Thinking beyond "Modernization"

Many of this week’s articles discussed the development of various food industries over time. Be it fisheries, agriculture or the meat industry, all sectors have undergone drastic changes and no longer resemble their original selves, having transformed from small-scale sectors to massive, modern industries, negatively impacting the natural environment as well as many human lives.

Both Young and Mansfield demonstrate how fisheries were transformed by state policies centralizing resource management and later pushing fisheries into the free market. As Mansfield says, “government policies have encouraged industrialization of fisheries in the name of economic development and modernization” (84) which has subsequently lead to the depletion of stocks as well as to the marginalization of many groups dependent upon fisheries (94). Young’s Baja California Sur case study demonstrates how local communities have indeed suffered from such developments: centralized state resource control encouraged outside encroachment on fishing grounds, thus marginalizing local fishers and increasing marine exploitation which was further exacerbated when the region opened up to the market.

Similarly, the agriculture and livestock industries have undergone a process of “modernization” which has had detrimental impacts on the environment and negative consequences for farmers. While Guthman does not address in detail the negative effects of intensified agriculture on the environment, she effectively reveals how US food policy has led to major intensification and expansion of agriculture and that taking a free market approach has not been able to break this pattern. Many farmers, particularly in developing countries have even been driven out of business due to US farm policies, which have enabled overproduction and reduction of the US prices of grain (61). Emel et al. discuss the environmental degradation of the livestock industry, which has resulted from a similar intensification of the industry striving for higher profits while “robbing” individual farmers of their independence (75). As they say, “the search for ever lower costs of production and ever greater profits has meant that local people, workers, animals and the environment get squeezed and squeezed more” (79).

While focusing on different issues within the various food production sectors, all authors allude to the downward spiral of “modernization”, and what Mansfield even refers to as “Americanization” (90). Ironically, this desire for progress, which state policies have tried to achieve through intensifying industries and extracting the natural resources the industry relies on at highly unsustainable rates, has led to a situation in which the only sustainable solution may be to “de-modernize” current practices. Modern technologies have allowed states to severely overexploit the environment: intensified agriculture has caused soil nutrient depletion and many fish populations have reached levels so low, recovery will be slow, if it is at all possible.

Thus, traditional farming, fishing and livestock practices have been increasingly examined to inspire more sustainable ways of resource extractions. Since the articles showed that state centralizing policies as well as open market policies have failed to sustainably “modernize” the food industries, new solutions must be found. Policies need to address downsizing instead of intensifying. This is a difficult task, however, as economies have become so dependent on large volumes enabled by past policies (subsidies etc.) and extracting technologies (trawling etc.). It will also be a challenge to downsize people’s attitudes and expectations.

Thinking about this critical turning point we have reached in relation to political ecology made me realize that, interestingly, if one looks at the current situation, two of the three pillars of political ecology have been very active in the equation of "modernization": the problem has been driven by political economy factors (ie. by the market) – the problem has had negative impacts on our natural environment – and it seems like agency has been suppressed or rather absent. While agency is present in certain forms of resistance etc. (ie fishers in mexico) it seems quite small-scale. Is agency the missing part of the equation? Could increased agency of those who have been marginalized by “modernization” achieve positive results and reform flawed policies? Could Young’s example of communities demanding control be recreated and multiplied on a large scale to have a higher impact?

Works Cited

Emel J and Neo H. 2011. Chapter 3 in Peet et al. Killing for Profit: Global Livestock Industries and their Socio-Ecological Implications

Guthman J. 2011. Chapter 2 in Peet et al. Excess Consumption or Over-production: US Farm Policy, Global Warming, and the Bizarre Attribution of Obesity

Young, E. (2001). State Intervention and Abuse of the Commons: Fisheries Development in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Annals of the Association of American Geographers Vol. 91(1): 283-306.

Mansfield B. 2011. Chapter 4 in Peet et al.. "Modern" Industrial Fisheries and the Crisis of Overfishing