The naturalization of runaway rights: A psychological perspective on how collective demands become subjectively eternal

“Food sovereignty” is an alternative paradigm for food and agriculture that aims to guarantee and protect people’s space, ability, and right to define their own models of production, distribution, and consumption. It is a response to the deep social, economic, and environmental crises generated by the dominant model of food and agriculture in capitalist, communist, and socialist states. Confronted with hunger, food insecurity, massive de-peasantization, and the commodification of food through the neoliberal transformation of food systems, the food sovereignty movement seeks to reverse inequitable and ecologically destructive industrial farming, fisheries, forestry, and livestock management and to rebuild the social, economic, cultural, political, and spiritual foundations of our agri-food systems. Deeply transformative in its vision and practice, the food sovereignty movement affirms that food is a basic human right—as opposed to a commodity—and should be regarded as an integral part of culture, heritage, and cosmovision. This implies that food providers and consumers should be directly and meaningfully involved in framing policies for food and agriculture. The notion of food sovereignty is perhaps best understood as a transformative process that seeks to re-create the democratic realm and regenerate a diversity of relocalized and autonomous agri-food systems. Food system transformation is grounded in agroecological practices based on diversity, decentralization, democracy, and local adaptation within and between territories, with a view to build ecological sustainability and keep life within safe planetary limits. Food sovereignty cannot be achieved without gender and intersectional justice, equity, and economies of care, as it ultimately seeks to achieve peaceful coexistence among peoples and care for the earth. The concept of food sovereignty has rapidly moved from the margins to more center stage in international discussions on food, environment, development, and well-being. Since it was first proposed by the transnational agrarian movement La Via Campesina in 1996, food sovereignty has become a policy framework adopted by some governments and international organizations. In response to advocacy campaigns by peasant organizations and social movements, the United Nations has recently adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP), which recognizes new human rights to land, water, forests, seeds, and natural resources, and outlines states obligations with regard to human rights–based natural resources governance. The UNDROP itself recognizes food sovereignty as a collective right. As the food sovereignty paradigm is gaining traction, the global food sovereignty movement, best described as a movement of movements, is diversifying. Peasant farmers, indigenous peoples, agricultural workers, nongovernmental organizations, and scholar-activists working on food sovereignty are engaging in dialogues with other social actors. The global food sovereignty movement is calling for the convergence of all antisystemic and anticapitalist movements, including climate and labor justice movements, feminist movements, black movements, degrowth economics, and antiwar movements. Food sovereignty as a concept, as a right, and as a paradigm for food systems transformation is a valuable starting point for the formulation of joint proposals and actions for systemic change in this emerging confluence of movements. Food sovereignty is also an increasingly popular research topic for a wide range of academic disciplines, including anthropology, geography, history, law, philosophy, agronomy, and ecology, as well as transdisciplinary research on agri-food systems. Historical, decolonial, feminist, cross-cultural, transdisciplinary, and critical perspectives are all needed to further understand the origins, development, and politics of food sovereignty in different contexts. Place-based and nuanced explorations of the multilevel processes that enable and constrain systemic change for food sovereignty can help inform policy and practice in different settings. These are important future directions for research on food sovereignty.

This paper explores the tensions between two disparate approaches to addressing hunger worldwide: Food security and food sovereignty. Food security generally focuses on ensuring that people have economic and physical access to safe and nutritious food, while food sovereignty (or food justice) movements prioritize the right of people and communities to determine their agricultural policies and food cultures. As food sovereignty movements grew out of critiques of food security initiatives, they are often framed as conflicting approaches within the wider literature. This paper explores this tension, arguing that food security is based on a particular model of justice, distributive justice, which limits the sovereignty and autonomy of communities as food producers and consumers. In contrast, food sovereignty movements view food security as a necessary part of food sovereignty, but ultimately insufficient for creating food sustainable communities and limiting wider harms. Rather than viewing food security and food sovereignty as in conflict, we argue that food sovereignty’s justice framework both encompasses and entails justice claims that guide food security projects.

