Sustainable food future : discourses on agri-food politics of the Argentinian G20 presidency

(1)

Sustainable food future

Discourses on agri-food politics of the Argentinian G20 presidency

Nicole Medina Collazo

August 2019

(2)

(3)

Sustainable food future

(4)

(5)

Abstract

The introduction of the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ in the 2018 G20 presented Argentina as a country that should be leading the way toward feeding the world based on its leadership in agribusiness. The emergence of the concept raises a set of questions regarding the way in which it is constructed by the Macri presidency and the reactions it elicits within the Argentinian policy context. This inductive study combines theoretical approaches from the social psychology theory of Social Representations, the Fanonian turn in psychology, and Interpretive Policy Analysis to understand the various constructions and interpretations of the concept. It explores the way in which prior knowledge mediates the way the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ is made sense of in the context of national agri-food policies in Argentina and conceives language as the mechanism for sense making through its capacity for creating meaning and representation. It further demonstrates how control over authority and knowledge manifests among a diversity of knowledge bases. By conducting a critical discourse analysis of relevant publications and semi-structured interviews with key informants, it demonstrates how the Argentinian presidency exerts its position of authority toward positioning Argentina as the ‘supermarket of the world’ through the concept of sustainable development. Additionally, it reveals that, within the pro-globalization context of the G20, actors involved in large-scale and predominantly export-oriented food production have monopolized access to discourse creation through the presidency and major newspapers, specifically recreating definitions of sustainability through a techno-optimistic lens. The research concludes that the role of language is paramount for molding the issue of a ‘Sustainable food future’ and that engaging with a diversity of knowledge bases is crucial for a more democratic political system.

Keywords: Argentina, sustainability, food, agriculture, G20, Interpretive Policy Analysis, social representations, Fanonian turn

(6)

(7)

Acknowledgements

I have a lot of people to thank for accompanying me throughout this journey. You have all contributed immensely, not only to this work, but also to my general wellbeing and happiness.

Juan, no sé ni cómo empezar a agradecerte. Gracias por escuchar mis ideas en cada punto del desarrollo de este proyecto. Gracias por sentarte con lápiz y papel a escribir lo que estaba diciendo. Todavía me falta aprender a hacerlo. Y gracias por la motivación que me das todos los días. Eres mi persona favorita.

Tití, gracias por tu incansable apoyo y por compartir tu sabiduría. Sé que ya te tienes que saber todos los puntos de esta tesis por la cantidad de veces que te he llamado para desarrollar ideas, desahogarme, intentar concentrarme y poder hablar de esto con alguien. No puedo creer la paciencia que tienes.

A mi madre, gracias por el apoyo que siempre me has dado. Y gracias por darme tantos libros y por siempre darme la libertad para desarrollar mis ideas. Espero que estés orgullosa de lo que has logrado.

También quiero agradecerles a mis abuelos por siempre apoyarme y preguntarme que si ya comí. Siempre me han apoyado y los quiero muchísimo. Gracias por estar al otro lado del teléfono cuando siento que no puedo seguir, por escucharme y recordarme que sí puedo.

También quisiera agradecerle a Ezequiel Gamallo, mi tutor en Argentina, por todo el conocimiento compartido. Tu contribución ha sido inmensa. Gracias por todas las conversaciones.

I would also like to thank Ellie for being with me side by side. I am happy we got to share this journey together. I value you very much, and hope we can keep supporting each other in our future endeavors.

Finally, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Anne Loeber. I have witnessed my development as a researcher over the past year, and you have contributed immensely. Thank you for your patience, guidance, and many thought-provoking conversations. And

(8)

thank you for giving me the freedom to develop my ideas. I am incredibly happy with the knowledge I have gained throughout this process.

You have all made this possible, and I am eternally grateful.

(9)

Chapter 1 Introduction

The president of Argentina and of the 2018 G20, Mauricio Macri, designated ‘Building Consensus for a Fair and Sustainable Development’ as the theme of his G20 presidency. This research addresses one of the three priorities that emerged from this theme, that of a ‘Sustainable food future.’ This inductive study explores the way in which prior knowledge mediates the way the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ is made sense of in the context of national agri-food policies in Argentina. It conceives language as the mechanism for sense making through its capacity for creating meaning and representation. Finally, it demonstrates how control over authority and knowledge manifests among a diversity of knowledge bases.

The term sustainable development became popularized internationally through Our

Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report, which states that ‘Sustainable

development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland 1987, n.p.). Since the publication of the Brundtland Report, the concept of sustainable development has evolved and witnessed the emergence of ‘a plurality of epistemological and normative perspectives on sustainability’ (Sneddon et al. 2006, p. 253). Recognizing a pluralism of interpretations subsequently reveals a pluralism of practices.

A characterization of sustainability, that of a ‘Sustainable food future,’ surfaced as one of the priorities of the Argentinian led G20 in 2018. The Group of Twenty (G20), formally known as the ‘Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy,’ is composed of 19 countries and the European Union. With members of the G20 possessing over 80% of the global GDP, the summits prioritize the idea of achieving robust global economic growth (G20 2019 Japan 2019). In recent years, the summits have expanded their traditional focus on macroeconomics and trade to incorporate a broader range of issues that affect the global economy. These include development, climate change, energy, health, counter-terrorism, migration, and refugees (G20 2019 Japan 2019). Argentina’s presidency

(13)

exemplifies the inclusion of such broader topics while simultaneously prioritizing its own market needs.

According to data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity (Simoes & Hidalgo 2016), Argentina is the 36th largest exporter in the world. Three out of the four primary exports are connected to genetically modified soybean production. The opening of the market in transgenic seeds catapulted the country to the position of second-largest exporter of transgenic crops in 2001 (Chazarreta 2018). In 2016, the country’s primary exports were soybean meal, accounting for 16% ($10.5 billion), 7% corn ($4.54 billion), 6.9% soybean oil ($4.45 billion), and 5.5% soybeans ($3.54 billion). Given these market conditions, the idea of prioritizing food and agriculture in the G20 emerges as a logical choice.

