Summary
The abusive and indiscriminate use of agrochemicals has become a habit, with short and long-term health and environmental consequences. The current situation points to a continuity and aggravation of these problems as time passes, accompanied by a deterioration in environmental conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to question the paradigms that govern these practices and their consequences. How do agro-industries influence the populations exposed to their practices? And what role do these populations play? How are both parties related within community processes? How is it possible to bring about a change in these relationships?
Key words: Agrochemicals, Paradigms, agro-industries, populations, community processes.
In this work we will reflect on the relevance of taking into account:
- The role of agricultural corporations:
- In power relations, in the objectification of subjects, in the devaluation of the environment and of people, in the advancement of the loss of meaning, and naturalization as an institution, in the instituted, as a group.
- In the production of subjectivities. As an institution, in the instituting, as groups. Critical position, critical perspective and situated knowledge.
Agrochemicals are considered:
Any substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy or control any pest, including vectors of human or animal diseases, unwanted species of plants or animals that cause harm or that interfere in any way in the production, processing, storage, transport or marketing of food, agricultural products, wood and wood products, or animal feed or that can be administered to animals to combat pests. Including the substances or mixture of substances used to regulate the growth of plants, and the substances applied to the soil and crops before or after harvest to protect the product.
1) The role of agricultural corporations in:
to. Power relationships:
Those who pay the costs of the continuity of this model are the peasants, the consumers and the environment. The "new" GMOs and other new technologies further reveal that the sole objective of these seeds is and will be the corporate control of agriculture, seeds and farmers - regardless of the consequences of these on health and the environment-
In this problem, it is shown that the Seed - Agrotoxic group is part of a corporate power that is reflected through the relationships between:
- Agro-industries and those affected: (Agro-industries use herbicides such as "glyphosate" to scare away insects and crop pests, without taking into account the harmful effects of said product on the health of people close to the place where the Agribusiness and farmers: (These companies use genetic engineering to manipulate the seeds and together with them sell the herbicides to protect them, with the aim of doubling production and responding to the demand for food, and consequently the greater Some farmers incorporate these effective methods to ensure their crops and not be left out of the market).
Taking into account Foucault's (1972) perspective, these relationships could be identified as power relationships since they are the effect of consent, but they are not by nature the manifestation of a consensus, at the same time, a strategic game between freedoms is implied (some determine the behavior of others and these others can determine the behavior of the former, or let their behavior be determined), and there is no violence, so it is not a domain relationship.
On the other hand, according to the arguments of the corporations, the challenge is to nurture a world in which inequality and hunger prevail, but to achieve their goal they use toxic herbicides to ward off pests and genetically manipulate crops to make them more resistant to herbicides.. It is contradictory for these agro-industries to use their power - to determine the behavior of others in Foucault's proposed game of freedoms - for ethical purposes when they exercise social control by imposing these types of agricultural practices that have greater economic than humanitarian benefits.
In this task of "Administration" of life, the "Biopower" (Power over life) that Foucault proposes is reflected, and which demonstrates how calculations and control exercise dominance over human life, influencing it through economic strategies. This Biopower is then linked with the capitalist economic system: "Biopower is an indispensable element of capitalism" (Cristina Solange Donda, 2003)
b. Subject objectification:
Fernández (2009) in “The unequal differences”, proposes the idea that within the power relations “unequal differences” operate, referring to a mode of construction of modern truth that has naturalized exclusions and discriminations and has only been able to think "Other" as aliens, threats or "objects without rights", and in turn raises the relationship that capitalist logics have in the production of solitudes, stating that: "the empire today" globalizes "production and concentrates capital, biopolitical devices Current isolation and vulnerability are also essential for their reproduction. The loneliness factory separates, isolates each one of its powers ”
Undoubtedly, agro-corporations are linked to the “loneliness factory” (which isolate and separate the subjects from their rights, which make those affected by their practices - the unequal ones - feel in inferior, disadvantaged conditions). At the same time that they contribute to unequal differences
On the other hand, from the perspective of Anzaldúa Arce (2012) in “Childhoods and adolescents in the framework of the processes of subjectivation” a capitalism has been established that constitutes a social devastation with the aim of maximizing the profits of a privileged group and increasingly reduced, of entrepreneurs who dominate production, the market and finance. This author maintains that this same capitalism also destroys nature, putting both the planet and the affected peoples at risk, “undermining their ways of life, their culture and their values. It annihilates them by taking away their material and spiritual wealth, drowning them in misery. ”(Anzaldúa Arce, 2012, page 200)
This reflects the influence that agribusinesses have on the significance of the subjects and how they promote their "objectification".