Third regionalism explains the liberalization of trade centered around the Asia-Pacific region in the 21st century. Under regionalism, domestic agricultural markets that formerly enjoyed national food-security policies have loosened. This caused traditional domestic farmers’ organizations to become more regionally interconnected, forming a food sovereignty movement under the auspices of La Via Campesina. Localized food-production chains are promoted to mitigate the impact of regionalism on the Asia-Pacific agricultural sector. The Taiwan Rural Front (TRF) joined La Via Campesina and the food sovereignty movement in the 2010s. During the process of adopting regionalism, Taiwanese agricultural trade and technologies were protected by public agencies and state-owned enterprises. This context differs from that of Southeast Asia, where the food sovereignty movement has thrived. Therefore, the following question is raised: Why was it possible for the food sovereignty movement to originate in Taiwan? This paper describes the developmental characteristics of Taiwan’s food-security governance mechanism as a state-guided corporate food regime amid third regionalism. Further, the TRF does not advocate for localized food-production chains. Due to the formation of a state-guided corporate food regime, the food sovereignty movement has become connected with farmland protection movements that set the Taiwanese sovereignty movement apart.

Originating in a 1983 Mexican Government Program, the term ‘food sovereignty’ was coined in 1996 by La Via Campesina—a global peasant network—to address concerns within the civil society for food security. Rather than to accept the neoliberal framework of mainstream food security definition and governance, the food sovereignty movement seeks to view food security as the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture systems with limited corporation intervention. As a result, food production should be geared toward the domestic and local markets and not toward international trade that only benefits corporations. This food sovereignty movement was inducted into China in 2013 just as China’s agricultural systems were shifting toward a more corporate-centric structure that increasingly exploits the small-scale farmers. A question was hence raised: How have the global civil society networks influenced the Chinese civil society and promoted China’s local food sovereignty movement? Through the world society theory, the author has identified social forums, such as international conferences and social media channels, as an expedient means for interactions. However, as the Chinese government continues to develop a corporate-centric food security governance system and tighten its civil society space, the impacts of China’s food sovereignty movement remain unclear.

The article is devoted to the consideration of one of the phenomena of ethnopolitics – ethnopolitical conflict, its object, subject, forms, distinctive features, political mechanisms for resolution. In recent years, many studies of the problems of ethnopolitical conflicts have been conducted. The list of new ideas in the study of ethnopolitical problems of the countries of the world is very small: these are the concepts of a plural society, group boundaries, center-periphery or internal colonialism. With a certain stretch, they can include studies that follow the concepts of modernization, political development, but a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach to the study of ethnopolitical conflicts has not yet been finally established either in domestic or foreign science. Ethnopolitical conflict is a type of socio-political conflict, one of the forms of manifestation of contradiction in the field of ethnopolitical relations. A new round of escalation of ethnopolitical conflicts is caused by growing globalization and further aggravation of geopolitical contradictions between world centers of power, fighting for the redivision of the world. The state of chaos and confusion that arose in the world community in connection with the events in Ukraine and the Middle East gives this process a special urgency. The state of deep socioeconomic crisis that has engulfed many countries is a powerful catalyst for the aggravation of ethnopolitical tension. Ethnopolitical conflicts always have a specific historical content. There are no technologies for their settlement that can be used in any situation and in different regions of the world, not all ethnopolitical conflicts can be resolved politically by generally accepted methods, some forms of behavior of ethnic groups of the population can enter into irreconcilable conflict with the interests of the whole society, for example, ethnopolitical incitement, preaching of ethnic hatred caused by the activities of politically corrupt ethnic elites associated with the «shadow» economy, openly and directly inciting interethnic discord.

In this chapter, the authors attempt to demonstrate that respect for cultural identity of all human groups should be seen as a fundamental right. Ignoring Collective rights of indigenous peoples, those related to their cultural traditions, generally causes the lack of respect. Thus, knowledge of the cultural manifestations and their origin and meaning (as part of the history of the territories they inhabit) can conquer this respect on a par with its defense. This obviously with comprehensive training aimed to sensitize the general population in the positive assessment it deserves it different. The actions of nation-states governments with strong indigenous population has been characterized, until recently, by a remarkable disregard for indigenous cultures, having as a result the result of which such attitude, today from the non - indigenous perspective indigenous cultural manifestations are reduced to colorful folklore shows, when not seen as backward and primitive traditions. This chapter delves deeply into the legal framework for the protection of collective and cultural rights of indigenous peoples. The authors also attempt to show the weaknesses of the law and how states should act to strengthen them. Proposed article does emphasis on indigenous traditional knowledge and not in a wider debate on the topic of knowledge in general.