1.1 Statement of the problem

The introduction of the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ presents a particular set of priorities for establishing agri-food policies in Argentina based on interpretations developed through engagements with an international economic forum. The Macri presidency of the G20 presents sustainable development as a necessity for feeding the world in an environmentally responsible way. However, Escobar (1999) argues that the discourse of sustainable development is a way of tackling the environmental problem that does not question the very notion and paradigm of development, which is centered on economic growth. This difference of perception problematizes the presence of a diversity of knowledge bases and interests that interact in creating or contesting a particular discourse. When addressing a complex issue such as the sustainability of agri-food systems, direct consequences on livelihoods arise as a result of the interaction of different knowledge bases and control over political discourses that prioritize some perspectives and silence others.

Parting from the idea that understandings and representations of a particular issue have real world consequences, I will seek to investigate how the concept of sustainability is constructed. I will also look at how authority is exercised in the process of building the theme of a ‘Sustainable food future.’ This research seeks to contribute to the body of

(14)

literature of social psychology by incorporating an analysis of the use of language and communication within and around policy spaces. Moreover, it aims to integrate an examination of the way in which power manifests through social representations by the exercise of control of authority and knowledge. In order to guide that contribution to the literature, I apply the Fanonian turn in psychology to the social psychology theory of social representations and Interpretive Policy Analysis to study how the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future,’ is constructed.

In order to achieve this, I employ a qualitative research design that incorporates document analysis and interviews with key informants as concurrent and iterative methods. The research focuses solely on the topic of achieving a ‘Sustainable food future,’ and will exclude the two remaining priorities of ‘The future of work’ and ‘Infrastructure for development.’ It will not seek to address the negotiated discourses of other world leaders participating in the G20, but will instead be limited to those of the Argentinian presidency and their implications within the Argentinian context. The fieldwork in Argentina was conducted in a three-month period and was limited to the city of Buenos Aires, where the G20 Summit took place. Ultimately, the research serves to create a better understanding of the role of language and prior knowledge in molding the issue of a ‘Sustainable food future’ and highlights power disparities that emerge from control of authority and knowledge.

1.2 Research questions and aims

The aim of this thesis is to understand the way in which the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ is constructed in the wake of its introduction in the Argentinian-led G20. In order to accomplish this aim, theories related to sense making and power are invoked to comprehend how the concept is developed within the Argentinian context. The overarching research question will be:

How is the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ constructed in the context of Argentinian national agri-food policies?

(15)

The sub-questions that will aid in developing an answer to the research question are the following:

(1) How is the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ made sense of during the Macri presidency?

(2) How are different constructions negotiated? How is control over authority and knowledge manifested?

1.3 Thesis structure

The thesis is composed of seven chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the topic of the research accompanied by the statement of the problem. It also establishes the aim of the study as well as the main research question and two accompanying research sub-questions. Chapter 2 exposes the context on which this research is based, namely that of Argentina and its food and agriculture system. It touches upon the country’s primary food products and their impacts on Argentina’s revenue. Moreover, it delves into the political and economic system of the country because of its impact on agri-food policies.

Chapter 3 outlines the theoretical framework implemented in the thesis. It presents a multidisciplinary approach that combines Interpretive Policy Analysis, Social Representations Theory, and the Fanonian turn in psychology. In the end, it presents a schema that combines all three perspectives for the purpose of (re)constructing a concept.

Chapter 4 describes the methodology applied. It begins with a presentation of influencing factors through a discussion on epistemological and ontological considerations as well as a section on positionality. It then presents the qualitative methods applied in the research, along with the approach followed for data analysis. Subsequently, it includes the limitations of the study, the advantages of doing a qualitative study, and a section on trustworthiness, authenticity, and rigor. Finally, ethical reflections are discussed to conclude the chapter.

Chapter 5 addresses the first sub-question of the research, focusing on the way in which the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ is made sense of in the context of national agri-food policies in Argentina. It addresses the concept through the categories of

(16)

productive land, the human component, market pressures, technology, and the metaphor of the supermarket of the world.

Chapter 6 tackles the second sub-question of the research, dealing with the negotiation among different constructions of the concept, as well as with the way power manifests through control over authority and knowledge.

Chapter 7 presents an answer to the main research question regarding the way in which the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ is constructed. It synthesizes the findings of the sub-questions in relation to the literature and presents suggestions for further research.

(17)

Chapter 2 Context

Since the 1990s, the Argentinian countryside has been experiencing significant environmental transformations that are primarily connected to the propagation of genetically modified soybeans, which have drastically increased agricultural production and exports, while simultaneously resulting in deforestation, the appearance of ‘super-weeds,’ and soil degradation (Lapegna 2016). Argentina is the world’s third largest soy producer, of which 99% is genetically modified and 95% is exported (Brent 2015). As the country tackles increasing global demand for soy, deforestation has become rampant in order to repurpose the lands for the production of genetically modified soy, which covers 59% of the country’s cultivated land (Aranda 2012). The perpetuation of this practice pulls the food system toward increasing environmental pressures and concerns over access to food. In the country, national agricultural productivity has increased due to the introduction of genetically modified seeds, such as wheat, soybeans, corn, and sunflowers.

Argentina’s soybean production model, which is fully or partially replicated with a variety of crops, is characterized by its dependence on external inputs and technologies, including genetically modified seeds, agrochemicals, and specialized machinery for direct sowing (Chazarreta 2018). As a result of agricultural practices that prioritize profit over nutritional value and food security, there has been an increase of agricultural production in Argentina, particularly with soybeans replacing livestock raising as well as other crops (Rosati 2013). Shiva (2017, pp. 46) states that, ‘The shift from diversity to monocultures in farming has led to a shift from diversity to monocultures in diets.’

Changes in the agricultural system have come hand in hand with changes in dietary consumption. Particularly, this trend is observable through the rising rates of obesity in the country. The prevalence of obesity rose 42.5% from 2005 to 2009, respectively accounting for 14.6% and 20.8% of the population (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos & Ministerio de Salud de la Presidencia de la Nación 2015). The figure of obesity rose to 25.4% of the population in 2018, and is accompanied by a 36.2% incidence of overweight and 61.6% of excess weight (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos 2019).

(18)

Furthermore, an increase in agricultural productivity has not led to food security throughout the country, with 12.3% of Argentinian families facing food insecurity (Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina 2015).