c. Devaluation of the environment and people (loss of consciousness):
Taking as a starting point the text “Whose nature is it? On the social reappropriation of natural resources ”by Enrique Leff, it is possible to suppose that the dominant economy tries to value nature as capital, when there is no economic, ecological or technological instrument of evaluation with which the" real value "can be calculated of the nature. This valuation of natural resources is subject to temporalities that do not correspond to economic cycles or to social and cultural processes that cannot be reduced to the economic sphere. So, thinking about the environmental conditions of production implies the need to characterize the social processes that underlie the value of nature.
This author maintains that the problem of the valorization of nature goes beyond the different processes of physical and biological order, that the production of use values depends on the cultural styles and social interests that define the forms of appropriation, transformation and use of resources, which are established through power relations between the market and non-commercial companies.
Transferring this to this type of practices, we can say that agricultural corporations carry out an assessment of nature based on social and economic interests that are going to bring a benefit to them but a harm to nature and people. Based on these interests, the use of resources will be modified for purposes intended to satisfy those interests (establishing relationships between the market - which will satisfy their demands through these corporations - and consumers - who will satisfy their needs through From the market).
But it is necessary to ask at this point, what role do those who are not part of this relationship play? What happens to those who do not have access to this consumption and to those who are affected by the practices that it generates?
At this point, the author Anzaldúa Arce (2012) proposes that in this polarization that exists between those who can consume (consumption subjects) and those who do not have access to consumption, devaluations with respect to the “Real” world occur, and citing Castoriadis (1997) argues that in polarized societies and in today's paradoxical cultures, "The advance of insignificance" - loss of meaning - occurs.
In the case of the abuse of nature and its exploitation by means of toxins harmful to human health, it is possible to speak of a latent loss of meanings that lead us to think of the subject as "objects" and not as "subjects with rights ”, then, through these practices, great insignificance is granted to the life of the other, to their health and to the environment in which they live. This is manifested through generalized conformity (the inability to develop critical thinking and political demobilization) and the crisis in the identification process (with the promotion of contradictory identity models) (Castoriadis, 1997)
In this social problem, the general conformism is observed in agricultural workers who adhere to the practices and the crisis in the identification process in consumer societies, who –mostly- show greater interest in the type of food quality that they will consume based on their interests, tastes and needs, but they are not interested in the previous process that was carried out so that these foods reach the market.
This can be linked to the perspective of the author Graciela Scheines, who in her work "Innocent Games, Terrible Games" characterizes "consumer cultures" as superficial and calls them "consumer ignorance", since here the problems are simplified, masking fascist attitudes.
d. Naturalization:
Plaza (2007) citing Montero's (2004) idea about “community psychosocial processes” that include “properly community psychosocial phenomena” affirms that there are processes that tend to maintain a certain state of affairs, and among others, he finds “Naturalization” which implies “accepting, knowing and relating to the strange, with the diverse; to make it acceptable, admissible and internalize it, considering it part of the Way of being in the world ”(Plaza, 2007, page 5)
In the problems exposed in this work, there is a naturalization of agricultural practices both on the part of the agro-industries which consider them “acceptable” as they have an “ethical” purpose (feeding the world), that is, they naturalize their actions to continue generating profits, as well as from farmers (who see these practices as their only possibility of not being left out of the production market) and consumers (who are aware of them or not, continue to buy products that come from this type of practices).
The opposite process, -denaturation- occurs in those affected, who denature these practices by manifesting how harmful they are to their health.
and. As an institution, in the instituted, as a group:
Firstly , Dubet (2006) in “The Decline of the Institution” says that the term “institution” refers to the social events that are organized, are transmitted from one generation to the next and are imposed on individuals, that institutions they are ways of being, objects, ways of thinking. Therefore, he calls the customs, the habits, the rules of the market an institution.
At this point, agroindustries can be thought of as Institutions, as legal regulatory bodies, ways of thinking, which are materialized in an organization that gives them body, form.
Secondly, the role of agricultural corporations can be linked to the notion of “Instituted” raised by Javier Cristiano (2008), citing Castoriadis, who defines the instituted as those imaginary social meanings that have an existence fixed on institutions, and they refer to what is established, what is imposed.
