Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Further, inherent in the concept of food sovereignty is a call for open, democratic dis-
cussions of values. True food sovereignty would generate processes involving the citi-
zensandcommunitiesofanygivenareacapableofdeterminingtheprioritiesandshape
of the food system:
[Foodsovereigntytakesdirectaimat]aone-size-its-allapproachtoagriculture,
as opposed to the context specific results generated by democratic deliberation. By
leavingthevenuesofsubnationalengagementopen...LaVíaCampesinacallsfor
new political spaces to be filled with argument . . . a call for people to figure out for
themselves what they want the right to food to mean in their communities, bearing
in mind the community's needs, climate, geography, food preferences, social mix,
and history . . . We will know if the promise of food sovereignty has been realized when
we see explicit discussions of gender politics and food production .
(Patel2007: 91;emphasisadded)
There is no reason that such discussions could not also involve debate over the value of
peasantidentityandpeasants'rightstoagivensociety;negotiatingbetweenpeasants'
rightsandprioritiesandthoseofothercitizenswillbeadelicateandinterestingprocess.
Anotherdiicultelement—therightvenuesandscalesforthesedemocraticdiscus-
sions—mayinditssolutioninausefultautologyimpliedbyfoodsovereignty: decisions
andfoodsystemsshouldbelocalizedasfarasispossibleandefective,butnofurther.15
LVC'smultiscaleandpolycentricdemocratictraditionswillalsohelptheminnavigat-
ing this difficulty, if the democratic processes they seek do become as commonplace as
they hope.
LVC'sprioritiesaroundparticipatorydemocracyalsoalignwithseveralconverging
bodies of academic literature. Researchers of collective action and common property
managementhavepointedoutthatlocalcommunitiesandcivilsociety—notformallyof
“themarket”or“thestate”—cancreateandmaintainsociallyandecologicallysustain-
ableresourceuseregimes(Ostrom1990;Poteeteetal.2010).Localizationandautonomy
is also supported by current research on the potential of participatory and delibera-
tivedemocraticforms(Prughetal.2000;HerbickandIsham2010),andthepossible
socialandenvironmentalbeneitsoflocalizedsystems(Feenstra1997;Pretty2001;De
YoungandPrincen2012;thoughlocalizationisnotwithoutcritique:Tregear2011).All
oftheseliteraturespointtothepossibilityofnewsovereigntiesandsubjectivites.Inthis,
HardtandNegri's(2004)conceptualizationof multitude is useful, as its crucial distinc-
tion from previous democratic forms is that it does not require the sacrifice of singulari-
ties . That is, diverse peoples are able to work together, negotiate, and lobby for societal
changesandrestructuring,withoutgivinguptheirdistinctiveness(cf.Note18).Rather,
they work together pragmatically on the areas of agreement. This tension between unity
and uniqueness, compromise without complete capitulation of differing values, is seen
throughoutLVC,anditwasrecentlywitnessedintheformofthe“Occupy”movement
(RazsaandKurnik2012).hefullpotentialofthemultitude,asaconceptandamode
of action, remains to be seen, but there are empirical and theoretical reasons to be opti-
misticbasedintheliteraturesabove.FromtheMCAC,theLVCmemberorganization
Search WWH ::




Custom Search