The food sovereignty movement initiated in 1996 by a transnational organization of peasants, La Via Campesina, representing 148 organizations from 69 countries, became central to self-determination and decolonial mobilization embodied by Indigenous peoples throughout the world. Utilizing the framework of decolonization and sustainable self-determination, this article analyzes the concept of food sovereignty to articulate an understanding of its potential for action in revitalizing Indigenous food practices and ecological knowledge in the United States and Canada. The food sovereignty movement challenged the hegemony of the globalized, neoliberal, industrial, capital-intensive, corporate-led model of agriculture that created destructive economic policies that marginalized small-scale farmers, removed them from their land, and forced them into the global market economy as wage laborers. Framed within a larger rights discourse, the food sovereignty movement called for the right of all peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food and the right to define their own food and agricultural systems. “Indigenizing” food sovereignty moves beyond a rights based discourse by emphasizing the cultural responsibilities and relationships Indigenous peoples have with their environment and the efforts being made by Indigenous communities to restore these relationships through the revitalization of Indigenous foods and ecological knowledge systems as they assert control over their own foods and practices.

In this paper, we assess factors that underlie the relationship between gardening and improved mental health and food security outcomes among displaced people. Drawing on a mixed method study of refugee gardeners in New York, we argue that a food sovereignty framework better incorporates crucial factors such as cultural appropriateness of food, autonomy over food choices, and promotion of health and community, as compared with a food security analysis. We draw commonalities between Indigenous food sovereignty scholarship and the resettled refugee experience, making connections across conceptual and material divisions in scholarly literature and funding institutions. Our work helps researchers and practitioners understand the impacts of gardening on social and material outcomes for displaced people, and suggests global linkages between dispossessed immigrant and Indigenous peoples’ food sovereignty movements.

This paper explores the impact of cultural background on an individual's perception and understanding in the context of learning and training, through a neuroscientific and psychological lens. The aim is to synthesize key insights from interdisciplinary research, focusing on the connections between neuroscience, psychology, education, and culture. By reviewing a wide range of peer-reviewed studies, the paper examines how culture influences cognition, emotion, and morality. It also highlights the persistence of neuromyths among educators, particularly in Spanish-speaking countries and Latin America, and discusses their implications for pedagogical practices (Lithander et al., 2024; Gleichgerrcht et al., 2015). The paper examines neurobiological perspectives on cognition, emotion, and moral reasoning (Cohen, 2005; Shenhav et al., 2017), offering a deeper understanding of how cultural contexts shape emotional and moral behavior. Additionally, the review explores neuroscientific research on the neural mechanisms underlying social learning, memory, and hierarchy-related interactions, contributing to the understanding of the social dimensions of neuroscience (Pan et al., 2022). The role of creativity, brain plasticity, and physical activity in aging populations is also examined (Frith et al., 2022). Cognitive mechanisms, including rhythm perception (Grahn, 2012), intertemporal decision-making (Shenhav et al., 2017), and language development (Sussman et al., 2023), are analyzed from a neuroscientific perspective, providing insight into how the brain processes complex cognitive tasks. Furthermore, the paper discusses emerging research linking neuroscience with cultural anthropology (Sarto-Jackson et al., 2017), emphasizing the bidirectional influences between biology, environment, and behavior. By exploring how neuroscience informs transcultural psychiatry, social learning, and moral decision-making, the paper highlights the feedback loop between culture, behavior, and mental health (Choudhary & Kirmayer, 2009). In conclusion, this review emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary approaches to better understand the brain, cognition, and behavior, and calls for further integration of neuroscientific, psychological, and cultural perspectives to advance our knowledge of human development, learning, and societal functioning.

Este artigo analisa as causas da disparidade nos direitos coletivos conquistados por grupos afro-latinos durante as recentes iniciativas de reformas relacionadas à cidadania multicultural na América Latina. Em vez de atribuir o maior êxito dos índios na conquista desses direitos a diferenças no tamanho da população e a níveis mais elevados de identidade de grupo ou de organização dos movimentos indígenas, a autora sustenta que a principal causa da disparidade está no fato de os direitos serem atribuídos levando em conta uma identidade de grupo distinta, definida por meio de critérios étnicos ou culturais. Os índios estão, em geral, melhor posicionados do que a maioria dos afro-latinos para reivindicar uma identidade de grupo étnico, distinta da cultural nacional, e por isso foram mais bem-sucedidos na conquista dos direitos coletivos. A autora sugere ainda que uma das conseqüências potencialmente negativas da vinculação dos direitos coletivos à diferença cultural é que isso pode levar os grupos indígenas e afro-latinos a privilegiar, como fundamento para a mobilização política, temas relacionados ao reconhecimento cultural, em detrimento dos temas centrados na discriminação racial.