Since the 1970s, the Argentinian economy and labor market have been subject to impacts (both external and fueled by public policies), which have resulted in a process of premature deindustrialization, stunted long-term economic growth, and increased job insecurity (Informe Nacional sobre Desarrollo Humano 2017). Following the 2002 economic crisis, Argentina witnessed a decline in income inequality, along with high GDP growth, and a drop in the unemployment rate from over 20% to 8% (Gasparini & Lustig 2011).

According to Gasparini and Cruces (2010), this reduction of inequality likely resulted from a combination of the generation of employment associated with economic recovery, the transition favoring more low-skilled labor intensive sectors as a consequence of the 2002 devaluation of the peso, the recovery of real wages, an increased relevance of labor institutions (e.g. unions, collective bargaining, and minimum wages), the diminishing focus on skill-biased technical change, and a substantial increase in social spending. The focus on social spending was exemplified by the implementation of the Programa Jefes y Jefas de Hogar Desocupados (Program for Unemployed Male and Female Heads of Households) in 2002, which was a large cash transfer program that covered approximately 20% of poor households in Argentina. This was possible, in part, through the establishment of taxes on agricultural exports established by the Fernández de Kirchner administration, which preceded the Macri presidency. In that period, a quarter of the taxes came from genetically modified soybeans (Lapegna 2016). Thus, the funding of redistribution policies and welfare programs through the taxation of agro-industrial exports created what Richardson (2009) refers to as ‘export-oriented populism.’ However, the societal benefits that accompanied the growth of agribusiness cannot be homogenized for the entire country, particularly considering the regional differences in agricultural production. Accordingly, national economic policies that favored the production of agriculture for global markets and eliminated state regulations for producers in soy-producing and export-oriented regions also led to the increased marginalization of small farmers and

(19)

peasants, thus leading to regional inequalities with economic, social, and cultural components (Lapegna 2016).

Currently, the Argentinian economy is experiencing the impacts of two distinct policy approaches, the pro-industrialization policies of the Kirchners and the reprimarization policies of Macri. In response to the economic crisis, Néstor Kirchner attempted to redirect the economy, and by extension foreign investment, towards the manufacturing sector. A study by the Centro de Estudios para la Producción (2005) reported that during the 2002-2004 period, which marked the beginning of the Kirchner era, 42% of foreign investment was directed at the manufacturing industry, particularly focusing on steel production, the auto industry, the chemical industry, rubber and plastic, and food and drink production.

Since taking office in 2015, Macri’s economic policy strategy has been a reversal of the Kirchners’ heterodox economic policies, primarily through the shift toward reprimarization and transnationalization. Reprimarization in Latin America has involved the expansion of activities associated with the primary sector, such as mining, oil, cattle and soy. According to Cooney (2016), reprimarization occurs when the expansion towards the primary sector occurs at the expense of the manufacturing industry. Reprimarization is linked to concerns regarding industry, wages, informal work, and continuing to provide primary goods to the most highly industrialized countries in lieu of pursuing an alternative development trajectory.

The transnationalization of the economy, which existed with the Kirchner administrations and is strengthening under the Macri administration, has solidified the dominance of the agro-export and mining corporations. Macri’s administration has proven to be particularly pro-business, with a Cabinet that includes soybean exporters, mining companies, and electrical and natural gas companies (Casullo 2016). One of the first measures of the Macri government was the elimination of export taxes on wheat, corn, and meat, as well as the reduction of export taxes for soybeans. This action led to the rise of domestic prices for the food products, including meat, cooking oil, wheat and corn flour, dried pasta, cheese, and butter, many of which are staples of the Argentinian diet (Casullo 2016). Naturally, a rise in prices for basic food staples creates conditions for food

(20)

modified crops, is not conducive to sustainable agricultural practices, especially considering the consequences of glyphosate-resistant weeds (which require increased use of herbicides), soil depletion, and biodiversity loss (Antoniou et al. 2010).

When focusing on food security and sustainable agriculture, it becomes relevant to question who is excluded from current policies. Although the policies of the Kirchners focused on income redistribution through the taxation of agricultural exports, they nonetheless promoted policies of transnationalization. President Macri is also pursuing such policies, along with reprimarization. This has led to economic policies that have favored agro-industrial, multi-national companies, but have largely disregarded small farmers and peasants. This is particularly clear when accounting for regional variations according to production specialization, through which economic, social, and cultural inequalities emerge (Lapegna 2016).

According to a study conducted by Nardi (2011) in the province of Misiones, family farmers with the potential to produce for the local market and the desire to produce food sustainably face a number of systemic barriers to adopting sustainable practices, which lead them to adopt non-sustainable practices or provide cheap labor for agro-industrial companies. She found that two of the major barriers, according to the farmers’ interviewed, were access to markets and land use policy, which they believed the state was responsible for facilitating.

The 2018 G20 took place during a year marked by a financial crisis in Argentina. It was characterized by a 50.6% depreciation of the Argentinian peso and a USD $57 billion agreement with the International Monetary Fund meant to last until 2021, which entailed a substantial reduction of expenditures (World Bank Group 2019).

(21)

Chapter 3 Theoretical framework

The research question frames a ‘Sustainable food future’ as a concept that is constructed. Constructing a concept implies that its formation is not based on a static and predetermined definition, but instead relies upon an active process of configuration. In order to experience such an active development, some form of interaction must take place to function as an influencing force of change. As a consequence of continuous interactions, and regardless of how they manifest, a concept is constantly evolving and reformulating. Notably, incorporating an evolving concept into a diversity of contexts brings about a question of interpretation, for which this research proposes the recognition of a plurality of understandings. Under a context of epistemic pluralism, and considering the complexity of the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future,’ an implicit socio-political urgency arises. A policy approach for a sustainable agri-food system requires both an interpretation of the problem and a proposed course of action. Consequently, some interpretations will be prioritized over others. To achieve a better understanding of the construction of the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ in the context of Argentinian national agri-food policies, a focus on epistemic pluralism and its manifestation through language will guide the theoretical framework.

Given these considerations, the theoretical underpinnings of this research emerge from three sources: Interpretive Policy Analysis, Social Representations Theory, and the Fanonian turn in psychology. This combination embodies a multi-disciplinary approach to meaning making, representation, and authority by applying social and decolonial psychology to policy analysis. Such an interrelation enables an analysis that acknowledges the role of a diversity of knowledges in constructing the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future.’ Social Representations Theory functions as a medium to grasp how the concept is made sense of by fitting it into previous experiences and understandings. Interpretive Policy Analysis, particularly its discursive branch, provides an emphasis on language that allows epistemic diversity to be observed in a tangible way. Additionally, the Fanonian turn

(22)

in psychology contributes a pervasive critical lens that brings to the fore matters of control of authority and knowledge.

In the following sections, philosophical and conceptual foundations will be addressed, followed by the role of language in creating the world. Moreover, the importance of interactions among different actors and knowledge bases will be presented, as well as the significance of analyzing the influence of power. Finally, the way in which the theories complement each other will be explained.

3.1 A ‘Sustainable food future’ as a sensitizing concept

As a point of departure, it is essential to attend to the issue of definitions when analyzing a policy of a ‘Sustainable food future.’ Seeking to achieve sustainability in agri-food systems entails addressing a complex, collective issue. It is then particularly important to understand how the concept is framed in a policy context. Framing a ‘Sustainable food future’ means that a comprehensive structure is established and guides the ‘selecting, organizing, interpreting, and making sense of a complex reality’ (Rein & Schön 1993, p. 146). Opposing frames result in political controversy and disputes that highlight fundamental differences in knowledge bases. Essentially, disagreement emerges from profoundly distinct constructions of ‘what the problem really is’ (Healy 1986, p. 383; Barbehön et al. 2015).

From a conceptual standpoint, this research does not attempt to provide an a priori definition or an operationalization of ‘what the problem really is.’ The concepts of ‘sustainability’ or a ‘Sustainable food future’ are instead regarded as sensitizing concepts. According to Blumer (1954, p. 5), such a concept allows a ‘rough identification, and in what is so roughly identified [it does] not permit a determination of what is covered by the concept and what is not.’ Detailed examinations of such concepts reveal their reliance on a sense of vagueness rather than a detailed specification of characteristics.

Contrary to a definitive concept, which has ‘a clear definition in terms of attributes or fixed bench marks,’ a sensitizing concept suggests ‘directions along which to look,’ and ‘rest on a general sense of what is relevant’ (Blumer 1954, p. 7). By and large, a ‘Sustainable food future’ is not experienced through the human senses and therefore cannot be

(23)

recognized as a discernible object. Hence, ‘it exists in the realm of the conceptual, making it difficult for people to understand fully’ (O’Neill & Hulme 2009). Regardless of such a difficulty, the classification as a sensitizing concept makes a formulation and communication of the issue possible. This is accomplished through an exposition that ‘yields a meaningful picture, abetted by apt illustrations which enable one to grasp the reference in terms of one’s own experience’ (Blumer 1954, p. 9).

An ability to formulate and communicate an understanding of the matter at hand, however, does not necessarily lead to an alignment in interpretations. Sarewitz (2004, p. 390) argues that differing positions ‘are not reconcilable because there is nothing to reconcile – they recognize and respond to different problems.’ As such, a significant barrier to achieving the stated food and agriculture goals is based on what is considered to be valuable, which can often times be influenced by elements such as disciplinary foci, race, or class, as well as who gets to assign the value. In a policy context, it is then useful to begin to unravel the manner in which some interpretations trump others. In a research context, which inevitably interacts with the policy one, it is prudent to recognize the formation of interpretations of interpretations.

3.2 Interpretive Policy Analysis

This research follows the tenets of Interpretive Policy Analysis to guide a critical analysis grounded on the use of language. Although Interpretive Policy Analysis provides a solid base for critical research, such an approach is not guaranteed as a fundamental characteristic, and must therefore be incorporated purposefully. According to Wagenaar (2015, p. 437), being interpretively critical involves:

‘(1) understanding actors from their own point of view, (2) uncovering the taken-for-granted frameworks of thinking, feeling and acting over which actors have little control but which influence their behavior, (3) to explore and transform our practical and cognitive horizons by engaging with our adversaries.’

(24)

In effect, critical interpretation urges an intentional and reflexive reexamination of assumptions accompanying material that has been previously interpreted. It becomes particularly relevant when the assumptions are connected to claims made by powerful actors encouraging engagement with particular actions and beliefs while disregarding or discrediting others (Lynch 2006).

Wagenaar (2011, 2015) endeavors to divide Interpretive Policy Analysis into three types in relation to meaning. These are hermeneutic meaning, discursive meaning, and

dialogical meaning. Hermeneutic meaning relates to the embeddedness of individual agents

within the context of understandings and routines in which they are situated, and how they interpret themselves within it. Discursive meaning focuses on linguistic-practical frameworks that are often taken for granted, but compose understandings and representations of the world. And, the dialogical meaning concentrates on the way meaning emerges from social interactions with other agents and the world. Although these distinctions are useful for beginning to understand meaning, it is likely that they are not rigidly demarcated and often overlap. Moreover, it is possible that all three occur simultaneously when endeavoring in meaning making (Wagenaar 2015). Particular emphasis is placed on discursive meaning due to its connection to language, which permeates the theoretical framework as well as the methodology.

For the purposes of this research, a discourse is understood to be both a set of capabilities and a structure of meaning-in-use (Weldes 2006). As a set of capabilities, a discourse entails a set of socio-cultural resources that are used to construct meaning in the particular context a person finds themselves in (Ó Tuathail and Agnew 1992). Serving as a structure of meaning-in-use denotes ‘a language or system of representation that has developed socially in order to make and circulate a coherent set of meanings’ (Fiske 1987, p. 14). Discourses are particularly important in the policy process due to the understanding that they have significant impact in people’s lives. This claim is substantiated though ‘a central notion in interpretive analysis that word choice is significant to both cognition and action’ (Yanow & van der Haar 2013, p. 230). Such an impact on cognition and action is inevitably carried over to the policy realm.

A critical interpretation of discourses involves the decision of whether or not to engage with alternative interpretations to the dominant one. Engaging with alternative

(25)

discourses can serve as a resistant form of power through which dominant representations become contested. According to Weldes (2006, p. 179), ‘discourses are capital in the ubiquitous battle over meaning.’ In this sense, alternative discourses are particularly useful when they break from dominant interpretations of issues that are communicated as being neutral representations of reality. For instance, a construction such as ‘globalization’ begins to gravitate into the realm of what is understood as common sense due to the prevalence of discourses that present the concept as transparently representing the real (Weldes 1999).

Considering interpretations play a paramount role in the construction of a concept within its accompanying sociopolitical context and through a researcher, it leads to a question of how interpretations themselves are constructed. Therefore, it begets an epistemological inquiry. As stated by Yanow (2006b, p. 6), this entails ‘questions regarding the ‘knowability’ of the subject of study, the capacity of human animals to ‘generate’ or ‘discover’ or ‘find’ or ‘construct’ knowledge about the social webs under their analytic microscopes, and, hence, the character of those claims to knowledge.’ Accordingly, the theory of Social Representations surfaces as a useful approach to addressing matters of knowledge generation.

3.3 Social representations

According to Marková (2008, p. 483), Social Representations Theory is a ‘theory of social knowledge specifically concerned with how individuals, groups, and communities collectively make sense of socially relevant or problematic issues, ideas, and practices.’ The role of social representations is to shape a concept that is acquired from the outside through a construction based on the objects, acts, and situations that emerge from social interactions (Moscovici 2008). The indispensable nature of interactions in relation to the theory therefore highlights the interdependencies and dynamics of phenomena that emerge in a social reality (Marková 2008).

Representations refer to a medium through which objects, subjects, and activities that exist as a space in-between the individual and society (Bauer & Gaskell 1999; Jovchelovitch 1996). Furthermore, they refer to an activity with a discernible result, such as a developed idea or a depiction. Such a theory allows for making sense of the concept of

(26)

‘sustainability’ and the ways it is negotiated and contested within the Argentinian context. Social representations theory is particularly useful as a mechanism for understanding the way in which said groups make sense of new concepts by fitting them into previous experiences and understandings (Riesch 2010).

The concepts of ‘anchoring’ and ‘objectification’ are useful for connecting the theory to the empirical reality of participants. The idea of ‘anchoring’ proposes that, when people are presented with a concept they are unfamiliar with, they seek to anchor it in familiar representations (Moscovici 2000, Riesch 2010). As a result of this process, an interesting dynamic emerges. Once a new concept becomes anchored in a pre-existing one, the understanding of the older concept becomes modified by this interaction as much as the new one. Once anchoring is established and representations become more familiar, ‘objectification’ serves the purpose of making the concept less abstract. According to Moscovici (2000, p. 49), objectification ‘is to discover the iconic quality of an imprecise idea to picture, to fill what is naturally empty with substance.’

Höijer (2011) delineates five types of mechanisms for anchoring: naming, emotional anchoring, thematic anchoring, metaphoric anchoring, and anchoring via basic antinomies. For the purposes of this research, only three of the mechanisms will be used under the label of anchoring: emotional anchoring, thematic anchoring, and anchoring via basic antinomies. Naming will be combined under the label of emotional and thematic anchoring considering the overlap among them, and metaphoric anchoring will be disregarded under anchoring in favor of including it under the label of objectification. With that in mind, it is helpful to provide clarification regarding what the selected mechanisms for anchoring encompass.

Emotional anchoring involves a process of communication in which a new concept or phenomenon is fastened to familiar emotions. According to Höjer (2011, p. 9), emotional anchoring makes ‘the unknown gets recognizable as, for example, a threat or a danger to fear, something to worry for, or as something nice and pleasurable.’ Thematic anchoring is associated to ideology in the sense that it is connected to common sense thinking or ideas that are taken for granted in a society. Examples of this include democracy, human rights, equality, or nationalization. Anchoring via basic antinomies presents a contradiction among equally valid principles, such as we/them and freedom/oppression. Employing this type of

(27)

anchoring does not necessarily imply that both facets are explicitly mentioned. However, when one is mentioned, it is difficult to conceive of it without its counterpart.

Moscovici (2000, p. 49) explains that the function of objectification is to saturate ‘the idea of unfamiliarity with reality, [turning] it into the very essence of reality.’ It reproduces a concept through an image, which happens as a result of comparison with a previously understood concept. Moreover, objectification occurs when something new is ‘understood through the concretisation, coming together, or distillation of preexisting and socially shared properties or qualities’ (Devine-Wright & Devine-Wright 2009, p. 360).

It is important to highlight the way metaphors are integrated into the theory of objectification. Lakoff (1987) proposes a linguistic theory of metaphors and concepts that serves to understand the way certain issues become may become objectified. It is important to note, however, that although this theory can be applied to objectification, there is not an automatic connection between metaphors and objectification. Wagner et al. (1995, p. 675) eloquently capture and conceptualize a metaphor in the following way (Figure 1):

‘A metaphor, as understood here, consists of three parts: a target domain, a source domain, and a relation defined between target and source domain. The source

domain is an iconic and concrete mental content. This domain is closer to personal

experience than the domain to be understood and, because of its experiential basis, it is immediately comprehensible. The source domain provides the mental image by which another less comprehensible concept, theory, or phenomenon becomes intelligible or ‘explained.’ The target domain always is farther away from experience, more abstract, and less iconic and, because of this, less comprehensible. Source and target domain are linked by a mapping which defines a structural

correlation between the two. It is a prerequisite that relevant structural similarities

between target and source appear to exist. The relationships between the elements of the abstract target domain thereby become intelligible in terms of the experiential relationship between the elements of the concrete source domain. In this sense, a metaphor is an iconic illustration of a non-iconic mental figure. It

(28)

Figure 1. Illustration of relationships between source and target domain in metaphors (Wagner et al. 1995, p. 675)

Metaphors, then, are ‘not a harmless exercise in naming,’ but are instead a part of the process of reasoning that contributes to the creation of reality (Lakoff & Johnson 1987, p. 79). Moscovici (2000) stresses the importance of understanding objectification because of the way in which political and intellectual authorities exploit the mechanism to subdue the rest of the social structure. The authority of these groups is based on the art of turning a particular representation into the established representation within a society. In recognition of this control of authority and knowledge, the way in which it can be addressed and countered becomes relevant.

3.4 Decentralization and democracy

The recognition of a variety of knowledge bases is intended not only to gain a more thorough understanding of the way an issue is interpreted within a society, but also to

(29)

contribute to a more democratic process of policymaking. Parsons (2002) argues that solutions to complex issues should become decentralized, allowing for individuals, organizations, and communities to take a more commanding role in solving the issues based on their own objectives, histories, and prospects. However, it must be noted that decentralization does not automatically guarantee democracy, but democracy must include a decentralization of power through which a wider range of perspectives is incorporated.

Mentions of decentralization are often associated with a centralized State power versus a free market. Although that clash certainly occurs in some places, it is not the kind of decentralization that the research refers to. Firstly, in accordance with Latour (2007), the state will continue to reinvent itself and will not lose relevance regardless of current changes in the global economic system and technological innovation. Secondly, this research focuses primarily on epistemic considerations, and a decentralization process is not considered to be limited to the State and the Market, although it is inclusive of them. Decentralization, then, seeks to incorporate a plurality of experiences and knowledge bases in the policy process, coming from a diversity of individuals and institutions.

3.5 Fanonian turn in psychology

In order to understand how diverse knowledge bases interact with the policy process, it is important to understand that, when dealing with political systems, there is a likelihood of control over authority and knowledge. In this sense, the idea of cognitive justice emerges and is useful for understanding how certain groups use their positions of power to promote a certain epistemic view over another. In an effort to address the issue of cognitive justice, the Fanonian turn in psychology is incorporated in the theoretical framework as a de-colonial approach to the field. This approach employs a non-reductionist psychology that is decidedly inter- and trans-disciplinary (Maldonado-Torres 2017). As an interdisciplinary endeavor, the Fanonian turn in psychology attempts to create a more relevant discipline. To achieve that through a decolonization project, psychology’s intersection with politics serves as a core entry point (Kessi & Kiguwa 2015). A psychopolitical orientation situates the debate historically and serves to dismantle, or crack, oppressive power relations (Pillay 2017).

(30)

In order to begin to counter the possibility of an epistemicide, which is ‘the rejection or subordination of other forms of knowing’ (Maldonado Torres 2017, p. 433), cognitive justice must be introduced as a ‘just relationship among different kinds of knowledge.’ (De Sousa Santos 2016, p. 42). This entails that no knowledge is granted a priori supremacy over others. In an effort to address the issue of power in relation to the construction of the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future,’ it becomes relevant to address the way in which power manifests. In accordance with the Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality collective, this research concurs that ‘the major fault lines and sites of conflict in the 21st_{century [are] the}

struggle for control of authority and knowledge’ (Pickren 2018, p. 578; Mignolo 2011b). The control of authority emerges from using positions of power to guide or manipulate communicative events to maintain a hierarchy of influence within social structures. The struggle for control of knowledge reveals itself through epistemic violence. According to Adams & Estrada-Villalta (2017, p. 39), epistemic violence is ‘the destruction of viable habits of mind attuned to context and replacement with forms that are maladaptive for local realities.’

From a scientific perspective, there is an issue of recognizing that predominant frameworks do not emerge from the perspectives of the majority of the world, but rather from sources that meet a particular set of characteristics. According to Adams et al. (2015, p. 219), ‘the positioning of conventional scientific wisdom in WEIRD [Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic] experience often results in mischaracterization and counterproductive interventions when applied to Majority World experience.’ A Fanonian call for a new psychology then seeks to denaturalize or de-ideologize dominant discourses. This serves to offer a more adequate and less paternalistic account of a broader variety of experiences, and additionally presents a more suitable account of people (Adams et al. 2015).

Grosfoguel (2010, p. 66) highlights three main points that will be instrumental in guiding the analysis of this research:

‘(1) that a decolonial epistemic perspective requires a broader canon of thought than simply the Western canon (including the Left Western canon); (2) that a truly universal decolonial perspective cannot be based on an abstract universal (one

(31)

particular that raises itself as universal global design), but would have to be the result of the critical dialogue between diverse critical epistemic/ethical/political projects towards a pluriversal as opposed to a universal world; (3) that decolonization of knowledge would require to take seriously the epistemic perspective/cosmologies/insights of critical thinkers from the Global South thinking

from and with subalternized racial/ethnic/sexual spaces and bodies.’

In the process of incorporating these points into the analytic process, particular attention will be paid to the concept of the pluriverse, or a world in which many worlds can coexist (Escobar 2017). This will be a crucial perspective for avoiding essentialisms that may emerge from a desire to categorize people into groups without considering the complexity of their individual perspectives. In lieu of a generalization of perspectives, the research is guided by the inquiry of ‘[for whom] and when, why, and where knowledge is generated,’ thus shifting attention from the enunciated to the enunciation (Mignolo 2009, p. 2).

3.6 Engaging with a cohesive theoretical framework

The theoretical approaches engage one another in the quest to understand the way in which a concept is constructed and reconstructed. The aforementioned foci on previous knowledge, power structures, and language provide the groundwork for a cohesive theoretical framework that has the capability of successfully addressing the research question in a logical and rigorous manner. Inspired by and developed from van Dijk’s (2015) ‘Schema of the discursive reproduction of power,’ the theoretical interrelationships of this research manifest through a cyclical process grounded on personal and social cognition, social structure, and communicative events.

In essence, a new concept, in this case a ‘Sustainable food future,’ is introduced through a communicative event, but is first given meaning and representation through personal and social cognition. In the cognitive stage of the cycle, social representations are assembled through anchoring and objectification, essentially using previous knowledge to understand and envisage the new concept. In recognition of the complexity of the

(32)

sociopolitical realm in which the concept is established, it must be noted that this cognitive process does not occur in isolation. For each individual, group, or institution, the knowledge generated in relation to the concept is dependent upon interactions with the world outside of the mind. In particular, influencing factors encompass the recipient(s) of the new knowledge being created, the inherent purpose of its development, as well as the time and location in which the elements of knowledge generation can be contextualized.

The personal and social cognition guides the composition of the social structure in which it manifests. In this case, the social structure is understood as being composed of a pluriverse, in which many social, political, economic, and epistemic worlds coexist and interrelate. Within this pluriverse, there are powerful groups and institutions that have disproportionate influence over the construction of a concept. These entities use their positions of authority to craft hegemonic discourses that define the priorities, limits, and themes regarding a certain topic. Hegemonic discourses impose a control of knowledge that inevitably impacts personal and social cognition.

In order to have such an impact on cognition, a communicative event must be initiated. This event is dependent upon its setting, participants, and the language that is used for the communication. The cycle of a communicative event influencing personal and social cognition, which in turn guides the social structure that generates the communication, functions as a base for the creation and recreation of a concept (Figure 2). The theoretical framework established in this chapter provides a comprehensible approach for addressing the question of understanding the construction of the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future.’ Given this backdrop, the research covets a methodology.

