The importance of recognizing difference: Rethinking Central and East European environmentalism

Jehlička, Petr; Jacobsson, Kerstin

doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102379

Cited by 33 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, food production for subsistence has a long tradition in both rural and urban areas. In this respect, I agree with other authors who suggest that it is not fruitful to think in terms of rural-urban polarization, but rather in terms of a rural-urban continuum (Nairn et al 2003;Jehlička and Jacobsson 2021;Sovová, Jehlička, and Danek 2021).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Rethinking Urban-Rural Relations/Migrations in Central-Europe

Bartulović

Máté

2023

PNEKAT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue is the result of a bilateral project titled Anthropological study of rural-urban and urban-rural migrations in Central Europe: The case of Slovenia and Hungary (BI-HU /21-22-002), which was financially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency. From the Hungarian side, it was carried out with the support of the Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary, from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund (2019-2.1.11-TÉT-2020-00175). The project aimed to foster further collaboration between the Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology at Faculty of Arts at University of Ljubljana and the Department of European Ethnology – Cultural Anthropology, University of Pécs, and joint research of the dynamic of rural-urban and urban-rural migrations/relations and impact on everyday life in Central Europe

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Rethinking Urban-Rural Relations/Migrations in Central-Europe

Bartulović

Máté

2023

PNEKAT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the specific East European contexts at the time, this policy transfer was a part of the more general process of the preparation of these countries for the forthcoming membership in the European Union. It primarily aimed at equipping "Central and East European environmental groups with new points of leverage, thus enhancing their political opportunity structures, in combination with media and educational campaigns aimed at affecting citizens' beliefs and perceptions" [40]. This mainly concerned two of the four types of sustainable consumption promoted by the seminar: "conscious (or ethical) consumption" and "different consumption".…”

Section: Import Of the Globalized Consumption-related Ethic Of Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Growing the Beautiful Anthropocene: Ethics of Care in East European Food Gardens

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study contributes to research proposing the ethics of care framework as a way of imagining a food system that cares for Others. We expand this exploration to the everyday practice of home gardening and the related social relationships and material flows. This area complements current scholarship, which mostly focuses on food-related care as a form of activism driven by intentionality and knowledge about the effects of consumption choices. Combining a survey of a representative sample of the population and an in-depth qualitative study, our paper highlights the importance of inconspicuous but materially significant food self-provisioning and sharing practices as caring behaviors that do not rely on educational campaigns but draw on the desire to produce healthy food for human Others. Home grown food is distributed in the generalized reciprocity mode within wide food-sharing networks. The desire to produce healthy food further translates into the adoption of caring methods of cultivation that benefit non-human Others involved in the garden ecosystems.

show abstract

“…For legitimizing and perpetuating the neo-colonial dominance and exploitation, the core countries (or centres) command a specific ‘developmentalist’ vocabulary. In other words, the only proclaimed way ‘out’ of the (semi)peripheral status is ‘development’ which will be “modelled on the European precedent” (Mies et al 1988 , p. 3) and designed, measured and monitored by their indicators and institutions (Jehlička and Jacobsson 2021 ). Walter Mignolo has, therefore, conceptualized the relationship between modernity and coloniality as constitutive of each other (Mignolo 2000 , 2011 ).…”

Section: The Bielefeld Subsistence Approach and Framework To Assess T...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This leads to the common interpretation of FSP as a ‘survival strategy of the poor’, as shown by article titles, such as “Muddling through economic transition with garden plots” (Seeth et al 1998 ; see also Alber and Kohler 2008 ; Ries 2009 ). These associations explain the ongoing postcolonial devaluation of the practices and knowledges originating from the ‘Second’ or ‘Third’ World (Jehlička and Jacobsson 2021 ). The ‘First World’ appears to have gained the superior knowledge, while Eastern knowledge is thought to be “irrational, unscientific, traditional and subjective” (Inden 1986 , p. 408; Inayatullah 2014 ; Herrschel 2001 ).…”

Section: The Bielefeld Subsistence Approach and Framework To Assess T...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models

Pungas

2023

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioeconomy as a new promissory discourse neither challenges the paradigm of economic growth, nor questions its embeddedness in capitalist (neo-)colonial patriarchal power relations. However, the calls for a ‘genuine’ socio-ecological transformation and for alternative bioeconomy visions imply exactly a destabilization of these power relations. Drawing on the Bielefeld subsistence approach and on its colonialism–capitalism–patriarchy nexus, I argue that the latest bioeconomy strategy and policy papers of both the EU and Estonia each disregard certain spheres of the bioeconomy due to the three-dimensional power relations. As a seemingly neutral political discourse, the bioeconomy is shaped by cultural assumptions and narratives that determine and perpetuate what is deemed worthy of protection and what is pushed aside as merely ‘natural’. As such, the current bioeconomy papers promote a ‘biomass-based model of capital accumulation’ that is essentially built on the prerequisite of the subordination, devaluation, appropriation and/or exploitation of (1) different geographical regions, (2) ecological foundations, and (3) prevalent bioeconomy practices. As a widespread agricultural practice in Eastern Europe, Food Self-Provisioning (FSP) serves as a good example of how predominant bioeconomy models (1) simply operate as new forms of postcolonial development discourse, instead of embracing the plurality of decolonial ‘alternatives to development’; (2) deepen the human–nature dichotomy by regarding nature as a mere resource to be extracted more efficiently instead of cultivating mutually nourishing partnership-like relation(ship)s with nature; and (3) maintain the separation between monetized and maintenance economies, rather than fostering ethics of care to overcome the structural separation between the latter.

show abstract

The importance of recognizing difference: Rethinking Central and East European environmentalism

Cited by 33 publications

References 80 publications

Rethinking Urban-Rural Relations/Migrations in Central-Europe

Rethinking Urban-Rural Relations/Migrations in Central-Europe

Growing the Beautiful Anthropocene: Ethics of Care in East European Food Gardens

Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About