Sovereignty at What Scale? An Inquiry into Multiple Dimensions of Food Sovereignty

Abstract

Food sovereignty has struggled to make inroads into changing the structures and processes underlying the corporate food regime. One reason is that scale is still underspecified in the politics, strategies, and theories of food sovereignty. We suggest that much can be learned from examining the multiple dimensions of scale inherent in ongoing food sovereignty struggles. A gap exists between these in vivo experiments and the maturing academic theory of scale. The concept of 'sovereignty' can be opened up to reveal that movements, peoples, and communities, for example, are creating multiple sovereignties and are exercising sovereignty in more relational ways. Relational scale can aid movements and scholars to map and evaluate how spatial and temporal processes at and among various levels work to reinforce dominant agri-food systems but could also be reconfigured to support progressive alternatives. Finally, we apply relational scale to suggest practical strategies for realizing food sovereignty, using examples from the Potato Park in the Peruvian Andes.

Relationalities and convergences in food security narratives: towards a place‐based approach

“…In this respect, food sovereignty distinguishes itself for its capacity to situate food security in a multilevel governance system where local struggles become connected with national and international dynamics. As Iles and de Wit state, ‘understood in terms of relational scale, food sovereignty becomes as much a practice of creating connectivity as of creating autonomy’ (2015, 494).…”

Translating the Politics of Food Sovereignty: Digging into Contradictions, Uncovering New Dimensions

“…She notes, as do others (Claeys, 2014;Iles & Montenegro de Wit, 2015), that political theorists describe both internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. External sovereignty, the sovereignty of nations within their own territories, is the most oft-invoked and arguably the most accepted form of sovereignty.…”

“…The notion of relational scale (Sayre, 2009, cited in Iles & Montenegro de Wit, 2015 brings into focus the channels of power through which sovereignty is exercised. 'In this view, sovereignty becomes a malleable and "negotiable" power which particular movements, peoples, or communities can seize, create, oppose, or reshape as against the state, cities, corporations, and other sovereign actors' (Iles & Montenegro de Wit, 2015). They further claim that, 'Understood in terms of relational scale, food sovereignty becomes as much a practice of creating connectivity as of creating autonomy' (Iles & Montenegro de Wit, 2015).…”

Emancipatory or Neoliberal Food Politics? Exploring the “Politics of Collectivity” of Buying Groups in the Search for Egalitarian Food Democracies

“…The relationality of consumption but also the “formalisation” of collective initiatives prompt us to consider the tensions between self‐management and collaboration with different actors. In navigating these tensions, Iles and de Wit () understand food sovereignty as the practice of creating connectivity but also autonomy within different spaces and institutions, as illustrated by the dynamics of BGs. For example, BGs cooperate and create alliances with different actors in their daily activity.…”