Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constructing food sovereignty in Catalonia: different narratives for transformative action

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Food sovereignty can be conceptualized as a political proposal for social change in the field of agri-food relations. However, specific strategies of how to achieve this transformative potential are diverse, and context-dependent. The paper explores this diversity by examining discourses on the food sovereignty construction process in Catalonia. Using Q methodology we have explored visions held by individuals participating in the social movement for food sovereignty, identifying five discourses: activism, anti-purism, self-management, pedagogy, and pragmatism. Key strategies of transformation include social mobilization, institutional negotiation, self-management, education to foster value change, and politics of the possible. The relevance assigned to ideological affinity explains different views on the subject of transformation, particularly regarding the involvement of the administration and the productive sector. As regards transformative strategies, discourses assign differing importance to the role of agency for effecting social transformation, which influences their assessment of individual actions as an effective means for social change. Forms of individualized and classic collective action currently coexist within the Catalan agri-food movement, but such diversity is not acknowledged as an effective alliance towards food sovereignty. Moreover, all discourses agree to a dual definition of food sovereignty, both as a process, that is, as democratization of the decision-making process in the agri-food sector, and as a result, that is, establishing an agri-food model alternative to the neo-liberal one. However, the discourses share an unclear view of democracy as decentralized collective decision-making that does not make explicit how this model should be implemented to achieve social control of the agri-food system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The self-organization of consumers to provide themselves with organic food through direct contact with producers is an increasing phenomenon in Catalonia. It is estimated that there are currently around 130 of such organizations (FCCUC 2010).

  2. These associations provide technical support to producers, from an agroecology and social values perspective.

  3. Other studies have found 36 statements “to be manageable, both for the participant and the researcher” (Barry and Proops 1999, p. 339).

  4. Representativeness in Q method is different from representativeness in surveys and other R-type methods. “The basic distinctiveness of Q methodology is that, unlike standard survey analysis, it is interested in establishing patterns within and across individuals, rather than patterns across individual traits,” as “what Q methodology attempts to elicit is the variety of accounts or discourses about or around a particular discourse domain, theme, issue, or topic” (Barry and Proops 1999, p. 339).

  5. All statements and literal excerpts translated from Catalan.

  6. According to the Catalan Statistics Institute (n.d.), the active agricultural population in 2012 (fourth quarter) was 1.65 % of the employable population.

Abbreviations

ASAC:

Catalonia Peoples’ Food Sovereignty Alliance

FSv:

Food sovereignty

LVC:

La Vía Campesina

References

  • Addams, H., and J.L.R. Proops. 2000. Social discourse and environmental policy: An application of Q methodology. Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkon, A.H., and T.M. Mares. 2012. Food sovereignty in US food movements: Radical visions and neoliberal constraints. Agriculture and Human Values 29(3): 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, C. 2005. The consolations of “neoliberalism”. Geoforum 36(1): 7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, J., and J. Proops. 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics 28(3): 337–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blue, G. 2009. On the politics and possibilities of locavores: Situating food sovereignty in the turn from government to governance. Politics and Culture 2. http://www.politicsandculture.org/issue/2009-issue-2/. Accessed 13 Dec 2011.

  • Calle, A. 2005. Nuevos movimientos globales. Hacia la radicalidad democrática. Madrid: Editorial Popular.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calle, A., M. Soler, and M.G. Rivera-Ferre. 2011. Soberanía alimentaria y agroecología emergente: la democracia alimentaria. In Aproximaciones a la democracia radical, ed. A. Calle, 213–237. Barcelona: Icaria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalan Statistics Institute. n.d. Labor force survey. http://www.idescat.cat/treball/epa?tc=4&id=ic0724&lang=es. Accessed 19 April 2013.

  • Clarke, N., C. Barnett, P. Cloke, and A. Malpass. 2007. Globalizing the consumer: Doing politics in an ethical register. Political Geography 26(3): 231–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLind, L.B. 2011. Are local food and the local food movements taking us where we want to go? Or are we hitching our wagons to the wrong stars? Agriculture and Human Values 28(2): 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLind, L.B. 2003. Considerably more than vegetables, a lot less than community: The dilemma of community supported agriculture. In Fighting for the farm: Rural America transformed, ed. J. Adams, 192–206. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.S. 2005. Handle with care: The deadly hermeneutics of deliberative instrumentation. Acta Politica 40(2): 197–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.S., and J. Berejikian. 1993. Reconstructive democratic theory. American Political Science Review 87(1): 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, S., A. Donaldson, and G. Walker. 2005. Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography. Area 37(4): 413–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, G., J. Barry, and C. Robinson. 2007. Many ways to say “no”, different ways to say “yes”: Applying Q-methodology to understanding public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50(4): 517–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn, M. 2012. Framing transformation: The counter-hegemonic potential of food sovereignty in the US context. Agriculture and Human Values 29(2): 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FCCUC (La Federació de Cooperatives de Consumidors i Usuaris de Catalunya). 2010. Els grups i les cooperatives de consum ecològic a Catalunya. Diagnòstic de la situació i promoció del cooperativisme. http://www.ecoconsum.org/webfm_send/2. Accessed 4 Feb 2011.

