GARDENING WITH GRAMSCI? ANALYSING EDIBLE GARDENS AS A

SUSTAINABLE AGRIFOOD INITIATIVE

by

Nicole Holzapfel

THESIS

Submitted to the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Arts in Geography and Environmental Studies

Wilfrid Laurier University, 2013

Nicole Holzapfel © 2013

i

TAG CLOUD

ii

ABSTRACT

Agrifood Initiatives, such as edible gardens, farmers’ markets, and Community Supported

Agriculture (CSA), represent a response to the dominant commodity food system. Focusing on

small-scale food system participants in general and gardeners in particular this thesis seeks to

understand the performance of AFIs as it is connected to the operation of the commodity food

system. To this end, interviews with local gardeners were carried out. These interviews are used

to assess the potential of gardens to help change the food system. This thesis employs Antonio

Gramsci’s concept of cultural and counter-hegemony and the concept of scale to analyse the

commodity food system, Agrifood Initiatives in general, and edible gardens in particular.

Combined with the literature, the interview-results are used to explore whether edible gardens

have counter-hegemonic potential and hence are able to further food system change and how

their performance could be improved. This thesis demonstrates that the interviewee’s

understanding of the terms ‘functional’ and ‘alternative’ confirms the literature-based definition

of these terms, as well as that edible gardens as AFIs possess certain counter-hegemonic

potential. In addition this thesis suggests how their counter-hegemonic performance could be

improved. The integration of the concept of scales into the theoretical framework to understand

and resolve the question of how the efficiency of hegemony is linked to scale, the extension of

Johnston’s (2007) list of counter-hegemonic criteria, as well as the application and extension of

the Gramscian approach into the field of food studies represent the contribution to the literature

this thesis makes.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Alison Blay-Palmer, for her help, support, and guidance in this research. In addition, I would like to thank my committee member Bob Sharpe for his kind support and advice. Many thanks to my thesis readers: Mary Louise McAllister and Michael Imort for their positive attitude and valuable feedback. Further, I would like to express my gratitude to all the gardeners whom I had the pleasure interviewing; without you there would be no thesis. I would like to say Dongschee and תודה רבה to my family for their support at all stages of this research project. Finally, I also would like to say Vagöldsgott and Dankschö to my dear friend Barbara who is always there for me.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS TAG CLOUD .................................................................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ iv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Research problem .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Research questions ............................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Thesis outline ..................................................................................................................... 5

2 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 6

2.1 Food system ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.1.1 Commodity food system ............................................................................................ 8

2.1.2 Alternative food systems 11 2.1.3 Limitations to AFS and AFIs ................................................................................... 15

2.2 Theoretical framework .................................................................................................... 17

2.2.1 Relevance of Gramsci .............................................................................................. 17

2.2.2 Neoliberalism ........................................................................................................... 22

2.3 Gramsci’s concepts of cultural and counter-hegemony .................................................. 26

2.3.1 Cultural hegemony ................................................................................................... 27

2.3.2 Counter-hegemony ................................................................................................... 30

Table 1: Johnston’s (2007) counter-hegemonic criteria ......................................................... 33

2.4 A Gramscian perspective on the commodity food system .............................................. 33

2.4.1 Industrial food bloc .................................................................................................. 34

2.4.2 Alternative food bloc ................................................................................................ 36

2.5 Examples of cultural and counter-hegemony .................................................................. 37

2.6 Scale ................................................................................................................................. 38

2.7 Scaling hegemony ............................................................................................................ 40

Table 2: Johnston’s (2007) counter-hegemonic criteria – extended (version 1)..................... 44

2.8 Edible gardens ................................................................................................................. 45

v

2.9 Gardens as contesting and contested spaces .................................................................... 47

2.10 Research gap and questions ............................................................................................. 50

3 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH APPROACH AND DESIGN ..................................................... 53

3.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 53

3.2 Researcher’s positionality ................................................................................................ 54

3.3 Boundaries, study site and justification ........................................................................... 55

3.3.1 History ...................................................................................................................... 56

3.3.2 Demographics ........................................................................................................... 56

3.3.3 Gardens ..................................................................................................................... 56

3.3.4 Food access .............................................................................................................. 57

3.4 Research method: interviews ........................................................................................... 57

3.4.1 Interviews ................................................................................................................. 58

3.4.2 Sampling strategy ..................................................................................................... 59

3.5 Methodology: grounded theory ....................................................................................... 60

Data analysis ........................................................................................................................... 62

4 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................... 66

4.1 ‘Functional’ and ‘alternative’ .......................................................................................... 66

Table 3: Interviewees’ understandings of functional food systems and alternative food systems compared to literature-based definition ..................................................................... 69

4.2 Categorized results .......................................................................................................... 71

4.2.1 Category 1: Food system .......................................................................................... 71

Figure 1: Where do you usually shop for your groceries? ...................................................... 72

4.2.2 Category 2: Neoliberal hegemony ............................................................................ 73

4.2.3 Category 3: Counter-hegemony ............................................................................... 79

4.2.4 Category 4: scale ...................................................................................................... 83

Figure 2: Do you identify with a bigger food movement and/or alternative food initiatives? 84

4.2.5 Category 5: Change .................................................................................................. 86

4.3 Comparing interviews with Johnson’s counter-hegemonic criteria ................................ 89

Table 4: Johnston’s (2007) counter-hegemonic criteria – extended (version 2)..................... 89

vi

5 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUDING REMARKS .......................................................................... 92

5.1 Overview of the main findings ........................................................................................ 92

5.1.1 Perceptions of ‘functional’ and ‘alternative’ in a food system context converge .... 93

5.1.2 Gardens as AFIs have some counter-hegemonic potential, but… ........................... 94

5.1.3 How counter-hegemonic performance of AFIs and gardens can be enhanced ........ 95

5.2 Contributions and limitations .......................................................................................... 98

5.2.1 Contributions ............................................................................................................ 98

5.2.2 Limitations ............................................................................................................. 100

5.3 Future research opportunities ........................................................................................ 101

6 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 104

7 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................... 120

7.1 Interview questions ........................................................................................................ 120

7.2 Ethics approval .............................................................................................................. 121

7.2.1 Ethics approval ....................................................................................................... 121

7.2.2 Letter of informed consent ..................................................................................... 122

7.3 Map of community gardens in KW ............................................................................... 123

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Food connects major issues such as social justice, environment, gender relations, and economic

questions, and also bears a critical role in shaping the health and livelihood of our communities

and the ecological well-being of our planet. We all eat and food is central to our lives, like

nothing else. Many people recognize the importance of food and its far-reaching significance as a

way of defining who we are and how we can build toward sustainability. Feuerbach for example

argued that “we are what we eat” and Hippocrates saw food as our medicine. Moreover, food has

been described as the “defining factor of human identity” (Petrini, 2007, p. 36)1, categorized as a

powerful link between “nature, human survival, health, culture and livelihood” (McMichael,

2000, p. 21) and classified as central to the economy with “huge possibilities for economic

revitalization” (Friedmann, in Allemang, 2011, n. p.). Johnston (2007, p. 2) states that while food

is a “marker of social class and a form of cultural capital that elites use to consolidate and

reproduce social inequality” it also “represents an entry-point for political engagement”; a finding

that is confirmed by Blay-Palmer who describes food as an “agent of change” (Blay-Palmer,

2008, p. 12).

1.1 Research problem

Given the significant role food plays in our lives and with respect to advancing sustainability2,

this thesis sets out to learn more about how people engage with food by looking at the role of

edible gardens in the current commodity food system. More specifically, based on the review of

1 Carlo Petrini is known as the founder of the Slow Food Movement. 2 Sustainability is defined by bringing together Agyeman et al.’s (2008, p. 5) and definition and Levkoe’s (2011, p. 696) approach. Sustainability then is “the need to ensure a better quality of life for all, now and into the future, in a just and equitable manner, whilst living within the limits of supporting ecosystems” achieved through an “interrelationship of social justice, ecological sustainability, community health and democratic governance”.

2

the literature, I argue in this thesis that the commodity food system exhibits several

dysfunctionalities and seek to understand the role of Agrifood Initiatives (AFIs, Allen et al.,

2003) as a response to the commodity food system.

AFIs come in different forms such as farmers’ markets, Community Supported Agriculture

(CSAs), urban agriculture, and critical consumption. The literature discusses different aspects of

AFIs, such as the empowering outcomes of community gardens3 (Ovkat and Zautra, 2011), the

political actions of critical consumers (Goodman and DuPuis, 2002), the economic and social

benefits for farmers who sell their produce at a farmers’ market (Griffin and Frongillo, 2003), the

healthier diets and eating habits stemming from Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

(Cohen et al., 2012), how fair trade contributes to a more sustainable food chain (Morgan, 2010),

and how fair trade buffers neoliberal globalization for farmers (McLoughlin Torgerson, 2010). In

addition, particular limitations of AFIs (Goodman et al., 2012), such as their conventionalization

(Guthman, 2003) and the inability of AFIs to reach out to people who do not belong to the white

middle class have been discussed in the literature as well (Hinrichs, 2000; Slocum, 2007).

Employing a Gramscian framework, this thesis is interested in exploring what lies behind these

limitations or why intended changes to the food system by AFIs often fall short of expectations.

AFIs mainly operate on the smaller scales (Allen et al., 2003), while Gramsci’s counter-

hegemony is based on the masses challenging the current cultural hegemony. In recognition of

this notable friction, this thesis integrates the concept of scales into the theoretical framework to

understand and resolve the question of how the efficiency of hegemony is linked to scale. To this

3 The roots of the term “community garden” date back to WWI when the first neighbourhood gardens were founded in which the general administration of the garden is shared by all members while they each tend their own plots within the garden (Lawson, 2005). Since no clear definition of community gardens exists in the literature (Firth et al., 2011), this thesis uses the term community garden in its widest sense as gardens managed by community groups (Firth et al., 2011).

3

end, interviews were conducted with gardeners to inquire about their experiences, knowledge,

thoughts, and skills with regard to gardening, food system, scale, and change.

