Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
practices,socialandecologicalgoals,andabilitytosupportpeasants'income,yields,
andlivelihoodscanbefoundinUphof,andinNelsonandCoe(bothinthisvolume),
andinseveralotherrecentworks(e.g.,Kloppenburg2010;Jarviset al.2011;Pautasso
et al.2012;RossetandMartínez-Torres2012).17PertinenttoLVC'svalues,agroecology
can also improve socioeconomic conditions for women, though it is likely that these
gains are tied to a tendency within agroecology to acknowledge the importance of gen-
der, and thus specific efforts to address gender within agroecological improvement pro-
grams(Bezner-Kerr2008;DeSchutter2011;Rossetet al.2011).
AlongsideLVC'ssupportofagroecology,itsoppositiontogeneticallyengineered(GE)
cropshasbeenadeiningissue.ItscommittedrejectionofGEcropsrelectsboththe
experiencesandperceptionsofmany(thoughnotall)ofitsmembersregardingthedan-
gersofmodernindustrialagriculturaldevelopments(Holt-Giménez2006;Desmarais
2007,40-45).Italsoemergesfromtheexperiencemanyfarmershavehadwithcenturies
ofenclosureandappropriationofphysicalandintellectualgoods(Kloppenburg2004;
Weis2007;Kloppenburg2010),andthelong-term,ongoingpatternsofinternational
imperial/hegemonic consolidation of control over agriculture and food systems.18
InitsoppositiontoGEcrops,aswellasitsstaunchcriticismsofinternationaltrade
institutionsliketheWorldTradeOrganization(WTO)andWorldBank,LVChasmain-
tainedwhatMartinez-TorresandRosset(2010,158-159)characterizeas“collectivedei-
ance” ( sensu PivenandCloward1977),givinggristtoPivenandCloward'sinding,“in
general,thatpoorpeoples'organizationsaremostefectiveatachievingtheirdemands
when they are most confrontational, and least effective when they take more concilia-
torypositionsandinvesttheirenergiesindialogue.”AlthoughLVC'sstanceofnonen-
gagementwithactorssuchastheWTOandWorldBankhasbeencriticizedbysome
whobelievetheorganizationcouldaccomplishmorewithamorecooperativestance,
Doimo'sclassic(1995)workonBrazilianpost-1970socialmovementsreinforcesPiven
andCloward'sclaim.Doimofoundwhatshecalleda“double-ethos”inBraziliansocial
movements. The first was an “expressive-disruptive” ethos, “through which movements
manifest their moral values or ethico-political appeals, and which simultaneously tend
todelegitimizepublicauthorityandestablishintergroupfrontiers”(69).19 his ethos
alignswithLVC'suseoffoodrightsasbothamobilizationtoolandacriticalplatform.
Doimo, like Piven and Cloward, found this ethos to be an important element in success-
ful movements, though she noted that at some point movements tended to switch to
an alternative “cooperative-integrative” ethos, to “seek to acquire higher levels of social
integrationintermsofaccesstogoodsandservices”(69).husfar,LVCseemsboth
comfortable and effective in its “disruptive” stance. The group remains concerned with
the possibilities and threat of co-optation from cooperation and integration, and sen-
sitivetohowcooperationandintegrationmayneutralizethemostpointedcriticisms
ofactivistgroupsandmovements.Instead,withdelegitimizationofimperialstructures
andsocioculturaldisruptionandreorganizationstillonitsagenda,itseemslikelythat
LVCwillmaintainitstacticsofnonengagement.LVCseekstomaintaintheautonomy
and defensibility of the movement itself, and it sees these oppositional stances as still
usefulandphilosophicallyimportant—whileatthesametimerecognizingthatmember
Search WWH ::




Custom Search