  • Follett, J.R. 2009. Choosing a food future: Differentiating among alternative food options. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22: 31–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2008. Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California. Geoforum 39(3): 1171–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassanein, N. 2003. Practicing food democracy: A pragmatic politics of transformation. Journal of Rural Studies 19(1): 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, M. 1997. The philosophy of social science. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt Giménez, E., and A. Shattuck. 2011. Food crises, food regimes, and food movements: Rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? The Journal of Peasant Studies 38(1): 109–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, B. 2006. Political consumerism between individual choice and collective action: Social movements, role mobilization, and signaling. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30(5): 405–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjærnes, U. 2012. Ethics and action: A relational perspective on consumer choice in the European politics of food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25(2): 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korthals, M. 2001. Taking consumers seriously: Two concepts of consumer sovereignty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14(2): 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, T. 1998. Towards a food democracy. In Consuming passions: Food in the age of anxiety, ed. S. Griffiths, and J. Wallace, 13–23. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipschutz, R.D., and J.K. Rowe. 2005. Globalization, governmentality, and global politics: Regulation for the rest of us?. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockie, S. 2009. Responsibility and agency within alternative food networks: Assembling the “citizen consumer”. Agriculture and Human Values 26(3): 193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-i-Gelats, F., J.D. Tàbara, and J. Bartolomé. 2009. The rural in dispute: Discourses of rurality in the Pyrenees. Geoforum 40(4): 602–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Torres, M.E., and P. Rosset. 2010. The birth and evolution of a transnational social movement. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(1): 149–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2008. Peasants make their own history, but not just as they please…. Journal of Agrarian Change 8(2–3): 205–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Micheletti, M. 2003. Political virtue and shopping: Individuals, consumerism, and collective action. New York: Palgrave, Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Cerdà, M., and M.G. Rivera-Ferre. 2010. Indicadores internacionales de Soberanía Alimentaria. Nuevas herramientas para una nueva agricultura. Revista de la Red Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica 14: 53–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. 2009. Food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36(3): 663–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. 2005. Global fascism, revolutionary humanism, and the ethics of food sovereignty. Development 48(2): 79–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renard, M. 2003. Fair trade: Quality, market, and conventions. Journal of Rural Studies 19(1): 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera-Ferre, M.G. 2008. The future of agriculture: Agricultural knowledge for economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable development. EMBO Reports 9: 1061–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roff, R.J. 2007. Shopping for change? Neoliberalizing activism and the limits to eating non-GMO. Agriculture and Human Values 24(4): 511–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmolck, P. 2002. PQMethod, version 2.11. http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~schmolck/qmethod/downpqx.htm. Accessed 21 Nov 2011.

  • Shaw, R. 2013. The activist’s handbook: Winning social change in the 21st century. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. 1953. The study of behavior: Q technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tongco, M.D.C. 2007. Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research & Applications 5: 147–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webler, T., S. Danielson, and S. Tuler. 2009. Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Social and Environmental Research Institute. http://www.seri-us.org/sites/default/files/Qprimer.pdf. Accessed 13 Oct 2011.

  • Windfuhr, M., and J. Jonsén. 2005. Food sovereignty. Towards democracy in localized food systems. FIAN-International, ITDG Publishing. http://www.ukabc.org/foodsovereignty_itdg_fian_print.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov 2011.

  • Wolley, J.T., and M.V. McGinnis. 2000. The conflicting discourses of restoration. Society and Natural Resources 13(4): 339–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zografos, C. 2007. Rurality discourses and the role of the social enterprise in regenerating rural Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 23(1): 38–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted in collaboration with Josep-Lluís Espluga and Marta G. Rivera, whom we would also like to thank for comments on earlier drafts. This work contributes to the FP7 Marie Curie Initial Training Network ENTITLE Project (Number: 289374).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Research Group for Agriculture, Livestock and Food Under Globalization (ARAG), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici C, Campus UAB, 08193, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain

    Marina Di Masso & Christos Zografos

Authors
  1. Marina Di Masso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christos Zografos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Di Masso.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Di Masso, M., Zografos, C. Constructing food sovereignty in Catalonia: different narratives for transformative action. Agric Hum Values 32, 183–198 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9528-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9528-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation