IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i17p7092-d406474.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systems of Food and Systems of Violence: An Intervention for the Special Issue on “Community Self Organisation, Sustainability and Resilience in Food Systems”

Author

Listed:
  • Mama D. Ujuaje

    (Community Centred Knowledge, c/o The Impact Hub Islington, 27 Dingley Place, London EC1V 8BR, UK)

  • Marina Chang

    (Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Ryton Gardens, Wolston Lane, Coventry CV8 3LG, UK)

Abstract

This intervention critiques the rationale which underpins the authority of the food system as a context for sustainability, resilience and self-organisation. We apply learning from embodied practice, in particular The Food Journey © , to demonstrate the existence of harm and trauma arising from the overrepresentation of the liberal model of Man as constituting the only reality of humanity. This model has, in reality been a colonial, capitalising force of violent dispossession. It is this context that has produced global circulations of agricultural produce, systematised by a colonialism which violates the integrity of all that it encounters as different. Colonialities of being, power and knowledge extract and exploit globally both people and places as legacies of colonialism and perpetuate an abyssal divide between worlds. We unsettle and reconfigure both geopolitical contemporary and historic accounts of food-related narratives. We do this to help reveal how the ‘food system’ is actually a mainly Euro-American-centred narrative of dispossession, presented as universal. We propose the use of decolonial tools that are pluriversal, ecological and embodied as a means of interrogating the present system design, including its academic and field practice. The embrace of decolonial tools have the potential to take us beyond mere emancipation, cutting through old definitions and understandings of how food sovereignty, farm production, land justice and food itself are understood and applied as concepts. The outcome—as a continuous process of engagement, learning and redefinition—can then lead us towards a relational pluriverse as an expression of freedom and full nourishment for all humans and for the Earth, which is, in itself, a necessary healing.

Suggested Citation

  • Mama D. Ujuaje & Marina Chang, 2020. "Systems of Food and Systems of Violence: An Intervention for the Special Issue on “Community Self Organisation, Sustainability and Resilience in Food Systems”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-30, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:7092-:d:406474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/7092/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/7092/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stern, Philip J., 2011. "The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195393736.
    2. Sara Horrell & Deborah Oxley, 2012. "Bringing home the bacon? Regional nutrition, stature, and gender in the industrial revolution," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 65(4), pages 1354-1379, November.
    3. Jude Fransman & Kate Newman, 2019. "Rethinking research partnerships: Evidence and the politics of participation in research partnerships for international development," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(7), pages 523-544, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dan Bogart, 2016. "The East Indian Monopoly and the Transition from Limited Access in England, 1600–1813," NBER Chapters, in: Organizations, Civil Society, and the Roots of Development, pages 23-49, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Tamina M. Chowdhury, 2016. "Raids, annexation and plough: Transformation through territorialisation in nineteenth-century Chittagong Hill Tracts," The Indian Economic & Social History Review, , vol. 53(2), pages 183-224, April.
    3. Horrell, Sara & Oxley, Deborah, 2016. "Gender bias in nineteenth-century England: Evidence from factory children," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 47-64.
    4. Benjamin Schneider, 2022. "Good Jobs and Bad Jobs in History," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _202, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    5. Bailey, Roy E. & Hatton, Timothy J. & Inwood, Kris, 2014. "Health, Height and the Household at the Turn of the 20th Century," IZA Discussion Papers 8128, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Douglas Howland, 2019. "Sovereign Claims and Possessions – The Beginnings of the Territorial State," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 7(6), pages 71-84, November.
    7. Richard J. Blakemore, 2017. "Pieces of eight, pieces of eight: seamen's earnings and the venture economy of early modern seafaring," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 70(4), pages 1153-1184, November.
    8. Joseph P. Garske, 2018. "Anglophone and Civilian Legal Cultures: Two understandings of human trust for the global age," Academicus International Scientific Journal, Entrepreneurship Training Center Albania, issue 18, pages 34-41, February.
    9. Thomas Leng, 2016. "Interlopers and disorderly brethren at the Stade Mart: commercial regulations and practices amongst the Merchant Adventurers of England in the late Elizabethan period," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 69(3), pages 823-843, August.
    10. Thomas Daum & Regina Birner, 2022. "The forgotten agriculture-nutrition link: farm technologies and human energy requirements," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(2), pages 395-409, April.
    11. Nogues-Marco, Pilar, 2020. "Measuring Colonial Extraction: The East India Company’s Rule and the Drain of Wealth (1757-1858)," CEPR Discussion Papers 15431, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Tigist Grieve & Rafael Mitchell, 0. "Promoting Meaningful and Equitable Relationships? Exploring the UK’s Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) Funding Criteria from the Perspectives of African Partners," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 0, pages 1-15.
    13. Koepke, Nikola & Floris, Joël & Pfister, Christian & Rühli, Frank J. & Staub, Kaspar, 2018. "Ladies first: Female and male adult height in Switzerland, 1770–1930," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 76-87.
    14. Morgan Kelly & Joel Mokyr & Cormac Ó Gráda, 2023. "The Mechanics of the Industrial Revolution," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(1), pages 59-94.
    15. Kota Ogasawara, 2018. "Consumption smoothing in the working-class households of interwar Japan," Papers 1807.05737, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    16. Morgan Kelly & Joel Mokyr & Cormac Ó Gráda, 2015. "Roots of the Industrial Revolution," Working Papers 201524, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    17. Ian Gazeley & Sara Horrell, 2013. "Nutrition in the English agricultural labourer's household over the course of the long nineteenth century," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 66(3), pages 757-784, August.
    18. John Gaventa & Anuradha Joshi & Colin Anderson, 2023. "Citizen action for accountability in challenging contexts: What have we learned?," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(S1), March.
    19. Benjamin Schneider, 2023. "Technological unemployment in the British industrial revolution: the destruction of hand spinning," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _207, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    20. Tigist Grieve & Rafael Mitchell, 2020. "Promoting Meaningful and Equitable Relationships? Exploring the UK’s Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) Funding Criteria from the Perspectives of African Partners," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 32(3), pages 514-528, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:7092-:d:406474. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.