389). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 44–83). London: SAGE.
Wynne, B. (2003). Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism. Social Studies of Science, 33, 401–417.
Wynne, B. (2008a). Elephants in the rooms where publics encounter “science”?: A response to Darrin Durant, “Accounting for expertise: Wynne and autonomy of the lay public”. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 21–33.
Wynne, B. (2008b). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9, 211–220.
Yearley, S. (2003). Social movements as problematic agents of global environmental change. In S. Vertovec & D. A. Posey (Eds.), Globalization, globalism, environments, and environmentalism—consciousness of connections (pp. 39–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yearley, S. (2005). Cultures of environmentalism. Empirical studies in environmental society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the informants who participated in the research for their patience and availability. Louis Lemkow encouraged me when I presented him with an early version of this paper, for which I am grateful. Thank you to Roger Strand for his support, comments and “close reading.” I very much appreciate the advice of my colleagues at the SVT: Fern Wickson, Kamilla Kjølberg, and Kjetil Rommetveit. I would also like to express my thanks to Manuel Arias Maldonado for taking the time to read the paper and comment upon it and to Judith Ann Larsen for helping me to improve my written English. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. The research presented in the paper was funded by an FPU grant of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Delgado, A. Opening Up for Participation in Agro-Biodiversity Conservation: The Expert-Lay Interplay in a Brazilian Social Movement. J Agric Environ Ethics 21, 559–577 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9117-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9117-6