(33)

Figure 2. Schema of (re)constructing a concept, developed from Schema of the discursive reproduction of power (van Dijk 2015)

(34)

Chapter 4 Methodology

The methodology for this inductive research is developed through continual reflexivity, which permeates the research design from beginning to end. Furthermore, this chapter is based on iterative development of the individual parts, through which choices and considerations regarding the philosophical grounding of the project and researcher have informed empirical choices. Empirical understandings have further informed analytical interpretations. The main purpose of these choices is to develop a research design that seeks to answer the research questions, centered on the relationship between the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ proposed by the Argentinian presidency of the G20 and the context in which agri-food policies are developed at the national level. This chapter first explores the epistemological and ontological grounding of the research. It then delineates my own positionality and the methods used, followed by the analytical approach to discourse analysis and the limitations of the research. The chapter is concluded through an explanation of the advantages of qualitative research, a section on trustworthiness, authenticity, and rigor, and ethical reflections.

4.1 Epistemology and ontology

This interpretive research follows the approach of epistemic decolonization through which a plurality of knowledge bases is recognized as existing within a pluriverse. De-coloniality, according to Mignolo (2011a), should be understood as a form of epistemic disobedience. An approach to research based on epistemic disobedience recognizes that de-coloniality is an option that allows the researcher to navigate through systems of epistemic diversity. Simultaneously, it recognizes that our way of producing knowledge is constructed through the mediation of our institutional affiliations’ (Matias dos Santos 2018).

The analysis of the research seeks to situate the knowledge generated in the country as the most legitimate source for interpreting the understandings of the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ presented there. According to Smith (2012, p. 66), ‘the

(35)

globalization of knowledge and Western culture constantly reaffirms the West’s view of itself as the centre of legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what counts as knowledge and the source of ‘civilized’ knowledge.’ She asserts that this creation of a concept of global knowledge is typically referred to as ‘universal’ knowledge, and is understood as being available to all and not ‘owned’ by anyone. In order to counter that tendency, the ontological positioning of this research is based on the concept of a pluriverse of sociocultural configurations. Epistemic disobedience will, therefore, seek to place knowledge, subjectivity, authority, and economy in service of pluriversality (Maldonado-Torres 2007; Pickren 2018).

4.2 Positionality

As stated by Bryman (2012, pp. 394), ‘the researcher is viewed as implicated in the construction of knowledge through the stance that he or she assumes in relation to the observed and through the ways in which an account is transmitted in the form of a text.’ Therefore, concurrent to the iterative process of assessing the validity of my analysis against the data, I must also continually assess the way in which my views and ideas are influencing the direction of the research.

Yanow (2007, p. 408) notes the ‘phenomenological argument that selves are shaped by prior experiences, which in turn shape perception and understanding.’ This, in turn, signifies that interpretive methodologies call for heightened degrees of reflexivity by the researcher. Considering the ontological and epistemological foundations of this research, as a researcher, I do not separate myself from the research I am undertaking through the claim of being an objective outsider. Instead, I recognize that my academic and cultural background play a role in guiding my choices and interpretations.

For the sake of transparency, I will briefly describe my own positioning. Academically, I am trained in social/political science with a background in environmental studies, particularly in relation to food and agriculture. Through this preparation, I have ascribed to a position most akin with agroecological principles and political ecology. Moreover, I write through my experience as a Puerto Rican woman in a Dutch university. Considering I am not Argentinian, I cannot write through the richness of the experience of

(36)

someone that has lived through the changes referred to in this research personally. Nonetheless, I found that my experience as a Latin American who has personally experienced some of the concerns raised throughout interviews, has allowed me an added layer of insight and nuance throughout the research. Moreover, being a native Spanish speaker has allowed me to easily conduct interviews in the native language of participants as well as contributed to ensuring the quality of document analysis. The lack of a language barrier has also served to be able to integrate the knowledges of literature published in Spanish in Argentina and other Latin American countries, as well as to understand the nuances in spoken and written language.

Regardless of my own positionality, I have taken steps to ensure the rigor and quality of this research. The primary concern regarding my positionality is to ensure that I do not misrepresent research participants. Moreover, it is of utmost importance that I do not allow my own positionality to skew the data. This has been addressed by thinking critically about, and confronting, my assumptions and how they shape my work.

4.3 Methods

The methods used for this research are comprised of critical document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key informants (Appendix 1). The analysis is also limited to the period from 2017 to December 2018. 2017 was the year when Argentina was selected to lead the 2018 presidency, and it culminated on the 1st_{of December 2018.}

4.3.1 Document analysis

The 15 documents and videos analyzed were published through the official website of the Argentinian presidency of the G20, with the exception of one video in which President Macri is discussing the Argentinian presidency of the G20 in the Davos World Economic Forum. The documents include official announcements, publications, and videos that refer to the theme of a ‘Sustainable food future.’ The documents and videos are developed from the official communications of the Argentinian presidency.

The analysis further includes articles published in the two primary newspapers of the country, Clarín and La Nación. They were selected on the basis of having a mention and

(37)

elaboration of the specific theme of a ‘Sustainable food future.’ As such, a requirement was that the articles were published in the year 2018. Following those requirements, five articles were found to be relevant. The two articles published in Clarín are related to the financing of a ‘Sustainable food future’ and the connection to agroindustry. Meanwhile, the three articles sourced from La Nación address responsible soil management as the theme of a meeting of the G20’s agriculture ministers, the message of the G20 agroindustry ministers asking for an open multilateral commerce, and the role of agriculture in the G20. 4.3.2 Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Spanish with 12 participants. Purposive sampling was used in order to strategically include participants that ‘differ from each other in terms of key characteristics’ and are thus able to provide a variety of perspectives in relation to the research questions (Bryman 2012, p. 418). More specifically, snowball sampling was used after the initial interviews resulted in suggestions for relevant contacts.

The interviews were carried out with key informants who are involved with, and/or have extensive knowledge of, national-level agri-food policies in Argentina. There was a combination of high-ranking officials from national secretariats and international food organizations based in Argentina, as well as officials from a national research institution, activists, and a journalist. Diversity in areas of specialization was incorporated into the selection process, as this allows for a better understanding of a diversity of perspectives on dominant discourses. These participants represent a variety of perspectives on food and agriculture, some of which are in line with the propositions of the G20 and others who were critical of them. Most of the interviewees participated in some component of the G20 in different capacities, while others participated through means such as journalistic coverage and activism.

