___________________________________________________________________
Labour Unions Defending Small Farmers with Big Ideas
How peasant movements de-securitize food politics
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tebben Geerlofs – 1000 3912 28 januari 2014, te Amsterdam Begeleider : Dr. Stephanie Simon
Table of content :
Introduction...4
1. Security, securitization, and de-securitization...6
1.1 Security...6
1.2 Securitization...7
1.3 De-securitization ...8
2. Food Sovereignty...9
2.1. The securitization of food politics ...9
2.2 La Via Campesina, the birth of a grass-root movement...10
2.3 About food sovereignty...11
3. Methods...13
3.1. Sampling and data...13
3.2 Method of analysis...14
3.2.1. Critical Discourse Analysis...14
3.2.2 Why CDA...15
3.2.3 CDA in action...15
4. Growing the next hegemonic discourse...16
4.1. Labour unions defending small farmers with big ideas...16
4.2. Getting detached from the hegemonic discourse...18
4.3. Defending peasants rights...19
4.4. Pointing out what is harmful in the production-driven model...19
4.5. Developing ideas and proposing solutions...21
4.6. Taking action...22
4.7. Challenging the dominant discourse...23
Conclusion...25
References...27
Introduction
In 1974, the World Food Conference took place in Rome in the wake of the devastating famines in Bangladesh the preceding two years. During this conference, the US secretary of State Henry Kissinger made the statement that within 10 years, no child would go bed hungry. This World Food Conference was a globalized answer against the threat of hunger, famines and malnutrition. Organizations as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), were taking over the worldwide policies of food production and distribution. Two "green revolutions" were designed to increase worldwide food production through intensive agriculture and the food markets were liberalized.
The World Food Conference was part of the "securitization" of the food politics. The securitization of the topic of food raised the need of extraordinary policies and fast-track decision-making. In the nineties, critical organizations began to raise voices against the industrial agriculture that had been promoted. The critics came from journalists and scientists, but it was also, and may be most importantly, a grass-root movement of peasants and farmers. The biggest and best-known of this movements who advocates alternative ways of producing food, is La Via Campesina, fighting for what they call food sovereignty.
La Via Campesina is an organization created in 1993 in Belgium. It grew to an international movement and claims to represent over more than 200 million farmers around the world. It is recognized as a main actor in the food and agricultural debates. In 1996 the organization launched the idea of food sovereignty. This new concept is a fast evolving one, with different interpretations, but which in the beginning is about "the right to have rights about food systems" (Raj Patel, 2009: 667). The concept of food Sovereignty was imagined in response to peasants disillusion with food
security and the dominant global food discourse on food provisioning and policy. In the
interpretation of food sovereignty, food security has in the name of productivity promoted the "corporate food regime" : large scale, industrialized corporate farming, based on specialized production, land concentration and trade liberalization. Peter Rosset says that food sovereignty goes further than food security. The goal of food security is that everyone has the certainty of having enough food to eat each day, but this does not say anything about where the food comes from or how it is produced. Food sovereignty is a "platform for rural revitalization at a global level based on equitable distribution of farm land and water, farmer control over seeds, and productive small-sclae farms supplying consumers with healthy, locally grown food". (Food First, 2005)
Giving a clear and all-encompassing definition of food sovereignty could be the only matter of this paper, but this has already been tried (Rosset, Hrabanski, Patel...) and has revealed to be a
challenging mission. While we could think that the difficulty to define food sovereignty makes it a weak or vague idea, this is actually an expression of the concept itself, and its reason to exist : "La Via Campesina was forged in resistance to autocratic and unaccountable policy making, largely carried out by the World Bank together with other local elites" (Patel, 2009: 669). There is no policy-making secretariat at La Via Campesina, and the concept of food sovereignty emerges and evolves along the meanings the peasants member of the organization are giving to it.
La Via Campesina is thus a grass-root movement which is claiming back the right to decide about "food". This rights were taken away from peasants all over the world, after states together with international organizations decided that food production had to be secured. The movement rejects
food security, and reinserted food production back in a holistic understanding of the importance of
food and everything related to it. This is what I call the de-securitization of food politics. The research question that is answered in this paper is :
How do alternative discourses within food sovereignty de-securitize the politics of food security ?
This question is answered in four parts. Firstly, it is made clear what is meant by "de-securitizing". After this, a closer look is taken at the case and it is explained how food politics are securitized. Thirdly, the methodological part aims at clarifying how the analyses has been done. Finally, the results of the analysis are reported.
1. Security, securitization, and de-securitization
In this paper is researched how member-organizations of La Via Campesina de-securitize food politics. Therefore this first part will define what it means to "de-securitize" in three steps. Firstly security will be taken under the loop. After this, securitizing and de-securitizing are defined. 1.1 Security
Security, is an ambivalent concept. On the one hand, thinkers have been writing about it for several
hundred years. The writings from Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Bentham or Mill are still relevant today (Zedner, 2009: 26). On the other hand, in the twentieth century, security has been a central concept in the study of international relations, with only very few conceptual analysis of this term security (Huysmans, 2006: 19). In the 1990's, the scope of security studies evolved. This change reflected the evolution of the international agenda after the end of the cold war. The attention turned away from subjects like "arms control, nuclear deterrence, the role of conventional arms, the rise of the electronic battlefield, military alliances" to a wider range of issues (Huysmans, 2006: 15). New subjects, like the environment, migration, peacekeeping, health, financial security or community safety were now seen through the lens of security. To see a subject through the lens of security has an effect on how this concept is conceptually and politically approached. Using security language for a particular subject, has as effect to dramatize it and move it up on the political agenda (Deudney, 1990: 465). To frame a subject in terms of security can be a political tactic. But using this technique risks to create a category of "enemies" of the security program, with who cooperation is more difficult (Deudney, 1990: 469). Analysing food issues in terms of security, is part of this broadening of subjects security can apply to. A difference with the subjects that were seen through to the lens of security since the 90's, is the fact that food started to be analysed in this way in the 70's. Food
security has for the first time been defined in 1975 by the UN (UN 1975, in FAO 2003).
