MA  Development  Studies  2011-­‐2012  Institute  of  Development  Studies,  Brighton    Alexandra  Wanjiku  Kelbert    September  2012    

 

 

 

 

Beyond  the  North-­South  divide:  exploring  alternative  discourses  in  development  –  

An  analysis  of  the  articulation  of  the  local  and  the  global  in  the  Confédération  Paysanne’s  agricultural  narrative  in  

France    

 

Key  words:  France,  development,  agriculture,   social  movement,  Confédération  Paysanne,  

narratives,  binaries,  North/South,  local/global.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Word  count:  10756  

  2  

Synopsis  

Over  the  years,  the  key  debate  pertaining  to  the  issue  of  agriculture  has  tended  to  revolve  

around   a   North/South   divide,   typically   located   at   the   global   level   of   World   Trade  

Organisation   roundtables,   whereby   two   distinct   and   seemingly   homogenous   blocs   have  

emerged:  one  flooded  with  subsidies  and  whose  farmers  fight  for  more  privileges,  the  other  

struggling  for  a   level-­playing  field  and  access  to  such  privileges.  While  the  division  of  the  

world  into  a  rich  and  exploitative  ‘North’  and  a  poor  and  exploited  ‘South’  has  given  rise  to  

politically   important   geographies   of   development,   it   is   crucial   that   dominant   binary  

narratives  do  not  block  out  alternative  accounts  of  the  issue  of  agriculture.  Indeed,  the  case  

study   of   the   Confédération   Paysanne,   a   French   farmers’   union,   shows   that   this   binary  

distinction   can   and   indeed   has   been   challenged   so   as   to   recognise   more   complex  

interactions.  Thus,  by  looking  at  the  work  and  vision  of  the  organisation,  this  paper  points  

to  the  existence  of  different  understandings  of  the  relationship  between  the  local  and  the  

global,  the  ‘here’  and  the  ‘there’.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  3  

Acknowledgements  

 

I  would   like   to  thank  all   those  who  participated   in   the  research  process  and  agreed  to  take   part   in   interviews.   Special   thanks   to   Geneviève   Savigny   for   helping  me   establish  initial   contact   with   some   members   of   the   Confédération   Paysanne   thus   making   the  writing  of  this  paper  possible.  

Many   thanks   to  my   family,   Farhang  Morady   and  Marcus   for   their   continued   support.  Thanks  also   to   those  at   IDS   that   reminded  me   that   it  was  possible   to   reconcile   theory  with   practice,   academia   with   activism,   and   that   there   was   no   reason   why   France  shouldn’t  be  in  the  picture  too.  

My  greatest   ‘thank  you’   goes   to  Kas   (Maria  Cascant-­‐Sempere,  Participation  Power  and  Social  Change  Team),  and  the  invaluable  supervision  I  received,  which  made  the  process  of  dissertation  writing  a  fun  and  exciting  one.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  4  

List  of  abbreviations  and  acronyms  

 

AoA       Agreement  on  Agriculture  

ADEAR     Association  pour  le  Développement  de  l’Emploi  Agricole  et  Rural    

ATTAC       Association  for  the  Tobin  Tax  for  the  Aid  of  Citizens  

CAP         Common  Agricultural  Policy  

CP         Confédération  Paysanne  

CPE       Coordination  Paysanne  Européenne  

EU         European  Union  

Eurovia     Coordination  Européenne  Via  Campesina  

FADEAR      Fédération  Associative  pour  le  Développement  de  l'Emploi  Agricole  et  Rural    

FNSEA       Fédération  Nationale  des  Syndicats  d’Exploitants  Agricoles  

GATT         General  Agreement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade  

UN         United  Nations  

US         United  States  

WDR08     2008  World  Development  Report    

WTO         World  Trade  Organisation  

WSF         World  Social  Forum  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  5  

Contents  

Synopsis                            2  Acknowledgements                          3  List  of  abbreviations  and  acronyms                                              4    

1.  Introduction                        6        2.  Theoretical  framework                    8  2.1 Power,  knowledge  and  the  role  of  alternative  narratives                                                    8  2.2 Dominant  binaries:  North/South  and  local/global  dualism                                        10  2.3 Dominant  narrative  in  agriculture                                      13  

 3.  Methodology                    15  3.1 Positionality  and  criteria  for  case  selection          15  3.2 Method                      16  

3.2.1 Overall  method:  the  Case  study              16  3.2.2 Data  and  techniques  used:  literature  review  and    

interviews                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    17  3.3 Participation  and  limitations              18  

3.3.1 Participatory  nature  of  the  study              18  3.3.2 Limitations                    19  

 4.  Case  study:  La  Confédération  Paysanne          20  4.1 Origins                      20  4.2 Evolution,  narrative  and  model              22  4.3 Beyond  binaries  in  agricultural  narratives:  a  critique  of  the  CAP                25  

 5.  Analysis:  ‘Think  local  (/global),  act  global  (/local)’?    28  5.1 Acting  and  thinking  in  multiple  levels            28  

5.1.1 Acting  at  different  levels                28  5.1.2 An  integrated  thinking                30  

5.2 Pros  and  cons  of  acting  and  thinking  in  multiple  levels      32  5.3 Multi-­‐levelled  thinking  in  action              33  

 6.  Conclusion                      35    

7.  Appendices                        37  7.1 List  of  interviewees                  37  7.2 Bibliography                    38  

  6  

1.  Introduction  

As  a  student  of  Development  Studies,   I  have  always  been  critically   interested   in  

the  strict  dichotomy  between  ‘here’  and  ‘there’,  especially  being  myself  a  Franco-­‐Kenyan  

testimony  to  the  permeability  of  these  allegedly  distinctive  spheres.  Many  scholars  and  

non-­‐scholars   have   repeatedly   pointed   to   a   North-­‐South   divide,   or   a   local/global  

dichotomy   (Potter   et   al.,   2004:28),   thus   creating   a   distinction   between   different  

localities.   If   the   purpose   of   this   study   is   not   to   negate   the   differences   characterising  

specific  geographical  areas,  peoples  and  practices,  it  is  important  to  question  the  validity  

of  such  frameworks,  when  narratives  and  framings  such  as  the  North-­‐South  divide  come  

to  play  a  role  in  the  way  issues  arising  in  the  global  context  are  understood  and  framed.  

In   particular,   the   aim   of   this   paper   is   to   look   at   voices   that   challenge   such   dualist  

narratives  and  the  often-­‐assumed  homogeneity  of  binary  entities.  

There   are   different   facets   to   the   dominant   narrative   in   development,   the   one  

surrounding   agricultural   models   being   one   of   them.   Over   the   years,   the   key   debate  

pertaining   to   the   issue   of   agriculture   mainly   revolved   around   a   North/South   divide,  

exemplified  by  the  case  of  the  global  dispute  over  agricultural  subsidies.  From  there,  the  

story  of  two  distinguishable  and  respectively  homogenous  camps  has  emerged,  typically  

opposing   the   North   flooded  with   subsidies   and  whose   principal   actors   fight   for   their  

privileges,   and   the   South   whose   farmers   are   struggling   for   a   level-­‐playing   field   that  

would  give  them  access  to  such  privileges  (see  World  Bank,  2007:96).  

The   belief   held   in   this   study   is   that   such   binaries   erase   the   diversity   of   experiences,  

aspirations   and   subjectivities   of   different   actors.   As   such,   this   paper   shows   that   this  

North-­‐South   dichotomy   is   being   challenged.   Indeed,   through   a   case   study   of   the  

Confédération  Paysanne,  a  farmers’  union  in  France,  this  paper  points  to  the  existence  of  

different  understandings  of  the  relationship  between  the  local  and  the  global,  the  ‘here’  

and   the   ‘there’.   Thus,   this   study   is   an   attempt   to   broaden   the   lens   through  which   the  

issue   of   agriculture   in   development   is   often   understood   and   provides   a   space   for  

alternative  narratives  to  be  heard.    

This  paper  is  structured  as  follows:  

The   first   section   introduces   the   theoretical   framework  supporting   this   study.  The   first  

part   outlines   the   assumption   underpinning   this   paper   that   the   creation   of   alternative  

  7  

narratives  constitutes  an  important  strategy  of  resistance,  by  looking  at  the  concepts  of  

power,   knowledge   and   resistance,   and   the   role   of   narratives   and   discourses.   Using  

literature   produced   by   scholars   of   globalisation,   geography   and   development,   the  

second  part  introduces  the  dominant  binaries  this  paper  seeks  to  challenge,  namely  the  

North/South   and   local/global   binaries.   In   light   of   the   arguments   put   forth   in   the  

previous   part   on   power   and   knowledge,   the   third   part   introduces   what   is   here  

understood  as  the  dominant  binary  narrative  in  development  in  the  field  of  agriculture.  

The  second  section  outlines  the  methodological  considerations  arising  from  this  study.  

As   such,   it   makes   explicit   the   purpose   of   the   study,   and   explains   the   criteria   for   the  

selection  the  Confédération  Paysanne  as  a  case  study.  It  then  goes  on  to  put  forward  the  

methods  used  for  the  making  of  this  study.  Finally,  issues  pertaining  to  participation  as  

well  as  the  limitations  of  the  study  are  exposed.  

The   third   section  presents   the   case   study  of   the  Confédération  Paysanne,  divided   into  

three  parts.  The  first  part  relates  the  origins  of  the  organisation,  and  its  position  within  

the   French   political   landscape.   The   second   part   situates   the   organisation   within   the  

French  altermondialiste  movement,  and  goes  on  to   look  at   the  evolution  as  well  as   the  

narrative  and  model  put  forth  by  the  Confédération.  Finally,  the  third  part  looks  at  what  

makes   it   ‘alternative’,   by   specifically   exploring   the   articulation   of   the   local   and   the  

global,  as  well  as  the  North  and  the  South  in  the  narrative  put  forth  by  the  organisation.  

The   fourth   section   articulates   a   conceptual   analysis   of   the   case   study   of   the  

Confédération   Paysanne.   By   showing   how   the   organisation   challenges   binaries   in   the  

way  it  does  not  act   local  or  global,  and  in  the  way  it  does  not  think  global  or  local,  this  

section   shows   how   the   Confédération   is   engaged   in   resistance   to   what   is   here  

understood  as   the  dominant  binary  narrative   in  agriculture.  The   final  claim   is   that   the  

organisation’s  endeavour   to  act  and   think  on  multiple   levels  can  only  be  apprehended  

through  a   framework  that  recognises   the   interconnectedness  and  multiplicity  of   levels  

of  the  Confédération  Paysanne’s  engagement  beyond  binaries.  

Drawing  briefly  on  the  main  elements  put  forth,  the  conclusion  of  this  study  calls  for  the  

broadening  of   the  narratives  surrounding  development,  and   for  alternative  voices   that  

go  beyond  the  cage  of  binaries  to  be  heard.  

 

  8  

2.    Theoretical  framework  

2.1 Power,  knowledge  and  the  role  of  alternative  narratives  

This  section  outlines  the  assumption  underpinning  this  paper  that  the  creation  of  

alternative  narratives  constitutes  an  important  strategy  of  resistance.  For  the  purposes  

of  this  paper,  it  is  crucial  to  conceptualise  power,  domination  and  resistance  in  relation  

to   discourse   and   hegemony   and   thus   explain   the   role   of   dominant   and   alternative  

narratives  in  development  (Howarth,  2010:309).  

There  are  different  understandings  of   the  concept  of  power,  of  which   the   ‘agency’  and  

the  ‘structural’  view  prevail  (Lukes,  1974:11)  The  former,  put  forth  by  scholars  such  as  

Weber   and   Dahl,   sees   power   as   a   coercive   force,   the   capacity   of   one   agent   to   induce  

another  into  an  action  that  they  would  not  otherwise  have  done  (Ibid:30-­‐31).  The  latter  

posits  that  power  is  embedded  in  institutions,  structures  and  norms,  rather  than  being  

an   agent’s   capacity   over   another   (Haugaard,   2003:87-­‐88).   Michel   Foucault’s   seminal  

work  on  the  concept  of  power  departed  from  both  views,  going  beyond  the  debates  of  

agency   and   structure.   His   specific   focus   on   power   analysis   through   discourse   and  

knowledge  constitutes  the  underpinning  frame  of  the  analysis  of  this  paper.    

Foucault   argued   that   power   was   relational   in   essence   (Foucault,   1976:96),   as  

encapsulated  by  this  often-­‐cited  quote:  

‘Power   is   everywhere;   not   because   it   embraces   everything,   but   because   it   comes  from  everywhere’  (Ibid:93).    

Foucault   argued   power  was   not  merely   a   repressive   force,   but   rather   a   creative   one,  

capable  of  producing  forms  of  knowledge  and  discourse,  which  in  turn  were  central  to  

the  production  and  reproduction  of  social  relations  (Rabinow,  1991:61).  Here  the  notion  

of  discourse  departs   from  that  ordinarily  used  by   linguists,   in   that   it   is  not  only  about  

systems  of  meaning   and   representation.  Rather,   it   constitutes   an  ontological   category,  

encompassing   ways   of   thinking   and   doing,   thus   becoming   an   articulatory   practice  

organising   social   relations   and   practice   (Howarth,   2010:311).   Discourse   produces  

knowledge   through   language   and   thus,   meaning   is   constituted   by   power   through  

discourse   (Hall,   1997:44).   Conversely,   what   Foucault   called   ‘regimes   of   truth’,   or  

historical   mechanisms   that   produce   dominant   discourses,   sustain   dominant   forms   of  

  9  

power   (Rabinow,  1991:72-­‐73).   Thus,   power   flows   through  discourse   and  behind   each  

narrative  or  discourse  are  power  relations.    

