Comunalidad Y Transmodernidad en Las Prácticas Organizativas De La Red De Huertos Educativos en México 1

Abstract

RESUMEN Este trabajo tiene como objetivo proponer una ruta crítica de análisis sobre las formas de conocimiento y las prácticas organizativas de colectivos sociales autónomos con principios comunitarios que subsisten en espacios urbanos. Se retoma la propuesta crítica de la colonialidad epistémica a la teoría de la organización y al paradigma administrativo/management y se suma a la invitación para generar saberes organizacionales de América Latina que se alejen de la abstracción del artificio organizacional que supone la teoría en la que se sostiene la modernidad. Como propuesta se incorpora la noción de transmodernidad y las nociones de ámbitos de comunidad, comunalidad y pedagogía de la comunalidad para dar cuenta de los principios articuladores que organizan las prácticas del colectivo independiente la Red de Huertos Educativos y Comunitarios de Xalapa (RHEC), Veracruz, México, que está enfocado en el intercambio de experiencias y aprendizajes generados a partir del trabajo en los huertos agroecológico.

From “Government to Governance”? A Systematic Literature Review of Research for Urban Green Infrastructure Management in Latin America

“…These are not challenges that have substantial representation in the international literature but are clearly applicable across Latin America and possibly in other countries within the Global South. Indigenous practices, although they fall under the category of self-governance initiatives, clash with the very concept of governance in their intent, history, and discourses used (Pabello and Nasupcialy, 2019). The juxtaposition between the idea of UGI as the primary motivator for a self-governance initiative and the conception of cooperative management and way of life as a means in itself raises the interesting question of how to integrate western management concepts with practices that predate colonialism in Latin America.…”

“…In general, community organizations tended to have arisen as a coping mechanism (Nail and Erazo, 2018, p. 93) or a response to state neglect (Chelleri et al, 2016, p. 2;Millington, 2018;Diep et al, 2019) as opposed to active efforts by local authorities. A number of publications referenced long traditions of bottom-up community management in Chile and in Mexico that had been sidelined by government or marketled management practices in previous decades; these historical initiatives tended to be either a product of early twentieth century urban policies (Gurovich Weisman, 2003; Yáñez Andrade and Deichler, 2018) or longstanding indigenous traditions (González and Guillen, 2015;Pabello and Nasupcialy, 2019). The fact that co-governance initiatives are more recent in the literature (Figure 4) reflects claims in a number of the publications that government initiatives and community initiatives tend to be siloed, and there is a general lack of interaction and communication between them (Chelleri et al, 2016;Betancurt et al, 2017;Diep et al, 2019;Vieira and Panagopoulos, 2020).…”

“…Finally, a further three studies (González and Guillen, 2015;Pulido-Salas et al, 2017;Pabello and Nasupcialy, 2019) centered on indigenous communities in Mexico and the interface between these communities and governance both as a concept and in practice. Pulido-Salas et al (2017) explored self-governance of the "solar" or Mayan community garden in the small city of José María Morelos, Quintana Roo, and highlighted the strong cultural traditions that accompany this practice and its history within these communities.…”

“…The authors criticize the "ideals of progress and development" that prioritize the needs of growing cities over culture, traditions, and subjectivity (González and Guillen, 2015, p. 359). Similarly, Pabello and Nasupcialy (2019) use indigenous community gardens in Veracruz to more broadly critique the notions of productivity and individualism in western green space management discourse and the accompanying dismissal of the alternative, communal, rationalities that accompany the long history of "self-governance" practices by indigenous peoples (p. 210). They make the call for more original research from Latin America in order to strengthen understanding of the existence of social collectives in which the central preoccupation does not lie with resources or "collective goods" but "the recovery, restoration, expansion or defense of spaces for the reproduction of collective life or communal environments" (Pabello and Nasupcialy, 2019, p. 211).…”

“…The benefits of successful governance for UGI mentioned in the research found included environmental education (Ferrer et al, 2010;Barroso and Mesquita, 2014;Costa Cardoso et al, 2015;Benchimol et al, 2017;Pabello and Nasupcialy, 2019), recreational opportunities and tourism (Sanchotene, 1994;García and Guerrero, 2006;Guerrero and Culós, 2007;Flores-Xolocotzi and González-Guillén, 2010), investment (Flores-Xolocotzi, 2012;Babilonia et al, 2018), easing the transition of the urban-rural interface (Gurovich Weisman, 2003), and environmental benefits such as climate change adaptation and reduced flood risks (Granados-Olivas et al, 2016;Millington, 2018;Flores et al, 2019;Giner et al, 2019). Nail and Erazo (2018) made the case for state-initiated self-governance initiatives for post-conflict peace building, a link between UGI and social capital that was also made by Ferrer et al (2010), Costa Cardoso et al (2015), Sánchez (2019), and Visoni and Nagib (2019, p. 88).…”