1.2 Research questions

The research problem gives rise to research questions noted below. The thesis outlines how these

questions developed with the findings reported in Chapter 4. The central research questions that

emerged from the literature reviews in Chapter 2:

(i) Why do AFIs (seen as many initiatives combined in an alternative food system)

underachieve and how can their achievements be enhanced?

(ii) Do AFIs in general, and edible gardens as an example of AFIs, have counter-hegemonic

potential?

In order to approach the research questions a Gramscian framework that integrates scale is

used. While other frameworks such as Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) or political ecology might

be considered as useful approaches, I argue that they are not as eligible to answer this particular

set of questions. ANT, for example, represents a suitable way of overcoming the common

dichotomy between nature and society. According to ANT non-humans are considered as

potential actors as well. ANT perceives agency as something that is collectively achieved in and

through networks (Jóhannesson and Bærenholdt, 2009). Actors create (social, natural, physical)

relations. By analysing these relations and the way they are created scholars try to understand

food system change (Koç et al., 2012). However, ANT also requires not accepting any pre-

givens, such as the dichotomy between humans and nature or other categories such as the local

and the global. While Gramsci does not accept such categories as well, his strength lies in

understanding why these dichotomies exist and how the ideology supporting them contributes to

4

hegemony. Hence, by means of ANT and Gramsci different aspects in food studies are analysed.

Another, potentially suitable framework, political ecology, underlines the interconnectedness of

entities as it is based on the argument that “ecological change cannot be understood without

consideration of the political and economic structures and institutions within which it is

embedded” (Neumann, p. 228, 2009). This framework is primarily interested in the ecological

outcomes of economic development and could be used to look at the ecological effects of the

commodity and the alternative food system. Yet, this thesis tries to understand why AFIs

underperform and how their performance can be enhanced. Political economy does not

encompass the tools to approach these questions. Hence, ANT and political ecology would have

not been appropriate framework choices. Gramsci’s concept on the contrary, takes into account

AFI’s embeddedness within society and their connections to consumers, producers, businesses

and the state require a wider perspective to answer these questions (Dahlberg, 1994; Kloppenburg

et al., 1996; Watts et al., 2005; Andrée, 2011). Gramsci’s concept of cultural and counter-

hegemony provides such a perspective as it encompasses the dynamic relations of civil society,4

(for instance: media, education system, food producers and consumers, AFIs, agrifood

corporations) and political society (state apparatus). Gramsci’s understanding of civil society

incorporates scales (from the smaller scales of food activists, the national scale of the state, up to

global scales of internationally operating businesses) to understand why and how change is (not)

happening (Jessop, 2005). Consequently, this thesis will also take into account the effects of

scale—why and how scales impact the effectiveness of AFIs and their goals of changing the food

system.

4 For Gramsci, civil society is the space where power is exercised through consent but also where counter-hegemonic efforts grow.

5

1.3 Thesis outline

As a first step to approach the research questions, the functionality of the conventional food

system and the alternative food system (AFS) is investigated with food system goals distilled

from the literature in section 2.1. Following this discussion, is the introduction of the theoretical

framework in section 2.2. Specifically, in section 2.3 the relevance of Gramsci’s concept of

cultural hegemony is argued and explained. Segment 2.4 presents examples of a Gramscian

perspective on the food system. To better understand the potential support for and barriers to

cultural and counter-hegemonic forces, the effects of scale, how and why they impact the

effectiveness of change, are elaborated on in sections 2.6 and 2.7. The following subsections, 2.8

and 2.9, provide background on edible gardens and discuss why they have been chosen to explore

the counter-hegemonic potential of AFIs. Based on the literature review, the research gap and the

research questions are illuminated in greater detail in section 2.10. Chapter 3 elaborates on the

research approach, which consists of interviews with gardeners as the research method and a

partial application of grounded theory as the methodology. In the following chapter the results of

the interviews are presented and discussed. Finally the last chapter, chapter 5, provides an

overview of the main findings. In addition this chapter proposes new perspectives, which

emerged from the findings of the theoretical part and the interviews and address the research

questions.

6

2 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND

This section provides the context for my argument that the current established food system

exhibits several dysfunctional attributes. In section 2.1, I start by distilling a list of food system

goals by using a variety of different sources. Then, in the subsections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, I assess the

functionality of the current and the alternative food systems5 by comparing their performance

against these goals. This part is followed by a “reality check” on alternative food systems and a

closer look at the limitations they encounter. Section 2.2 introduces Gramsci’s concept of cultural

and counter-hegemony as the first part of the theoretical framework of this thesis. Gramsci’s

relevance for social science in general and this research in particular is presented in subsection

2.2.1, Subsection 2.2.2 invites the reader to an excursus on neoliberalism in order to clarify this

key term. Gramsci’s concept of cultural and counter-hegemony are explained in greater detail in

section 2.3 and the following section hypothesises what a food system from a Gramscian

perspective could look like. Examples for cultural and counter-hegemonic action are provided in

section 2.5. The second part of the framework, scale, is elucidated in the sections 2.6 and 2.7. The

following two segments, 2.8.and 2.9, focus on edible gardens and why they are used as an

example for an AFI. The last part of chapter two discusses the research gaps and the research

questions that emerge from this literature review.

2.1 Food system

Broadly speaking, food systems take on different forms, depending on the relations between the

participants in the food system, the number and identities of these members, the flows of money,

5 It should be noted that no such thing as “the alternative food system” or “the conventional food system” exists but rather a continuum between these two extremes. Yet, for the purpose of distinguishing between different ways of food production and procurement this distinction proves to be useful (Morgan, Marsden, and Murdoch, 2006).

7

information, and energy (e.g. in the form of fossil fuels), and the movement of food from local to

global scales (Dahlberg, 1993; Potuhkuchi and Kaufman, 2000; Cornell University, n. d). The

following discussion about the functionality of the commodity food system demonstrates

important characteristics of all food systems, be they conventional or alternative: that they are

contextual and able to include things that are not measureable (e.g. well-being) instead of being

value-free and universal (Dahlberg, 1993) as well as their connectedness (Hinrichs, 2010).

Further, the different parts of a system are reflexively related and form a whole (Blay-Palmer and

Knezevic, forthcoming). For instance, from a food system perspective the connection of health,

food, and environment becomes clearly visible and an analysis of the current and the alternative

food system illuminates whether and how these connections are perceived.

This thesis follows Guthman (2007) who demands an analysis of the current commodity food

system as a pre-condition for food system change as a way to limit the likelihood of remaining on

neoliberal paths. In this thesis the term ‘food system’ entails a goal-oriented approach to

crystallize what makes a food system functional. Accordingly, the following is a dynamic and

non-hierarchical list of food system objectives derived from governmental (e.g. DEFRA, 2010),

public health (e.g. WRFSRT, 2010), academic (e.g. Kloppenburg et al., 2000; Blay-Palmer,

2010), and municipal (e.g. City of Portland, 2012) exemplary sources based on the areas in which

the sources overlap. Hence a functioning food system has to fulfill the following goals:

(i) contributing to people’s health,

(ii) providing access to food,

(iii) contributing to the economy,

(iv) environmental protection,

(v) connecting the world globally through food trade,

8

(vi) nurturing the social realm,

(vii) encouraging acquisition of food related skills, knowledge, and democratic participation.

With this list of food system objectives, which perceive a functional food system as an

“interrelationship of social justice, ecological sustainability, community health and democratic

governance” (Levkoe, 2011, p. 696) and therefore as sustainable, I seek to test the functionality

or sustainability of the commodified food system and the alternative food system in the next two

sections.

2.1.1 Commodity food system

The current industrialized North-Western food system, also often referred to as conventional,

established, mainstream, or commodity food system, was shaped by the post-WWII oversupply

of chemicals developed for military purposes (and re-purposed in agriculture) to combat hunger

(during and after WWII), which in turn brought on the industrialization of agriculture and its

situation in an increasingly neoliberal capitalist system (Morgan and Murdoch, 2000; Friedmann,

2000). In other words, “our entire food system today exists within the general framework of the

industrial economy” (Kirschenmann, 2008, p. 109).

The first goal of the food system as stated above entails questions about whether and how the

commodified food system contributes to people’s health. Increasingly it is being demonstrated

that processed food adds to chronic health problems while it is marketed as being healthy. For

example, fat-free yogurts contain a lot of sugar (Nestle, 2007 and Mountain, 2012). Winson

(2004) demonstrates how aggressive and often misleading food advertisements propagate

consumption of processed foods high in sugar and/or fat as they are the most profitable for

industrial food manufacturers. Nutritionism as one version of this approach to food focuses on

9

what kind of nutrients are in food (Levkoe, 2011). According to the logic of nutritionism it does

not matter whether a nutrient comes from a genetically modified source or what the social or

environmental background of a food is (Levkoe, 2011). Nutritionism thereby disregards that

“food is more than the mere sum of its constituent nutrients” (Dieticians of Canada 2009, p.2 in

Levkoe, 2011, p. 693) and ignores associated negative health effects as a consequence.

The second food system goal is the extent to which the commodity food system provides food

security6. Despite prevailing industrial agriculture the FAO’s 2011 report on the “State of food

insecurity in the world” sees rising food insecurity (especially in countries in the Global South) as

a consequence of the current food price crisis. The FAO estimates that approximately 925 million

people experience food insecurity worldwide. In the United States 14.5% of all households were

food insecure in 2010 (World Hunger, 2012) and in Canada, 7.7% of all households were

considered food insecure in 2007/08 (Statistics Canada, 2012).

The commodity food system’s contribution to the economy, which can be measured by

looking at farmer’s share of food dollars, is investigated as the third food system objective. The

National Farmers’ Union of the United States (NFU, 2012) calculated that on average farmers

keep only 15.3 cents of every dollar spent on food in the US, which means that the remaining

money goes mainly to food retailers, food services (e.g. eating out), distributors, marketing and

manufacturers (Canning, 2011).

The next objective to be analysed is environmental protection. For example to what extent

does the food system take into account environmental aspects, such as biodiversity? The FAO

(2006) analysed in its report “Livestock’s long shadow” that intensive livestock-raising is one of

the main culprits in the current loss of biodiversity. McMichael et al. (2007), among others,

6 Food security is defined by extending the FAO’s (1996) definition with Fisher and Gottlieb’s definition (1995, p. 2, cited in Bellows and Hamm, 2001, p. 36) and exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to culturally acceptable, sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life through local, non-emergency sources.

10

attribute intensive livestock farming, fuelled by human overconsumption of meat, also to rising

greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and in turn

negatively impact the climate and subsequently the harvest of food crops.

Global trade within the food system entails, among others, the extent and the kind of

connections made by international food trading. In the established food system food and

agricultural trade are framed by free trade agreements such as WTO and NAFTA, which claim to

foster the liberalization of the international market for food and agriculture in order to make

markets fairer and to increase food security (Watkins, 1996). Liberalization of food and

agricultural markets can for instance be realized by the reduction of import restrictions (notably

the US who, ironically, are one of the strongest free trade advocates while also maintaining the

world’s highest farm subsidies; Morgan, 2000). One of the goals of the liberalisation of the food

and agriculture market is to decrease the price of food so that everybody can afford it. However,

as domestically grown produce cannot compete with subsidized foreign imports, this has the side

effect that countries increase their dependency on foreign imports and therefore lose their ability

to feed themselves (Watkins, 1996). Despite a recent reduction in agricultural subsidies by the

EU, countries in the Global South still suffer from market distortions (The Guardian, 2011).

The sixth food system goal discusses the extent to which the conventional food system

incorporates the social realm through connections between food producers and consumers as a

way to create a sense of place and belonging to a community. Kloppenburg et al. (2000) argue

that a sense of place through food is important as it brings awareness to where and how we live

and will thus help us to live more in line with the environment. However, as Lacy (2000) argues,

people are losing their sense of place and belonging in the established food system and fail to

recognize that places are much more than ‘production sites’. The consequences are that food– as

the French farmer José Bové (who received great media attention when he led a protest against

11

McDonald’s in 1999) famously phrased it – becomes “malbouffe”, meaning that food comes

from “nowhere” and loses its provenance (The Guardian, 2001).

Linked to a sense of place and belonging is the level of food-related knowledge and skills that

impacts how people can participate in the food system. For example, the more people understand

about the provenance of their food, and the more they know how to produce and prepare their

own food the higher their interest and involvement in the food system (Jaffe and Gertler, 2006).

The conventional food system tends to systematically de-skill both small scale farmers and

community members, and to disconnect them from their food. This makes the commodity food

system participation-unfriendly and significantly reduces its trust of small scale food system

participants (Morgan and Murdoch, 2000; Jaffe and Gertler, 2006; Watts et al., 2005).

When viewed as a whole, the current commodity food system disconnects its actions, such as

promoting the consumption of cheap and unhealthy foods and the de-skilling of eaters, from the

consequences, such as ill health, climate change, and increased difficulties in actively and freely

participating in the food system. When he stated that, “the power of the food question is

imminent” (p. 21) McMichael (2000) predicted that strong resistance will rise in the face of a

deteriorating food system. However, thirteen years later the food system, which possesses several

dysfunctional attributes as the analysis of the literature in this section showed, is still dominant.

This gives rise to the question how to counter such a food system. To help understand responses

to the commodity food system the next section will apply the functioning food system goals to

the alternative food system.

2.1.2 Alternative food systems

12

As a reaction to the industrialised food system an increasing number of people seek to find

different ways to create functioning food systems (Goodman et al. 2012; Levkoe, 2011). This

thesis acknowledges that this development reflects that the commodity food system is changing.

However, this thesis argues that in order to understand how this change is occurring, the quality

of the performance of AFIs has to be understood more clearly. Alternative food systems (AFSs)

can be seen as an umbrella term for the manifold food movements that have developed and are

still developing. AFSs have diverse foci, for instance emphasising the links of food to ecology

(e.g. organically grown by small-scale producers as opposed to mass production in monocultures,

Marsden, 2011; Morgan and Murdoch, 2000), society (e.g. restoring social relations that have

been disjointed by the mainstream food system by re-connecting eaters and producers, DeLind,

2011), economy (e.g. demonstrating how local food benefits the local economy) (Blay-Palmer,

2008 and 2010), and culture (e.g. viewing growing and eating of food as cultural act, Slow Food,

n. d.), as well as food’s connection to place (Marsden, 2011; Morgan and Murdoch, 2000; Kneen,

1995) while also reaching out to larger scales (Dahlberg, 1994; Morgan, 2010; Feagan, 2007) and

of course progressing food system change (for instance Levkoe, 2011). To operationalize their

goals AFSs employ different agrifood initiatives, including fair trade, farmers’ markets, and

urban agriculture (Allen et al., 2003). I will now apply the same goals analysis to better

understand the functionality of the alternative food system.

The contribution AFSs make to people’s health can be seen in the way health is perceived as

linked to the food system. In some AFSs, health is built on an intact environment, in which

producing and eating healthful food in turn contributes to the physical and mental well-being of

growers and eaters (Kloppenburg, et al., 2000). For instance, farm-to-school-initiatives provide

fresh locally sourced food for school cafeterias (Bagdonis et al., 2009). More and more Canadian

schools enrich their curriculum with school gardens to provide more comprehensive and hands-

13

on environmental and social education (FoodShare, n. d.; Hammer, 2012). These actions

positively contribute to physical health and wellbeing as they encourage healthy eating and also

seek to change eating habits through increased engagement with food (Lautenschlager and Smith,

2007; Wakefield et al.,2007; Firth et al., 2011; Hale et al., 2011).

AFIs such as farmers’ markets, which offer alternative options to purchase food, help to

provide affordable and healthy food for a larger part of the population. A study of a farmer’s

market in a low-income area of London, ON, which is also underserved by supermarkets,

compared people’s access to fresh healthy foods and food affordability before and after the

introduction of the farmers’ market (Larsen and Gilliland, 2008). The study observed increased

availability of fresh and healthy food due to the location of the farmers’ market and of the lower

price of the food. Further, over the course of three years, the presence of the farmers’ market also

decreased the grocery prices in the neighbourhood by 12%, which further increased food

accessibility for the residents.

One way AFSs affect the economy is through the amount of money that stays in the region.

The closer people buy from their food producer (thus reducing the need for middle men) the

higher the likelihood that they buy from smaller growers, stores, or farmers’ markets, which are

more likely to re-invest the money in their region (e.g. by creating jobs) thereby fostering

regional economic development (O’Hara, 2011).

The role of the environment in AFSs can be approached by looking at the environmental

outcomes of food production in AFSs. Food production is often linked to high greenhouse gas

emissions (e.g. from transport and large-scale animal husbandry). When taking into account the

entire food system (i.e. also the non-immediate impacts, which are typically externalised in

conventional systems) the environmental outcomes of organic agriculture are significantly less

harmful to the environment compared to the ecological consequences of the current conventional

14

food system. While organic farming requires more local energy input (more machine-based

labour due to less pesticide and herbicide use), the overall large scale indirect outputs (such as

greenhouse gas emissions or energy usage e.g. due to import of animal feed from further away)

are smaller than it is the case with conventional farming, which externalises its environmental

costs (Wood et al., 2006; Baroni et al. 2007).

A certain local focus of AFSs cannot be denied, given for example the awareness of the

detrimental environmental impact of food transportation over long distances and highlighting the

positive multiplier effects certain AFIs such as farmers’ markets can have. Yet, in order to reach

for their goals, AFSs have to seek to expand the global scale as well. Morgan (2010) coins the

term “global and fair-narrative” to capture this requirement and argues that globalization and

international trade have to be inclusive and fair. North-Western markets have to open to products

from the Global South, a goal fair trade seeks to meet.

Questions of nurturing sense of place and belonging, the connection between producers and

consumers, the level of food-related knowledge, as well as skills and participation have tight

links within AFSs. As discussed above, Morgan and Murdoch (2000) as well as Jaffe and Gertler

(2006) argue that the established food system systematically deskills farmers and consumers,

which limits their abilities to participate in the conventional food system. This in turn affects the

social realm, which is built on people’s sense of belonging and the relations between food

producers and consumers. This can only grow with skilled participation (Hinrichs, 2003) which

also helps to (re)establish trust in the food system (Watts et al., 2005). Several examples of

people’s participation in food systems (Hassanein, 2003; Wilkins, 2005; Lyson, 2004)7 illustrate

how food-related skills, sense of place and participation impact each other and can be

materialized in “joined-up” approaches of food-system practices (Rideout et al., 2009; WRFSRT, 7 Specifically, Hassanein (2003) looks at food democracy, Wilkins (2005) discusses food citizenship, and Lyson (2004) develops the concept of civic agriculture.

15

2010). A good example of this process is the People’s Food Policy Project which aims to

democratically develop a comprehensive food policy for Canada (People’s Food Policy Project,

n. d.).

As the discussion of alternative food system goals shows, there are major differences between

the two extreme ends of the food system spectrum. Differences lie in the way the food system

goals are realized, and how the proponents of each food system perceive key terms such as

“healthy food” (does it include or exclude GMOs or synthetic enrichments for health foods?), or

“globalization” (does it have to be just? Is globalization fair enough already as it provides people

living in the Global South with jobs?). Moreover, it becomes apparent that AFS participants seek

to realize their goals differently from those in the conventional food system, namely by

highlighting the significance of connecting producers and consumers (e.g. farmers’ markets) and

through active participation (e.g. school gardens). However, it is important to note that this

section on the benefits of AFSs represents a theoretical picture and is intended to serve as a

theoretical example of AFS goals. In what follows I will take into account the limitations AFIs

face in the “real world”.

2.1.3 Limitations to AFS and AFIs

In reality, AFSs and AFIs are diverse and differ from place to place and can only operate in the

social context their members find themselves in (Allen et al., 2003, Marsden 2011). AFSs and

AFIs have different goals and ways of aspiring to achieve them. AFSs are not all perfectly

“good” and do have certain limitations (Goodman et al., 2012 provide a good overview). The

aforementioned goals of alternative food systems are not always fully met through the AFIs they

employ.

16

The literature documents several shortcomings of AFIs. For instance, Slocum (2007)

demonstrates how AFIs create spaces that are often comprised exclusively of white people who,

albeit with good intentions, try to progress healthier food and how this leads to the association of

whiteness with “good”. On the one hand, the reach of AFSs, according to Hinrichs (2000), seems

to be reserved for the upper and middle class and neglects conditions of farm workers (Allen,

2008). On the other hand, however, there is evidence, that certain AFIs, such as Will Allen’s

urban farm, ‘Growing Power’, in Milwaukee, the actions of the peasant organisation Via

Campesina, and also the Toronto-based not-for-profit organisation FoodShare do take these

factors into account. Johnston and Baker (2005) point to the difficulties AFSs have in reaching

out to the larger population, while at the same time the local scale on which many AFIs operate

oftentimes continues to be idealised (Born and Purcell, 2006). Guthman (2004) discusses how

organic food lost its ability to challenge the commodity food system and became

conventionalized. As Levkoe (2011, p. 659) aptly summarizes:

Critics have argued that while there have been some successes, many AFIs have adopted a

selective interpretation of the goals of food system transformation, leading to a

complacency with, and cooptation by, the industrial food system.

The claim by Guthman and others (e.g. Guthman, 2004; Roff, 2007; Peck and Tickell, 2002)

that AFIs can get entangled with neoliberalism is arguably one of the most fundamental critiques

AFIs face. In addition, as I will show in the next section, section 2.2, this phenomenon also

directly interferes with the counter-hegemonic potential of AFIs. To account for the seriousness

and weight of this argument section 2.2.2 will look at the works of neoliberalism, how these are

related to Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony and how they interfere with AFIs’ goals.

The theoretical food system analysis raises several questions, which guide the fleshing out of

the research questions this thesis seeks to explore. First, focussing on lower-scale food system

17

participants, why and how does the commodity food system continue to reproduce itself? Second,

the underperformance of AFIs needs to be further examined to explore why AFIs are only

partially successful and how their performance can be enhanced. In order to pursue these

questions, this thesis employs Gramsci’s concepts of cultural and counter-hegemony and the

concept of scale as a theoretical framework, which are presented in what follows.

2.2 Theoretical framework

In this section I elucidate why I have chosen to approach the research questions with a Gramscian

framework and how Gramsci can be theorized as a scaled concept. To this end, I will first

highlight Gramsci’s ongoing significance and relevance for the social sciences in general and for

this topic in particular. In subsection 2.2.2 I then make an excursus to explain one of the key

terms of this research: neoliberalism. In section 2.3 Gramsci’s concept of cultural and counter-

hegemony is explained. Important aspects of Gramsci’s concepts are further clarified with a

direct application to food systems in section 2.4. Section 2.5 contains “real-life” examples of

cultural and counter-hegemony in order to make Gramsci’s concept more tangible. The

subsequent segments then discuss the concept of scale as the second part of the theoretical

framework.

2.2.1 Relevance of Gramsci

More than 80 years after Gramsci wrote his prison notebooks, his concept of cultural hegemony,

which argues that sovereignty is mainly based on the majority’s consent instead of force

(Gramsci, 1999, p. 248), is still relevant. Several examples highlighting Gramsci’s relevance for

the social sciences in general shall be given in the following.

18

A special themed issue on Gramscian political ecologies in the journal Geoforum (2009)

recognizes Gramsci’s ongoing significance in geography. Highlighting the importance of

environmental issues in current politics, the contributions demonstrate how Gramsci’s concept of

cultural hegemony can help to not only critically analyze environmental issues but also explain

them (Ekers et al., 2009). For instance, Karriem (2009) shows how Gramscian-informed political

ecology can function as a starting point for resistance (of the Brazilian Landless Movement).

Loftus (2009) looks at everyday environments and how hegemony is produced to explore how

democratic transformative politics can be achieved (Ekers et al, 2009, p. 290). Perkins (2011)

analyses the commodification of urban forestry with Gramsci’s cultural hegemony. Wainwright

and Kim (2010) approach the neoliberal sell-off of nature through the hegemony of law, science

and politics. Other publications also draw from Gramsci. The process of building hegemony in

the Canadian agricultural biotech sector is demonstrated and analyzed by Andrée (2011). Evans

(2011) bases her critical pedagogy of sustainability on Gramsci’s contributions to critical

pedagogy and self-determined agency. And, based on Gramsci’s writing on Fordism, Ashley et

al. (2004) connect Gramsci to the current commodity food system through the example of the

mass production of fast food in the industrialized food system to demonstrate how hegemony

helps to maintain this state from a cultural studies perspective. This piece discusses the societal

and cultural implications of fast food’s cultural hegemony. Also, Johnston (2007) investigates

when alternative food system initiatives are counter-hegemonic or bourgeois.

As these examples show, Gramsci’s concept has been and still is applied in diverse contexts

within social science. All of these different utilisations of Gramsci’s concepts aim to reveal,

identify, and break the existing power structures. As this wide range of different examples shows,

Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony is well-suited for such a task as a Gramscian lens

illuminates how these power structures are founded on people’s consent while these power

19

structures benefit only the ruling class. Several of the examples are concerned with the second

part of Gramsci’s concept, counter hegemony, which suggests how to build counter-forces

against difficult targets for resistance – a concern that arguably will never lose its importance in

social science.

In addition to Gramsci’s timeliness for the social sciences in general, his relevance for this

particular research shall be explored. Often viewed as a metanarrative, a Gramscian informed

Marxism might be subjected to (mainly) postmodern Marxist critique, especially with respect to

the question of whether it can be applied to issues of everyday life such as food. Within the frame

of a Gramscian Marxism (and various other forms as well) this thesis follows Loftus (2009, p.

326) who points to how Gramsci emphasises how “power is both consolidated and contested

within taken-for-granted aspects of everyday life” (Gramsci views civil society as the space in

which power is exercised through consent but also where counter-hegemonic efforts grow).

Loftus goes on to argue that hegemony is located in the way “everyday environments” (p. 327)

are produced and that it is this connection of hegemony with the everyday that bears the potential

for social change. In his paper, Loftus uses the example of artistic interventions to foster

democracy and describes the role of an artist as an everyday person as “not to provide content;

rather it is to democratise the means of artistic production.” (p. 333). Translated to a food system

context the role of food system participants interested in food system change would be to support

others to participate in the food system (e.g. through gardening, cooking, and learning about the

food system). Hence, Gramsci’s concepts represent quite a suitable approach to investigate social

change with respect to food as an aspect of everyday life.

Political economy scholars thus far have critically analysed the commodity food system and

for example looked at AFIs’ underperformance. I argue that Gramsci’s strength lies in

complementing previous and recent research especially in political economy. The following

20

examples shall underline the breadth of this approach. For instance, scholars demonstrated how

the food system is connected to space and place and how a neoliberal food system impacts this

connection (Lacy, 2000, Marsden and Sonnino 2012). Furthermore, political economy identified

how the once heralded organic movement gradually becomes absorbed by the neoliberal food

system through its commodification and thus loses its challenging edge (Guthman, 2004).

McMichael (2000) addresses the centrality and “power of food” in his seminal work of the same

title and how food is an indicator for the state of the commodity food system as well as the

linchpin for resistance against it. In addition, Blay-Palmer (2008) discusses some of the negative

consequences of the neoliberal food system when she argues that distancing of eaters from their

food is an outcome of industrialised food systems along with detrimental effects on society,

environment, and economy. However, she also explores how those detrimental effects can lead to

the creation of alternative food systems as a way forward. Further, political economy scholars did

not let themselves get carried away by the high popularity of local food. Instead they cautioned

about the common uncritical acceptance of local food as the “better” choice by default and

suggested to engage in a reflexive localism instead (DuPuis and Goodman, 2005; Hinrichs,

2003), or as Massey (1994, n. p.) termed it: “a global sense of the local, a global sense of place”.

By looking at how relations between governments, economy, and social movements impact

social and environmental justice political economy has demonstrated how the commodity food

system works and highlighted the consequences.

Gramsci’s concept of cultural and counter-hegemony can add to these analyses. Since food is

at the intersection of society, culture, nature, space, place, and economy (Morgan, Marsden, and

Murdoch, 2006; McMichael, 2000), and recognizing that food, food systems, and AFIs are

connected to consumers, producers, businesses (Dahlberg, 1994; Kloppenburg et al., 1996; Watts

et al., 2005; Andrée, 2011), the understanding of food systems requires a comprehensive

21

approach that takes into account matters of sustainability or “the need to ensure a better quality

of life for all, now and into the future, in a just and equitable manner, whilst living

within the limits of supporting ecosystems” (Agyeman et al. 2004, p. 5). I argue in line with

Andrée (2011) that the research questions stated require building on the political economy

foundation in order to expand the breadth of the research with Gramsci’s concept. As the

previous paragraph demonstrates, political economy research has clearly demonstrated that the

commodity food system manifests several dysfunctional attributes. In this research, in turn,

Gramsci’s concept is based on this strong foundation to ask the question of why are AFIs’

successes only moderate, as many AFIs run the risk of supporting neoliberalism. So, can AFIs

provide counter-hegemonic spaces at all and how can their performance be enhanced? Knowing

about negative consequences of the food system is important but it is equally important to

understand why food system change does not progress. Gramsci’s conceptualization of cultural

hegemony is very suitable to approach this question as it enables engagement in a critical analysis

of neoliberalism by comprehending “processes of coercion, consent, and resistance involved in

large-scale social change” (Andrée, 2011, p. 187). Gramsci’s concept facilitates an analysis of

how neoliberalism creates and maintains its hegemony.

This research considers the claim that AFIs can get entangled with neoliberalism (e.g.

Guthman, 2004, 2007, 2008 a, b; Roff, 2007; Peck and Tickell, 2002; Pudup, 2008) as arguably

one of the most fundamental critiques AFIs face. The more so as Gramsci cautioned against

succumbing to the temptation to make (neoliberal) concessions while struggling in a long war of

position (Cox, 1983). Therefore the following subsection will grapple with neoliberalism. In

addition this excursus will clarify what this research means when it argues that the commodity

food system is based on neoliberal hegemony. Following the discussion of neoliberalism and its

22

significance for this research, I will elucidate Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony and

counter-hegemony.

2.2.2 Neoliberalism

The purpose of this subsection is to clarify the key term neoliberalism and its contextualization of

AFIs, and potential sources of dysfunctionalities. It is hoped that Gramsci’s concept will help to

understand why the commodity food system despite its dysfunctional characteristics continues to

reproduce itself.

Harvey (2007, p. 22) summarizes neoliberalism as follows:

“Neoliberalism is a theory of political economic practices proposing that human well-

being can best be advanced by the maximization of entrepreneurial freedoms within an

institutional framework characterized by private property rights, individual liberty,

unencumbered markets, and free trade.”

Neoliberalism’s most distinct attributes shall now be highlighted in greater detail.

Neoliberalism is characterized by the demand for deregulation and state retreat as it assumes that

the free market will take care of everything in the best interest of all (Guthman, 2008; Roff,

2007). However, the market cannot do completely without the state. While state-intervention is

perceived as inefficient in neoliberalism as it is seen as market-distorting, the state does have to

regulate monetary politics and create new markets where there are none so far, such as in

education and health care (Roff, 2007; Harvey, 2007). On the global scale organisations such as

the WTO and the IMF ensure that neoliberal policies are created and followed by (almost) all

countries. Hence, the neoliberal state resembles a “rule-system that paradoxically defines itself as

a form of antiregulation” (Peck and Tickell, 2002 p. 400; emphasis in original), as the state in

23

fact continues to regulate the market –in favour of the ruling class (Harvey, 2007) – and therefore

reduces the neoliberal idea of the “free” market to absurdity (Gibson-Graham, 2006).

The selective retreat of the state (as visible in deregulation and privatisation), which shifts the

emphasis to individual liberty and responsibility, represents another attribute of neoliberalism. In

addition, the market, through supply and demand interactions, is ascribed the ability to achieve an

equilibrium that is most beneficial to all. Taken together, increased individual responsibility and

reliance on the market can award high significance to individual consumption. In the neoliberal

context, individual consumption is often seen as able to turn around societal problems and serves

as a way to express and present oneself (as an ethical consumer for example) (Roff, 2007) or at

least it can be presented as a way to “eat our way to health and happiness” (DeLind, 2011, p.

276). In addition, deregulation requires non-state actors (for profits and not-for profits) to fill the

void left behind due to state retreat. While non-state actors (more or less successfully) tackle

social and environmental problems it has to be asked whether such actions are making a long-

lasting difference or whether they only ease the detrimental consequences of neoliberalism (Peck

and Tickell, 2002, Roff, 2007). In the latter case, neoliberalism’s negative consequences are

mitigated and neoliberalism can continue to exist.

Neoliberalism does not deliver the economic growth its advocates promise (Harvey, 2007).

Instead it leaves a trail of widespread demolition, which for example is embodied by the

dismissal of the principle that politics regulate the economy (replaced by deregulation or “roll-

back” neoliberalism; Peck and Tickell, 2002), the dismissal of welfare (replaced by austerity),

and also by intangible matters, such as prioritising particular ways of life (in neoliberalism

dominated by the merit-principle8 and the need to be ‘flexible’), and sense of place (eroded

8 According to the merit-principle only the individual’s own achievements stemming from her/his personal efforts, and not from state-support (in the form of social assistance, free access to education, quota for women’s

24

without substitution) (Harvey, 2007). Harvey (2007) argues that this leads to uneven regional

development and that discrimination of the poor to benefit the rich has been the outcome of the

“neoliberal project” over time.

With this context in mind, I will now explore how neoliberalism actually maintains its power.

Despite austerity measures and “invasive social policies”, or “roll-out” neoliberalism (Peck and

Tickell, 2002, p. 389), which can be witnessed in view of the current economic crises,

neoliberalism has been surprisingly resilient in times of economic crisis (Harvey, 2007; Peck and

Tickell, 2002), something Gramsci anticipated several decades ago. Indeed, it even seems that

crises strengthen support for neoliberal ideologies (Peck and Tickell, 2002) not least due to

seemingly temporary austerity measures which promise to last only until economic growth occurs

but in fact have never been reversed (Demirović, 2008; Peck and Tickell, 2002).

Over time, advocates of neoliberalism found their way into manifold powerful positions in for

instance politics, economics, media, and education (Harvey, 2007; Gibson-Graham, 2006). The

resulting redistribution of resources (money, power, biodiversity etc.) on all scales from the poor

to the rich and relinquishing responsibility for society from the state and the economy to

individuals (Harvey, 2007, Peck and Tickell, 2002; Gibson-Graham, 2006), is strongly anchored

in many societies around the world (across all scales). It appears that the majority has internalized

the inevitability of neoliberalism (Harvey, 2007; Gibson-Graham, 2006) and hence

“neoliberalism seems to be everywhere” (Peck and Tickell, 2002, p. 380). Neoliberalism has

powerfully impacted the way we think, act, and live; neoliberalism has become hegemonic

(Harvey, 2007; Guthman, 2008 b). As Gibson-Graham (2006, p. 55/56) put it:

We have come to accept that "the economy" establishes the bottom line for action and "it"

makes us perform in certain ways. This ideological fantasy has become safe and even representation etc.), will justly reward her/him with societal benefits (such as a well-paid job or power) (Demirović, 2008).

25

enjoyable, directing and limiting politics to certain channels, blinding us without realizing

it to the possibility of other options.

Fragmentation is one of the methods responsible for neoliberalism’s success. Neoliberal

fragmentation, as Peck and Tickell (2002) put it, widens the “gap between rhetoric (for the

benefit of all) and realization (for the benefit of a small ruling class)” (p. 42). Thus, neoliberalism

is successful in part because it manages to separate its actions (such as austerity, industrialised

agriculture, and a food system pervaded by dysfunctionalities) from its outcomes (such as

skyrocketing poverty-rates, environmental degradation, and detrimental health effects such as

diabesity, which is diabetes caused by obesity) for the public. Due to this disconnect the

responsibility and the solution for current pressing problems are sought in individual behaviour

and actions and the actual root of a problem is not targeted. Fragmentation (Sites, 2007) is

present in the literature under different names, such as “thinking in silos” (Levkoe, 2011),

distancing (Kneen, 1989; Kloppenburg et al., 1996), separation (Levkoe, 2011), and “asocial

economic atomism” (Gibson-Graham, 2006, p. 83). In a food system context, neoliberal

fragmentation is visible in the externalisation of environmental costs (Kloppenburg et al., 1996),

in the distancing of people from their food (e.g. Kneen, 1989; Lacy, 2000; Blay-Palmer, 2008), in

people losing their ability to understand the ways in which food impacts physical and

environmental health as well as place and hence losing their sense of belonging. In addition

Levkoe (2011) brings up food banks, which ease hunger but do not counter the neoliberal system

that is responsible for high food insecurity in the first place. Another example for fragmentation

is nutritionism, which views food only as the sum of its nutrients and thus disconnects the quality

and background of food from its health effects (Levkoe, 2011, deLind, 2010, Pollan, 2007).

Further, DuPuis and Goodman (2005) in their paper talk about how “unreflexive localism”

disconnects food from social justice.

26

Fragmentation is also behind Peck and Tickell’s (2002) argument that non-state actors who

fill-in for the retreated state run the risk of supporting neoliberalism as their actions mitigate but

do not challenge neoliberal outcomes. Most of these societal groups are well intentioned and

aspire to better people’s lives or the environment. I argue this happens as due to fragmentation

these groups only target the symptoms, in the case of food banks hunger, but not the cause of the

problem. Due to fragmentation, hunger is seen as the problem to fight, and it is up to us, the

people (not the government and the economy) to stop it. However, any responsibility on part of

the economy and the government in the neoliberal structure is not challenged. This research in

what follows investigates, by means of the scholarly literature and interviews, whether and how

the establishment of edible gardens as an AFI may be able to challenge the current neoliberal

food system. The next section explains Gramsci’s concepts of cultural hegemony and counter-

hegemony in more detail and will be concluded with examples taken from political, economic

and social contemporary events that illustrate his concepts.

2.3 Gramsci’s concepts of cultural and counter-hegemony This research utilises Antonio Gramsci’s (1891 – 1937) concepts of cultural and counter-

hegemony in tandem with the concept of scale to provide a theoretical framework for the thesis.

Based on his observations that (i) the affluent capitalist states of the North withstand economic

crises and are not overturned by a revolution of the proletariat (Gramsci, 1999, p. 486, 489) and

(ii) that these states even persist for long periods of time, Gramsci further extended the Marxist

concept of the state. He understood that modern forms of government are not exclusively based

on the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force but on consent. This led Gramsci

to develop his theory of cultural hegemony (Buckel and Fischer-Lescarno, 2007; Gramsci, 1999,

p. 248).

27

This thesis adopts a “Gramscian method of analysis” (Andrée, 2011, p. 175), as

“Gramsci gives us, not the tools with which to solve the puzzle, but the means with which

to ask the right kinds of questions […].” (Hall, 1987, p. 16).

To this end, Gramsci’s original terms are used. Gramsci’s terminology, which sometimes may

sound slightly outdated, is used in this thesis for two reasons: (i) to underline the connection

between Gramsci’s ongoing relevance (as discussed in section 2.2.1) and the contemporary food

system; and (ii) to apply his concepts more directly and clearly by exploring what, for example, a

“historic bloc” or a “war of position” could possibly look like in food systems of the 21st century.

2.3.1 Cultural hegemony

Interestingly, while Gramsci’s concept is well known, it is less known that he actually never

completely defined it (Jackson Lears, 1985). Gramsci’s closest description of cultural hegemony

from his prison notebooks reads as follows:

“1. The “spontaneous” consent given by the great masses of the population to the general

direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is

“historically” caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant

group9 enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production.

2. The apparatus of state coercive power which “legally” enforces discipline on those

groups who do not “consent” either actively or passively.” (Gramsci, 1999, p. 145)

The next subsections further elucidate several crucial aspects of Gramsci’s concept of cultural

and counter-hegemony.

9 Gramsci here describes what is usually termed the “ruling class” – the class, whose position and function in society allow it to dominate/rule; in a commodified food system context this would entail the food industry and sometimes possibly parts of national governments.

28

2.3.1.1 State = political society + civil society

Gramsci understood that modern forms of government draw their power mainly from consent

(Buckel and Fischer-Lescarno, 2007; Gramsci, 1999, p. 248) and that the state exercises force

only in exceptional circumstances as physical force is mainly limited to external issues related to

state protection (Gramsci, 1999, p. 248; Buckel and Fischer-Lescarno, 2007). However the threat

of the application of violence by the state apparatus enforced by the police, the army, and the

legal system (political society) always remains implicit (Jackson Lears, 1985, p. 568).

According to Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony state supported consent is created within

civil society, the realm between state and economy (e.g.: education, religion, unions, and mass

media), in that the ruling class utilizes the state to establish and maintain its power. The

institutions of civil society (such as schools, media, churches) then teach individuals how to live

in accordance with the dominant hegemonic values set by the ruling class (Gramsci, 1999, p. 502,

526).

In order to maintain its hegemony, the ruling class has to gather broad agreement from the

public or the subaltern class(es)10 for its actions – which is only possible through concessions.

Yet, the concessions made by the ruling class do not encompass any essential issues, which could

potentially threaten the ruling class’ power (Demirović, 2008). Along the same lines Kneen

(1995, p. 103) asserts that “[M]odern science and capitalism both depend on the passivity of the

majority of the population: profits are reduced to the extent that there is resistance to

exploitation”.

Together, civil society and state form the integral state, the “entire complex of practical and

theoretical activities with which the ruling class not only justifies and maintains its dominance,

10 The subalterns are the ones dominated by the ruling class by means of the subalterns’ consent; in a food system context this would be the majority of eaters and small producers and sometimes possibly parts of local governments.

29

but manages to win the active consent of those over whom it rules.” (Gramsci, 1999, p. 504). In

short, the ruling class legitimises its power through the subalterns’ consent to the ruling class’

worldview and culture (Jackson Lears, 1985, p. 568). This is expressed in Gramsci’s famous

equation: State = political society + civil society, in other words hegemony protected by the

armour of coercion (Gramsci, 1999, p. 532).

2.3.1.2 Civil society

Gramsci argues that civil society is not only the space in which cultural hegemony is maintained

but also the space in which counter-hegemony is created. As in a cycle, the hegemony of one

group leads to counter-hegemonic efforts of others. When others succeed in establishing their

hegemony, the former hegemonic group will start building counter-hegemonic efforts against the

new hegemony and so on (Katz, 2006). This paper views civil society in line with Gramsci as

both a space in which power is exercised through subaltern consent and where counter-hegemony

grows. Therefore Gramsci’s civil society encompasses the more contemporary understanding of

civil society that relates this term more to NGOs and people’s activism.

2.3.1.3 Dynamic hegemonic relations

According to Gramsci, in a capitalist state, the emerging power relations based on compromise

are dynamic and constantly changing. The process of achieving and maintaining power is marked

by the bourgeoisie’s constant pursuit to respond to various societal groups in the form of

concessions to secure the survival of the bourgeoisie’s power. While re-negotiating its cultural

hegemony the bourgeoisie has to assure that the results still serve the bourgeoisie’s advantage

without revealing this intention to the subaltern classes. As Ang (1996, n. p.) aptly states:

30

The Gramscian concept of hegemony is mostly used to indicate the cultural leadership of

the dominant classes in the production of generalized meanings, of 'spontaneous' consent

to the prevailing arrangement of social relations - a process, however, that is never

finished because hegemony can never be complete.

This section demonstrated how Gramsci’s concept is based on an interplay of cultural and

counter-hegemony. The next segment will further elaborate on the second part of Gramsci’s

concept: counter-hegemony.

2.3.2 Counter-hegemony11

Based on subaltern endorsement, the state enjoys strong acceptance in civil society. In order to

explain how subalterns agree with something that is actually disadvantageous for them Gramsci

used the term “contradictory consciousness” (Gramsci, 1999, p. 641/642), which acknowledges

the phenomenon that subalterns “could identify with the dominant culture—often for sound

reasons—even as they sought to challenge it. And the challenge could be undermined by that

identification.” (Jackson Lears, 1985, p. 576). A change or conquest of the state and the

commonly accepted societal “norm” can therefore not occur in a hasty manner as civil society,

having internalised the dominant cultural norms prescribed by the ruling class, would object

(Demirović, 2007). However Gramsci maintains that dominant cultural norms are not “natural”

or “inevitable” but have to be examined for their dominant roots to ultimately find ways for

liberation (Demirović, 2007). In order to construct counter-hegemony, Gramsci deems necessary

11 Within the frame of clarifying what counter-hegemony is, it is also important to explain the term resistance. McLoughlin Torgerson (2010) views resistance in the opposition to neoliberal norms. Resistance can be exercised by living and practising different, alternative norms, which she illustrates with the production of fair trade bananas. Pointing out to the increasing complexity of the world, Shreck (2005) finds manifold ways of resistance and resisters. She therefore holds that resistance is one of three forms of counter-hegemony, characterized by “[N]on-participation or partial refusal to participate in the hegemonic system, determined by the actor to be unacceptable” (p. 21).

31

a ‘war of position’ (in what he called ‘modern states’ the more confrontational war of manoeuvre

gradually turns into a war of position; Gramsci, 1999, p. 503), to raise awareness for class-

consciousness within society, teach revolutionary theories, and to ultimately inspire a

revolutionary organisation. A war of position is a long-term strategy to slowly build counter-

hegemony, which can only work and turn into transformative politics if (almost) everybody

participates (Karriem, 2009). Hence, counter-hegemony can lead to system change. While in such

a long war of position, Gramsci cautioned against the temptation to make (neoliberal)

concessions (Cox, 1983) to the ruling class. For a deeper understanding of this key concept the

following subsections will delve deeper into several aspects of counter-hegemony.

2.3.2.1 Historic bloc

To change the current cultural hegemony, the subalterns have to build up counter-hegemony. To

this end, Gramsci demands a ‘historic bloc’ to fight a war of position, which is not “constituted

simply by the actual trenches, but by the whole organisational and industrial system of the

territory which lies to the rear of the army in the field.” (Gramsci, 1999, p. 488). He perceives

this war as a cultural war, in which anti-capitalist voices form their own worldview and form a

historic bloc.

The historic bloc is created by ‘organic intellectuals’ and unites people of all social groups,

regardless of their socio-economic status, such as religion and gender. Organic intellectuals (who

do not necessarily have to be academics whom Gramsci calls traditional intellectuals) are the

“thinking and organising element of a particular fundamental social class” and seek to direct “the

ideas and aspirations of the class to which they organically belong” (Gramsci, 1999, p. 131).

Hence, organic intellectuals are necessary to challenge and change the current hegemony

32

(Gramsci, 1999, p. 133, 142). Organic intellectuals and historical blocs have an almost symbiotic

relationship to each other: organic intellectuals benefit as members, for instance, from an

“industrialized food bloc” and at the same time they support the societal acceptance of the bloc’s

actions (Andrée, 2011, Gramsci, 1999, p. 131).

The successful overthrowing of the current cultural hegemony depends on how well the

historic bloc spreads its worldview through teaching revolutionary theories and analyses to

ultimately inspire revolutionary organisation and on how well the historic bloc manages to ally

with other groups (Jackson Lears, 1985). As mentioned earlier, creating a historic bloc to wage a

war of position is a long-term strategy to slowly build counter-hegemony, which requires mass-

participation to succeed (Karriem, 2009). Hence the effectiveness of cultural and counter-

hegemony also depends on scale. For that reason historical blocs might be an effective way to

counter fragmentation as historical blocs ultimately require large-scale and diverse participation.

The following segment intends to further discuss conditions for counter-hegemony by exploring

criteria for counter-hegemony.

2.3.2.2 Criteria for counter-hegemony

Acknowledging that “current environmental solutions do not appear radical enough to ebb the

tide of ecological exhaustion and outright extinction taking place”, Johnston (2007, p. 9)

highlights the problems many AFIs and other activist movements currently face and which have

been discussed earlier in this chapter. Johnston (2007) approaches this issue by developing two

food-system-specific criteria for counter-hegemony. She sees the first crucial point for counter-

hegemony in the resistance to how the established food system commodifies needs and how it

makes access to healthy and fresh food dependent on income. Her second criterion asks counter-

33

hegemony to find ways to learn (again) to enjoy life outside the realm of consumption (in a

sustainable way of course) so that consumption is not defining identities anymore. Johnston

(2007, p. 17) summarizes her arguments in the table below (Table 1).

Table 1: Johnston’s (2007) counter-hegemonic criteria 1. Reclaiming the commons – a realm of social life which: • Restricts commodification; • Develops alternative modes of meeting life

goods (e.g. needs reduction and cooperation);

• Decreases distance between production and consumption.

2. Creating post-consumer needs & pleasures that: • Challenge consumerism’s hegemony; • Provide a proactive vision; create

alternative pleasures and empowerment not based on ecological and social exploitation.

Based on the background provided in sections 2.1 to 2.3 the following segment hypothesises

what a food system viewed through a Gramscian lens could look like.

2.4 A Gramscian perspective on the commodity food system

In this part of the thesis I hypothesise what Gramsci’s sub-concepts of the historical bloc and

organic intellectuals (as they serve as indicators for cultural hegemony; Andrée, 2011) could look

like in a contemporary food system. To this end, the food system is viewed through a Gramscian

lens in order to identify possible historical blocs and organic intellectuals. However, caution has

to be exercised as it is not clear at this stage, whether we are actually experiencing the

development of any kind of Gramscian food blocs. This will only be visible when looking back

several years ahead. This thesis highlights the parallels with McMichael (2009) and Friedmann’s

(2009) discussion about whether we find ourselves in a third food regime, a 25-40 years long

period that is characterised by certain “class relations, geographical specialization, and inter-state

power” (Friedmann 2009, p. 335), or not. In this regard McMichael emphasises that food regimes

represent a method of analysis, which is also the case for this section on (potential) industrial and

34

alternative food blocs. Drawing from Andrée (2011), in what follows a potential industrial food

bloc and alternative food are introduced.

2.4.1 Industrial food bloc

Andrée (2011) distinguishes between two different historical blocs: the first type consists of

different social groups that unite to advance their ideas in the struggle for a change in hegemony.

The second kind of historical bloc involves the state and civil society, which together control

societal norms (through media, schools etc.) in order to maintain hegemony12. As noted

previously, the existence of these two historic blocs is not only a pre-condition for cultural

hegemony; it also makes a constant re-negotiation of cultural hegemony necessary and thus

illustrates its dynamic nature. Following Andrée (2011), who identifies a historic bloc in the

realm of biotech in agriculture and consequently terms it “biotech bloc”, I will investigate the

existence of historic blocs within the industrialized food system13.

As previously shown, the established food system exhibits dysfunctionalities with respect to

achieving the previously distilled food system goals such as providing food security. However,

while these identified dysfunctionalities are disadvantageous for many small-scale food system-

participants, it does benefit certain food system players. For instance, food that is labelled as

healthy while it still contains plenty of unhealthy ingredients, illustrates how the large industrial

food producers and retailers profit from selling these kinds of products to consumers. The group

that benefits from the dysfunctionalities of the food system consists of various members of the 12 Similar to the note that there are many conventional and alternative food systems on a continuum, it has to be acknowledged that there are many shades of grey also among the many different historical blocs that exist, and which most likely differ from place to place. 13 While historical blocs can to some extend remind us of Waddell’s (2005) communities of practice, these two differ from each other in certain ways: as part of societal learning communities, communities of practice can have various types of changes set as their goals (economic, social, ecological etc.) and are more project-oriented. Historical blocs, however, are always political unifications of different groups that seek to not only change but to overthrow the current hegemonic system.

35

industrial food industry14, to some extent the government, academics (chemists and biologists

who conduct research on food ingredients etc.), as well as lawyers. Together they form a

historical bloc of the second type, the “industrialized food bloc”, and work on the continuous

establishment of the food system by convincing people that their actions are in the peoples’

interest. Within the “industrialized food bloc”, the members presuppose each other and each

member brings to the table his/her own “special capability”:

• Large international agricultural companies cooperate with large food-retail chains and large

food companies in the private sector to increase their (lobbying and market) power and

profits (Andrée, 2011, Morgan et al., 2006, p. 55-57). Food retailers claim to cater to the

needs of their consumers by for example lowering food prices and increasing selection of

brands (CBC, 2009; Morgan et al., 2006, p. 65). Consumers in turn let supermarkets and the

food producers determine what they eat (Runciman, D. 1996, in Bell and Valentine, 1997)

and hence give away their autonomy and freedom.

• The Canadian government’s contribution to the industrialized food bloc is materialized for

example in the passing of lenient laws on food labelling in general and on GMOs and so-

called health foods in particular. The Canadian government approved the cultivation of GM

seeds and does not require GM foods to be labelled as such even though the majority of

Canadians supports mandatory labelling on GM foods (Smythe, 2012; Halfnight, 2011;

CBC, 2004).

• The contribution of academics to the “industrialized food bloc” often includes for instance

the development of agro-chemicals or scientific support of the related claim that organic food

is not more nutritious than conventionally produced food (Dangour et al., 2009), research on 14 Food industry is defined in line with Nestle (2007, p. 11) as consisting of “[…] companies that produce, process, manufacture, sell and serve foods, beverages, and dietary supplements. In a larger sense, the term encompasses the entire collection of enterprises involved in the production and consumption of food and beverages: producers and processors of food crops and animals (agribusinesses).”

36

GMOs (Andrée, 2011), calculations on how to make long supply chains more efficient and

profitable, or legal advice on how to pay lower wages to workers (The London Free Press,

2008).

2.4.2 Alternative food bloc

This section looks at a historic bloc of the first type, the alternative food bloc. Gramsci maintains

that groups among the subalterns can also produce their own organic intellectuals who intend

advancing toward an alternative hegemony (Gramsci, 1999, p. 132, 133, 137). In the context of

alternative food, broadly speaking, a historic bloc could possibly be built by organic intellectuals

such as academics, who research and write in various fields about the outcomes of the

commodity food system (e.g. Niggli and Leifert, 2009), but also farmers, such as the Gilvesies in

Norfolk County, Ontario, who employ sustainable cattle farming practices and who regularly

speak in public to share their positive experiences (ALUS, n. d.). Hypothetically assumed,

farmers such as the Gilvesies, the National Famer Union, environmental and consumer

organisations (such as Food Secure Canada, Sustain Ontario) and concerned eaters could form an

“alternative food bloc” to attract the public’s attention and consent to alternative ways of food

production. However, compared to industrial food blocs, alternative food blocs seem to have

higher numbers of more diverse potential members, which could make it more difficult to get

organised. This means that not all of the mentioned players might consider themselves as part of

something bigger, such as alternative food blocs. In addition, the government is currently missing

as an important player in alternative food blocs as the government’s ability to create a legal and

institutional framework, which is supportive of alternative food issues, is crucial. Moving from

37

theory to reality, the next section will acquaint the reader with “real-life” examples of hegemonic

and counter-hegemonic actions and efforts.

2.5 Examples of cultural and counter-hegemony

This section illustrates the theoretical elaborations on Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony

with timely examples of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic efforts taken from “real life” based

on the previously discussed criteria.

Will Allen’s “Growing Power” urban farm in Milwaukee, located next to one of the city’s

largest public housing projects and, according to Allen, in the middle of a food desert, provides

an example of counter-hegemonic efforts. Allen’s outreach (for volunteers and paid workers) not

only increases access to fresh and healthy food for people for whom often this is inaccessible but

also increases people’s food related knowledge and skills to become independent and self-

sufficient, which in turn opens up alternative ways for people to meet their needs. His urban farm

brings people with different socio-economic backgrounds together. Allen asserts that “Growing

Power” indeed empowers people (Royte, 2009) and thus employs counter-hegemonic efforts.

Counter-hegemonic efforts occur in different places and cultures, for example in the Middle

East. Two examples of counter-hegemony are Neve Shalom (Oasis of Peace) and Kibbutz Lotan

in Israel. Neve Shalom is a village in Israel, in which Arabs and Jews live together in peace and

where counter-hegemonic teaching against the state-decreed religious-conservative and right-

wing mainstream is practised (Neve Shalom, n. d.). Kibbutz Lotan is probably one of the few

Kibbutzim that can still be considered alternative (Gan, 2011) to the established food production

system as organic agriculture is practiced (Kibbutz Lotan, n. d.). Kibbutz Lotan’s educational

mission and its practice of permaculture set it apart as a potential counter-hegemonic force (for

38

example Kibbutz Yodvata; Strauss, n. d.; The Guardian, 2008). In its capacity as a Kibbutz,

Lotan challenges the hegemony of consumerism and its ecological food production decreases the

distance between producer and consumer as both are the Kibbutz residents (Kibbutz Lotan, n. d.).

An additional example of a counter-movement that reaches across different spaces and cultures15

is the peasant organisation La Via Campesina. La Via Campesina coined the term food

sovereignty, which stands for “the peoples’, Countries’ or State Unions’ RIGHT to define their

agricultural and food policy, without any dumping vis-à-vis third countries” (Via Campesina,

2003).

While these examples introduce promising counter-movements, which can be seen as in the

process of forming alternative food blocs, the question arises why these movements do not

progress beyond a “war of position” to bring on a change in the cultural hegemony prevailing in

the mainstream food system This thesis seeks to understand to what extent scales play a role in

this problem: how is the effectiveness of AFIs as counter-hegemonic forces contingent on issues

of scale?

2.6 Scale

This section pursues the question of how the efficiency of hegemony is related to scale. This

question stems from Gramsci’s interest in how the relations of different scales impact social,

political, and economic issues (Jessop, 2005). According to Gramsci counter-hegemony requires

the masses challenging the current cultural hegemony. Yet, responses to the food system in the

form of AFIs mostly take place at smaller scales (Allen et al., 2003).

15 The Canadian Farmers’ Union (NFU) the NFU is a UK originated organization with a Canadian version, the largest Canadian farmer association is the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA). The NFU is affiliated with Via Campesina..

39

Scales can be useful to grasp complex matters such as the food system. For instance, Bell and

Valentine (1997) divide their exploration of the food system from a consumption perspective into

seven scales, from the body to the global, to distil how food (consumption) is connected with

space and place. Scales are also utilized by Sobal and Wansink (2007), who broadly classify the

food system into three categories based on scale: large (or macro), mid (meso), and small (or

micro). Macroscale food systems include, among others, global markets and transportation

systems, whereas midscale food systems consist of, for example, supermarkets and restaurants,

while microscale food systems include the immediate surroundings, such as the household and

also the body.

While scales are socially constructed and therefore contested (e.g. Dupuis and Goodman,

2005; Hinrichs, 2003; Bell and Valentine, 1997), they are also tools that help differentiate

between different processes of varying geographical magnitudes (Herod, 2003). However, one

should beware of the “local trap” (Born and Purcell, 2006) and instead of simply idealizing the

local, one should bear in mind that there is nothing inherently good or bad in any scale.