Similarly,  Bourdieu  used  the  terms   ‘orthodoxy’  and   ‘doxa’   to  refer  to  the  way   in  which  

particular   views   of   the   world   are   established   as   ‘normal,   natural   and   unquestioned  

truths’,   through  sets  of  propositions  assumed  and  never  questioned  (Bourdieu,  cited  in  

Jones,   2006:14).   Dominant   ideology   thesis   posits   that   in   each   society,   a   set   of   beliefs  

dominates  all  others,  thus  tending  to  inhibit  the  development  of  radical  political  dissent  

or  alternatives  (Abercrombie  and  Turner,  1978:149).  

The   concept   of   hegemony   also   provides   a   similar   framework   through   which   to  

understand  power   in  narratives.   The  Gramscian  notion  of   hegemony   is   a   form  of   rule  

through  which  a  regime  or  practice  can  hold  sway  over  a  set  of  subjects  by  winning  their  

consent   or   securing   their   compliance   (Howarth,   2010:317).   Hegemony   ensures   the  

maintenance   of   social   order   through   cultural   domination   (Gramsci,   1971:80).   If   the  

focus  of   this   paper   is   not   social   order   as   such1,  Gramsci’s   concept   is   interesting  when  

looking  at  the  dominance  of  narratives  over  others.  For  knowledge  to  be  powerful,  it  has  

to   be   hegemonic,   in   other   words,   it   has   to   be   accepted   as   legitimate   to   some   degree  

(Sharp,  2000:110).  Indeed,  it  is  through  the  idea  of  consent,  which  enables  to  go  beyond  

power   as   coercion   (Burawoy,   2012:59),   that   the   role   of   knowledge   and   narratives  

becomes  explicit.    

 

Taking   into   consideration   the   concepts   of   regimes   of   truth,   doxa   or   hegemonic  

discourses   in   relation   to   power,   the   creation   of   counter-­‐knowledge   or   counter-­‐

narratives   becomes   an   avenue   for   resistance   (Rabinow,   1991:74).   Indeed,   it   follows  

from  such  theoretical  understandings  that  resistance  arises  through  the  assertion  of  the  

possibility   of   constituting   a   new   politics   of   truth,   or   as   Bourdieu   argued   by   ‘making  

possible   the   existence   of   competing   possibles’   (Bourdieu,   1977:169).   Thus   the  

elaboration   of   and   struggle   for   ‘competing’   or   ‘alternative’   narratives   constitutes   an  

important  role  and  indeed  strategy  in  shaping  social  practice.  

 

                                                                                                                 

1  Gramsci  developed  the  concept  of  hegemony  to  explain  the  absence  of  socialist  revolutions  in  Western  capitalist  societies  (Storey  2009:79).  

  10  

2.2 Dominant  binaries:  North/South  and  local/global  dualism  

Following   an   outline   of   the   globalisation   debates,   this   section   introduces   the  

local/global   binary   thinking   that   shapes   most   of   development   thought   (Cloke   and  

Johnston,  2005:15).  This  binary  is  then  linked  to  the  North/South  divide,  after  what  the  

concept  of  the  ‘glocal’  is  introduced.  

Held  and  McGrew  provide  a  useful  working  definition  of  the  phenomenon:    

Globalisation  may  be  thought  of   initially  as  the  widening,  deepening  and  speeding  up  of  worldwide  interconnectedness  in  all  aspects  of  contemporary  social  life,  from  the  cultural  to  the  criminal,  the  financial  to  the  spiritual  (2007:2-­‐3).  

There   are   different  ways   of  making   sense   of   globalisation.   Typically,   two   camps   have  

been  identified,  the  ‘sceptics’  and  the  ‘hyperglobalists’.  The  latter  see  globalisation  with  

its  intensity  and  scope,  as  an  unprecedented  process  with  dramatic  impact  on  societies  

and  the  world  economy  (Burawoy,  2010:338).  Sceptics  have  rejected  that  view,  arguing  

instead  that  the  1980s  onwards  –the  ‘era  of  globalisation’-­‐  only  reflect  the  continuation  

of   the   shaping   of   the   world   by   powerful   actors   and   forces   according   to   historical  

geopolitical   considerations   (Thompson   and   Reuveny,   2010:5).   These   views   in  

themselves   represent   opposite   readings   that   exclude   contextual   readings   of  

globalisation.  

This   oppositional   rather   than   nuanced   analysis   can   also   be   seen   through   discussions  

pertaining  to  the  role  of  the  State  in  globalisation.  Debates  surrounding  the  significance  

of  globalisation  have  also  fed  into  a  global  imagination  of  different  sites  of  action,  such  as  

the  local/global  binary.    

‘To   survive   the  world,   we   simplify   it’.   Such   is   the   claim  made   by   Cloke   and   Johnston  

(2005).  This  strategy,  they  explain,  is  a  particular  case  of  classifying  and  categorising  as  

a  means  to  cope  with  complexity  (Ibid:1).  They  go  on  to  argue  that  thinking  in  categories  

–  of  which  binary  thinking  is  the  most  extreme  case-­‐  is  necessary  to  simplify  the  world  

in   order   to   begin   to   understand   it   (Ibid:5).   Binary   structures   establish   relations   of  

opposition   and   exclusion   instead   of   interconnection   and   similarities   between   the   two  

terms   involved.   Thus,   binary   thinking   often   conveys   uncritical   accounts   of   power  

relations   (Ibid:12).   Looking  at   the  discipline  of  development,   John  Saul   argues   against  

the  common  tendency  to  offer  diagnoses  of  global  inequality  in  terms  of  binaries  such  as  

  11  

‘globalisation  vs.   state’,  or   ‘development  vs.  under-­‐development’,  which  he  refers   to  as  

‘false   binaries’   (2004:221).   He   criticises   such   tendency   as   unhelpful   in   establishing   a  

target  against  which  struggle  can  be  directed.  

Kevin  Cox  goes  further  in  his  analysis  of  what  he  calls  the  local/global  dualism  as  part  of  

spatial   imaginaries,   what   he   sees   as   ‘ways   of   conceiving   space,   which   have   political  

intent’  (2005:175-­‐176).  For  him,  one  of  the  ways  in  which  the  globalisation  debate  has  

developed   has   been   through   a   softening   of   contrasts.   At   the   core   of   the   issue   lies   the  

notion  of  geographical  scale,  as  ‘large  vs.  small’  or  as  macro-­‐,  meso-­‐  and  micro-­‐.  Cox  lists  

different  conceptualisations  of  the  relationship  between  the  local  and  the  global,  based  

on  a  binary  understanding  of  the  two  terms  (Ibid:176).  He  sees  this  binary  in  the  notion  

that  the  global  produces  the  local  –  a  view  close  to  that  of  the  hyperglobalists  -­‐,  or  the  

reverse  (eg.  adoption  of  best  practice  on  a   large  scale  with   its  origins   in  the   local),   the  

global   used   for   local   advantage   (eg.   foreign   investment),   the   local   used   for   global  

advantage  (eg.   land  grab).  These  notions  are  based  on  reified  views  of  space,   in  which  

the   local   and   the   global   are   understood   as   distinctly   opposite   (Ibid:180-­‐187).  

Furthermore,   Cox   explains   that   the   local/global   binary   has   tended   to   go   aligned  with  

various  other  dualisms,  such  as  the  national/international  binary  (Ibid:181).    

 

The   author  of   this  paper  believes   that   one   such   associated  binary   is   the   ‘North/South  

divide’.  Indeed,  underlying  the  North/South  divide  is  the  idea  of  a  distinctive  nature  of  

the   two   entities,   thus   giving   rise   to   their   being   used   as  mutually   exclusive   categories.  

Furthermore,   another  way   to  make   sense   of   the  North/South   binary   is   to   understand  

both   entities   as   belonging   to   the   scale   of   the   ‘local’.   Thus,   both   ‘North’   and   ‘South’   as  

separate  entities  form  respective  ‘locales’,  while  potentially  constituting  a  ‘global’  when  

combined.   As   such,   one   can   understand   the   mutually   reinforcing   nature   of   both  

local/global   and   North/South   binaries,   and   indeed   the   similarity   of   the   underlying  

assumptions  underpinning  their  use.  

Cox   denounces   the   polarized   and   seemingly   absolute   categories   of   the   global   and   the  

local,  rather  than  seeing  them  in  relational  terms  (1997:10).  Similarly,  Robertson  argues  

that   debates   surrounding   globalisation   revolve   around   the   assumption   that   the   global  

overrides  the  local.  Yet,  he  states  that  the  global   is  not   in  and  of   itself  counterposed  to  

the   local  but  rather  what   is  often  referred  to  as  the   local   is  essentially   included  within  

  12  

the  global  (Roberston,  1995:35).  Such  views  have  formed  the  basis  for  the  emergence  of  

a   new   concept,   the   ‘glocal’,   articulating   the   interconnectedness   of   global   and   local.  

‘Glocalisation’   can   be   understood   as   the   simultaneous   processes   of   globalisation   and  

localisation   (Blatter,   2006:358).   Using   a  glocal   lens   helps   in   building   a  more   complex  

and   integrated   analysis   of   the   interactions   occurring   between   different   levels   beyond  

limited  oppositions.    

The   following   section   outlines   the   dominant   narrative   based   on   the   abovementioned  

binaries  and  main  actors  involved  in  the  field  of  agriculture  in  development.    

 

2.3 Dominant  narrative  in  agriculture  

Based   on   the   previous   sections   of   this   chapter,   this   section   introduces  what   is  

here  seen  as  the  dominant  narrative  of  agriculture  in  development  and  the  main  actors  

at   play.   The  model   promoted  by   international   institutions   in   the   field   of   development  

(World  Bank,  WTO)  and  in  particular  the  European  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  is  

introduced.    

In  development,  what  are  referred  in  the  paper  as  dominant  views  or  narratives,  define  

on  a  large  scale  what  is  wrong  and  how  it  must  be  put  right  (KNOTS  Team  2007:10).  One  

way  of   identifying   the  dominant  narrative  at  play   in  a  particular   field   is   to   look  at   the  

regime  authorities  operating  in  that  sphere.  In  the  case  of  agriculture,  one  can  argue  that  

there  is  a  dominant  structure  in  charge  of  creating  knowledge  and  practices  on  a  large  

scale.  What   can   be   referred   to   here   as   the   agro-­‐food   regime,   includes   the   norms   and  

rules   governing   international   agro-­‐food   transactions,   and   reflects   a   specific   narrative  

(McMichael,   1992:344).   It   is   also   crucial   to   understand   the   structural   factors  

underpinning  the  organisation  of  the  regime.  In  this  case,  agencies  like  the  World  Bank,  

the  United  Nations,   the  General  Agreement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade  and   the  World  Trade  

Organisation  (WTO)  loom  large,  as  key  regulatory  institutions  (Cooke  et  al.,  2009:2).  The  

latter   in   particular   is   stage   to   some   of   the   most   important   debates   pertaining   to   the  

global   governance   of   agriculture   and   paramount   to   the   way   agriculture   is  

conceptualised  in  development.  

  13  

The  1995  Agreement  on  Agriculture   is  one  of   the   four  principal  protocols  of   the  WTO  

(McMichael,  2012:138).  At  the  core  of  the  protocol   is  a  call  to  universally  reduce  trade  

protections,  farm  subsidies  and  government  intervention,  in  line  with  the  liberal  agenda  

of  the  multilateral  organisation  (Ibid:138).  However,  the  EU,  the  US  and  countries  with  

the   ability   to   pay,   impose   tariffs   and   non-­‐tariffs   barriers,   thus   restricting   imports   of  

foods  domestically  produced,  and  subsidise  exports  (Millstone  et  al.  2009:6).  Northern  

subsidies  that  finance  overproduction  and  surplus  export  –or  dumping-­‐,  have  long  been  

at   the   centre   of   a   conflict   often   understood   as   opposing   producing   and   consuming  

nations   on   a   typically   North/South   axis   (see   World   Bank,   2007:96).   This   dominant  

narrative  rests  on  strong  binaries  (North/South,  developed/developing  etc.).  

In  the  EU  in  particular,  in  the  realm  of  public  policy,  the  system  of  production  subsidies  

and  subsidised  scale  economies  –  the  ability  to  lower  the  costs  of  production  by  scaling-­‐

up   -­‐   is   understood   as   a   means   to   maintain   an   ‘efficient   and   productive   agricultural  

sector’   (Coleman   et   al.,   1997,   cited   in   Daugbjerg   and   Swinbank,   2009:7-­‐8).   As   such,  

through   the   Common  Agricultural   Policy   (CAP),   revenue-­‐increasing   and   cost-­‐reducing  

measures   have   been   put   in   place,   of   which   France   is   the   main   beneficiary   (Toute  

L’Europe,  2011).  Here  it  is  important  to  make  explicit  the  role  and  model  of  agriculture  

put   forward  and  encouraged  by   the  CAP  and  more  generally  by   the  global   agriculture  

regime  authorities  listed  above.    

Initiated   in   1962,   the   CAP   was   initially   launched   to   protect   European   farmers   from  

international   price   shocks,   and   progressively   went   on   to   encourage   a   model   of  

agricultural   development   based   on   modernisation   and   intensification   (McMichael,  

2012:265).   This   system   initially   based   on   price   regulations,   enabled   an   increase   in  

agricultural  production,  and  latter  surpluses  in  some  commodities.  At  present,  and  after  

a  major  reform  in  2003,  which  largely  replaced  price  regulations  by  direct  transfers,  the  

CAP  encourages  the  development  of  intensive  agriculture,  geared  towards  export,  with  

priority   being   given   to   large   exploitations   (Boulanger   2005:1).   The   CAP   represents  

between  40  and  50  percent  of  the  EU’s  budget  (Jomini  et  al.,  2009:3).  At  the  core  of  the  

scheme  is  an  incentive-­‐system  for  farmers  to  produce  more  (World  Bank,  2007:97).  

