A one-sided love affair? On the potential for a coalition between degrowth and community-supported agriculture in Germany

Abstract

Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is a grassroots response to the threat the global industrial agri-food system poses to smallholders. The degrowth community, calling for a radical transformation away from the environmentally destructive and socially unjust primacy of economic growth in current societies, has started to pay tribute to CSA, commonly considering it an embodiment of degrowth ideas. However, the CSA movement does not reciprocate the interest of the degrowth community. This article therefore undertakes a systematic analysis of the potential for a coalition between CSA and degrowth in Germany. We draw on social movement theories to compare both movements’ ideological and strategic alignment, as well as the conducive and/or hindering factors for coalition building. We find that the ideologies and political strategies of the two movements are not aligned, which manifests in their main frames and action repertoires, among other areas, which are articulated at different levels of abstraction; CSA has a practical focus on the safeguarding of smallholder agriculture, while degrowth more abstractly centres on the growth-dependent economy. Scarce resources, differing forms of internal organisation, and a lack of knowledge about degrowth on the side of CSA represent further obstacles to entering a coalition. At the same time, our analysis shows existing social ties and an initial ideological alignment between the CSA movement and sufficiency-oriented degrowth. We conclude that, despite prevailing differences, the two movements seem complementary, and that entering a coalition would bring with it the benefits of combining practice- and discourse-driven social change.

Power & protein—closing the ‘justice gap’ for food system transformation

“…By drawing on a historical justice lens and seeking inspiration in feminist, degrowth and decolonial thinking [66,133,134], we can recast the mould of meat norms so that evolving cultural practices are not shaped by 'patriarchal traditions nor by the perverse incentives of industrial food systems' [9, p 48]. Disruption pathways must run deep, for the injustice(s) of hegemonic agri-food systems are ingrained within both the 'imaginaries of how economies and societies should work' and 'the politicaleconomic structures that uphold and reproduce these imaginaries' [133, p 1590].…”