In turn, agricultural practices can be located within what Castoriadis -characterizing the expansion of the rational domain of the world- calls: "Central imaginary significance"
In other words, the “idea that the world is there to be appropriated and controlled by reason” (Christian, 2008) that these corporations possess, are part of a central imaginary meaning that gives rise to an infinity of other meanings (which they are deployed in society) and that are part of the institutional and the instituted.
These corporations, in turn, can be understood, taking into account the ideas of Bonvillani (2011) in “Group journeys” as groups (as long as they have a mutual and joint interaction, a shared objective or interest, a link-structure plot - whose indicator in this case would be its link with power) with an institutional setting, due to the fact that they have a higher level of formalization and an adherence to regulations (setting), that is, that goals and tasks have greater structuring importance than in groups spontaneous.
On the other hand, Bonvillani differentiates different needs and motivations that can articulate people with groups, and in this case if we reflect on agribusinesses as groups, we can link them to the "Need for power", where through participation intends to exercise representation (to sustain its corporate power, maintain and expand its earnings)
2) The role of the populations exposed to their practices:
to. Production of subjectivities, possibilities of resistance:
At this point, it is essential to think about the role of the populations exposed to these agricultural practices based on the importance of the construction of subjectivities, which constitute these people as "Subjects" and not as "Objects without rights" (from the perspective of agro-industries)
From Foucault's perspective, subjectivity refers to "the way in which human beings constitute themselves as subjects based on the experience they make of themselves…" and for Anzauldúa Arce (2012): "subjectivity is a process of complex organization of subjectivation that emerges from the relationship of the subject with the world and others, in which the subject that constitutes "
Now, once these people can be thought of in terms of "subjects of subjectivity", one can reflect on the set of tensions in which they participate in society. At this point, the idea of power relations proposed by Foucault can be introduced, since he affirms that: “a power relationship is articulated on two elements: (…) that the other that on which it exercises , is fully recognized and Maintain itself as a subject of action - it aims to recognize the other as a subject - and to open up, in front of the power relationship, a whole field of responses, reactions, effects and possible inventions”(Foucault, 1988) This last condition refers to the“ Possibilities of resistance ”existing in any power relationship, and which make it possible to make reality a strategic problem, to create freedom (Foucault, 1987). Undoubtedly, these possibilities are manifested in this problem -through the campaigns that reflect the struggle of the fumigated peoples-
Foucault's idea of the possibilities of resistance can be related to the position of Ana María Fernández (2009), who states that if there are multiple power relations, it is necessary to think simultaneously about the construction of multiple “emancipation strategies” and quotes Spinoza, who speaks of the need to configure "joyous passions" in the face of "sad passions" (those that the tyrant imposes to subdue his subjects)
As well as a relationship can be established between these proposals and that of Dubet (2006) that proposes that “obedience creates freedom, because it generates a reservation, a possibility to oppose the laws when they stop being fair”, and the idea of Del Cueto (quoted by Bonvillani, 2011) who affirms “there are lines of flight (…) that give rise to the new. Multiple subjectivities exposed in the group scene ”.
c. As an institution, institutionally, as groups:
These affected populations can be thought of as "Groups" taking as a starting point Bonvillani (2011) who reflects on understanding the group as a material and symbolic space where subjectivation processes are developed, in which "imaginary meanings" are generated. responsible for providing identity to society. "These social meanings shape particular group productions because they are present in the subjectivities of their members" (Bonvillani, 2011)
In turn, these populations, as groups, can be understood as institutions from the point of view of Castoriadis, who "conceives of the social as an institution - as an institute and as an institute -" (Javier Cristiano, 2009)
And as institutors, since those affected have the need to denature this problem, making their reality known and manifesting themselves to transform the problem, therefore, they assume the role of the "instituting" that "creates imaginary meanings" (Javier Cristiano, 2009)
Then, it can be affirmed that the institutional goes through the processes of subjectivation when venturing within these groups, since subjectivity is constructed from the experiences that are made known within the link with others.