This  model  is  in  line  with  the  model  of  agriculture  identified  by  Thompson  and  Scoones  

as   dominating   policy   discourses   and   influencing   the   trajectory   of   agricultural  

development,   at   the   intersection  of   two  narratives   respectively   centred  on   technology  

  14  

and   growth   (2009:389).   Raj   Patel   explains   that   what   characterises   such   a   dominant  

policy   trajectory   is   a   modernisation   paradigm   encouraging   large-­‐scale   commercial  

farming  to  the  detriment  of  smallholder  agriculture  (Patel,  2007:24).  In  a  review  of  the  

2008  World  Development  Report  on  Agriculture   (WDR08),  McMichael   argues   that   the  

‘new   agriculture   for   development’   promoted   in   the   report   is   governed   by   market  

intensification  through  agribusiness  and  aided  by  the  State  (2009:236).  In  essence,  the  

WDR08  rests  on  the  initiatives  of  private  entrepreneurs  in  extensive  value  chains  on  a  

global   scale,   and   a   drive   for   ‘cheap   gets   cheaper’   by   international   agribusiness   capital  

(Rizzo,  2009:288).  The  model  of  agriculture  explicitly  or  implicitly  promoted  by  the  CAP  

rests   on   similar   principles   pertaining   to   intensification   and   productivity,   and   a   strict  

focus  on  production.  In  this  paper,  productivism  is  understood  as  the  drive  to  increase  

output   without   limit   and   the   consequent   search   for   ever   more   ‘efficient’   methods   of  

production,   which   takes   precedence   over   all   other   considerations,   whether   social,  

health-­‐related  or  environmental  (Herman  and  Kuper,  2002:4).      

One   way   to   conceptualise   the   dominant   narrative   in   agriculture   is   through   Robert  

Chambers’  ‘things-­‐people’  framework  (Chambers,  2010)  The  belief  held  in  this  paper  is  

that  in  practice,  agriculture  has  been  dominated  by  a  ‘things  paradigm’,  and  treated  as  a  

‘part’,  with   top-­‐down,   standardised   approaches   imposed   on   a   diverse   range   of   people  

and   conditions.   Indeed,   the   ‘value’   of   agriculture   has   tended   to   revolve   around   its  

contribution   to   economic   growth   and   production   intensification.   This   can   be   seen   for  

instance  in  Robert  Zoellick’s  foreword  to  the  WDR08  (World  Bank,  2008:xiii).  

The  productivist  and   ‘things-­‐focused’  nature  of   the  dominant  model  of  agriculture  has  

been  critiqued  by  various  actors,  one  of  which  is  the  French  Confédération  Paysanne.  

                       

  15  

3.    Methodology  

3.1 Positionality  and  criteria  for  case  selection  In  order  for  the  reader  to  understand  the  purpose  of  this  study,  I  think  it  is  important  to  

provide  some  information  on  my  personal  interest  in  the  topic.  

The  original   idea  behind  this  dissertation  was  guided  by  my  experience  growing  up   in  

Brittany  (France)  and  witnessing  the  strategies  and  resistance  of  some  farmers’  unions  

against  government  policies.  The  way  I  made  sense  of  those,  and  the  explanations  I  was  

often  given  made  me   think  of   such  actions  as   somehow  homogenous.   I  was  often   told  

those  farmers  were  fighting  for  more  subsidies.  And  indeed,  some  were.    

When  a  decade  later  I  started  investigating  into  the  discourses  of  those  actors  I  had  seen  

spilling  milk  and  blocking  roundabouts  with  vegetables,  my  assumptions  were  crucially  

challenged  by  the  diversity  and  the  originality  of  some  of  the  narratives  I  encountered.  

In  fact,  at  first  I  thought  of  focusing  my  research  on  the  FNSEA  (Fédération  Nationale  des  

Syndicats   d’Exploitants   Agricoles,  National   Federation   of   Farmers’   Unions),   the   largest  

farmers’   union   in   France,   as   a   social   movement.   However,   the   more   I   read   the  

organisation’s  official  publications,   the   less   interested   I  was   in   its  struggle.   Instead  my  

interest  was   aroused  by   the   critiques   of   the   FNSEA  put   forth  by   others.   This   is   how   I  

came  to  know  of,  or  to  rediscover,  the  Confédération  Paysanne.  Most  importantly,  it  was  

the  alternative  nature  of  its  vision  that  attracted  me.  I  felt  it  refreshing  to  read  a  different  

narrative,  a  different  story.  Here  I  should  also  say  that  I  felt  I  should  have  known  about  it  

before  and  that  it  is  important  that  such  a  voice  is  heard.  This  issue  of  voice  is  a  guiding  

one  in  the  making  of  this  paper  and  I  find  is  nowhere  clearer  than  when  in  365  pages  of  

the  WDR08  mentioned  previously,  Via  Campesina,   an   international   farmers  union  and  

despite   its   claiming   to   represent   200   million   farmers   (Via   Campesina,   2011)   is  

mentioned   only   once,   in   a   text-­‐box   (see   World   Bank,   2007:211).   As   such,   in   writing  

about   the   Confédération   Paysanne,   I   hope   to   contribute   to   filling   a   knowledge   gap,   in  

that  I  find  there  is  little  written  in  the  general  development  literature  specifically  about  

the  Confédération  and  alternative  discourses  in  agriculture.  

 

Another   interest   of   mine   is   to   challenge   the   binary   understanding   of   the   world   in   a  

‘North’  and  a   ‘South’.   Indeed,  as  mentioned   in   the   introduction,   I   am   from  neither  and  

both   the   North   and   the   South,   and   have   therefore   grown   to   feel   alienated   from   this  

dualism.   Thus,   as   a   Development   student,   I   have   been   drawn   to   critiques   of   the  

  16  

North/South   binary,   which   have   formed   the   backbone   of   my   frame   of   thought  

throughout  my  studies.  

Here,   a   note   should   be   made   of   my   positionality   in   this   paper   and   in   the   research  

process.  As  a  young  brown  middle-­‐class  woman,  it  is  possible  that  my  gender,  class  and  

origins   might   have   impacted   on   some   of   my   interactions   with   members   of   the  

organisation.   However,   it   is   my   very   positionality   that   made   me   look   for   those  

interactions.   Indeed,   being   aware   of   my   positionality   as   a   young,   ‘transnational’,  

educated  woman,  but  most   importantly  having  only  engaged  with   the  Confédération’s  

struggle   on   an   ‘intellectual’   level,   it   was   important   for   me   to   seek   discussions   with  

members   and   spokespeople   from   the   Confédération.   Eventually,   the   few   interviews  

conducted   created   a   dialogue,   that   helped   frame,   build   and   challenge   this   paper,  

integrating  views  from  within.  

Thus,  the  rest  of  this  paper  seeks  to  unpack  the  story  of  the  Confédération  Paysanne,  see  

what  makes  it  alternative  and  what  it  has  to  offer  to  the  field  of  development.  

 

3.2 Method  

3.2.1 Overall  method:  the  Case  study  This   paper   consists   of   the   case   study   of   a   specific   organisation,   providing   a   more  

extreme  than  paradigmatic  case,  in  that  the  organisation  –it  is  here  argued-­‐  lies  outside  

of   the  dominant  sphere  of  praxis  and  discourse.  As  such,   it   is   important   to   look  at   the  

issue  associated  with  case  studies.  

In   a   paper   on   common  misunderstandings   around   case   studies,   Bent   Flyvberg   argues  

that  the  case  study  is  a  methodology  in  its  own  right,  a  position  which  he  contrasts  with  

a   conventional   view   that   case   studies   are   subordinate   to   larger-­‐scale   investigations  

(2011:301).   Flyvberg   explains   that   the   conventional   view   states   that   a   case   study  

‘cannot   provide   reliable   information   about   the   broader   class   of   phenomena’   (Penguin  

Dictionary  of   Sociology,   cited   in  Flyvberg,  2011:301).  Rather,  he  explains   that   if   a   case  

study  is  indeed  a  ‘detailed  examination  of  a  single  example’  it  is  important  to  challenge  

the  arguments  that  undermine  the  credibility  and  use  of  the  method  (Ibid:302).  He  thus  

states  that:  

One  can  often  generalise  on  the  basis  of  a  single  case,  and  the  case  study  may  be   central   to   scientific   development   via   generalisation   as   supplement   or  alternative   to   other  methods.  But   formal  generalisation   is   overvalued  as  a  

  17  

source   of   scientific   development,   whereas   “the   force   of   example”   and  transferability  are  underestimated  (Ibid:305).  

 

3.2.2 Data  and  techniques  used:  literature  review  and  interviews  Due  the  nature  of  this  enquiry,  this  research  is  based  on  qualitative  methods.  Indeed,  as  

was  highlighted  in  the  previous  chapter,  when  talking  about  resistance  and  alternative  

narratives,   this   paper   is   primarily   interested   in   the   ‘existence   of   competing   possibles’  

(Bourdieu,  1977:169).  As  such,  the  issue  of  size  and  scale  is  not  the  primary  focus,  but  

rather  the  ‘detail,  richness  completeness  and  variance’  (Flyvberg,  2011:301),  or  depth  of  

the  one  narrative  which  constitute  here  the  central  point.  

This  study  is  based  on  a  combination  of  primary  and  secondary  data  on  a  single  case,  to  

be  able  to  study  it  in  depth  contextually  and  historically  (Burawoy,  1998).  

Secondary  data  (literature  review)  was  used  to  provide  the  backbone  of  the  theoretical  

framework  on  dominant  binaries  in  development,  especially  in  relation  to  agriculture,  as  

well  as  to  outline  the  wider  theoretical  discussions  on  themes  of  knowledge,  power  and  

resistance.  With  regards  to  the  Confédération  Paysanne  in  particular,   in  order  to  avoid  

issues  of  misinterpretation,  it  was  important  to  understand  the  organisation  the  way  it  

portrays   itself.   As   such,   information   published   by   the   Confédération   and   related  

organisations   was   also   used.   Some   of   the   interviewees   and   contacts   within   the  

Confédération   also   sent  me   some   documentation,   including   reports,   books   and   DVDs,  

which  helped  add  accuracy  to  the  portrayal  and  analysis  of  the  organisation.  

 

Similarly,   in   order   to   strengthen   the  depth   of   the   case   study,   I   collected  primary  data  

directly  from  members,  so  as  to  both  triangulate  with  the  secondary  data,  and  go  further  

in  the  analysis  of  the  narratives  of  the  organisation  and  its  members.    

As   such,   three   one-­‐on-­‐one   in-­‐depth   open-­‐ended2   interviews   were   conducted,   each  

lasting   one   to   two   hours.   One  was  made   over   Skype   and   the   two   others   face-­‐to-­‐face.  

Enabling   the   participants   to   relate   their   stories   and   express   their   views   freely   was  

crucial   in   my   quest   for   accuracy   and   detail.   Participants   were   identified   through   a  

snowballing   technique,   with   initial   contact   made   over   email   with   the   responsible   of  

human  resources  at   the  national  office.  People  with  different   roles   in   the  organisation  

                                                                                                               

2  I  had  prepared  a  list  of  potential  question  to  serve  as  a  backdrop,  but  not  as  a  main  interview  guide,  useful  for  the  start  of  the  interview  especially  with  a  shy  interviewee.  

  18  

took   part   (national/European   spokesperson,   departmental   spokesperson   and   local  

coordinator  -­‐  see  Appendix).  All  participants  were  farmers  themselves.  

Ethical   considerations   for   the   conduct   of   the   interviews   included:   informed   consent,  

appropriate   level  of  confidentiality  (with  the  option  to  anonymise  the  data),  respectful  

behaviour  as  well  as  faithful  interpretation  and  representation  of  informants’  expressed  

views  to  the  extent  possible.  

 

3.3 Participation  and  limitations  

3.3.1 Participatory  nature  of  the  study  The   development   of   participatory   approaches   to   research   stemmed   out   of   a  

methodological   critique   of   issues   of   agency,   representation   and   power   (Cornwall   and  

Jewkes,  1995:1667).  Thus,  what  is  distinctive  about  participatory  research  does  not  lie  

in   its  methods,   but   rather  on   the  methodological   contexts  of   their   application  and   the  

location  of  power  in  the  various  stages  of  the  research  process  (Ibid:1667-­‐1668).  

From  there,  a  distinction  can  be  made  between  positivist  and  participatory  approaches  

to  research.   In  the  former,   the  researcher  remains  a   ‘disinterested  scientist’,   for  whom  

action   lies   outside   of   her/his   responsibility   (Guba   and   Lincoln,   2005:196-­‐198).    

Participatory  research  however  is  based  on  the  premise  of  rejecting  purely   ‘extractive’  

methods,   and   instead   recognising   the   researcher   as   a   participant.   Thereby,   action  

becomes   crucial   in   the   project   of   research,   and   is   intertwined  with   the   validity   of   the  

enquiry.   As   such,   this   project   is   based   on   my   own   subjectivity   as   a   researcher,   and  

indeed  my  stated  interest  in  the  evolution  of  the  Confédération  Paysanne.    