The interview guide (Appendix 2) was prepared with the goal of understanding interpretations developed by participants in regard to a variety of concepts and events. The main interview prompts revolved around the following ideas: (1) a personal understanding of the concept of a ‘Sustainable food future’ proposed by the presidency, (2) historical

(38)

G20, (4) relevant changes in national policy, (5) discourse dissemination, and (6) socio-political power relations.

4.4 Discourse analysis

The analysis of the data is based on critical discourse analysis and the implementation of the theoretical framework within it. The first sub-question primarily addresses the appearance of social representations through anchoring and objectification. Afterwards, the second sub-question tackles the issue of power by addressing interactions through which authority and knowledge are controlled. As a personal preference, and because of the manageable size of the data, the analysis and coding was undertaken manually. Transcriptions were made in Spanish, the language in which the interviews were conducted and in which the articles were published. This was helpful for ensuring that subtleties and local expressions were not lost in translation. A codebook (Appendix 3) was established to organize the categories and codes that emerged from the documents and interviews.

The critical discourse analysis serves to understand ‘the way social-power abuse and inequality are enacted, reproduced, legitimated, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context’ (van Dijk 2015, pp. 466). It is primarily centered on the assumptions and understandings promoted by the Argentinian presidency and its accompanying interpretive community. In order to accomplish this step of the analysis, the predominant narrative of the presidency is countered by that of the other interpretations derived from the interviews, providing alternative narratives. This involves documenting, describing, and analyzing the self-understanding of participants that construct the alternative narrative through their particular contexts, which is subsequently crosschecked with the predominant narrative.

The study of discourses is important because it provides a more thorough understanding of controversies, ‘not in terms of rational argumentation but in terms of the argumentative rationality that people bring to a discussion’ (Hajer 2002, p. 131). Furthermore, Hajer & Versteeg (2005, p. 175) highlight three main advantages of conducting a discourse analysis: its capacity to reveal the role of language in politics, its

(39)

capacity to reveal the embeddedness of language in practices, and its capacity to answer ‘how’ questions and to illuminate mechanisms. Aside from addressing the mechanisms through which discourses are developed, the research also addresses interactions among different knowledge bases and the issues of control over authority and knowledge. Therefore, a focus on the role of language highlights power relations, which include privileged speech and silences (Yanow 2006b, p. 21).

4.5 Limitations

The research relies on data from fifteen documents, five articles and twelve interviews. While the documents and articles fully encompass the aim of the research, it could have benefitted from more interviews to encompass a wider range of understandings. Specifically, it would have been helpful to gain more perspectives connected to the agroindustry sector. However, access to people who were involved in the G20 and/or work in national government institutions was particularly challenging. It must also be noted that this research is limited to the views of people with a high formal academic background, and who have likely not experienced extreme livelihood repercussions in regard to changes in agri-food policies. Moreover, such an interpretive analysis would have greatly benefited from returning to the field to discuss the results with participants. Due to time and budgetary constraints, this was not possible.

4.6 Advantages of qualitative research

Qualitative methods were selected for the study because, within the scope of the research, it was the best way to address the complexities of a variety of understandings regarding the concept under study. According to Gemignani et al. (2014, p. 112), ‘Qualitative inquiries often result in complex and nuanced accounts of realities and experiences that, differently from dominant or hegemonic discourses or statistical significance, acknowledge both the center and the margins.’ The priority on addressing alternative discourses is therefore a suitable endeavor under a qualitative design.

Bryman (2012) delineates several common critiques of qualitative research, which include its subjective nature, the difficulty of replicating the study, problems of

(40)

generalization, and a lack of transparency (what was done and how the researcher arrived at certain conclusions). These, however, are concerns typically associated with, and more suitable for, quantitative research. In the following section, I will address approaches to ensuring quality in qualitative research, which have been specifically developed taking into account the nature of qualitative research, rather than a generalized approach that prioritizes quantitative concerns.

4.7 Trustworthiness, authenticity, and rigor

Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Guba & Lincoln (1994) propose two criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research: trustworthiness and authenticity. Trustworthiness is further broken down into four criteria, namely establishing credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability. I will seek to establish credibility through

respondent validation, which will be incorporated through the second round of interviews, and triangulation. Triangulation will be based on the incorporation of two methods, document analysis and interviews, and will be useful for cross-checking findings, therefore ensuring greater confidence in the results of the research. Transferability is difficult to ensure considering the focus on contextual uniqueness. Nonetheless, it will be approached through the use of thick description (Geertz 1973), which will allow future researchers to assess the potential for transferability. Dependability will be integrated by keeping an easily accessible record of the different phases of the research, including fieldwork notes and interview transcripts, and data analysis decisions. Recognizing that objectivity is not possible in research, confirmability will be attempted by making a conscious effort to not allow personal values or theoretical inclinations to manipulate the findings of the research. The second criterion, authenticity, refers to the broader political impact of the research. This criteria is frequently associated with action research and serves as a thought-provoking tool, but is not frequently incorporated into social science research (Bryman 2012). Nonetheless, the relevant criteria of fairness, ontological authenticity,

educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity, and tactical authenticity will be considered in

Sustainable food future : discourses on agri-food politics of the Argentinian G20 presidency

Sustainable food future

Discourses on agri-food politics of the Argentinian G20 presidency

Nicole Medina Collazo

Sustainable food future

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Table of contents

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Statement of the problem

1.2 Research questions and aims

1.3 Thesis structure

Chapter 2

Context

Chapter 3

Theoretical framework

3.1 A ‘Sustainable food future’ as a sensitizing concept

3.2 Interpretive Policy Analysis

3.3 Social representations

3.4 Decentralization and democracy

3.5 Fanonian turn in psychology

3.6 Engaging with a cohesive theoretical framework

Chapter 4

Methodology

4.1 Epistemology and ontology

4.2 Positionality

4.3 Methods

4.4 Discourse analysis

4.5 Limitations

4.6 Advantages of qualitative research

4.7 Trustworthiness, authenticity, and rigor