Suchergebnisse

AbstractLike all species, humans change our environments to get food.Foodgetting is the dimension of human history that links us directly and indirectly with all other beings. Inescapably and at once both historical and natural, human foodgetting can be understood both as natural history and as historical nature. It implicates our species being in the evolving web of life. In its complex embodied, encultured and social relations, human nature evolves. To embrace that recognition requires thorough revision of inherited ideas. I draw on specific contributions among many thinkers engaged in this project by following a foodgetting thread through several literatures: (1) approaches to reconnecting natural with social sciences of human nature; (2) a "deep history" (Shryock and Smail 2011) of agriculture, which connects prehistory to written history, by Mazoyer and Roudart (1997, 2006), and its limits; (3) ecological resilience theory, and its model of panarchy, which resonates with emergence, dissolution, and reconstellation of food regimes and food regime transitions. This sets the stage for (4) clarifying different paths taken by food regime analysts, including my differences with co‐founder Philip McMichael. (5) I conclude by suggesting an approach to intentional change of human institutions centred on emergence, and (6) an example of emerging ways of organising territory centred on foodgetting.

The argument that agriculture & food have all along invisibly underpinned relations of property & power in the world system to now emerge as key points of conflict in international organizations is asserted to find solution in an appreciation of "livelihoods" & "habitats" that are the living foundations of all human societies. The present impasse over global rules for agriculture reflects profound changes in social relations across the whole spectrum of production & consumption of food on a world scale. Analysis of these relations using a "food regime" conceptual framework identifies complementary expectations between social actors in all aspects of food. A brief historical narrative describes the growth of the regime from the Settler - Colonial food regime, the Mercantile - Industrial food regime, & the Structural Adjustment Programs imposed on the indebted countries. The dramatic shift in policy responses by the UN to the troubles of the Mercantile - Industrial food regime, & the current politics of hunger & agricultural trade today reflect Polanyi's "double movement" throughout the history of world agriculture & food. The increasingly transnational public dialogue taking place over promoting human & system well-being is a reemergence of agriculture into the center of policy conflicts that offers the possibility of correcting the curious blindness of development to the ineluctable relationship between society & nature, & making agriculture the fundamental point from which to assess what is right & wrong about current & future global rules & relationships. References. J. Harwell

Shares the experience of participation in two cosmopolitan gatherings in 2001, the World Social Forum (WSF) at Porto Alegre, Brazil, in Jan & the People's Summit (PS) at Quebec City in Apr. Gatherings are becoming a traditional response to Summits of Leaders, both to protest the lack of democratic accountability & to explore a different type of globalization -- one of democracy & social, cultural, & ecological responsibility & equity. People from many nations search for economic rules that could serve individuals & communities, rather than dominate them. The WSF was described as lively & magical in the protective & friendly Porto Alegre, a half world away from the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The PS experienced moments of genuine connection, but its proximity to the Summit of the Americas created interruptions when the "Democracy of Tear Gas" made no distinctions between protestors, observers, & residents, & even briefly, Heads of State via the ventilating system. Content of discussions & goals of the summits are discussed. L. A. Hoffman

Takes issue with Ben Fine's theory-based political economy of food (see abstract in this section of SA 43:5), & offers conceptually organized historical analysis as a more complete method of analyzing food. Fine's theory is criticized for its emphasis on systems that cannot adequately take into account contingencies of agriculture due to their unpredictable nature. Fine's food system is also tied to 1950s/1960s agriculture & industry in capitalist systems, & thus does not take into account other parts of the world. Instead, the idea of a "complex" is presented that seeks to determine distinct agro-food networks in certain eras for particular areas, without the rigidness of Fine's food systems. 11 References. A. Cole

The end of the Cold war opens significant questions about contemporary & historical power relations regarding food & agriculture because the enormous changes unfolding today originated in the 1972/73 US-USSR grain deals, which initiated a still unresolved crisis within the postwar food regime. Indeed, while it is generally recognized that the rival blocs provided a framework for decolonization & development of national economies in the Third World, it must be recognized that the crisis within the food regime has been intimately connected to the restructuring of the framework itself. The political & economic implications in the Third World of the three major food complexes can be identified: the wheat complex facilitated food import dependency; the durable food complex reduced demand for traditional tropical exports; & the livestock complex shifted from a national to transnational basis, undermining most directly the local, mixed economies. M. Maguire