Cornwall  and  Jewkes  explain  that  there  is  considerable  fluctuation  between  poles  from  

what  I  would  call  ‘purely  extractive’  to  ‘purely  participatory’,  in  practicing  participatory  

research.  This,  they  argued  suggests  that  the  difference  between  modes  of  research  may  

be   more   to   do   with   the   ‘degree’   rather   than   ‘kind’   (1995:1668).   Thus,   they   offer   a  

continuum  of  participation  through  which  to  make  sense  of  the  extent,  level  and  scope  of  

participation  in  research  projects.    

In  the  case  of  this  research,  it  is  possible  to  identify  varying  degrees  of  participation  at  

its   different   stages.   In   the   initial   stage,   I   formulated   the   research   question,   based   on  

publications  by  the  organisation,  which  gave  me  a  topic  to  focus  on,  namely  the  different  

articulation   of   the   North/South,   local/global   relationship.   Due   to   time   and   physical  

constraints,   I  was  unable   to  work  close  enough  with  the  organisation  to  be  able   to  co-­‐

  19  

produce   this   paper   or   get   input   in   the   first   stages   of   the   research   (theoretical  

framework,  choice  of  methods).    

Burawoy   points   to   the   importance   of   putting   oneself   in   the   picture,   and   outlines   the  

dangers  of  domination  of  the  researcher’s  view  over  that  of  the  ‘researched’  (1998:22).  

Strategies   to   overcome  domination   include   the   return  of   findings   and   the   inclusion  of  

feedback   to   the   final   account.     As   such,   the   project   becomes   an   interaction   of   the  

accounts   of   both   the   researcher   and   the   researched   (Cascant-­‐Sempere,   2011:4).   From  

there,   my   collaboration   with   the   organisation   can   be   seen   in   my   exchanges   with  

Geneviève  Savigny,  former  national  secretary  for  the  Confédération,  who  confirmed  and  

helped  further  my  analysis  of  the  organisation’s  articulation  of  the  relationship  between  

the  local  and  the  global.  I  also  offered  to  share  the  final  outcome  document,  as  well  as  a  

shortened  version  in  French  to  the  organisation  and  the  people  I  interviewed.  

Farrington  and  Bebbington  add  another  element  of  scale  of  participation  from  ‘narrow’  

to   ‘wide’,  depending  on   the  number  of  people   involved   (cited   in  Cornwall  and   Jewkes,  

1995:1669).  In  this  study,  given  time  and  logistical  constraints  it  was  difficult  to  enlarge  

the  scale  and  number  of  participants  and  therefore  I  would  argue  that  this  research  was  

based  on  a  narrow  scale  of  participation.  

 

3.3.2 Limitations  Going  back  to  some  elements  mentioned  above,  the  key  limitations  of  this  study  involve  

the  time  and  logistical  constraints  of  not  having  enough  time  to  organise  interviews  on  a  

larger  scale.  More  interviews  could  have  been  conducted  over  Skype,  however,  I  believe  

that  given   the  nature  of  my  enquiry,   it  was  crucial   to  establish  a  relationship  with   the  

participants   and   establish   a   climate   of   trust   and   dialogue   so   as   to   grasp   the   deeper  

notions   entrenched   in   the   Confédération’s   narrative   and   that   of   its   members   and  

supporters.  As  such,  only  one  interview  was  conducted  over  Skype.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  20  

4.    Case  study:  La  Confédération  Paysanne  

4.1 Origins  

The  Confédération  Paysanne  -­‐or  Confédération-­‐  is  a  French  farmers’  union.  As  an  

agricultural  syndicate,  its  aim  is  to  defend  the  interests  of  farmers.  It  is  a  minority  union  

in   the   French   political   landscape,   although   only   preceded   by   the   FNSEA,   and   strongly  

anchored   to   the   left   of   the   political   spectrum   (Bruneau,   2004:112).   In   order   to  

understand  the  emergence  of  the  Confédération  on  the  French  political   landscape,   it   is  

crucial  to  grasp  the  context  that  led  to  its  creation  in  1987.  

Historically,  in  France,  unionism  has  played  a  crucial  role  in  mobilising  and  integrating  

the  peasantry  in  the  national  public  sphere  and  continues  to  do  so  (Hervieu  et  al.,  2010).  

Founded  in  1946,  the  FNSEA  is  the  largest  farmers’  union  in  France  and  has  dominated  

the   union   landscape   since   its   inception.   The   FNSEA   has   been   the   main   interlocutor  

between  farmers  and  the  state,  claiming  representation  of  the  voice  of  French  farmers.  

Critiques   of   the   FNSEA   as   put   forward   by   ‘rival’   syndicates   such   as   the   Coordination  

Rurale  pertain  mainly  to  its  ‘co-­gestion’  or  engagement  with  the  State,  rather  than  being  

a   counter-­‐power   to   the   State   (Bruneau,   2004:245,279).   Challenges   to   the  FNSEA  have  

come   from   both   its   ‘right’   from   the   Coordination   Rurale   and   its   ‘Left’,   from   the  

Confédération   Paysanne   (Ibid:279),   which   argues   that   it   puts   the   self-­‐interests   of   the  

large  grain,  beef  and  sugar  producers  above  the  interests  of  society  as  a  whole  (Herman  

and  Kuper,  2002:xviii).  

The  Confédération  Paysanne  was  founded  in  1987,  as  an  alternative  to  the  politics  of  the  

FNSEA.  The  split  from  the  majoritarian  union  rested  on  ideological  positions,  and  a  will  

to  challenge  the  productivist  agricultural  model  pursued  over  the  past  forty  years.  Here,  

special  attention  should  be  drawn  to  the  name  of  the  organisation,  and  to  the  semantic  

difference  between  agriculteur   and  paysan.     In   spoken  French,  paysan   is  often  used   to  

refer   to   a   traditional,   ‘non-­‐progressive’   attitude,   but   is   not   pejorative  when   used   in   a  

political  context.  Agriculteur  –  whose  closest  translation  in  English  would  be  ‘farmer’  -­‐  is  

a   more   technical,   professional   depiction   of   modern   life   in   the   countryside   (Berger,  

1972:4),  best  applied  to  modernised  agriculture.   In  essence,  paysan  refers  to  what  can  

be  understood  as   smallholder,   often  more   traditional   agriculture.  Martin   explains   that  

there  was  a  shift  in  language  in  the  1980s  away  from  defending  the  ‘agriculteur’  to  the  

  21  

‘paysan’,  which  clearly  distinguished  the  paysannerie  (peasantry)  from  industrial,  often  

large-­‐scale  agriculture  (Martin,  2004:121).3  This  shift   in   the  discourse   is  characteristic  

of  the  model  put  forth  by  the  Confédération,  further  explored  later.    

The  ideological  foundations  of  the  union  since  its  inception,  and  in  fact,  the  reasons  for  

the   split   with   the   FNSEA   rest   mainly   on   an   anti-­‐corporatist   agenda,   often   framed   in  

terms   of   an   opposition   to   the   ‘myth   of   peasantry   unity’   (‘mythe   de   l’unité   paysanne’),  

which  characterises  the  FNSEA,  and  leaves  unexamined  the  differences  between  farmers  

(Martin,  2004:111-­‐112).  Rather,  for  the  Confédération,  rural  professions  are  unalienable  

from  the  rest  of  society,  feeding  into  the  belief  in  the  commonality  of  interests  between  

workers  in  different  sectors  and  the  need  for  a  common  struggle  (Lambert,  1970:155).  

The   fight   for  workers’   rights,   or   against   shale   gas   and  water  waste   are   such   common  

issues  (Chatillon,  interview).  

Another   reason   for   the   split   is   the   notion   of   ‘international   solidarity’   within   the  

peasantry,   and   the   idea   that   other   non-­‐French   small   farmers  may   experience   similar  

conditions  and  struggles.  As  such,  the  Confédération’s  critique  of  European  agricultural  

subsidies,  which  is  explored  further  below,  is  based  on  the  idea  that  it  is  socially  unjust  

and  socially  detrimental  in  all  parts  of  the  globe  (Martin,  2004:113-­‐114).  Thus,  its  main  

slogan   is   ‘for   a   peasant   agriculture   and   in   defence   of   its   workers’   (Confédération  

Paysanne’s   website,   translated   from   French).   From   the   1980s   onwards,   the  

Confédération   granted   special   attention   to   the   development   of   relations   with   other  

peasant   unions   internationally.   Its   own   engagement   against   the   Common  Agricultural  

Policy   (CAP)   in   the   EU   and   the   liberalisation   of   agricultural   exchanges   has   led   it   to  

become   a  member   of   the   Coordination   Paysanne   Européenne   (CPE,   later   Coordination  

Européenne   Via   Campesina,   or   Eurovia).   Through   the   CPE,   the   Confédération   was  

involved  in  the  globalisation  of  the  peasant  contestation  by  participating  in  the  creation  

in   1992   of   La   Via   Campesina,   an   international   farmers’   organisation,   fighting  

neoliberalism  and  defending  sustainable  agriculture  (El-­‐Ojeili  and  Hayden,  2006:191).    

The  Confédération  was  also  a  key  actor  in  the  foundation  of  ATTAC  (Association  for  the  

Tobin   Tax   for   the   Aid   of   Citizens)   in   1998.   Originally,   ATTAC   revolved   around   the  

                                                                                                               

3  In  this  paper,  the  term  ‘farmer’  is  used  for  the  sake  of  clarity.  However,  the  author  believes  it  to  be  important  to  call  attention  to  the  semantic  difference.  

  22  

creation  of  a  tax  on  financial  investments,  which  would  protect  against  speculative  and  

short-­‐term   investments,   and   be   used   to   help   fight   social   inequalities   and   bring   about  

development   (Agrikolianski   et   al.,   2004:132-­‐133).   Today,   ATTAC   is   an   umbrella  

organisation   represented   in   all   EU   countries,   and   with   more   than   80,000   members  

around   the   world.   Its   aims   have   broadened   to   include   debt-­‐cancellation   and  

reform/abolition  of  the  WTO.  In  turn,  ATTAC  participated  in  the  establishing  of  the  first  

World  Social  Forum  (WSF).  

In   order   to   understand   the   link   between   the  Confédération  Paysanne   and   the   various  

organisations   listed  above  (Via  Campesina,  ATTAC,  WSF),   it   is  crucial   to   look  briefly  at  

the   relationship   between   the   Confédération   and   the   altermondialiste   (alter-­‐

globalisation)  movement  in  France.  This  relationship  provides  a   lens  through  which  to  

further  explore  the  narrative  put  forth  by  the  Confédération  Paysanne.  

 

4.2 Evolution,  narrative  and  model  

This   section   locates   the   Confédération   Paysanne’s   struggle   within   the   wider  

context  of  the  French  altermondialiste  movement  and  then,  following  a  brief  chronology  

of   the   organisation’s   evolution,   goes   on   to   sketch   out   the   model   put   forth   by   the  

Confédération.  

The  altermondialiste  movement   in   France   can   be   located  within   the   context   of   a   new  

wave   of   protestation   and   contestation   characteristic   of   the   1990s.4   Contrary   to   other  

movements,   the   altermondialiste   movement   cannot   be   associated   with   an   institution,  

nor   does   it   constitute   a   structured   and   autonomous   space.   Rather,   it   was   established  

through  moments  of  contention,  such  as  the  series  of  meetings  and  reunions  (counter-­‐

summits,   social   forums)   that   took   place   between   1989   and   2001,   which   witnessed   a  

convergence  of  existing  struggles  and  aspirations,  claims  and  interests  (Agrikoliansky  et  

al.,   2004:38).   The   altermondialiste   movement   was   first   and   foremost   a   counter-­‐

movement,   articulating   different   stakes   (eg.   economic   development,   socio-­‐

                                                                                                               

4    After  what  Agrikoliansky  et  al.  characterise  as  an  apathetic  decade,  the  1990s  in  France  were  marked  by  a  series  of  groupings  and  convergences  towards  critiques  of  globalisation  and  issue-­‐based  movements  around  the  cause  of  Third-­‐World  debt,  AIDS,  ‘sans-­papiers’,  or  unemployment  (2004:35).  

  23  

environmental   issues)   on   the   basis   of   the   interdependence   of   human   actions   at   the  

global  level  (Ibid:48).    

In  France,  at  the  end  of  the  1990s,  the  movement  went  through  a  semantic  change  from  

being  called  ‘anti-­globalisation’  to  ‘alter-­‐globalisation’,  to  highlight  its  ability  not  just  to  

object   but   to  propose   (Terral,  2011:265-­‐266).  At   the   core  of   the  movement   is   the   idea  

that  there  is  a  need  to  connect  the  ills  of  the  ‘South’  to  those  of  the  ‘North’.  This  can  be  

seen   through   the   various   actions   to   address   the   ‘Sans’   (‘without’),   referring   to  

marginalised  groups  wherever  they  may  be,   that  go   ‘un’-­‐documented  or   ‘without’-­‐food  

or   shelter.   According   to   Terral,   the   two   main   points   of   contention   addressed   by   the  

altermondialiste  movement  are:  deregulated  (neoliberal)  globalisation  and  productivist  

agriculture  (Ibid:260),  or  in  the  words  of  Geneviève  Savigny,  the  question  of   ‘the  mode  

of  development  [neoliberalism]  and  of  production  [productivism]’(interview).  With  such  

a  focus,  in  France,  the  Confédération  Paysanne,  as  the  inheritor  of  anticapitalist  peasant  

organisations  that  fought  in  the  1970s,  plays  a  major  role  in  the  French  altermondialiste  

movement  (Martin,  2004:107).    