This article analyses the causes of the disparity in collective rights gained by indigenous and Afro-Latin groups in recent rounds of multicultural citizenship reform in Latin America. Instead of attributing the greater success of indians in winning collective rights to differences in population size, higher levels of indigenous group identity or higher levels of organisation of the indigenous movement, it is argued that the main cause of the disparity is the fact that collective rights are adjudicated on the basis of possessing a distinct group identity defined in cultural or ethnic terms. Indians are generally better positioned than most Afro-Latinos to claim ethnic group identities separate from the national culture and have therefore been more successful in winning collective rights. It is suggested that one of the potentially negative consequences of basing group rights on the assertion of cultural difference is that it might lead indigenous groups and Afro-Latinos to privilege issues of cultural recognition over questions of racial discrimination as bases for political mobilisation in the era of multicultural politics.

International agricultural commodity trade is central to the livelihoods of millions of farmers across the globe, and to most countries' food security strategies. Yet global trade policies are contributing to food insecurity and are undermining livelihoods. Food Sovereignty emerged in part as the articulation of resistance to the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and the imposition of multilateral trade disciplines on domestic agriculture policy. While not explicitly rejecting trade, the food sovereignty movement is identified with a strong preference for local markets. It challenges existing international trade structures, and on the whole its official position on trade remains ambiguous. We argue that trade remains important to the realization of the livelihoods of small-scale producers, including peasants active in the Food Sovereignty movement. It also matters for food security. That it remains underexplored by the movement risks marginalizing millions of smallholder producers, and risks overlooking opportunities to shape trade rules along more food sovereign lines. The authors suggest further development of the movement's position on trade is strategically important.

The food sovereignty movement is a global alliance of peasants aiming to create democratic, sustainable, and decentralized food systems. The radical strategy of the movement, aimed at promoting a global peasant identity and collective action for food systems’ transformation, is a community development endeavour that encompasses processes of social learning, community building, and community organizing. The food sovereignty movement provides relevant insights about the ethical challenges involved in building and mobilizing transnational solidarity. This paper explores the global food sovereignty movement of La Vía Campesina and two cases of local, farmer-led movements in India, namely Navdanya and The Deccan Development Society, through a constructivist qualitative case study methodological design. The paper analyses the ethical challenges experienced and explores the roles and responsibilities that community development workers play in facilitating transformative social change in the food systems. This paper demonstrates that the main challenge of building solidarity involves reconciling multiple visions and practice frameworks, through the respect of diversity and democratic choice. Finally, the paper highlights ethical considerations (such as overcoming binary logics), the crafting of community-led discourses, and pedagogical practices (such as Wisdom Dialogues), as key elements to guide community development workers to aid the facilitation of processes for identity building, conscientization, and collective action.

This paper explores the similarities between Kropotkin's vision of a just food system and the food sovereignty movement, with the concrete example of the work of OrganicLea. It will begin with an analysis of the deepening problems of our food system through food insecurity and its negative impact upon the environment. The second part will introduce the idea of food sovereignty and show how it intersects with Kropotkin's work, with it being argued that a just food system is one that recognises central aspects of both; alongside local and collective ownership, the well-being of all, regenerative agriculture and a commitment to wider social and environmental justice. I will then show how such principles are being put into practice through the work and direct action of OrganicLea. This will reveal how Kropotkin's thought is still relevant today and how it can be used to address contemporary concerns such as food insecurity and climate change. The paper will also consider the limitations of Kropotkin, including his time-restricted ideas, and the need for new perspectives such as those found in OrganicLea and the food sovereignty movement.

A new book, Promised Land: Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform, edited by Peter Rosset, Raj Patel and Michael Courville is considered. This book, via both general analytical treatment and a series of case studies set in Latin America, Asia and Africa, offers a powerful critique of the World Bank's market‐led agrarian reform (MLAR) and provides an alternative model of agrarian reform, the ‘food sovereignty movement’, that has been articulated by La Via Campesina. Food sovereignty requires that priority be allocated to the domestic production of food and that a right to land be given to small farmers and their families. It is a vision of agrarian reform, with an emphasis on smallholder farming and the transformative power of rural social movements, that has truly emerged ‘from below’. The critique of MLAR is compelling. It is argued in this essay, however, that two crucial questions are abstracted from. The first is that of the vastly differing sets of social relations that exist (compare, say, socialist Cuba and capitalist Brazil) and their implications. It is not clear that food sovereignty can, in effect, offer a coherent political economy of an alternative global agrarianism. The second relates to the implicit assumption, found throughout the book, that the peasantry is a homogeneous, undifferentiated social group. This is manifestly not so, and what the existence of socially differentiated peasantries implies requires careful examination.