Engaging the productivist ideology through utopian politics

In her review of the distinction between and subsequent convergence of food security and food sovereignty as overarching and leading concepts in global food systems, Jarosz provides a detailed forensic assessment of global efforts to reduce hunger and malnutrition. In that analysis, both security and sovereignty are presented as discourses which largely frame and direct both action and possible alternatives or innovations. The social dynamics associated with these discourses involve a contest of more or less empowered actors in which an ultimate victor in terms of a predominant discourse is to be determined.

In this commentary, I look to both extend the comparative analysis of food security/sovereignty as features of uneven food geographies and to draw attention to how these operate within the specific conditions of New Zealand. To achieve the first goal, I draw insight from convention theory as developed by Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello (Boltanski and Chiapello, 2005; Chiapello, 2003) in their efforts to explain societal scale shifts in employment relations under capitalism as an evolving phenomenon. Their analysis employs Weber’s concept of a ‘spirit of capitalism’ as a negotiated set of relations that legitimize social ordering and the division of power. Drawing on Ricoeur’s (1986) elaboration of ideology and utopia, they develop an argument in which the legitimacy of unjust social conventions are subject to public challenge based on shared ethical frameworks. The interplay of ideology and contingent legitimacy provides a framework for investigating both the persistence of less than ideal social structures and the mechanisms through which these might be changed. I will then apply these insights to the context of food production in New Zealand as a country that occupies a very distinctive position in global efforts to feed the world. Finally, I will conclude with a brief discussion of the value of a utopian framework for realizing performative research and progressive change in the global food system.

As elaborated in Jarosz’s discussion, the concept of food security has been incorporated within a discourse that supports and justifies the current food system and underlies its inequalities. I have argued elsewhere that this system is reinforced and persists as an ideology of productivism (Rosin, 2013); but, following Ricoeur (and Boltanski and Chiapello), this is ideology as a social contract. More specifically, ideology is understood as an integral element of social cohesion that facilitates the coordination of engagement and exchange by creating a negotiated set of conventions to frame social behaviour. To reiterate, the legitimacy of this ideology is achieved through reference to ethical frameworks, which can also be used to challenge its common good benefits. From this perspective, the global food system—inclusive of all its inequalities and manifestations of power—continues to operate and persists through the complicity of its participants (including the social scientist as discussed below). The ideology of productivism, thus, provides sufficient ‘benefit’ to a plurality of participants that it is able to maintain legitimacy as an ordering framework for society that ensures the coordination of exchange in the system. In Boltanski and Chiapello’s terms, the inequalities and lack of communication in the system can facilitate the extraction of surplus power (beyond that legitimized by the ideology), a situation which provides the opportunity of a ‘test’ of the conventions that underpin the ideology and the social relations that it maintains. The point is not to discount the potential for the emergence of inequalities of power or to downplay the implications of such situations, rather this framing of ideology directs attention to the opportunities to challenge inequities while also retaining awareness of the difficulties in achieving such changes. In terms of Jarosz’s discussion, the discourse of food sovereignty can be interpreted as a test of the productivist ideology. The convergence of the two concepts suggests that food sovereignty arguments are able to alter some of the conventions and (power constrained) exchange relations of the current food system; but it is also apparent that the test is not founded in justifications that require a comprehensive reformulation of the ideology. The ethical rationale behind food sovereignty is still subject to incorporation within the productivist ideology; or, in other words, many of the goals of food sovereignty can be articulated within the justifications for a continued focus on production as the ultimate ends (albeit, with a shift in emphasis to peasant farming systems). It remains open to debate at which point an ideology has experienced sufficient alteration to distinguish a change in the system—an issue at the heart of the discussion of a third food regime following Friedmann and McMichael’s framework.