The  organisation’s  public  profile  was  built  on  big  activist  events.  Even  prior  to  its  split  

from  the  FNSEA,  a  small  group  of  farmers  occupied  the  Larzac  Plateau,  to  protest  against  

the  selling  of  agricultural  land  to  expand  a  military  base  as  decided  by  the  government,  

without   consulting   the   local   population.   The   Larzac   was   successfully   occupied   from  

1971   until   1981,   until   the   government   cancelled   the   plans,   and   today   represents   a  

bastion  of  resistance  for  France  and  globally  (it  was  the  site  of  an  anti-­‐WTO  meeting  in  

2003).  Ten  years  after  the  creation  of  the  Confédération,  a  first  action  against  genetically  

modified  (GM)  crops  was  led,  which  involved  the  cutting  down  of  GM  crops  fields.  On  the  

12th  August  1999,  the  building  site  of  a  McDonalds  was  occupied;  its  components  were  

disassembled  and  transported  to  the  sub-­‐prefecture.  Slogans  were  painted  all  over  the  

building.   This   was   an   illegal   action   with   real   but   limited   property   damage,   and   no  

violence  on  people.  If  there  were  judicial  implications,  this  highly  symbolic  action  led  to  

the   coming   together   of   ecologists,   consumers,   labour   and   peasant   unions,   protesters  

from  all  over  the  world  (Martin,  2004:134).    

José   Bové,   a   unionist   and   peasant   activist   who   had   led   of   the   action,   and   had   been  

involved  in  the  Larzac  occupation  and  several  anti-­‐GM  actions,  was  suddenly  propelled  

to  the  fore  of  the  French  political  scene.  In  his  public  speeches  and  declarations  around  

  24  

the  McDonalds  action,  he  made  a  clear  link  between  the  global  peasant  struggle  and  the  

altermondialiste  movement.   Similarly,   François   Dufour,   the   national   spokesperson   for  

the   Confédération   at   the   time   –who   later   became   vice-­‐president   of   ATTAC-­‐,   made  

explicit   the  connection  between  the  organization  and  the  problems  he  associated  with  

neoliberal   globalization   (Bruneau,   2004:118-­‐119).   The   McDonalds   action   had   a   huge  

media   impact.   Bové’s   personal   qualities   as   the   emblematic   frontman   as   well   as   the  

various   actions   led   thereafter   enabled   the   altermondialiste   movement   and   the  

Confédération  to  reach  a  wider  audience  (Martin,  2004:108).    

François  Purseigle  explains  that  the  agricultural  world  seems  to  compensate  its  reduced  

capacity   for   mobilisation   on   a   large   scale,   given   its   limited   number,   by   focusing   on  

militant  action,  and  media  impact  (2010:139).  The  rhetoric  used  around  the  actions  led  

by   the  Confédération  Paysanne  makes  evident   the   similarities  of   thought  between   the  

Confédération  and  altermondialisme.  To  understand  those  connections,  it  is  important  to  

turn  to  the  stated  aims  of  the  Confédération.  

Contrary   to   productivist   notions   narrowly   centred   on   the   value   of   production,   the  

Confédération’s  model  differs  in  its  attributing  three  values  or  functions  to  agriculture:  

production,   employment   and  preservation.  These   functions   can  be   linked   to   the   three  

dimensions  (social,  economic  and  environmental)  at  the  core  of  the  organisation’s  vision  

for   a   sustainable   agriculture   (CP   and   FADEAR,   2003:3).   The   Confédération   fights   to  

promote  a  vision  of  agriculture  that  addresses  effectively  the  needs  of  society  in  terms  of  

food,   but   also   of   the   life   in   rural   areas,   services   (eg   territorial   management)   and   the  

quality   and   diversity   of   the   environment.   In   the   early   2000s,   and   following   the   1999  

events  which  led  to  the  opening  of  a  discursive  space  for  those  in  the  movement  already  

inclined   towards   the   global   dimension   of   the   local   struggles,   the   dominant   line   of  

argument   was   the   need   for   a   significant   change   in   the   agricultural   policy   at   the  

international   level   (CAP   and   WTO).   This   line   would   enable   the   realisation   of   the  

objectives   pursued   by   the   organisation,   of   preserving   the   number   of   smallholder  

farmers   -­‐in   France,   in   Europe   and   in   the   world-­‐,   through   the   control   (‘maîtrise’)   of  

production.   This   aimed   to   regulate   the  markets   and   stabilise   prices,   but   also   bring   a  

rupture  with  the  productivist  model  of  agriculture  and  its  consequences  on  products  (ie.  

quality  of  food)  and  the  environment  (Bruneau,  2004:127).    

  25  

This  rupture  came  from  the  Confédération’s  different  attribution  of  values  to  the  three  

functions   of   agriculture   that   it   identifies,   which   for   instance   give   employment,   or   the  

protection  of  farmers,  intrinsic  value.  In  fact,  the  stated  assumption  of  the  organisation  

is   that   there   cannot   be   sustainable   agriculture   in   the   context   of   smallholder  

disappearance.5   The   belief   here   is   that   small   and   medium-­‐sized   farms   are   the   only  

guarantee  of  a   type  of  agriculture  respectful  of   the  environment  and  able   to  provide  a  

diversity  of  foodstuff  (Herman  and  Kuper,  2002:96).  The  organisation  refers  to  its  model  

as  ‘peasant  agriculture’  (‘Agriculture  Paysanne’)  (CP  and  FADEAR,  2003;  CP,  2007).  This  

model  is  in  line  with  the  concept  of  Food  Sovereignty6  first  proposed  by  Via  Campesina  

in  1996.  The  idea  of  Food  Sovereignty  encompasses  a  critique  of  neoliberal  politics  and  

provides   a   different   framework   for   organising   food   and   agricultural   policies  

internationally,  regionally  and  locally  (Nyéléni  Europe  Movement  and  Eurovia,  2012:i).    

In   all   three   functions   inherent   to   the   model   of   ‘peasant   agriculture’   –production,  

employment  and  preservation-­‐,  one  can  observe  the  centrality  of  people.   Indeed,  in  the  

words   of   the   Nyéléni   Declaration,   the   needs   and   aspirations   of   ‘those   who   produce,  

distribute  and  consume  food’  are  put  at  the  heart  of  food  systems  and  policies  (Nyéléni  

Europe   Movement   and   Eurovia,   2012:i).     Arguably,   this   goes   in   contrast   with   the  

dominant  neoliberal  value  attributed  to  agriculture  as  a  motor  for  economic  growth  and  

to   the   intensification   of   production   as   the   way   to   address   food   security   depicted   in  

section   2.3.   This   focus   on   ‘people’   as   opposed   to   ‘things’   is   most   evident   in   the  

Confédération’s  critique  of  the  CAP,  which  is  the  focus  of  the  next  section.  

 

4.3 Beyond  binaries  in  agricultural  narratives:  a  critique  of  the  CAP  

The   focus   on   the   ‘global’   has   been   subject   to   internal   contestation   within   the  

Confédération,   converging   around   the   debate   of   identity,   and  whether   the   role   of   the  

Confédération   should   be   to   fight   for   a   professional   identity   (farmers   fighting   in   the  

                                                                                                               

5   In   the  Gers,   the  number  of   farmers  has   fallen   from  around  13,600   in   the   late  1980s  to  about  4800   today.   According   to   the   Confédération’s   spokesperson   in   the  Gers,   for   each   new   farmer,  there  are  3  or  4  departures  (Chatillon,  interview).  6  The  Declaration  of  Nyéléni  2007  states  that  ‘Food  sovereignty  is  the  right  of  peoples  to  healthy  and  culturally  appropriate  food  produced  through  ecologically  sound  and  sustainable  methods,  and  their  right  to  define  their  own  food  and  agriculture  systems.’  (Nyéléni  Declaration,  cited  in  Nyéléni  Europe  Movement  and  Eurovia  2012:i)  

  26  

interests   of   farmers)   or   if   it   should   be   a   political   identity   (left-­‐wing   cross-­‐cutting  

activism).   A   militant   quoted   by   Bruneau   sketches   out   the   tensions   inherent   to   the  

Confédération,  arguing   that   the  organisation   is  not   the   ‘agricultural  branch’  of  a   social  

movement,   in   that   it   is   not   guided  by   the  movement,   but   rather   it   is   a   union  made  of  

farmers,  and  for  farmers,  with  a  global  logic  (2004:129).  As  such,  on  a  larger  scale,  there  

has  been  convergence  around  the  idea  that  the  Confédération  is  a  ‘farmers’  union  within  

a  social  movement’  (Ibid:129).  From  the  outside,  commentators  notably  from  the  FNSEA  

have  argued  that  the  Confédération’s  engagement  in  non-­‐strictly  agricultural  causes  has  

cost  it  a  seven  points  drop  in  the  last  national  syndicate  elections  in  20077,  thus  receding  

from   27.8   to   20.1   percent   (Ministère   de   l’Agriculture   2007).   For   many,   the  

Confédération   is   considered   a   ‘radical’   union,   with   sometimes   extreme   positions   on  

controversial  issues  such  as  GM  cultures  or  ecology  (Coroller,  2001).    

Bruneau   argues   that   the   essentialisation   of   the   Confédération   as   an   alterglobalist  

organisation  ignores  a  large  part  of  the  syndicate’s  interventions  (2004).  Indeed,  at  the  

local  level,  most  of  the  engagement  in  terms  of  time,  claims,  action  and  debates  tend  to  

revolve  not  on  the  global  frame  of  the  issues,  but  rather  concerns  such  as  land  access  for  

young  farmers,  distribution  of  production  rights  and  aid.  Thus  it  is  important  to  see  how  

the   organisation   articulates   the   relationship   between   the   local   and   the   global   with  

regards   to  agriculture.  For   that  purpose,   the  example  used  here   is   the  Confédération’s  

critique  of  the  CAP.  

As   outlined   in   section   2.3,   the   Common   Agricultural   Policy   was   predicated   upon   a  

productivist  model  of  agriculture.  Soon  after  it  was  implemented,  the  CAP  became  a  way  

of   funding   ‘industrialised’   farmers   –   agriculteurs-­‐   at   the   expense   of   others,   thereby  

forcing  small  farmers  off  the  land  in  the  interest  of  ‘efficient’  farming.  Herman  and  Kuper  

explain  that  the  larger  the  farm,  the  more  it  benefits  from  subsidies,  with  40  percent  of  

subsidies  going  to  the  large  cereal  producers,  representing  less  than  four  percent  of  the  

total  French  farming  population  (2002:109).    

                                                                                                               

7   For   many,   this   failure   was   partly   explained   by   the   Confédération’s   taking   position   against  agrofuel   and   productivist  measures   encouraged   by   the   newly   elected   right-­‐wing   government,  which   has   led   it   to   be   seen   by   some   as   defending   the   interests   of   consumers   and   the  environment,   rather   than   that   of   farmers   (Confédération   Paysanne   2007:100;   Barthomeuf,  interview).  

  27  

The  Confédération  goes  further  in  its  critique  explaining  that  the  price  of  such  a  model,  

is  paid  not  only  by  the  masses  of  subsistence  and  small  farmers  in  the  Global  South,  but  

by  small  farmers  in  the  North  as  well  (Herman  and  Kuper,  2002:xvii).  In  fact,  what  costs  

so  much  today  is  not  the  agricultural  budget  per  se,  but  rather  the  costs  of  what  are  seen  

by   the   organisation   as   disastrous   policy   choices   of   an   intensive,   industrial   mode   of  

agricultural   production,   with   substantial   environmental   spillovers   and   social  

consequences  (ATTAC  and  CP  2008:2).  As  such,  the  critique  of  the  CAP  put  forth  by  the  

Confédération  is  first  and  foremost  a  critique  of  the  dominant  productivist  model,  with  

its   narrow   focus   on   production,   more   so   than   on   budget   distribution.   In   a   book  

published   for   the  Confédération,  Herman  and  Kuper  state   that   the  critique  pertains   to  

the   ‘unholy   trinity’   of   enlargement,   concentration   and   industrialisation   (2002:106).  

Instead,   the   organisation’s   vision   of   an   alternative   model   of   agriculture   puts   small  

farmers   at   the   heart   of   agriculture,   and   encompasses   notions   of   social   justice,   the  

preservation  of  rural  jobs,  ecological  sustainability  and  international  solidarity  (Agir  Ici  

and   CP,   2005:1).   The   organisation   states   that   a   form   of   intelligent   protectionism,  

between  narrow  nationalism  and  unbridled  globalisation,  has  a  role  to  play,  suggesting  a  

framework   based   on   a   right   to   produce   that   would   take   into   account   the   number   of  

active   workers   on   the   farm.   These   rights   would   be   allocated   between   regions   and  

countries  (Herman  and  Kuper,  2002:97-­‐100).  

Such   a   proposition   highlights   the   centrality   of   small   farmers   not   only   in   productive  

terms,  but  also  in  social  terms.  The  attention  given  to  the  social  nature  of  agriculture  can  

be  linked  to  the  narrative  of   ‘solidarity’  put  forward  by  the  organisation.  Indeed,  it  can  

be  argued  that  most  actions  undertaken  by  the  Confédération  overflow  a  strict  focus  on  

members  of  the  organisation.  This  can  be  seen  through  its  involvement  at  different  levels  

previously  mentioned,   and   its   instrumental   role   in   developing   alternative   policies   for  

agriculture   and   in  working  with   other   groups   at   different   levels   (Herman   and   Kuper,  

2002:xviii).   This   engagement   highlights   a   struggle   beyond   the   confines   of   the   union’s  

base,   and   the   integrated   nature   of   its   vision,   which   does   not   presuppose   a   binary  

relation   between   the  North   and   the   South,   or   the   local   and   the   global.   This   is   further  

explored  in  the  next  chapter.  

