4.7 Article

Between institutional reform and building popular movements: The political articulation of agroecology in Brazil

期刊

JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES
卷 89, 期 -, 页码 140-148

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.11.016

关键词

Politics; Transformation; Scaling; Peasantry; Social movements; Agroecology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article uses the theoretical lens of political articulation to study agroecological transformation in the agroecology movement in Brazil. The study shows that by mobilizing peasants' local demands through institutional and populist politics, the movement was able to gain policy support and pose a systemic challenge to authority. The article argues that the political viability of wider societal transformation lies in creating movements and organizations that politicize peasants and embrace local demands.
Agroecology is increasingly seen to contain solutions that can be used for wider societal transformation. While debates have mainly focused on reformist versus revolutionary strategies, less attention has been paid to how such strategies connect to peasant demands and how they can be combined for agroecological transformation. In this article we study transformation by the agroecology movement in Brazil through the theoretical lens of political articulation. We show that peasants' local demands for land, alternative farming and local markets were mobilised in an institutional politics to gain policy support and in a populist politics to create movements that pose a systemic challenge to authority. We then argue that the political viability of wider societal transformation lies in the ability to create movements and organisations that politicise peasants and embrace local demands. We conclude that attention should not only be paid to individual strategies and their immediate effects but also on how diverse politics combine, to build the material and symbolic capacity of the movement and their potential for transformation over the long run.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据