Summary
Food, a life enabler and a cultural cornerstone, is a natural product
with multiple meanings and different valuations for societies and individuals.
Throughout history and geographies, food has shaped morals and norms, triggered
enjoyment and social life, substantiated art and culture, justify commons‐
based systems and affected traditions and identity. More importantly, food has
been closely related to power and the interaction between society and nature. From
the industrial revolution to present days, food has been increasingly valued
for its commodity dimension: food as a mono‐dimensional
commodity produced and distributed in a global market of mass consumption. In
this research, the progressive commodification of food as a vital resource is
presented as a social construction, informed by an academic theoretical
background, which shapes specific food policy options and blocks or discard
other policies grounded in different valuations of food. As such, the value of
food cannot be fully expressed by application of a value‐in‐exchange
approach, since this value derives less from the market price than from its
multiple dimensions relevant to humans and therefore cannot be either
quantified (E.g. essentialness for human survival) or sold (E.g. food as a
right). In opposition to the dominant paradigm, an alternative valuation of
“food as a commons” is discussed, which has been barely explored in academic
and political circles. This is based on the innovative idea of the six
dimensions of food that is introduced in the present work: food as an essential
life enabler, a natural resource, a human right, a cultural determinant, a
tradeable good and a public good, cannot be reduced to the mono‐dimensional
valuation of food as a commodity. Those dimensions seem to align better with
the multiple values‐in‐use food enjoys across
the world. In light of this, the
objective of this thesis is to trace the genealogy of the meaning making and
policy implications of the two conflicting narratives of “food as a commodity”
and “food as a commons”. In order to achieve this result, it focuses on the
“Food Narratives of Agents in Transition” using two theoretical frames (Discourse
Analysis and Transition Theory) and adopting three methodological approaches,
including the combination of quantitative and qualitative tools. The work is
divided into three sections, that correspond to the three approaches undertaken
(systematic, heuristic and governance), and eight chapters (two per section
plus the introduction and the conclusions). In the first part, the work
presents a genealogy of meanings of commons and food by using a systematic
approach to schools of thought plus a research on academic literature where
food is discussed either as a commons or as commodity. Notwithstanding the
different interpretations, the economists’ framing as private good and
commodity prevailed. This framing was rather ontological (“food is a commodity”)
thus preventing other phenomenological meanings (“food as…”) to unfold and
become politically relevant. The
second part adopts a heuristic approach and contains two case studies that
investigate the relevance that the two narratives had in influencing individual
and relational agency in food systems in transition. That includes a case study
with food‐related professionals working in the food system at different levels and
another one with members of the food buying groups in Belgium as innovative
niches of transition that nurture shared transformational narratives through
conviviality, networking and social learning. Part three introduces the central issue of
governance and navigates the policy arena with the use of a case study on how
the absolute dominance of the tradeable dimension of food in the political
stance of some important players (the US and EU) obscures other non‐economic
dimensions such as the 8 consideration of food as a human need or human right.
In response to the monolithic approach of governments, this part also contains
a prospective chapter where different governing arrangements based on the
narrative of food as a commons are proposed, with specific policy measures
suggested. Finally, the conclusion
chapter is structured as a synthesis of those approaches, and formulates a
normative theory of food as a commons, with particular attention to different
policy and legal options that should inform and justify institutional
arrangements radically different from the business‐as‐usual
proposals to reform the industrial food system. As discussed through the
thesis, the consideration of food as a commons rests upon its essentialness as
human life enabler, the multiple‐dimensions of food that
are relevant to individuals and societies, and the multiplicity of governing
arrangements that have been set up across the world, now and before, to produce
and consume food outside market mechanisms.
As a social construct based on the “instituting power of commoning”,
food can be valued and governed as a commons. Once the narrative is shifted,
the governing mechanisms and legal frameworks will gradually be molded to
implement that vision. A regime based on food as a commons would construct an
essentially democratic food system (food democracy) based on the proper
valuation of the multiple dimensions of food, sustainable agricultural
practices (agro‐ecology) and emancipatory politics (food sovereignty).
Thatregime would also support the consideration of open‐source
knowledge (E.g. cuisine recipes, traditional agricultural knowledge or public
research), food‐producing resources (E.g. seeds, fish stocks, land,
forests or water) and services (E.g. transboundary food safety regulations,
public nutrition) as commons.
W