 

  28  

5.    Analysis:  ‘Think  local  (/global),  act  global  (/local)’?  

 5.1 Acting  and  thinking  in  multiple  levels  

The   tagline   ‘Think   global,   act   local’   has   been   used   as   a   rallying   cry   for   people   to  

consider  global  issues  –such  as  the  environment-­‐  and  take  action  in  their  communities.  

It  is  one  of  the  altermondialiste  slogans,  one  of  ATTAC’s  official  chants,  and  José  Bové’s  

maxim  (Terral,  2011:249).  At  the  core  of  the  slogan  is  the  idea  that  ‘many  locales  make  a  

global’,  and  thus  it  is  possible  to  unite  and  make  a  global  struggle  of  the  many  local  ones  

(Cascant-­‐Sempere,  2012).  In  other  words,  this  locates  power  at  the  global  level  and  the  

field  of  action  at  the  local  level.  

In   the   late   1990s,   another   tagline   emerged,   favouring   global   contestation   drawing   on  

multiple   locales   (Chesters   and  Welsh,   2006:73).   For   some   scholars   including   Manuel  

Castells,   based   on   their   framing   of   the   process   of   globalisation,   the   field   of   action   for  

contestation   could   be   located   at   the   global   level,   hence   the   need   to   ‘think   local,   act  

global’.  In  a  public  lecture,  Castells  explains  that  ‘We  all  have  local  lives.  […]  We  have  to  

think  local  because  that’s  where  we  are  and  act  global  because  that’s  where  the  power  

is.’(2012).  

In  the  case  of  the  Confédération  Paysanne,  it  is  difficult  to  reduce  its  actions  and  thinking  

to  such  dichotomies.  Despite  some  speeches  and  publications  using  the  ‘think  global,  act  

local’  slogan,  what  emerged  from  the  interviews  conducted  in  the  course  of  this  research  

as   well   as   the   analysis   of   documents   produced   by   the   organisation,   is   that   the  

Confédération   Paysanne   challenges   binaries   in   two   ways.   Firstly,   in   practice,   the  

Confédération   works   at   multiple   levels,   thus   going   beyond   the   local/global   dualism.  

Secondly,   its   integrated   understanding   of   the   issue   of   agriculture  means   that   it   is   not  

seen  as  characterised  by  a  North/South  binary,  or  a  local/global  one.    

5.1.1 Acting  at  different  levels  

The   Confédération   works   a   several   levels   at   the   same   time   (Confédération   Paysanne  

2007:118-­‐119).  For  the  sake  of  clarity,  in  this  sub-­‐section,  the  organisation’s  actions  are  

divided  by  ‘levels’,  namely  the  international,  European/national  and  local  (departmental  

and  regional),  as  suggested  by  Genevieve  Savigny  (interview).  This  is  used  as  a  baseline  

for  the  analysis.  

  29  

At   the   international   level,   the   Confédération   Paysanne’s   narrative   is   put   into   action  

mainly   through   its   engagement   in   Via   Campesina.   There   it   furthers   its   fight   for   the  

recognition  of  the  right  to  food  sovereignty  and  the  defence  of  peasant  agriculture  and  of  

its   workers.   In   an   interview,   Genevieve   Savigny   explained   that   the   idea   of   food  

sovereignty   is  a   ‘unifying  concept’,   linking   the  different  struggles  of   farmers  and  other  

peoples  and  encompassing  the  quest  for  a  different  mode  of  production,  transformation  

and  consumption.   In  practice,   through  Via  Campesina  the  Confédération  Paysanne  and  

its   fellow  members   engage   with   international   actors   such   as   the  WTO   or   the   United  

Nations,  while  also  taking  part  in  local  struggles  on  the  basis  of  solidarity.  

At   the   European   level,   the   Confédération   Paysanne   is   a   member   of   Eurovia,   the  

European  branch  of  Via  Campesina.  Here  it  should  be  stressed  that  given  the  European  

political   system,  most   of   the   Confédération’s  work   affecting   the   national   level   is   dealt  

with  at  the  European  level.  The  struggle  against  the  milk  quotas  or  the  CAP  mentioned  

previously   constitutes   the   bulk   of   the   work   and   actions   led   by   the   Confédération  

Paysanne   at   the   European   level.   Thus,   under   the   banner   of   Eurovia,   several   farmers’  

organisations   from   around   Europe   are   able   to   put   together   their   critique   of   the  

productivist   agenda   underlying   the   CAP   and   develop   alternatives.   Conferences   and  

forums   are   also   organised   to   bring   together   farmers   from   different   countries   and  

regions,  as  was  the  case  with  the  European  Nyéléni  forums,  as  a  way  to  bring  together  

best  practices  and  ideas.  

Given  the  existence  of  regulatory   frameworks  at   the   local   level,  working   locally   is  also  

necessary.   In   order   to   promote   its   model   of   ‘peasant   agriculture’   on   the   ground,   the  

Confédération  Paysanne  created  a   federation  of  associations   in  the  1980s.  The  various  

Association  pour  le  Developpement  de  l’Emploi  Agricole  et  Rural  (ADEAR  -­‐  association  for  

the   development   of   agricultural   and   rural   employment)   are   based   in   most   French  

departments.   An   ADEAR   facilitator,   referred   to   the   Confédération   Paysanne   (at   the  

national   level)   as   the   ‘thinking   head’,   bringing   about   the   main   political   axes  

(Barthomeuf,  interview).  Thus  the  role  of  the  ADEARs  is  to  implement  these  axes  on  the  

ground  at  the  local  (department  and  regional)  level.  One  of  the  key  roles  of  the  ADEARs  

is  to  provide  support  and  accompaniment  for  new  farmers  and  for  people  who  decide  to  

settle   in  as   farmers.  As  such,  ADEARs  provide   training   for  members  and  employees  of  

the  Confédération,  and  promote  the  model  of  ‘peasant  agriculture’.    

  30  

If   the   separation   of   the   Confédération   Paysanne’s   work   in   those   three   levels   helps  

illustrate  the  way  its  narrative  is  put  into  practice  at  different  levels,  it  fails  to  highlight  

the  glocal  nature  of  its  work.  Indeed,  the  distinction  into  the  different  levels  conceals  the  

interconnectedness  of  those  initiatives.  

As  explained  by  Confédération’s  spokesperson  for  the  Gers  department,  the  inception  of  

associations   and   organisations   at   different   levels   can   be   seen   as   part   of   a   strategy,  

enabling   the   Confédération   to   engage   with   a   wide   range   of   actors   and   institute   a  

different  balance  of  power  (Chatillon,  interview).  As  such,  the  Confédération  is  part  of  an  

immense  and  layered  network  at  several  levels,  often  interconnected.  Many  members  of  

the   organisation   travel   at   the   European   level   or   internationally   for   summits   and  

conferences  as  was  the  case  for  instance  for  the  first  two  Nyéléni  conferences  in  Austria  

and  in  Mali,  or  when  the  Confédération  officially  took  part  in  the  1999  Seattle  protests.    

 

5.1.2 An  integrated  thinking  

If  the  fact  that  the  Confédération  Paysanne  works  at  different  levels  can  be  understood  

in   terms   of   a   strategy,   it   is   important   to   understand   it   with   regards   to   its   narrative.  

Indeed,  at  the  core  of  the  vision  of  the  Confédération  Paysanne  is  the  attribution  of  value  

to   production,   employment   and   preservation   (section   4.2),   in   line   with   the   notion   of  

‘people   paradigm’   (Chambers,   1997:36-­‐38)   as   well   as   a   refusal   to   isolate   agriculture  

from  other  sectors,  and  the  ‘here’  from  the  ‘there’.  This  ‘internationalist’  nature  central  to  

socialist  thought  can  be  linked  to  its  being  an  inheritor  of  anticapitalist  unions  active  in  

the  1960s  and  1970s.  Indeed,  the  notion  of  ‘solidarity’  was  central  to  the  project  of  the  

Confédération  in  its  early  days  (Lambert,  1970:171-­‐181).  In  the  1980s  and  early  1990s,  

based  on  Marxist  and  Third-­‐Worldist   ideas  en  vogue  at   the   time,   the   idea  of  solidarity  

was  meant  to  reflect  ‘the  shared  interests  of  farmers  around  the  world,  based  on  shared  

experiences   and   the   idea   that   other   peasants   were   “brothers   in   arms”’   (Martin,  

2004:113-­‐114).  Later,  the  notion  of  solidarity  was  enlarged  to  give  rise  to  the  idea  that  

the  fate  of  peasants   in  the  North  is   indissociable  from  that  of  the  farmers  and  starving  

people   in   the   South   (Agrikoliansky   et   al.,   2004:28).   Thus,   the   organisation’s   vision   is  

based   on   the   recognition   of   the   shared   nature   of   experiences   of   the   ‘local’   for   the  

peasantry  worldwide.  Such  experiences  typically  revolve  around  a  systemic  analysis  of  

oppression   and   exploitation.   Thus,   a   guest   participant   from   Nigeria   at   the   2011  

  31  

European   Nyéléni   Forum   explains   that   ‘We   are   struggling   with   the   same   things,   […],  

same   patterns.’   in   reference   to   the   common   experience   with   farmers   from   Europe  

(European   Nyéléni   forum   for   food   sovereignty,   2012).   This   idea   of   shared   issues   and  

challenges,  but  also  shared  adversaries  was  an  element  common  to  all  interviews.  Such  a  

vision   points   to   the   need   for   different   denominators   than   geography   and   regional  

location  to  give  an  accurate  picture  of  small  farmers’  experiences.    

In   other   words,   the   very   vision   of   the   Confédération   Paysanne   challenges   the  

North/South  binary.  Indeed,  if  there  is  an  acknowledgement  of  some  differences  in  the  

daily  experiences  of  small   farmers  worldwide,   there   is  recognition  of  the  systemic  and  

for   some   ideological  nature  of  phenomena   such  as   small-­‐scale   farmers  disappearance,  

debt  and   landlessness.  According   to  members  of   the  organisation,   and  contrary   to   the  

‘North  vs.  South’  narratives  that  surround  the  issue  of  agriculture  outlined  in  section  2.3,  

at   the   core   of   the   issue   is   the   productivist  model.   Thus,   focusing   the   analysis   based   a  

North/South-­‐type   binary   leads   to   a   false   conception   of   what   is   at   stake,   or   failing   to  

notice  the  integrated  nature  of  the  issue  of  agriculture.  Indeed,  while  dividing  the  world  

into   a   rich   and   exploitative   ‘West’   and   a   poor   and   exploited   ‘Rest’   has   given   rise   to  

politically   important   geographies   of   development   (Cloke   and   Johnston,   2005:15),   the  

case   study   of   the   Confédération   Paysanne   shows   that   this   binary   distinction   can   and  

indeed  has  been  challenged  so  as  to  recognise  more  complex  interactions.  

 

As  shown  by  sections  5.1.1  and  5.1.2,  the  organisation  cannot  be  considered  as  strictly  

local  or  global.   It  does  not   think   ‘local’  or   ‘global’,  and   it  does  not  act   ‘local’  or   ‘global’.  

Thus   it   does   not   ‘think   global   and   act   local’   or   ‘think   local   and   act   global’.   Unlike   the  

other   unions   mentioned   in   this   paper,   it   is   not   acting   in   the   sole   defence   of   small  

farmers,  nor  is  it  a  global  advocacy  movement  (Collins,  Gariyo  and  Burdon,  2001:136).  It  

is   not   the   people   in   ‘the   North’   demanding   change   in   ‘the   South’,   but   rather   it   is   the  

recognition   of   a   common   issue,   not   based   on   a   hierarchy   of   development.   The  

Confédération’s  vision   is   rooted   in  a   ‘people  paradigm’  and   is  based  on   the  concept  of  

solidarity   in  the  sense  of  the  realisation  of  a  common  struggle,   the  unity  of  small-­‐scale  

farmers  and  consumers  in  aspirations  and  interests.  

 

  32  

5.2 Pros  and  cons  of  acting  and  thinking  in  multiple  levels  

There  are  pros  and  cons  stemming  from  the  Confédération’s  stance  of  thinking  and  

acting  at  multiple  levels.  Although  it  was  originally  instigated  as  a  French  farmers’  union,  

the   Confédération’s  wider   project   and   vision   requires   a   focus   beyond   French   or   even  

European   politics   and   boundaries.   Thus,   working   at   several   levels   has   forced   the  

organization   to   articulate   and   negotiate   its   identity   as   a   social   movement   and   as   a  

farmers’   union.   As   was   mentioned   previously,   this   negotiation   is   one   of   the   main  

challenges   faced   by   the   organisation.   Yet,   despite   problems   and   accusations   for   being  

too   much   of   one   and   not   enough   of   the   other,   the   organisation   insists   that   both   are  

complementary.  Indeed,  in  recent  years,  there  has  been  a  clear  refusal  on  the  part  of  the  

Confédération   to   chose  one   logic  over   the  other   (CP,  2007:119).  Thus,  Via  Campesina,  

Eurovia   and   the   local  ADEARs   –to  use   the   same  examples   as  previously-­‐   are   separate  

entities  but  work   in  parallel   to  one  another  and  all   form  part  of   the  same  global   logic.  

The   coherence  of   the  model  promoted  by   the  Confédération,   its  politics   and   its   global  

logic   mean   that   it   can   apply   everywhere.   This,   Charleyne   Barthomeuf   explains   links  

‘local’  ADEARs  and  some  global  solidarity  campaigns  she  takes  part  in  (interview).  