In 2001, Valverde defined security as "an umbrella term that both enables and conceals a very diverse array of governing practices, budgetary practices, political and legal practices, and social and cultural values and habits" (Valverde, 2001: 90). Zedner writes about this different meanings of
security and the broad scope of subjects it is used in : "for security to keep such varied bedfellows as
these, it must be not only promiscuous but also inconstant, appearing as different objects of desire in different places and at different times" (Zedner, 2009: 9).
How then can we decide on a concise and useable definition of the term security, that would help us understand what is food security ? As we just have seen, a concise definition of security seems difficult to agree on. That is the reason why the focus will lie on its usability. For this, we will shift
from the concept of security, to securitization and de-securitization. This are the concepts that are used in this paper, and defining this concepts is much more achievable.
1.2 Securitization
To describe what is meant in this paper by securitization, a good beginning is this quote of Weaver : "security is not of interest as a sign that refers to something more real ; the utterance itself is the act. By uttering ‘security’, a state representative moves a particular development into a specific area, and thereby claims a special right to use whatever means are necessary to block it" (Wæver, 1995: 55).
In this quote, there are three elements that are necessary in the process of securitization. At first there is the "state representative", which is a power that has a particular authority. This power has the control of the agenda-setting. In this way, it can decide about "particular development(s)" (the second element), and if there is something to be done about it, or if it should be left untouched. This "particular developments", are topics, areas or issues about which the "state representative" can decide on a policy about. Finally, there is the "special right" that the state representative claims to have, which gives him the authority to "use whatever means are necessary". This third element is about what exceptional measures can be taken in name of security : the need to ensure security is that important, that "the end justifies the means", as Machiavelli would have said (1512).
Securitization is "the move which takes politics beyond the normal rules of the game" (Buzan,
Wæver & de Wilde, 1998: 23). It is a process in politics in which policy areas are taken out of their normal decision-making structure. This allows the use of special and fast decision-making processes for the areas that are securitized.
For the Copenhagen school (CS), securitization is a failure to deal with normal politics. In normal politics, politics should unfold according to routine procedures. When according to the state, a particular threat should be elevated, it is taken out of the discussions through which citizens and elected representatives usually solve problems. The threat that is identified has to be solved as fast as possible, because it endangers to a large extent our existence. (Roe, 2012: 251-252). For the CS, the elites who securitize a particular area have to legitimate their action. The elites cannot at any moment securitize any area, because at the moment they disrupt the normal politics, their actions are still contestable by the public. For this, says the CS, the elites have to perform a "speech act" (Huysmans, 2011: 272). The goal of this speech act is to create the need for the securitization and to convince the public (i.e. the citizens) that this securitization is needed. This means that "a ‘significant audience’ must concur with the securitizing actor (who speaks ‘security’) for a referent
subject, i.e. the threatening event to be securitized" (Balzacq, 2005: 173). The CS emphasizes thus that "securitization" happens through a dialogue, and that the securitization can be, or cannot be accepted by the public.
What does it look like in practice to securitize an area ? Buzan says that "a successful securitization consists of three steps. These are: (1) identification of existential threats; (2) emergency action; and (3) effects on inter-unit relations by breaking free of rules" (1998: 6).
1.3 De-securitization
The process of de-securitizing an area is to undo its securitization. This means that de-securitizing means to put the subject back in the normal politics, and let it unfold again according to the routine procedures. Aradau gives normative values to securitization and de-securitization. She defines securitization as negative because "extraordinary politics necessarily both institutionalizes fast-track decision-making (‘process’) and produces categories of enemy others (‘outcome’)" (Aradau, in Roe, 2012: 249). De-securitization, for Aradau, can have a more positive conception, as she sees it as "maintaining issues in, or returning issues to, the realm of ‘normal’ politics". But the transformatory potential of de-securitization is severely circumscribed, Aradau warns, because "the normal political mode is itself invariably subject to the same institutional sovereign authority and domination as securitization" (Aradau, in Roe, 2012: 249).
To de-securitize an area there are three options, says Weaver. The first is a pre-emptive strategy, whereby one simply avoids speaking about certain issue in terms of security. The second involves managing already securitized issues in ways that do not generate ‘security dilemmas and other vicious circles’. The third option is to bring issues back into the realm of ‘normal politics’ (Wæver, 2000: 253)
Aradau writes that de-securitization can also be interpreted as re-politicization. For Aradau, the difference between "normal politics" and "fast-tracking decision-making" is about the extent to which the decision-making process is democratic. In the "realm of normal politics", the democratic process ensures a certain degree of openness and accountability. In the "fast tracking decision-making", which she also calls the "panic politics", this process is disrupted. As securitization takes a subject out of the spheres of debate, and closes this subject for discussion and contestation, it is also interpreted as de-politicization (Aradau, in Roe, 2012: 250-251).
2. Food Sovereignty
In this second part of the paper, the case is explained. To do this, we will first have a look at how food politics are securitized. This will help us understand how in reaction of the securitization of food politics, a grass-root movements of peasants was born to protest against this. A brief history of this movement called La Via Campesina is given. Finally, its central concept food sovereignty is analysed.
2.1. The securitization of food politics
In the second half of the twentieth century, agricultural policies tended to become "securitized". This means that decision-making about agricultural policies was taken out of its traditional areas, and the policies were designed to raise production through what is called today the "conventional agriculture". This securitization of the food politics was a worldwide phenomenon. In different stages decision-making on agricultural topics moved from the local and national level, to international organizations. The international organizations which have taken over the policy-making are often criticized by normal citizens for lacking democratic openness and accountability for the people. The four main actors in food security and their role is explained, to understand which organizations does what.
In Europe, the European Commission proposed in 1960, a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), in response to the food shortages during and after the second world war. The goal of the CAP was to ensure food security to the citizens through higher productivity of the agriculture. Since 1962, the agricultural policies of the member states are to a large extent defined at a European level and the countries form one "market" without tariffs on agricultural products. In 1984 the PAC became a victim of its own success : the agricultural sector had become too productive. (Commission Européenne, 2013: 3-6)
On the worldwide level, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations organized in 1974 the World Food Summit in response to the widespread under-nutrition. The goal set by the attending governments was "the eradication of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition within a decade" (FAO, 2013). As we know today, this goal has not been reached. In 1996, another World Food Summit had as objective to "renew global commitment at the highest political level to eliminate hunger and malnutrition, and to achieve sustainable food security for all people" (FAO, 2013). The FAO influences largely the agriculture in the poorer part of the world. The FAO helps countries raise their food production implementing "conventional agriculture".
