Autonomy and repeasantization: Conceptual, analytical, and methodological problems

Abstract

“Autonomy,” as a desirable state, is a notion often used by food sovereignty‐oriented farmer movements and scholars studying repeasantization. The term is predominantly used rather casually, relying on presumed meanings, but van der Ploeg's book The New Peasantries seeks to elaborate a particular meaning of autonomy as a characteristic feature of the peasantry. The desire of farmers/peasants for autonomy is formulated in tandem with agroecological agriculture, farmers' agency, locally “nested” markets, co‐production with nature, non‐commoditized production, and multiple kinds of peasant resistance. This article identifies the distinctive nature of this take on autonomy and analyses its analytical, normative, and political aspects. It develops several critiques regarding the analytical shortcomings of the notion of peasant autonomy: the methodological problem of a peasant bias; the analytical limitations and incompatibility of intrinsic and “relative” autonomy; and the neglect of accumulation from below and subtle class contradictions. Rather than centring autonomy or relative autonomy, the authors argue for shifting the focus to the nature of different types of dependency relationships, ranging from very exploitative to those vital for human flourishing.

Autonomy in agrarian studies, politics, and movements: An inter‐paradigm debate

“…Jansen et al (2022) in this issue argue that this idea of being outside the system is indeed present in some claims of the repeasantization perspective. But this first meaning of autonomy alternates with a second meaning: one that does not consider autonomy as ‘outside the system’ but as operating within the system and against it, trying to transform or transcend it.…”

Family farmers' strategies to develop autonomy through agroecological and solidarity economy practices: The case of BioVida in the Ecuadorian Andes

“…This, in turn, acknowledges the heterogeneity of needs, aspirations and conditioning factors that structure the variety of existing degrees of agency among family farmers within the framework of their autonomy aspirations nowadays. Some scholars criticize the concept of peasant autonomy as a classification that is insensitive to the processes of social differentiation among family farming actors (Bernstein, 2006; Jansen et al, 2022). For them, the peasant style is an all‐encompassing category that conflates several agrarian social classes such as semi‐proletarians, simple commodity producers and rural proletariat into one category.…”

“…Furthermore, they indicate the interrelationships and trade‐offs that exist in actively pursuing the decommodification of the resource base. That is, often, autonomy in one sphere (be it land, product markets or labour) comes at the expense of building dependency or negotiating interdependencies in another (Henderson, 2019; Jansen et al, 2022). (3) Development of pluri‐activity : This means a part‐time engagement in the labour market.…”

“…Without disregarding these cooperative relationships, it is important to recognize the heterogeneity within family farming communities and the power relations that exist within them. This is important in order to not essentialize and characterize them as inherently solidarity based as opposed to other types of rural/agrarian agents who always seek relationships of dependency and exploitation (Jansen et al, 2022).…”

“…There are empirical cases in which family farming actors actively decide to be integrated into commodity markets and to fight for certain degree of leverage over them. Critical literature also points out the danger of essentializing alternative markets when speaking of ‘self‐regulated’ or ‘self‐organized’ markets by family farming actors and allies through social relations of reciprocity and recognition (Jansen et al, 2022; Tregear, 2011). In this regard, it is important to recognize that there might exist unequal power relations among the actors who manage these markets and lack of mutual understanding among themselves.…”