Abstract
Challenging Social Inequality attempts and largely succeeds in providing a comprehensive analysis of the Landless Rural Workers Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, or MST) in Brazil, presenting the movement as a product of Brazil’s unique history and more universal class struggles around the agrarian question. From a variety of disciplinary perspectives, this edited volume provides a sympathetic look at what is today the largest rural social movement in Brazil (and perhaps in the world) in four sections detailing the institutional context of the MST’s emergence, the history of the movement itself, the lived experience of MST settlements, and interaction between the MST and the last three (nominally) sympathetic national governments.
Reading all the chapters in order provides a substantial overview of the movement and its place in the contemporary Brazilian context. The first chapter and conclusion plus epilogue, written by political scientist and volume editor Miguel Carter, frame the other chapters in larger questions of social inequality, economic development, democracy, and movements for land reform; these include brief reviews of the main criticisms of the MST. The Brazilian case is compelling for its high levels of social and economic inequality, both of which are manifest in land ownership and land reform policies. While a land area the size of Sweden was redistributed in the years leading up to 2010, land and wealth remain highly concentrated in Brazil. The consequences of this inequality include the rise of the MST outside of formal political structures, as well as the inability for even sympathetic national administrations to generate the political will for systematic change in patterns of land tenure.
For rural sociologists and especially Latin Americanists, the MST is among the most important social movements in the hemisphere. The first few chapters of this book document the emergence of the MST as a social movement in response to arrested intergenerational mobility among family farmers in Brazil’s relatively developed south. Drawing from traditions in the activist Catholic Church and rural trade unions, the MST is best known for its strategy of occupying (or invading) under-utilized estates, citing the 1988 constitutional provision that lands serve a “social function.” The MST model of agrarian reform includes not just the assignment of land to landless individuals, but the establishment of cooperative work agreements that challenge a capitalist logic of agricultural production. With its maturation, the MST has expanded its political agenda to include social issues other than land tenure, including educational access, gender equity, and ecological sustainability.
From its origins in the South, the MST spread to the sugar plantation region of the Northeast and the agricultural frontier in central Brazil and the Amazon Basin. In each region, the MST faced a different constellation of economic activities, land tenure, and local culture. The navigation of these regional differences is a recurring theme in the second and third sections of the collection, which use case studies to demonstrate the complicated process of forming a national social movement. For example, the MST initially struggled to attract Amazonian squatters because their land conflicts typically focused on securing title rather than occupying unproductive land. Likewise, sugarcane workers in the Northeast sought land for social status and security rather than to replace their waged labor on sugar plantations.
This regional focus is particularly strengthened by the inclusion of studies that use ethnographic fieldwork in MST encampments and settlements. These chapters literally give voice to the people who formed the movement and who have struggled to keep it relevant despite changing circumstances. The most powerful of these case studies include two from the Northeastern region. The first, written by anthropologist Elena Calvo-Gonzalez, details how settlements struggle to maintain solidarity even after securing land. Calvo-Gonzalez cites several reasons for the decline in the settlers’ sense of community, including the growing prominence of Evangelicals, suspicion about the integrity of MST regional leaders, and everyday gossip. This is followed by geographer Wendy Wolford’s exceptional case study that documents how different cultural understandings about political clientelism and the social meaning of the sugarcane economy created tension between MST regional leaders and settlers.
Case studies are effectively balanced by chapters that examine national structural issues, such as the role of sympathetic Catholic clergy in the origins of the MST, political opportunity structures, and the legal framework of Brazilian land reform. These chapters provide readers with a strong understanding of the MST as a social movement tied to specific points in place and time, rather than attempting to universalize the movement. Of these more structurally oriented chapters, the most compelling address the relationship between the social movement and the Brazilian state. As noted in several chapters, land tenure must be recognized by the state, and land reform is a public policy enacted by the state. Thus, even though the MST is not a political party, the relationship between the social movement and the Brazilian state is a central concern. This issue is the topic addressed in the final section of this collection.
While MST has enjoyed recognition for its land occupations and demonstrations, Brazil has yet to implement land reform that would alter the situation for the people who join the social movement. In situations where the state openly reflects the interests of the landed elite, land reform was used primarily to encourage national security without challenging the status quo, as with the colonization of the Amazonian frontier. The last three administrations (Cardoso 1995 to 2002, Lula 2003 to 2010, and Dilma 2011 to present), however, provided political opportunities to enact meaningful reform in existing land tenure. Cardoso, who was an academic sociologist, campaigned on land reform but did little until a massacre of MST activists drew national and international attention. Thereafter, the Cardoso administration pursued only land reform policies that did not compete with the neoliberal transformation toward multinational agribusiness, eventually putting a moratorium on the redistribution of land that had been occupied by the MST or any other social movement. Cardoso was followed by two presidents from the Workers Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores, or PT), which had a close historical alliance with the MST. In fact, President Luis Ignacio “Lula” da Silva’s appointee eventually devised a significant program for reform, but the administration was unable to implement it due to budget constraints and political opposition. This failure has led to a chilled relationship between the PT and MST, with the MST largely supporting Dilma Rousseff and other PT candidates as the best alternative, not as natural allies to the movement.
As editor, Carter has done an excellent job integrating the content of chapters with one another, with most chapters referencing the content of other chapters. At the same time, all chapters contain enough context and argument that they could be read independently. This does sometimes create repetition for those who will read the book from cover to cover, but it does not interfere with the overall readability of this extensive collection. The authors do assume some familiarity with Brazil, including its politics and geography, so the book would not be an appropriate introductory text for understanding modern Brazil. Likewise, the comprehensive and exhaustive nature of the collection may overwhelm casual readers and those without an appreciation for the complexity of the Brazilian case. For sociologists interested in social movements, agrarian reform, and contemporary Latin America, this is an impressively strong interdisciplinary collection.