These populations (as groups, institutions, and institutions) affected by the actions of agro-corporations, through the possibilities of resistance (Foucault), emancipation strategies (Fernández), joyful passions (Spinoza), The possibility of opposing laws (Dubet), and lines of flight (Del Cueto), can bring forth the new, act on the instituted by questioning these established actions to transform them, think about what "could be", that is, create what “Instituent” in order to promote their autonomy and the fulfillment of their rights.
c. Critical position; critical perspective and situated knowledge:
This conflict can be reflected from an epistemological dimension, since it is not possible to justify and carry out an intervention when a relationship, a link, cannot be established between the reality on which it is intended to act (in this case, on the situation of violation of the rights of these populations) and theoretical concepts (fundamental to intervene from an objective perspective)
As stated by Montenegro Martinez and Pujol Tarrés (2003) "When we doubt the relationship between theoretical concepts and reality, the possibility of valid knowledge generated through systematic research crumbles, and, with it, the justification for our intervention"
In other words, in order to transform the instituted into instituting, the inequality of conditions generated by the corporations into possibilities of resistance, lines of flight, etc., it is necessary to have a knowledge situated in action to question what is established, “to give meaning to that which is seen as worthy of transformation ”(Montenegro Martinez and Pujol Tarrés, 2003)
It is also necessary to take into account to think how to act against this problem, the perspective of Solitario, Garbus and Stolkiner (2007) who affirm that to build theoretical concepts it is necessary the intervention of interdisciplinary teams that allow us to go deeper into citizen and human rights basic - that in this problem are violated - For this reason, it is beneficial for these affected populations, the integration of various disciplinary fields (including non-professionals) who think about the problem from different perspectives.
3) How the corporations and affected populations interact within the community processes:
It is possible to understand this problem from community processes, since the factors that affect this conflict (economic, political factors), the actors linked to these factors (corporations) and the people affected by it, are part of complex and dynamic processes crossed by various meanings (for corporations that promote this type of agricultural practices, they are related to economic capital, but in the case of victims of the application of agrochemicals, the meanings are linked to their need to fight against a conflict that It damages their health) So, these processes do not occur in a specific territory, but within a complex network of meanings that are interrelated and are crossed by a social and historical context,as well as by socio-political processes. “We are not talking about isolated, biased, fragmented community processes. We speak of processes subject, crossed, in conflict or not, manifest or latent, with their contexts ”(Plaza, 2007).
From Plaza's thinking (2007), if we think about the role of agro-industries within community processes of the psychosocial type, we can see that they are governed by stable and structured behavior structures, not discussed by the market and naturally assumed by agriculture, so their role is part of community psychosocial processes that tend to maintain a certain state of affairs (naturalization, habituation, familiarization, etc.)
In addition, Plaza proposes that in these community processes relations are energized, playing an "Encounter / misunderstanding" with the other, and a "Recognition / ignorance" of the other.
The relationship of the corporations with the affected peoples can be thought of in terms of disagreement and ignorance (of what the practices cause on people and the environment.)
At this point it is essential to reflect: How is it possible to bring about a change in these relationships?
This question can be thought from the beginning of the community psychology developed by Montero (2004): "Participation".
"Montero proposes to think of community participation as an organized, collective, free, inclusive process, in which there are a variety of actors, activities and shared, in whose achievement there are community and individual transformations" (Plaza, 2007)
Conclusion:
To conclude, without a doubt, one of the goals for agribusinesses will be to be able to carry out a method of sustainable agriculture that does not affect the health of the subjects or the environment. While, in oppressed peoples are the possibilities of introducing the importance of this type of sustainable practices and the value of their rights as subjects.
For this to happen, it is essential that corporations practice agriculture respecting the peoples, the planet, and all living beings that inhabit it. And for this, the intervention of both professionals and those affected by this situation is necessary to be able to think of different possibilities of solution collectively.
"There is no single principle of social transformation. Likewise, there are no historical agents nor a single form of domination. The faces of domination and oppression are multiple, the forms and agents of resistance to them must also be diverse. More than a common theory, what is required is a translation theory capable of making the different struggles mutually intelligible, thus allowing the collective actors to express themselves about the oppressions they resist and the aspirations that mobilize them ”. Boaventura De Sousa
Bibliography:
- Adriana Torriggino (2003) Agrochemicals and health. At a glance and many edges. Agroindustrial poisons. (2013) Recovered from: http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4711-de-un-vistazo-y-muchas-aristas-venenos-agroindustriales Enrique Leff (1995) Whose nature is it? On the social reappropriation of natural resources. Ecological Gazette. No. 37: 28-35. Recovered from: http://www.buyteknet.info/fileshare/data/ana_pla_sis_amb/ELeff1995GacEcol.pdfGraciela Scheines () Innocent Games, Terrible Games.Marcos Tomasoni (2013) NO CONTROLLABLE FUMIGATION: GENERATION OF PESTICIDE DERIVATIVES. UNIVERSITY NETWORK OF ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH / Network of Doctors of Fumigated towns.
