Agroecology and the Struggle for Food Sovereignty ... - Yale University

cohn
51
Academia and Social Movements
Avery Cohn
“Food Sovereignty, Conservation, and Social Movements for Sustainable Agriculture
in the Americas” – the name of the international workshop at Yale was quite a
mouthful. Our title did not solely describe the proceedings; it also provided
definition and direction for the participants. Titles might be apt or not apt, helpful or
a source of conflict – there is power in a name. The movement for food sovereignty
is engaged in some weighty debates, and it is mobilizing to fill pressing needs. Some
of its members march on real streets; others labor in real fields. And yet the
movement can be profoundly affected by how academics describe it.
Some academics have grown wise to their impacts and wary of their word choices.
They feel a stake or a responsibility to the groups that they analyze. They work to
ensure that their research benefits these groups. Members of our working group on
agroecology are committed to working hard to support disenfranchised,
disempowered citizen groups fighting for causes we believe are important.
But how objective can we be if we are committed to working on behalf of social
movements? After all, many say – or assume – that academic excellence is based on
being objective, that in the Enlightenment tradition, academic research is about seeking
the truth, shifting paradigms toward a better understanding of the world. 1 This
notion that academic paradigms progressively spiral toward objective truth or that
academic research, observation, or participation can be objective has been convincingly
critiqued. Postmodernists have argued that not only do researchers’ worldviews
shape their findings, but also that the political and economic interests of the organizations
affected by the research process can often have an important influence on the
outcome of research.
In theory, that sounds like it could be good for farmers. If they can organize and
mobilize, they should be able to benefit from agricultural research by influencing the
research agenda. The past century of agricultural research has done little to serve
farmers’ needs, however. As George Naylor, president of the National Family Farm
Coalition, says, agricultural research and policymaking gravitate to the needs of the
most powerful actor in agriculture: agribusiness.
It’s a vicious cycle. Agribusiness amasses power, and impels research. That consolidates
the industry’s power further, and exploits the labor and lands of farmers along
the way. Agribusiness giants get to set the agricultural research agenda because they
1 For more on shifting paradigms,
see Thomas Kuhn
(2000), The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
yale school of forestry & environmental studies