One   issue   that   emerged   out   of   the   interviews   conducted   was   the   complexity   of   the  

Confédération’s  message.  Indeed,  when  comparing  the  Confédération’s  line  of  argument  

to  that  of   the  FNSEA,   it  appeared  that   the   latter’s  views  and  aims  were  clearer,   in  that  

the  majoritarian  union  defends  the  interests  of  farmers  in  a  more  straightforward  way,  

based  on  a   logic  of  material   interests   (eg.  production).  However,  due   to   its   global   and  

more  integrated  logic  the  Confédération  Paysanne’s  message  is  deemed  more  difficult  to  

explain   and   thus   spread,   particularly   amongst   farmers   (Chatillon,   interview).   As   two  

interviewees   stated,   in   the   French   department   of   the  Gers,  where   the   Confédération’s  

electoral   scores   are   low,   there   are   stronger   links  with   and   support   from  non-­‐farmers  

groups  than  farmers.  

A  binary  logic  clearly  distinguishing  the  ‘local’  from  the’  global’  would  potentially  enable  

the  Confédération   to   appeal   to   a  broader  base,  notably   amongst   farmers.  However,   as  

stated  by  Charleyne  Barthomeuf,  the  strength  of  the  Confédération  lies  in  its  ‘coherence’  

(interview).  Thus,  beyond  the  interests  of  peasants,  the  Confédération  is  concerned  with  

  33  

those  of   consumers,   through   its   linking  of  dual-­‐track  agriculture   to  dual-­‐quality   food.8  

The  issue  of  ‘junk  food’  (malbouffe)  highlighted  in  the  dismantlement  of  the  McDonalds  

in   Millau   makes   a   clear   link   between   producers   and   consumers   in   the   fight   against  

dominant  systems  of  production  and  to  promote  the  notion  of  ‘producing  less  but  better’,  

or  in  the  words  of  Nettie  Wiebe,  to  promote  ‘a  Peasant  Agriculture  that  will  not  only  feed  

the  world,  but  feed  it  better’  (European  Nyéléni  forum  for  food  sovereignty,  2012).  As  such,  

making   the   link   between   society   and   farmers,   Jean-­‐Claude   Chatillon   explains   that  

agriculture  is  best  defended  by  the  whole  of  society  (interview).    

 

5.3 Multi-­‐levelled  thinking  in  action  

Using   the   hegemony   framework   articulated   in   the   section   2.1,   it   appears   that   by  

putting   forth   a   new   idea   of   space   through   the   interrelation   of   struggles   and   a   vision  

beyond   North/South   and   local/global   binaries,   here   in   the   context   of   agriculture,   the  

Confédération  Paysanne  is  contributing  to  the  creation  of  a  new  politics  of  space,  a  new  

regime  of  spatial  and  social  imaginaries.  Indeed,  by  rejecting  the  arbitrary  of  boundaries  

for   struggle,   part   of   the   neoliberal   capitalist   logic   (Harvey,   1982:421-­‐422),   the  

organisation  frees  itself  from  the  dictatorship  of  dualism.    

The  concept  of  the  ‘glocal’  put  forth  in  section  2.2,  as  the  interconnectedness  of  the  local  

and   global   levels   (Blatter,   2006:358)   can   help   in   making   sense   of   the   work   of   the  

Confédération  Paysanne.  Indeed,  the  attempt  to  see  the  global  and  the  local  in  relational  

terms   at   the   core   of   Cox   and   Roberston’s   arguments   resonate  with   the   narrative   and  

work  of   the  Confédération  Paysanne.  However,   the  author  of   this  paper  believes   there  

are  potential  dangers  associated  with   the  very   term   ‘glo-­‐cal’.   Indeed,   the  case  study  of  

the   Confédération   Paysanne   shows   that   there   is   a   need   for  more   than   a   two-­‐level   or  

even   three-­‐level   analysis   (Blatter,   2006).   As   such,   a   concept   encompassing   the  multi-­‐

levelled   nature   of   the   Confédération’s   work   would   prove   a   better-­‐suited   framework  

through  which  to  make  sense  of  the  organisation’s  vision.  

Thus,   going   back   to   globalisation   debates   mentioned   in   section   2.2,   in   referring   to  

another   idiom   of   space,   an   alternative   articulation   of   the   local   and   the   global,   the  

                                                                                                               

8   This   linking   of   productivist   agriculture   to   lower-­‐quality   products   can   be   exemplified   by   the  Confédération’s   struggle   against   GM   crops,   or   bovine   growth   hormones   (Confédération  Paysanne,  2007:11).  

  34  

Confédération  is  part  of  that  third  movement,  free  from  the  ‘hyperglobalist  vs.  sceptics’  

debate.   The   organisation’s   working   in   a   multi-­‐levelled   network   is   in   line   with   the  

overflowing   of   binaries.   This   vision   challenges   the   normativity   of   boundaries,   both  

geographical  and  social.  As  such,  going  beyond  North/South  or  local/global  dualism(s),  

the  Confédération  Paysanne  is  performing  a  new  politics,  pointing  to  new  ‘possibles’.    

As   argued   in   the   second  chapter,   resistance  as   the   changing  of   relations  of  power   can  

only  come   through  by  ascertaining   the  possibility  of  alternatives.  As   the  Confédération  

Paysanne  strives  to  demonstrate  that  another  system  of  production  and  consumption  is  

possible,   it   constitutes   a   challenge   to   the   hegemony   of   neoliberal   productivist  

agriculture  both  in  theory  and  in  practice.  Using  Bourdieu’s  concept  of  the  doxa  (1977),  

one   can   argue   that   the   Confédération’s   thinking   and   actions   open   up   a   world   of  

competing   possibles,   alternative   stories   about   how   people   might   and   do   organise  

themselves  socially  and  politically  beyond  the  rigidity  of  binary  frameworks.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  35  

6.    Conclusion  

  Based  on  a  combination  of  primary  and  secondary  data  analysis,   this  paper  has  

put   forward   the   case   of   the   Confédération  Paysanne,   a   French   farmers’   union,   and   its  

particular  articulation  of  the  relationship  between  the  North  and  the  South,  the  local  and  

the   global.   My   personal   interest   in   the   topic   came   out   of   my   own   experience   of  

simplification,   and   failing   to   consider   the   diversity   in   narratives   and   experiences   of  

agriculture   even   within   ‘the   North’.   Through   this   case   study   I   chose   to   open   up   the  

narrative.  

 

The   case   study   of   the   Confédération   Paysanne’s   vision   and   work   showed   that   the  

organisation  does  not  simply  ‘think  global,  and  act  local’  or  ‘think  local,  and  act  global’,  

but  rather  understands  these  scales  as  interconnected.  Indeed,  the  organisation’s  vision  

revolves  around  ideas  of  interconnectedness  of  people,  shared  experiences  and  the  need  

to   act   at   several   levels   at   the   same   time.   The   aim   of   this   paper   is   not   to   deny   the  

existence  of  what  are  often  referred   to  as   ‘the  North’  and   ‘the  South’  or   ‘the   local’  and  

‘the  global’,  in  that  they  are  not  valid  analytical  tools  for  exploring  other  issues.  Rather,  

for  the  Confédération,  the  particular  framing  of  the  issue  of  agriculture  based  on  those  

binaries,  proves  flawed,  thereby  limiting  potential  for  action  and  understanding.    

Referring  to  a  ‘glocal’  sphere  whereby  the  local  and  the  global  are  mutually  constituted  

(Swyngedouw,   1997:137),   is   more   politically   complex   than   the   simplification   or  

assumption   of   isolatedness   of   experiences.   However,   it   still   fails   to   recognise   the  

multiplicity   of   levels   at   which   the   Confédération   engages,   and   thus   it   is   important   to  

apprehend   the   organisation’s   endeavour   in   a  more  multi-­‐levelled  perspective   so   as   to  

make  sense  of  its  working  and  thinking  at  different  scales.  

 

If  at   times  there  may  be  a  need   for  simplification,   it  should  not  be  associated  with   the  

shutting  out  of  alternative  narratives  and  visions.  Indeed,  the  issue  of  agriculture  and  its  

ramifications   is   a   complex   one,   and   what   emerges   from   this   research   is   that  

simplification   such   as   focusing   on   a   North/South   divide   to   make   sense   of   the  

complexities   involved,   only   closes   down   on   one   dominant   narrative.   As   such,   it   is  

important   for   alternative   narratives   and   ‘competing   stories’   to   be   heard.   The  

Confédération  Paysanne,  by  challenging  the  legitimacy  of  dominant  dualist  thinking,  and  

by   refusing   to   fall   into   the   local/global   and   North/South   binary   participates   in   the  

  36  

broadening   of   the   narrative   surrounding   agriculture   in   development.   To   that   extent,  

Bourdieu’s  idea  of   ‘competing  possibles’  helps  explain  the  significance  of  the  work  and  

vision  of  the  Confédération  Paysanne,  which  is  essentially  pointing  to  the  possibility  and  

indeed  existence  of  an  alternative  to  the  dominant  narrative  and  practice  of  agriculture.  

 

As  a  farmers’  union,  the  Confédération  Paysanne  is  often  expected  to  focus  on  defending  

the   interests  of   farmers   in   terms  of  production  and  profits.   Yet,  what   appeared   in   the  

course  of   the  research  undertaken   for   this  paper   is   that   the  organisation’s  vision  goes  

beyond   narrow   understanding   of   ‘interests’   such   as   based   on   a   productivist   model.  

Instead,  its  vision  is  based  on  a  global  logic,  with  implications  at  various  levels,  from  the  

local   to   the   global,   thus   requiring   different   strategies.   Only   by   understanding   the  

relationship  between  the  different  spaces  and  scales  is  it  possible  to  make  sense  of  the  

Confédération’s   stance   in   refusing   the   hegemony   of   dominant   binaries,   which   isolate  

‘what  happens  “here”  from  what  happens  “there”’.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  37  

7.  Appendices                                    7.1 List  of  interviewees      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

Name   Position/Occupation   Date  of  interview   Location  of  interview    Savigny,  G.  

 -­‐Former  National  Secretary  for  the  Confédération  Paysanne  -­‐Member  of  Coordination  Committee  of  Eurovia  -­‐Farmer  (Cereal,  fodder,  lavender,  poultry)    

 16.07.12  

 Skype  

   Barthomeuf,  C.  

 -­‐Local  facilitator  ADEAR  32  (Gers,  France)  -­‐Winemaker    

 10.08.12  

 Auch  (France)  

 Chatillon,  J.-­‐C.  

 -­‐Departmental  spokesperson  for  the  Confédération  Paysanne  (Gers,  France)  -­‐Farmer  (cattle)    

 13.08.12  

 Loustliges  (France)  

  38  

                                                                   7.2 Bibliography                              

 Abercrombie,  N.  and  Turner,  B.S.  (1978).  The  dominant  ideology  thesis.  British  Journal  of  Sociology,  29(2),  149-­‐170.  Available  from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/589886.  (Accessed  17.05.2012)    Agir   Ici   and   Confédération   Paysanne   (2005).   Aides   agricoles:   autopsie   d’un   système  inégalitaire.   Pour   engager   un   vrai   débat   sur   la   politique   agricole   commune.   Online.  Available   from:   http://www.confederationpaysanne.fr/images/imagesFCK/file/05/  aidesPACagiriciconfnov05.pdf  (Accessed  23.06.12)    Agrikoliansky,   E.,   Fillieule,   O.   and  Mayer,   N.   (2004).   L’Altermondialisme   en   France:   La  longue  histoire  d’une  nouvelle  cause.  Paris:  Flammarion.    ATTAC  France  and  Confédération  Paysanne  (2008).  Pour  d’autres  politiques  agricoles  et  alimentaires   en   Europe:   Une   nouvelle   régulation   internationale.   Online.   Available   from:  http://www.france.attac.org/sites/default/files/4p_pol_agri.pdf  (Accessed  20.04.12)    Berger,   S.   (1972).   Peasants   against   politics:   rural   organization   in   Brittany,   1911-­1967.  Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University  Press.    Blatter,  J.  (2006).  Glocalization,  in  Bevir,  M.  (eds.)  Encyclopedia  of  Governance.  Thousand  Oaks:  SAGE.  

  39  

 Boulanger   P.   (2005).   La   Politique   agricole   commune  :   le   moment   de   vérité   en   France  ?  Groupe  d’Economie  Mondiale.  Sciences  Po.  Online.  Available  from  :  http://gem.sciences-­‐po.fr/content/publications/pdf/APBbriefFR.pdf    (Accessed  25.06.12)    Bourdieu,  P.  (1977).  Outline  of  a  Theory  of  Practice.    Cambridge  :  Cambridge  University  Press.    Bruneau,   I.   (2004).   La   Confédération   paysanne   et   le   “mouvement   altermondialiation”:  L’international  comme  enjeu  syndical.  Politix.  Vol  17,  no  68.pp111-­‐134.  Online.  Available  from:      http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/polix_0295-­‐2319_  2004  _num_17_68_1640  (Accessed  03.04.12)    Burawoy,  M.  (1998).  The  Extended  Case  Method.  Sociological  Theory,  16(1):4-­‐32.  Online.  Available   from:   http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Methodology/ECM.ST.pdf   (Accessed  24.05.12)    Burawoy,  M.   (2010).  Global   Ethnographies:   Forces,   Connections,   and   Imaginations   in   a  Postmodern  World.  London:  University  of  California  Press.    Burawoy,  M.  (2012)  Cultural  domination:  Gramsci  meets  Bourdieu,  in  Burawoy,  M.  and  von   Holdt,   K.   Conversations   with   Bourdieu.   Available   online:  http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Bourdieu/4.Gramsci.pdf  (Accessed  27.05.12)    Cascant-­‐Sempere,   M.   (2011).   ‘Extending   Out’   Participation:   Exploring   connections  between   participatory   research   and   the   extended   case   method.   Unpublished   paper.  Brighton:  University  of  Sussex.      Cascant-­‐Sempere,  M.  (2012).  ‘Spring  uprising  calling  spring  academics:  #bring  books  out  to   the   streets’,   Participation   Power   and   Social   Change   Blog.   23   February.   Online.  Available   at:   http://participationpower.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/spring-­‐uprisings-­‐calling-­‐spring-­‐academics-­‐bring-­‐books-­‐out-­‐to-­‐the-­‐streets/  (Accessed  03.03.12)    Castells,   M.   (2012).   The   Power   of   Communication   [Lecture   to   Public   Sociology   class  University   of   Southern   California].   1   February.   Online.   Available   from:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8zcq-­‐7I8f8A   (Accessed  04.08.12)    Chambers,   R.   (1997).   Whose   Reality   Counts?   Putting   the   First   Last.   Bourton-­‐on-­‐Dunsmore:  ITDG  Publishing.  

Chambers,   R.   (2010).   Paradigms,   Poverty   and   Adaptive   Pluralism.   IDS   Working   Paper  344,  Brighton:  IDS.    Chesters,   G.   and  Welsh,   I.   (2006).  Complexity   and   Social  Movements:  Multitudes   at   the  edge  of  chaos.  Abingdon:  Routledge.    Cloke,  P.  and  Johnston,  R.  (2005).  Deconstructing  human  geography’s  binaries,  in  Cloke,  P.   and   Johnston,   R.   (eds.)   Spaces   of   Geographical   Thought:   Deconstructing   Human  

  40  

Geography’s  Binaries.  London:  SAGE.    Collins,   C.   Gariyo,   Z.   and   Burdon,   B.   (2001).   Jubilee   2000:   Citizen   Action   Across   the  North-­‐South  Divide,  in  Edwards,  M.  and  Gaventa,  J.  (eds.)  Global  Citizen  Action.  Boulder:  Lynne  Rienner.    Confédération  Paysanne   (n.d.).   Pour  une  agriculture  paysanne.  Online.  Available   from:  http://www.confederationpaysanne.fr/l-­‐agriculture-­‐paysanne_15.php   (Accessed  18.06.12)    Confédération  Paysanne   (2007).  1987-­2007:  Une  Histoire  de   la  Confédération  Paysanne  par  celles  et  ceux  qui  l’ont  vécue.  Azaprim:  Bussy-­‐Saint-­‐Martin.    Confédération  Paysanne,  and  Fédération  Associative  pour  le  Développement  de  l'Emploi  Agricole   et   Rural   (2003)   Charte   de   l'agriculture   paysanne.   Online.   Available   from:  http://www.confederationpaysanne.fr/images/imagesFCK/file/presentationconf/agriculture%20paysanne/AP_plaquette%20complete.pdf    (Accessed  02.05.12)    Cooke,   A.M.   et   al.   (2009).   Agriculture,   Trade,   and   the   Global   Governance   of   Food,   in  Curran,  S.  et  al.  (eds.)  The  Global  Governance  of  Food.  London:  Routledge.    Cornwall,   A.   and   Jewkes   R.   (1995).   What   is   Participatory   Research?   Social   Science   &  Medicine,   41(12):1667-­‐1676.   Online.   Available   from:   http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-­‐9536(95)00127-­‐S  (Accessed  11.07.12)    Coroller,   C.   (2001).   ‘La   FNSEA   rumine   sa   victoire   aux   elections’.   Libération   Online.  Online.   2  February.  Available   from:  http://www.liberation.fr/economie/  0101362552-­‐la-­‐fnsea-­‐rumine-­‐sa-­‐victoire-­‐aux-­‐elections  (Accessed  03.08.12)    Cox,   K.   (1997).   Globalization   and   its   politics   in   question,   in   Cox,   K.   (eds.).   Spaces   of  Globalization:  reasserting  the  power  of  the  local.  New-­‐York:  The  Guildford  Press.    Cox,  K.   (2005).  Local:Global,   in  Cloke,  P.  and   Johnston,  R.   (eds.)  Spaces  of  Geographical  Thought:  Deconstructing  Human  Geography’s  Binaries.  London:  SAGE.    Daugbjerg,  C.  and  Swinbank,  A.   (2009).   Ideas,   Institutions  and  Trade;  The  WTO  and   the  Curious   Role   of   EU   Farm   Policy   in   Trade   Liberalization.   New-­‐York:   Oxford   University  Press.    El-­‐Ojeili,   C.   and   Hayden,   P.   (2006).   Critical   Theories   of   Globalisation.   Basingstoke:  Palgrave  Macmillan.      European   Nyéléni   forum   for   food   sovereignty   (2012).   [DVD]   Brussels:   Zin   TV   and  European  Coordination  Via  Campesina.    Flyvberg,  B.  (2011).  Case  study,  in  Denzin,  N.  and  Lincoln,  Y.  (eds.).  The  SAGE  Handbook  of  Qualitative  research,  4th  edn.  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  SAGE.    Foucault,  M.  (1976).  The  History  of  Sexuality.  Volume  1  :  The  Will  to  Knowledge.  London  :  

  41  

Penguin.    Gramsci,  A.  (1971)  Selection  from  the  prison  notebooks.  London:  Lawrence  and  Wishart.    Guba,   E.   and   Lincoln,   Y.   (2005).   Paradigmatic   Controversies,   Contradictions,   and  Emerging   Confluences,   in,   Denzin,   N.   and   Lincoln,   Y.   (eds.).   The   SAGE   Handbook   of  Qualitative  research,  3rd  edn.  London:  SAGE.    Hall,   S.   (1997).   The  Work   of   Representation,   in  Hall,   S.   (eds.)  Representation:   Cultural  Representations  and  Signifying  Practices.  London:  SAGE.    Harvey,  D.  (1982).  The  Limits  to  Capital.  Oxford:  Basil  Blackwell.    Haugaard,  M,  (2003).  Reflections  on  Seven  Ways  of  Creating  Power.  European  Journal  of  Social  Theory,  6(1):  87-­‐113.      Held,   D.,   and   McGrew,   A.,   (2007).   Globalization/   Anti-­Globalization,   Beyond   the   Great  Divide,  2nd  edn.  Polity  Press.    Herman,   P.   and   Kuper,   R.   for   the   Confédération   Paysanne   (2002).   Food   for   Thought:  Towards  a  Future  for  Farming.  London:  Pluto  Press.    Hervieu,  B.  et  al.  (2010).  Les  Mondes  Agricoles  en  Politique:  de  la  fin  des  paysans  au  retour  de  la  question  agricole.  Paris:  Presse  de  Sciences  Po.    Howarth,  D.  (2010).  Power,  discourse  and  policy:  articulating  a  hegemony  approach  to  critical   policy   studies.   Critical   Policy   Studies.   3:3-­‐4,   309-­‐335.   Online.   Available   from:    http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19460171003619725  (Accessed  20.06.12)    Jomini,   P.  et   al.   (2009).  The   common  agricultural   policy   and   the   French,   EU   and   global  economies.   Working   Paper   October   2009.   Groupe   d’Economie   Mondiale.   SciencesPo.  Online.   Available   from:   http://www.gem.sciences-­‐po.fr/   content/publications/pdf/  agriculture/Jomini_boulanger_CAPandFrenchGlobal102009.pdf  (Accessed  25.06.12)    Jones,  B.G.  (2001).  Explaining  Global  Poverty.  New-­‐York  :  Routledge.    KNOTS  Team   (2007).  Understanding  Policy   Processes:   A  Review   of   IDS  Research   on   the  Environment.  Knowledge,  Technology  and  Society  Team,  IDS:  Brighton.  Online.  Available  from:http://www.research4development.info/pdf/ThematicSummaries/Understanding_Policy_Processes.pdf  (Accessed  11.04.12)    Lambert,  B.  (1970).  Les  Paysans  dans  la  lutte  des  classes.  Paris:  Editions  du  Seuil.    Lukes,  S.  (1974).  Power:  A  Radical  View.  Basingstoke:  Macmillan.    Martin,   J.P.   (2004).   Du   Larzac   a   la   Confederation   Paysanne   de   José   Bové,   in  Agrikoliansky,   E.,   Fillieule,   O.   and   Mayer,   N.   (eds.).   L’Altermondialisme   en   France:   La  longue  histoire  d’une  nouvelle  cause.  Paris:  Flammarion.    

  42  

McMichael,  P.  (1992).  Tensions  between  National  and  International  Control  of  the  World  Food  Order:  Contours  of  a  New  Food  Regime.  Sociological  Perspectives,  35(2):343-­‐365.  Online.  Available  from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389383  (Accessed  22.06.12)    McMichael,   P.   (2009).   Banking   on   Agriculture:   A   Review   of   the   World   Development  Report  2008.  Journal  of  Agrarian  Change,  9(2):235-­‐246.    McMichael,  P.   (2012).  Development  and  social  change:  a  global  perspective,  5th  edn.  Los  Angeles:  SAGE.    Millstone,   E.,   Thompson,   J.   and   Brooks,   S.   (2009).   Reforming   the   Global   Food   and  Agriculture   System:   Towards   a   Questioning   Agenda   for   the   New   Manifesto.   STEPS  Working  Paper  26.  Brighton:  STEPS  Centre.    Ministère  de   l’Agriculture  (2007).  Elections  aux  Chambres  d’Agriculture  2007:  Résultats  du   collège   chefs   d’exploitation.   Online.   Available   from:  http://agriculture.gouv.fr/elections-­‐chambres-­‐agriculture-­‐2007  (Accessed  04.08.12)    Nyéléni  Europe  Movement  and  European  Coordination  Via  Campesina  (2012).  Synthesis  Report  &  Action  plan.  Nyéléni  Europe  2011:  forum  for  food  sovereignty.  Krems,  Austria  16-­‐21  August  2011.  Wien  (Austria):  Nyéléni  Europe.    Patel,  R.   (2007).  The  World  Bank  and  Agriculture:  A  Critical   review  of   the  World  Bank’s  World   Development   Report   2008.   Discussion   Paper   October   2007.   Action   Aid.   Online.  Available   from:   http://rajpatel.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2009/11/actionaid.pdf  (Accessed  22.06.12)    Potter,   R.,   Binns,   T.,   Elliott,   J.   and   Smith,   D.   (2004).   Geographies   of   Development:   An  Introduction  to  Development  Studies.  London:  Pearson.    Purseigle,   F.   (2010).   L’éclatement   des   représentations   et   des   modes   d’action:  Introduction,  in  Hervieu,  B.  et  al.  Les  Mondes  Agricoles  en  Politique:  de  la  fin  des  paysans  au  retour  de  la  question  agricole.  Paris:  Presse  de  Sciences  Po.      Rabinow,   P.,   eds.   (1991).   The   Foucault   reader:   An   Introduction   to   Foucault’s   Thought.  London:  Penguin  Books.      Rizzo,   M.   (2009).   The   Struggle   for   Alternatives:   NGOs’   Responses   to   the   World  Development  Report  2008.  Journal  of  Agrarian  Change,  9(2),  277-­‐290.    Robertson,   R.   (1995).   Glocalization:   Time-­‐space   and   homogeneity-­‐heterogeneity,   in  Featherstone,  M.,  Lash,  S.  and  Robertson,  R.  (eds).  Global  modernities:  10th  Anniversary  conference:  Revised  Papers.  London:  SAGE.    Saul,   J.S.   (2004).   Globalization,   Imperialism,   Development:   False   Binaries   and   Radical  Solutions.   Socialist   register.   40:220-­‐244.   Online.   Available   from:  http://www.yorku.ca/khoosh/POLS3275-­‐08/Aricle/SR_2004_Saul.pdf   (Accessed  31.05.12)    

  43  

Sharp,   J.   et   al.   eds.   (2000).   Entanglements   of   power:   geographies   of  domination/resistance.  London:  Routledge.    Storey,.  J.  (2009).  Cultural  Theory  and  Popular  Culture:  An  Introduction.  Harlow:  Pearson  Education.    Swyngedouw,   E.   (1997).   Neither   Global   nor   Local:   “Glocalization”   and   the   politics   of  scale,   in   Cox,   K.   (eds).   Spaces   of   Globalisation:   reasserting   the   Power   of   the   Global.  London:  Guilford  Press.    Terral,  P.M.  (2011).  Larzac  :  De  la  lutte  paysanne  à  l’altermondialisme.  Toulouse  :  Privat.    Thompson,  W.R.  and  Reuveny,  R.  (2010).  Limits  to  Globalization:  North-­South  divergence.  New-­‐York:  Routledge.    Thompson,  J.  and  Scoones,  I.  (2009).  Addressing  the  Dynamics  of  Agri-­‐Food  Systems:  An  Emerging  Agenda  for  Social  Science  Research.  Environmental  Science  and  Policy  12:  386-­‐397.    Toute   L’Europe   (2011).   Le   Budget   Européen   et   la   France.   Toute   L’Europe.   Online.  Available   from:   http://www.touteleurope.eu/fr/organisation/budget/mecanismes-­‐budgetaires/presentation/le-­‐budget-­‐europeen-­‐et-­‐la-­‐france.html  (Accessed  21.06.12)    Via   Campesina   (2011).   What   is   La   Via   Campesina?.   Online.   Available   at:  http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=27&Itemid=44  (Accessed  10.07.12)    World  Bank  (2007).  Agriculture   for  Development.  World  Development  Report  2008.  The  World  Bank,  Washington,  D.C.