Bank has a certain power to influence policies since the countries receiving money from the WB, are for this particular reason dependent of it. To give a recent example of how the WB influences the agricultural policies, the chapter "What We Will Help Our Clients Do" of the Agriculture Action Plan
2013-2015 is helpful. The two first points are : "Raise agricultural productivity" and "Link farmers to
markets and strengthen value change". This two points illustrate how the World Bank has been over the last decades pushing farmers to adopt a, what critiques of this policies name, "one-size-fits-all" solution and to globalize food exchange. The World Bank has learned of this critiques, and now also raises issues as gender-inequality and environmental sustainability. (2013: 17)
A fourth major actor in the securitization food politics is the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO sees the free exchange of food as a prerequisite for food security. The "right to import" and the "right to export" food, is a central in its ideas. Critiques of the WTO say that the liberalization of food markets has introduced unfair concurrence and increased the speculation on food products. (Verschuur: 2012: 446)
2.2 La Via campesina, the birth of a grass-root movement
La Via Campesina (LVC) is a an organizations that today comprises about 150 local and national organizations in 70 countries, representing about 200 million farmers. The organization was made to give a voice to the peasants all over the world and defend their rights. Here is a short history of the organization to understand how it has grown in a short period from time to a major actor in worldwide food politics.
In 1992, in Nicaragua, farmer leaders from Central America, the Caribbean, Europe, the USA and Canada hold a meeting. At this meeting the idea of a new organization emerged which would get the name of La Via Campesina (LVC). It is within this organization that the concept of food sovereignty was invented. Over the twenty years LVC now exists, its ideas and the causes it fights for have evolved.
In 1993, peasant leaders from various continents pointed out the production-driven model of agriculture and the criminalization of social protests. At that time, in the South, nations were marked by the "structural adjustment policies" from the WB, which weakened state presence in the countryside. In the following years, the South and the North joined on a common struggle against the WTO and the dumping of food from countries in the North that produced too much very cheaply thanks to the subventions, that flooded the markets in the South with cheap products against which local farmers could not compete. About the same time, the policies of the WB were accused to go against the interests of the farmers, by privatizing common and public lands.
By 1999, LVC was ready to take action. It had grown big enough to support struggles, promote new initiatives, and dialog with/protest against/fight against international institutions which were concerned with land issues, like the FAO or the WB. The next year, in Bangalore, a meeting took place where the first analyses were generated of what was meant by food sovereignty, which happened to become the main concept defended by LVC. Agrarian reform was during this meeting for the first time linked to food sovereignty, and was defined as "broad process of distribution of land ownership". The idea that was defended was that land should be distributed to produce food for the people, rather than exports for the global economy. Land reform could solve larger problems of society.
In 2006, the diversity of people that met in LVC had the chance to grow during the Land, Territory and Dignity Forum in Porto Alegre that was organized in cooperation with other organizations from the civil society. Porto Alegre is also important because it was the first time thousands of Brazilian peasant women participated in the mass action from LVC against "land-grabbing" (large-scale land acquisitions). In 2011, many organizations from civil society, including LVC, signed the Dakar appeal
against land grabbing. Land grabbing has become one of the major fights of LVC, as this is not only
happening in the South but is also rampant in the North, and puts a lot of pressure on the peasant and indigenous territories. (Martinez-Torres & Rosset, 2010)
2.3 About Food Sovereignty
So what is food sovereignty exactly about ? This question, as basic as it seems, is not an easy one to answer. As Raj Patel says, "Food sovereignty is, if anything, over defined. There are so many versions of the concept, it is hard to know exactly what it means" (2009: 663). While we could think that this is quite a problem and makes food sovereignty a vague or weak concept, this is actually an expression of the concept itself, and its reason to exist. "La Via Campesina was forged in resistance to autocratic and unaccountable policy making, largely carried out by the World Bank together with other local elites" (Rosset, 2003: 669). There is no policy-making secretariat at LVC, and the concept of food sovereignty emerges and evolves along the meanings the peasants member of the organization are giving to it.
In his article What does food sovereignty look like, Raj Patel explains that food sovereignty must be replaced in the contexts it has been created, and contrasted with the concept it has traditionally been ranged : food security. Food security is a term that can be attributed to the United Nations. In 1975, it was defined as "the availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in
production and prices. (United Nations 1975, in FAO 2003). This definition was made in the midst of the Sahelian famines, at the zenith of demands for a New International Economic Order, and the peak of Third Worldist power. At that time, states were the sole authors of the definition, and there was "a technocratic faith in the ability of states to redistribute resources" (Patel, 2009: 664). In 2001, the definition of food security had evolved to "a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO 2001, in FAO 2003). In this second definition is visible that non-state actors and broader social issues have been included. Also, by 2001, the availability of food was not any more the only concern of institutions as the FAO, but this kind of topics were also "given" to the market.
Even if the term of food security evolves over the years and that the FAO includes other point of views in its definition, a question that it does not raise is about the context of food security. Food
security could for example be met in prison or under dictatorship. Food sovereignty, unlike food security states that power politics of the food system need very explicit feature in the discussion.
The way how food security is attained must be discussed. For many authors who have written about food sovereignty (McMichael, Rosset, Windfuhr...), politics of food need direct democratic participation.
According to Patel, food sovereignty is about "the right to have rights". He makes this reference to Hannah Arendt because "Central to the idea of rights is the idea that a state is ultimately responsible for guaranteeing the rights" (2009: 667). As Jeremy Bentham has put it : "Natural rights is
simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense, – nonsense upon stilts" (Bentham, 2002: 330). With this, he means that rights need a guarantor of the rights. To ask for sovereignty, is thus also to ask the state to guarantee the rights of peasants. (Patel, 2009: 667,668) But let’s move away a bit from the theoretical side of food sovereignty, and lets have a look of what peasants ask for, and for what in practice food sovereignty stands for. During the forum for food sovereignty in 2007 in Nyéléni, Mali, 500 peasants from over 80 countries worked on a definition for food sovereignty. They start this definition with "Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems". The peasants worked out six principles of food sovereignty :
- focus on Food for People : individuals, peoples and communities have the right to sufficient, healthy and culturally appropriated food, and food is not just another commodity or component for international agri-business ;
- Values Food Providers : food sovereignty values everyone who cultivate, grow, harvest and process food ;
- Localises food systems : food sovereignty puts providers and consumers at the centre of decision-making on food issues, protects food providers from the dumping of food and food aid in local markets, protects consumers from poor quality and unhealthy food, inappropriate food aid and food tainted with genetically modified organisms ;
- Puts control locally : food sovereignty places control over territory, land, grazing, water, seeds, livestock and fish populations on local food providers and respects their rights - Builds knowledge and skills : Food sovereignty builds on the skills and local knowledge of food providers and their local organisations that conserve, develop and manage localised food production and harvesting systems, developing appropriate research systems to support this and passing on this wisdom to future generations; and rejects technologies that undermine, threaten or contaminate these, e.g. genetic engineering. - Works with nature : Food sovereignty uses the contributions of nature in diverse, low external input agro-ecological production and harvesting methods that maximise the contribution of ecosystems and improve resilience and adaptation, especially in the face of climate change; it seeks to “heal the planet so that the planet may heal us”.
The definition emphasizes that "These six principles are interlinked and inseparable: in implementing the food sovereignty policy framework all should be applied". (Nyéléni 2007)
3. Methods
3.1. Sampling and data
As the scope of this study is to analyse how members of LVC re-politicize food security, the unit of analysis is the member-organization of LVC. The qualitative character of this study and the limited amount of time that was available to carry it out, has limited the number of organizations that could be selected. Instead of selecting one organization from every part of the world, the choice has been made to focus on one area of the world, to get organizations with alike contexts. The context of the organizations defines for a big part the way it participates in the de-securitization of food politics. In selecting organizations from one area, the influence of different contexts is minimized. This is also the reason why the area that has been selected is not one with endemic hunger problems, even if food security would be in first instance associated with this places. This would influence strongly the organizations, and make broader processes difficult to analyse. To
have the possibility to select organizations from several countries, the North-Eastern region of Europe has been chosen, because of reasons of spoken languages. Five organizations from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France and Switzerland have been chosen.
The data that has been analysed from each organization are the texts, pictures, drawings and videos that were available on the websites of the organizations. All the organizations have a lot of information online that was for the scope of this study enough.
Of course, the sampling of the organizations and the online-data has limitations. The small amount of cases and the small geographical area does not allow to make any generalization. The results of this study will only be valid for this specific region. About the data gathered on the websites of the organizations, there is a problem of filtering. The organization can choose exactly what it wants put on it and how it wants to present it. Moreover, the website may not represent the entire diversity of members of the organization.
This are the names of the organizations and the links to their websites :
- La confédération Paysanne (Peasants Confederation) : http://www.confederationpaysanne.fr/ - Modef : http://www.modef.fr
-Nederlandse Akkerbouw Vakbond (NAV, Dutch Tiller Labour Union) : http://www.nav.nl/ - Uniterre : http://www.uniterre.ch/index.php/fr/
- Land Workers Alliance (LWA) : http://landworkersalliance.org.uk/. 3.2 Method of analysis
3.2.1. Critical Discourse Analysis
To analyse the data, the method used is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). CDA is an analytical approach in which the role language is one of a power resource that is related to ideology and socio-cultural change. In CDA, discourses are examined in relation to social structures, including the power relationships that are responsible for occasioning them. This means that discourses are considered as "generative mechanisms". Actors can draw on the discourse to legitimate their positions and actions. Also, CDA involves exploring why some meanings become privileged or taken for granted and others become marginalized. (Bryman, 2008: 510-511)
3.2.2 Why CDA
The goal of this thesis is to analyse how alternative discourses within Food Sovereignty de-securitize food politics. To do so, the discourses from organizations that say to adhere to the ideas of Food Sovereignty will be analysed. But to understand how this discourses de-securitize food
politics, we have to focus on the perceived relations between the broader discourse of food
sovereignty, the discourses which are part of it, and food politics. For the moment, we can assume
that the discourse of food security is hegemonic in food politics. The challenging discourses of food
sovereignty try to replace the hegemonic discourse. For the discourses within food sovereignty to
perceive a de-securitization of food politics, their relation to it must change. If there has been a shift in hegemonic discourses, they are no longer subdued to the (no more) hegemonic discourse. In the terms of Foucault, the analysis must uncover how the discourses redefine a new "regime of truth". This moment of redefinition, says Foucalut, is "marked by the articulation of a particular type of discourse and a set of practices, a discourse that on the one hand constitutes these practices as a set bound together by an intelligible connection and, on the other hand legislates and can legislate on these practices in terms of true or false" (Foucault, 2008: 18). It is thus about the power for a discourse to become the new "truth". CDA is a method that especially fits for the uncovering of the power relations and their meanings.
3.2.3 CDA in action
As Van Dijk says, "There are many ways to do 'critical' discourse analysis." (Van Dijk, 1993: 279). The method that has been chosen for the purpose of this research, is a method designed by Fairclough. His method has been chosen, because as Blommaert and Bulcaen write, "the model of discourse he develops is framed in a theory of ideological processes in society, for discourse is seen in terms of processes of hegemony and changes in hegemony" (2000: 449).
Fairclough describes his method in Discourse and Social Change (1992). Blommaert and Bulcaen have reported this method in the article Critical Discourse Analysis in 2000.
The method Fairclough has designed is a blueprint that provides a three-dimensional framework for conceiving of and analysing discourses. The three dimensions are :
- (1) "Discourse-as-text". This first level of analysis looks at linguistic features and the organization of the text. In the first step of the analysis, the focus lies on "choices and patterns
in vocabulary (e.g. wording, metaphor), grammar (e.g. transitivity, modality), cohesion (e.g. conjunction, schemata), and text structure (e.g. episoding, turn-taking system) (Blommaert and Bulcaen, 2000: 448) ;
- (2) "Discourse-as-discursive-practice". This means that on the second level of the analysis, discourses are approached as "something that is produced, circulated, distributed, consumed in society". To approach a discourse as a discursive practice, one must search in the analysis that has been done on the first level for speech acts, coherence and intertextuality. The text must thus been
linked to its context. The intertextuality can be "manifest" (i.e. overtly drawing upon other texts) or "constitutive" (i.e. texts are made up of heterogeneous elements: generic conventions, discourse types, register, style) (Blommaer and Bulcaen, 2000: 448-449) ;
- (3) "Discourse-as-social-practice". The third dimension of analysis aims to uncover the ideological effects and hegemonic processes in the discourses. Blommaert and Bulcaen say that "Hegemony concerns power that is achieved through constructing alliances and integrating classes and groups through consent" (2000: 449). In the words of Fairclough, this is so that “the articulation and rearticulation of orders of discourse is correspondingly one stake in hegemonic struggle” (1992: 93). According to Fairclough, hegemonic change can be witnessed in discursive change. "The way in which discourse is being represented, respoken, or rewritten sheds light on the emergence of new orders of discourse, struggles over normativity, attempts at control, and resistance against regimes of power". (Bloemmaert and Bulcaen, 2000: 449).
The methods explained here are the blueprint of the analysis. Beside of this methods, while doing the analysis, the focus is about how the discourses de-securitize food politics. Since the object of this research is on the discourses of movements within food sovereignty, what is of interest for this research is their perception and interpretation. Questions that will be bared in mind while analysing are for example "what terms, tactics, language, concepts does the food sovereignty movement deploy to try and regain some access to political decision-making ? How do their discourses try to get away from top-down and fast track methods ? Have food sovereignty discourses changed food security discourses and practices ? What is the perception of the relations between the organization,
food sovereignty, food security and food politics ?
4. Growing the next hegemonic discourse
In this last part the results of the analysis are reported. 4.1. Labour unions defending small farmers with big ideas
Five labour unions have been analysed, from France (La confédération Paysanne and the Modef), Switzerland (Uniterre), the Netherlands (Nederlandse Akkerbouw Vakbond) and the United Kingdom (Land Workers Alliance). This five labour unions share the fact that they are all members of LVC. Through this membership, they share the common values of LVC. But as LVC is an organization in which the ideas come from the bottom to go up, every member of LVC is a new root
for the concept of food sovereignty, which is developed within LVC. The most important ideas the unions share are that they stand for small-scale farms, on which farmers can produce food in their own and sustainable way, without the interference of international organizations pushing them toward increasing endlessly productivity.
From this common basis, each union develops its own ideas and has its own mode of action. The context of each union seems to be an important factor in the development of its ideas. The context is constituted of several elements. The problems farmers face in particular countries play a role. For example in the UK the high price of the land is a major concern and land property for small farmers is thus high on the agenda. Also the political culture influences the unions. In the Netherlands for example, the liberal paradigm is broadly accepted by all political parties. This certainly plays a role in the fact that the NAV criticizes this much less than unions in other countries.
This diversity of the members of LVC is a way through which the organization re-politicizes food politics. Within LVC, food production is intensively discussed and re-thinked. As international organizations design food policies that aim to increase productivity, LVC use this debates to think broadly and give the time to members to let emerge ideas that contain solutions that re-think the whole food production system. There is no fast-track solution, but new models that come from the people. The people who are concerned are at the core of this process. This re-politicization goes together with a fight against the hegemonic discourse, that aims to get audience and acceptance from this audience. In practice, this fight can take different forms, from conferences to violent protests.
In the analysis of the five labour unions, particular ways or techniques to de-securitize and re-politicize food politics have emerged. On this five features the five unions of course differ. Often there is a gradation to what extent each way applies to each union. In the paragraphs 4.2 to 4.6, the techniques that the unions use to re-politicize food politics are explained in themes, based on the analysis of their "discourse-as-text" and their "discourse-as-discursive-practive" (in the annexe 1 is the analysis of this two discourses per union). In the concluding paragraph 4.7 the shift is made to the "discourses-as-social practice".
4.2. Getting detached from the hegemonic discourse
To get access to the hegemonic discourse and change or replace it, the members of LVC must first define their relation to this hegemonic discourse. In their interpretation of the hegemonic discourse, it is interesting to analyse how they perceive it, how they perceive the relation, and how they perceive themselves.
The hegemonic discourse is perceived as something that is out there, that influences directly the life of the peasants, but which is detached from it. The hegemonic discourse is produced and re-produced within higher spheres, far from the subject which it treats about. The discourse can be seen as the discourse of the elite. The Modef, for instance, attributes the discourse to the men of the big industry, of the banks, of the big retail... The ideas it produces are accused of being against the interests of the peasants. The Peasant Confederation presents its project as a "realistic alternative to an industrial model of agriculture that eliminates too much peasants". Overall, there is a strong disagreement with the dominant discourse. This disagreement varies per labour union. The labour union that is the less assertive in its disagreement is the Dutch NAV, which shares with the dominant discourse the idea that economic benefits are central to a successful agricultural model. Against this hegemonic discourse, the labour unions claim to have the solution. Surprisingly, even if they are part of LVC and all strongly commit to its ideas, labour unions can see themselves as unique. They can see themselves as unique in uncovering the threat of a productivity-driven agriculture or unique in the solutions they suggest. This position of standing alone against all they perceive they are in, gives a heroic image of their fights. The Modef is a good example of this, and claims to have uncovered the threats of the CAP already in 1959, in contrast to the other labour unions which were "collaborating" and "co-managing" the "agricultural policies of elimination". The Modef and other labour unions as the Peasants Confederation and the NAV were created in opposition to the existing labour unions, to give peasants the opportunity to express a dissident voice in the agricultural world.