In the context of New Zealand, the interplay of food security and food sovereignty as justifications for the framing of a productivist ideology incorporates a further confounding element—the extent to which the country’s agricultural production is targeted for export. This orientation to supplying food to meet the needs of international consumers has strong roots in the country’s colonial history. Contributing to food security elsewhere was an important feature of the country’s relationship with Britain beginning with early colonial supplies and later in aiding 20th century war efforts, deeply embedding a sense of responsibility to a greater good within the subjectivity of farmers or their ‘spirit of farming’. As a result, the country has devoted an extensive area of land to agriculture relative to its small domestic market (approximately 4.5 million inhabitants). In this context, food security is a relatively limited concern for the country and 90% or more of many agricultural products are exported. This provides at least partial explanation for ‘feeding the world’ being an underlying justification of production practices in the primary sector.

Elsewhere, I have noted the extent to which New Zealand pastoral farmers seek to persist in the accustomed social coordination framed by the productivist ideology despite imperatives to mitigate their impact on climate change through reduced intensification. The justifications for a continued pursuit of production remain legitimate in New Zealand and global markets due to concerns regarding an escalating global demand for food (especially protein) products. In this context, the arguments of food sovereignty carry little immediate relevance for the greater majority of production. This general statement is not intended to diminish the risk of increasingly evident food security challenges faced by poorer segments of society; but it does underscore the extent to which such issues are largely treated as discrete, localized problems in New Zealand. Also true to Jarosz’s assessments of the locally contingent references to food sovereignty, its arguments have been incorporated within the discourse of some projects related to re-emergent Maori indigeneity. Food, which has long been foundational to Maori place attachments, is a valued aspect of community development and empowerment (Piatti, 2013). In addition, the well-developed and apparently persistent nature of farmers markets in many New Zealand cities attests to the desire for ‘local’ consumption among some of the population. As a whole, however, these are all issues that are considered to be mutually exclusive of the issue of global food security and the insertion of primary production within global markets.

What does this suggest to the social scientist wanting to positively influence the world in which we live and contribute to a global, food secure society? A primary observation is that we should avoid despair in terms of the persistence of the current food ideology. While it perpetuates existing power inequalities, it is also, to some extent, of our own making. As complicit participants, we do have the power and ability to promote positive and progressive change—and we can develop strategies to encourage similar actions among other participants as well. Whether such change is incremental or revolutionary will depend to some extent on the strength of the challenges we raise and our ability to communicate these in ways that are relevant to the broader interests of society and which provide credible alternatives for organizing and coordinating the global food system.

Together with Paul Stock and Michael Carolan, I have been exploring the potential of food utopia as a concept to achieve such change (Rosin et al., 2012; Stock and Carolan, 2012). Drawing on diverse utopian scholars, we are collaborating with a group of academics and activists to begin a process of re-imagining a just, fair, and abundant food system. Again referring to the work of Ricoeur and other utopian scholars, we argue that utopia is as fundamental and essential to a cohesive society as is ideology. Utopia, however, facilitates the conception of a more perfect and ideal system which, while likely unattainable in the real-world negotiation of exchange across time and distance, acts as an external position from which to critique the normalized conventions and inequalities of ideology. More important to a progressive project is the experimentation and alternative practice that are enabled once we begin to imagine different and better worlds. Together these actions of critique, experimentation and practice provide a mechanism for introducing challenges to a productivist ideology such that we can move beyond the failures inherent to its focus on solely the quantities of food in tons of commodities, numbers of calories, and measures of nutrient. These can be reimagined in terms of the qualities that are valued by the diverse peoples of the world to include safe, nutritious, culturally valued food in a manner that promotes greater security and control of access and consumption.

Thus, Jarosz’s excellent and detailed analysis of food security and food sovereignty as competing and convergent discourses influencing the global food system contributes to our understanding of the processes that support and underpin it. It should not, however, be viewed as an end point or a conclusion, as the narrative of a failed or despoiled project. Rather it offers a blueprint on which our food utopias can be overlain, noting the points of convergence and dissolution. In doing so, we become aware of the openings for engagement and intervention that are subject to ethical challenges and a performative engagement with society.