This opposition between the labour unions and the hegemonic discourse is not always so clear-cut. The status of Uniterre as a labour union gives it the privilege to be consulted for every law related to agriculture and broader environmental issues in Switzerland. Other labour unions have acknowledged with enthusiasm in their news that LVC has started to work together with the FAO. The relation of the organizations to the hegemonic discourse is thus not only an offensive one, there are also cases of cooperation. The members of LVC see that they are slowly gaining access and acceptance by the dominant discourse.
4.3. Defending peasants rights
The central theme to every labour union that has been analysed, is the defence of the peasants. There are slight differences in the formulation between the different unions. The LWA name them "small producers", while the Modef focusses on the familial farms. Nevertheless, this theme is the one which is the most alike. The first reason of this is because the organizations are labour unions,
and it is thus the natural role of the organizations. The second reason is because in food sovereignty, the rights of peasants is also the first concern.
This defence of the peasants means that compared to other labour unions, international organizations, simply put the hegemonic discourse, there is a rearrangement in the priorities. The members of LVC see in the liberal-agenda a dominance of the profits over humans. Members of LVC want a shift in this priorities in favour the people. The human should always be central in policies. With this shift that places the people at the centre of the policies instead of production, the logic of policy-making is also inverted. The people do no longer work to produce, but the production should serve the people. It is thus to the people to decide what they need. Instead of organizations as the European Union (EU) and the WB imposing modes of production to the farmers that increase the productivity, the farmers want to produce in a way that suits them and feeds the citizens. It is a shift from top-down policies to a bottom-up logic. The peasants Confederation declares that "it has as objective to give a space of expression to peasants who are opposed to the production-driven policies".
The NAV defends its members differently from the other unions. The logic of the NAV is rooted in the liberal paradigm. It wants to protect the interests of the farmers, but by ensuring a good revenue for farmers on short- and long term. This difference between the NAV and the other labour unions is interesting because it points out that the other labour unions see the need of a whole new model to obtain the rights the peasants deserve.
4.4. Pointing out what is harmful in the production-driven model
This third thematic is rooted in the contestation against the production-driven model. This contestation is expressed in an opposition against industrial agriculture, the international competition farmers face, international companies and international organizations.
Firstly on industrial agriculture, the unions accuse this model of destroying peasantry and having negative effects on the environment. In industrial agriculture the model of monoculture necessitates relative few human work, but it needs specific machines. On farms there no longer work peasants, but there now work farm-managers. The size of farms increases, but the number of people working on it decreases. This shift goes together with for example the knowledge a farmer needs. The farmer does not need to know any longer which species will grow on what type of soil, but the farmer needs to know how to spread insecticides. The difference in results between industrial agriculture and peasants agriculture is about one of quantity instead of quality.
the health of the soil, polluting water sources... The modern techniques, for example Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's) or the antibiotics given to animals are also banned as much as possible. This kind of technologies are accused of having negative effects on the quality of the products, and through this on the health of the consumers. The industrial agriculture has thus a long list of unwanted side-effects, that makes it unsuitable with the interests of the peasants.
Secondly, the contestation of labour unions is against worldwide competition. According to them, the trade-liberalization that is led by organizations as the EU and the WTO is unsustainable. The competition between farmers over the world is not fair, as wages are in some countries lower, and subventions in other countries higher. Farmers in certain regions have because of this no chance any more. The imported goods are cheaper than what they can produce. Farmers can no longer get a revenue out of their production. This trade-liberalization has as other effect to increase the speculation on basic products. Traders can buy and sell stocks of for example wheat, and speculate on its value. This speculation can increase dramatically the price of food. For the labour unions food should feed the people.
Thirdly, big companies are seen as being an important actor in the production-driven model. Big companies are accused of having as sole goal to earn money, without taking in account the interests of other actors or the environment. The power certain companies have is a major concern for the unions. For example, the seed-market is dominated by a small number of producers, from which Monsanto is certainly the most known. This companies can now put patents on plants. This means that when a farmer uses the patented seed, it is not allowed to save seeds on its production for the next year. Farmers become dependent of this companies.
Finally, the labour unions contest the power of the international organizations in imposing their policies and discourses worldwide. The international organizations, as the WB, the FAO, the WTO, the EU (their role in securitizing food politics has been explained in 2.1) are accused of implementing this production-driven model. This international organizations represent in the eyes of the unions this discourse, and their power is nor democratic nor legitimate.
The labour unions through this contestations explain how the hegemonic discourse is harmful for them. Every labour union has a different approach and criticize the production-driven model to a different extent. In the texts from the Peasants Confederation for example, it is clear that there is a strong need to fight against this model. There is a whole war lexical field that is developed. The logic of action is one of "defence" and "fights" on different "frontlines". There is a cause to defend, "peasantry", and enemies to fight, "agricultural policies designed to increase productivity, and that
4.5. Developing ideas and proposing solutions
In the previous paragraph we have seen that the labour unions express a lot of critiques against the hegemonic discourse. Beside of this critiques, the members of LVC also offer a lot of solutions. As explained in the introduction of this fourth part, LVC uses this production of ideas and solutions to get away from the fast-tracking policies. The peasants who are proposing solutions are the core in the re-politicization of the food politics. The implication of the citizens ensures the democratic openness of the decision-making process, and it is the ideal starting for a democratic process that aims to represent the will of the concerned citizens. The alternatives that are generated within the unions de-securitize the area of food politics in two ways described by Weaver. In a first way because the unions avoid generating ideas in terms of security. The second way is by bringing the food politics back into the realm of normal politics (Weaver, 2000: 253).
So how does this happen in practice in the unions ? As a member of LVC, every union adheres to a scope of primary principles, and shares within the organization a lot of ideas. Within each union, members have been thinking on how to deal with particular subjects. The LWA has for example six categories of policy area it wants to see change in : "Seeds, Biodiversity and Genetic Resources", "Food Sovereignty and Trade", "Access to Land", "Animal Feed Regulation", "Planning Reform" and "CAP reform". Other unions deal in a different way with the presentation of their ideas, the Peasants Confederation for example details its position on about 45 issues. Some unions like to emphasize that the project they are fighting for is "coherent and global" (Peasants Confederation). The alternatives the unions are supporting are models of agriculture that they believe are profoundly different from the model that is practiced now. The models are about more than "only" agriculture. The ideas of the unions does not stop at the border of their country. The ideas propose solutions for worldwide problems, and there is an awareness of the unions of being part a broader organization. The NAV, is sometimes less idealistic than others. It estimates that a pragmatic position can benefits its members, proposing for example a system in which each farm can choose on which topic it is going to put the emphasis to become more sustainable. Sustainability is a big deal for all the unions. Uniterre is no exception in this, with the slogan "For a sustainable agriculture".
The role of producing alternative ideas is taken very seriously. Labour unions as the LWA could almost be considered as think tanks. Members of the union are invited to "knowledge exchange events", "group travels to events in Europe", they get "discounts on related courses", "advice", and "a voice on the future of agriculture in the UK". This work of thinking about solutions is in itself a way of re-politicizing food politics by not engaging in fast-tracking solutions, but it is also used by some
unions as a way too to influence the hegemonic discourse. The LWA, gives a lot of importance to knowledge and participates in events that have the triple-function of exchanging knowledge, getting media attention and tackle politicians on their policies. On the 7th of January 2014 for example, the
LWA was attending the "Oxford Real Farming Conference", which was organized on the same day and not far from the "Oxford Farming Conference". This "real" conference was an opportunity to listen to speakers, to get media attention, and to address some questions to the secretary of State. Through this kind of events the society gets more involved in agricultural questions, and unions members get the opportunity to understand better the needs of society.
4.6. Taking action
Building forth on how the LWA uses events for exchanging ideas to also get media attention and dialogue with society, this last technique to de-securitize food politics is about the labour unions engaging in more direct actions. Organizing actions as protests, launching petitions or participating in marches are for the labour unions the more pragmatic ways to interact with the hegemonic discourse. This kind of interaction that can be seen as relatively radical, is justified by the understanding by the labour unions of the relation they have to the hegemonic discourse. In the rhetoric of the more radical labour unions, the hegemonic discourse is seen as something that stands on its own, and that does not take in account the interests of others. The discourse that is constructed in the labour unions justifies that actions try to get attention through physical manifestations as sit-ins, or provoke the actors by setting symbols as restaurant signs on fire. The language that is developed within the labour unions influences how the labour unions interacts with the actors of the hegemonic discourse and tries to influence it. The analysis of three relations between the language and the actions shows this differences. A first example is the Peasants Confederation. The Peasant Confederation, as explained in the paragraph 4.4, develops in its discourse a whole lexical field of war. The page that explains what they have achieved until now on their website, is named "Our fights, our victories". The direct actions are considered as being the trigger that has allowed it to persuade actors from the hegemonic discourse. The news about its achievement is often constructed in the same way :
1. It starts with pointing out the role of the peasants in the achievement : "The mobilization of about hundred peasants from the confederation was a success";
2. The action that was undertaken is explained : "the confederation has occupied the room were the discussions took place";
payed ! The farm-factory of the 1000 cows will not be realized !"
The logic of the Modef can be understood from its goal to impeach the elite to destroy familial farms. A symbol that represents this elites can be attacked to attract attention on the interests of its members. An example of this is the protests that have been hold in front of a restaurant that is part of a grill-restaurant chain. The goal was to attract attention to the fact that this restaurant chain imports beef of bad quality from Argentina, which forces French farmers to compete with this import-products. This is a consequence of the trade-liberalization that the WTO supports, and the restaurant is elevated to a symbol of this. The Modef in its discourse legitimates that symbols as billboard from particular restaurants are set on fire to denounce a liberalization of the world trade. The LWA, on its turn, puts the emphasis on its actions on the international and cooperative level. The dominant discourse is attacked at his heart. The LWA plays its role of link between the small farmers and the big actors, as the EU, where it has participated in protests against the patents on living organisms, in cooperation with LVC.
4.7. Challenging the dominant discourse
Drawing on the analysis of the "discourse-as-text" and the "discourse-as-discursive-practice" of the five labour unions, five themes in the de-securitization and re-politicization of food politics have been uncovered. In this last paragraph is looked at the "discourse-as-social practice".
Following-up the work of the labour unions, the concept of food sovereignty is growing and becoming more substantial. LVC, on regional and international level organizes regularly meetings and conferences to coordinate this. How influential does this discourse become ? Or put differently, how successful are the members of LVC in de-securitizing food politics ? Answering this question is beyond the scope of this study, since it is focussed on only one side of the story, the story of the peasants. The interpretation the peasants have of their success, is mitigated. A review of the way how the labour unions address the issues, shows that there is no shift toward an interpretation of their relations to the hegemonic discourse that is less assertive. Toward the legislation on seed-patents in the EU for example, there has been severe critiques followed by protests in which all the five labour unions that have been analysed have participated. Nevertheless, the labour unions have through their fights influenced more than once the policies of their country, of Europe, and of international organizations. The labour unions are of course proud of this achievements, which are also used to stay motivated. There is thus an acknowledgement from the members of LVC that their voice starts to be heard. One achievement which is considered as a milestone by LVC is its cooperation with the FAO, that has been formalized on the 4th of October 2013. The members of LVC
have of course welcomed this cooperation warmly. With this gesture, the FAO "recognizes the work of La Via Campesina in coordinating the voices of small food producers worldwide and in their efforts to build societies free of hunger and malnutrition, based on solidarity, equity and social justice" (FAO 2013-2). Step by step the discourse of LVC and its values are growing and more and more accepted by actors of the hegemonic discourse. Here is the need to recall Aradau, and her warnings about the circumscribed potential of de-securitization. Aradau warns that "the normal political mode is itself invariably subject to the same institutional sovereign authority and domination as securitization". To get acceptance by the institutions that decide on the hegemonic discourse does not mean to be free from this institutions. The members of LVC seem to be very aware of this possible limitations.
Conclusion
We have seen that since the mid-70's, food politics got securitized. This policy-area was taken out of the realm of normal politics. The, citizens, peasants and national governments were no longer the decision-makers in this field. Instead, international organizations as the FAO and the WB have used fast-track decision-making processes to implement a "one-size-fit-all" solution, something that is now considered as the "conventional agriculture". In the 90's, voices began to raise against this top-down policies. Amongst this voices, LVC represented the voice of peasants all over the world.
This process of taking food politics out the realm of normal politics, and into fast-track decision-making is what we called the securitization of the food politics. The peasants who are claiming back the right to decide about food politics, are de-securitizing food politics. They are tacking back the subject in the realm of normal politics, with other words, they are re-politicizing food politics. In this paper has been analysed how member organizations of LVC de-securitize/re-politicize food politics. Five themes have been uncovered, which are all a part of what can be interpreted as a strategy to get access to the hegemonic discourse. The strategy that emerged from the analysis, starts with differentiating clearly the labour unions from the hegemonic discourse. The most important difference between the labour unions and the hegemonic discourse is that for the labour unions the human stands central in their ideas, and in the hegemonic discourse it is the production. From this primary observation, the labour unions develop a whole range of topics in which following the logic of the hegemonic discourse is harmful for the peasants. For this reason, the peasants come up with ideas and solutions that can solve the problems caused by industrial agriculture. Finally, through different actions, the labour unions try to get their ideas implemented. From this analysis, I would suggest to make a differentiation that builds forth on the idea from Aradau that de-securitization is the same as re-politicization. In the analysis two stages can be differentiated. The first stage could be seen as the securitizing part of the strategy. This de-securitizing part is the part where the organizations claim back the subject of food politics. The labour unions have to differentiate themselves from the hegemonic discourse, criticize it and show it that they disagree with it. The second stage could be seen as the re-politicizing part of the strategy. This is the part where the labour unions come up with ideas, propose solutions, and start building the society as they would like to see it.
In the last paragraph of the analysis has been explained that food sovereignty starts to be more and more accepted by actors of the hegemonic discourse. Getting acceptance by the actors of dominant discourse means that the same actors are still in power, and even if they adopt (partially) new ideas, the same sovereign authority still dominates. Even if food sovereignty becomes one day fully part of the hegemonic discourse, the actors of food sovereignty may still have to carry out the policies implemented by the elite.
References :
Books :
- Aradau, Claudia, in Roe, Paul (2012) Is securitization a 'negative' concept ? Revisiting the normative
debate over normal versus extraordinary politics Oslo: International Peace research Institute
- Bentham, Jeremy (2002) Nonsense upon stilts. In: P. Schofield, C. Pease-Watkin and C. Blamires, eds. Rights, representation and reform: nonsense upon stilts and other writings on the French
revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press
- Buzan, Barry; Ole Wæver & Japp de Wilde, 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. London: Lynne Rienner.
- Fairclough N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity
- Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978-1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
- Huysmans, Jef. The Politics of Insecurity New York: Routeledge - Machiavell, Niccolo (1512) The Prince
- Valverde, Mariana (2001) Governing Security, Governing Through Security. In : Daniels, Ronald & Macklem, Patrick & Roach, Kent (2001) The Security of Freedom, Essay's On Canada's Anti-Terrorism
Bill Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated
- Verschuur, Christine (2012) Genre, Changements Agraires et Alimentation Paris: Harmattan - Wæver, Ole; Barry Buzan, Morten Kelstrup & Pierre Lemaitre, 1993. ‘Societal Security and European Security’, in Ole Wæver, Barry Buzan, Morten Kelstrup & Pierre Lemaitre, Identity,
- Wæver, Ole, 2000. ‘The EU as a Security Actor: Reflection from a Pessimistic Constructivist on Post-Sovereign Security Order’, in Morten Kelstrup & Michael C. Williams, eds, International Relations
Theory and the Politics of European Integration: Power, Security, and Community. London: Routledge
(250–294)
- Zedner, Lucia (2009) Security London: Routledge. Articles :
- Balzacq, Thierry (2005) The Three Faces of Securitization : Political Agency, Audience and Context Paris: European Journal of International Relations 2005 11: 171
- Blommaert, Jan & Bulcaen, Chris (2000) Critical Discourse Analysis Annual Review of Anthropology 29:447–66
- Deudney, Daniel (1990) The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security Journal of International Studies 1990 19-461
- Dijk, van, Teun (1993) Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis London: Discourse and Society vol. 4(2): 249-283
- Hrabanski, Marie (2011) Mobilisations collectives agricoles et instrumentalisations multiples d'un
concept transnational Revue tiers Monde vol. 207: 151-168
- Huysmans, Jef (2011) What's in an act ? On security speech acts and little security nothings United Kingdom: Security Dialogue 42(4-5) 371 –383
- Martinez-Torres, Maria Elena & Rosset, Peter (2010) La Vía Campesina: the birth and
evolution of a transnational social movement The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 37:1,
149-175
- Patel, Raj (2009) What does food sovereignty look like? The Journal of Peasant Studies Vol. 36, No. 3, July 2009, 663–706
Rosset, Peter (2003) Food sovereignty: global rallying cry of farmer movements. Oakland, CA: Institute for Food and Development Policy.
Reports :
- Commission Européenne (2013) Comprendre les Politiques de l'Union Européenne - Agriculture Bruxelles
- FAO (2003) Trade reforms and food security: conceptualising the linkages. Rome: Commodity Policy and Projections Service, Commodities and Trade Division.
- Nyéléni (2007) Definition of Food Sovereignty
- World Bank (2013) Agriculture Action Plan 2013-2015 Washington Websites :
- Food and Agriculture Organization 2013 : http://www.fao.org/wfs/main_en.htm, visited on 4/01/2014
- Food and Agriculture Organization 2013-2 :
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/201824/icode/, visited on 25/01/2014 - Food First 2005: http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/1161, visited on 26/01/2014
- La Confédération Paysanne 2013 : http://www.confederationpaysanne.fr/, visited on 26/01/2014 - Land Workers Alliance 2014: http://landworkersalliance.org.uk/, visited on 26/01/2014
- Modef 2014 : http://www.modef.fr, visited on 26/01/2014
- Uniterre : http://www.uniterre.ch/index.php/fr/, visited on 26/01/2014
Annexes :
- Annexe 1 : Analysis of the data : « Discourse-as-text » and « Discourse-as-discursive-practice ».