Consequential, ‘the local’ is not a morally superior (or inferior) bulwark against ‘the’ morally

inferior (or superior) ‘global’. As well, (amongst others) Gibson-Graham (2002) point out the

difference in power resulting from the binary of the local and the global16. Still, Morgan and

Sonnino (2008) notice that there are a number of additional issues that are related to scale: for

instance, the link between scale and ethics: the difficulties to treat animals humanely increase

with the size of the farm or plant operation.

Finally, there is a peculiar tension around food. Stemming from technical, biological, and

chemical innovations and cheap transportation costs, food can be grown and shipped to anywhere

16 It is acknowledged that the local – global are not two mutually exclusive entities and therefore not a binary. However, similar to local and conventional food systems, for the purpose of distinguishing between different ways of participation and agency this distinction proves to be useful as well.

40

regardless of local (climate, soil etc.) conditions. This circumstance makes food similar to capital,

which is also place-less and knows no boundaries. However, resistance-movements (and the

labour-force) are mostly place-based (Merk, 2009 and Cumbers et al. 2010). The tension between

place-based counter-forces and place-less food as a product of the neoliberal food system is also

related to scale and part of the analysis in the next subsection. The next segment aims at

deepening the understanding of Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony. To this end, this thesis

will draw from the insights gained in this section to learn how scale impacts the effectiveness of

neoliberal hegemony and how scale affects potential counter-hegemonies.

2.7 Scaling hegemony

With respect to scale and building on Gramsci’s cultural and counter-hegemony this section

explores how scale relates to hegemony – to the current cultural hegemony of the food system as

well as to potential counter-hegemony. Deriving from this line of inquiry are several issues this

section seeks to understand and resolve. First, recognizing that resistance-networks are place-

based, Cumbers et al. (2010) see a tension arising between the smaller scales at which many of

these counter-forces exist and the larger scales, which are often perceived as relatively superior.

Second, what is the role of Gramsci’s cultural and counter-hegemony in reconciling this scale-

problem? Third, how to scale counter-hegemonic efforts in a food system context to make them

more successful.

Since scales are socially constructed, they are contested and do not possess any inherent

qualities. This appears to lead to a paradox: if there is nothing inherent in scale, why do larger

scales appear more powerful than smaller scales? Brown and Purcell (2005) state that it is people

who construct scales through political processes. Therefore certain attributes are associated with

41

scales and the power-distribution across scales represents a temporary status quo (until people

create/realize opportunities at different scales).

When people construct scales with certain characteristics these associated attributes are only

internalized and effective if they are based on mass consent. An example is the Comprehensive

Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, which the Canadian government and the European

Union are currently in process of negotiating. CETA provides an example of the renegotiation of

power and regulation for trade as, for instance, buy-local initiatives will be regulated by this

international agreement.

As Brown and Purcell (2005) argue, the current scalar power distribution is not inevitable and

shifts over time, which reflects Gramsci’s idea that hegemony is dynamic and constantly

changing. Moreover Gibson-Graham (2002) claim that the local is not weaker than the global (or

likely any other larger scale) and offer a perspective that can be viewed as the beginning of a

counter-hegemonic strategy to confront the current established ideas about the global. It is

important to note the particular role of the local as the main space for political activism (Gibson-

Graham, 2002). Moreover the particular attributes at each local scale make each place special and

hence a target for neoliberalism’s spatial homogenisation (Cumbers et al., 2010, Marsden 2011).

Thus, the alleged relative strong position of the global (and probably all larger scales) has to be

reassessed.

Gibson-Graham propose the practice of resubjectivation, “a set of embodied interventions that

attempt to confront and reshape the ways in which we live and enact the power of the global” (p.

30). In concrete terms this means that alternative and diverse economies have to be created by (i)

changing the discourse so that “non-capitalist activities are visible and viable” (p. 36) and by (ii)

helping people to actually successfully practice these non-capitalist activities (such as child-

raising, gardening, volunteering etc.). Supporting Gibson-Graham’s concept is the subsidiarity-

42

principle according to which decisions should be made by the most local government possible

(Blay-Palmer, 2012; EU, n. d.), which is applied by DeLind and Howard (2008) in the context of

food safety.

In line with Gibson-Graham’s approach that ascribes agency to the local scale, Merk (2009)

points out, using the example of exploited workers in the garment industry, that “workers remain

active participants in a process of contestation that constantly reshapes the dynamics of

workplace control and its accompanying power balances and relations” (p. 600; emphasis in

original). Again, scalar constructions and hegemonies are not set in stone. Actors in the

established food system may be able to challenge the current order through (un)organized and

individual/collective forms and can be mediated by unions, political movements, or alliances and

have to be realized by scale-jumping or the bridging of space (Merk, 2009). Jumping scale

enables people to “pursue their causes on a broader socio-geographic terrain” (p. 600) and

complements the place-based nature of many counter-forces as by mobilising “extra-local actors

to shift the power-balance (…). They ‘jump scale’ and ‘bridge space’ to gain leverage over

employers, local authorities and, in some cases, even governments.” (Merk, 2009, p. 606).

Johnston and Baker’s (2005) analysis of FoodShare’s agrifood initiative Good Food Box

(GFB) matches Merk’s and Gibson-Graham’s approaches as to how scale can be utilized to

create counter-hegemony. Johnston and Baker argue that in order to be more successful

FoodShare has to scale the GFB up (local practices are moved to larger administrative and

governmental scales in order to tackle the origins of the problem (Westley et al., 2010)) and out

(engaging more people from a larger geographic area in these practices (Westley et al., 2010)) as

these practices are often connected to each other (Westley et al., 2010). During the processes of

scaling up and out it is crucial not to rely on standardised one-fits-all solutions as these will

decrease the credibility of alternative practice and will not do justice to the diverse landscape of

43

challenges AFIs face. An important building block for AFI’s success is the recognition that AFIs

have to reach across multiple scales in line with agriculture, which “exists on multiple scales”

(Johnston and Baker, 2005, p. 321).

The effectiveness of scales and their associated attributes (as they are socially constructed)

(Born and Purcell, 2006) means that people’s everyday (non-capitalist) practices bear a strong

potential to ignite a counter-process for positive change (Gibson-Graham, 2002). Effective

counter-hegemony starts on the smaller scales and works its way up to the larger scales to

achieve mass consent (Blay-Palmer and Knezevic, forthcoming) – also by utilising the practice of

scale jumping. During this process, or ‘war of position’, the characteristics associated with scales

have to be questioned, challenged, and changed in line with Gramsci’s concept. To this end,

counter-movements need to build up mass-consent. They have to scale up and involve different

types of stakeholders, such as the (various levels of) government or international organisations

and to scale out to increase the circle of supporters and activists and sometimes they need to jump

scales in order to skip scales (which can be re-considered at a later point in the process).

Based on the previous discussion of neoliberalism, food systems, scales, and recalling that

Gramsci never fully defined cultural and counter-hegemony, this research suggests an adaptation

of Johnston’s table below. This table serves as an overview or checklist of counter-hegemonic

criteria and shall help to understand whether a counter-force actually possesses counter-

hegemonic potential. Reflecting grounded theory as the chosen research methodology for this

thesis, this table will be revisited several times through this exploratory research work to extend

or change it when new insights are gained in order to ultimately answer the question whether

edible gardens have counter-hegemonic potential and, if so, whether their counter-hegemonic

performance can be improved. Hence, as hegemony can never be complete and is constantly

changing, this table is dynamic as well.

44

Based on the gained insights, Johnston’s (2007) list of counter-hegemonic criteria needs to be

extended to include the need to question and challenge the hegemony of current scalar

construction with the ability to scale up and out as part of the goals of a historic bloc during the

war of position. Taken together, all these counter-hegemonic criteria form a war of

position/historic bloc.

Table 2: Johnston’s (2007) counter-hegemonic criteria – extended (version 1) Counter-hegemonic criteria

a) Reclaiming the commons – a realm of social life which: • Restricts commodification • Develops alternative modes of meeting life goods (e.g. needs reduction and cooperation) • Decreases distance between production and consumption. b) Creating post-consumer needs & pleasures that: • Challenge consumerism’s hegemony • Provide a proactive vision; create alternative pleasures and empowerment not based on

ecological and social exploitation. c) Hegemony of current scalar constitution has to be questioned and challenged d) Scaling up and out; jumping scale

Summa summarum, this research bases its choice of theoretical framework on the following

arguments: (i) Gramsci’s concept of cultural and counter hegemony is suitable for dissecting the

anatomy of neoliberalism, (ii) the ongoing existence of the commodity food system is supported

by neoliberal hegemony as Goodman and Watts (1997), Holt-Giménez and Shattuck (2011), and

others argue, (iii) Gramsci’s concept is well equipped to analyse the current neoliberal food

system (Andrée, 2011) and to understand why it continues to reproduce itself despite the

identified dysfunctionalities; (iv) Gramsci’s concept helps us to understand why some AFIs

underperform and how their performance might be improved, (v) matters of scale impact the

effectiveness of hegemony and counter-hegemony and the current scalar construction (‘strong’

global vs. ‘weak’ local) is based on neoliberal hegemony as the literature review demonstrated.

45

Based on the reviewed literature on food systems and the theoretical framework, the next

section takes a closer look at edible gardens as an example for an AFI. I will explore why edible

gardens might be a suitable AFI to study the progress of food system change.

2.8 Edible gardens

The role of edible gardens as both potentially contested and contesting spaces led me to choose

them as an AFI to investigate counter-hegemonic potential based on their “horticountercultural”

potential (McKay, 2011). Following McKay (2011), gardens are understood to also include

public spaces, such as parks where food can be grown. Lefebvre (1991, p. 165; cited in

Schmelzkopf, 2002, p. 334) sees gardens as, “natural space modified (by a group) in order to

serve the needs and possibilities of (that) group”. In what follows, different types of gardens,

such as Victory, allotment and urban gardens will be looked at in order to distil the meanings and

purpose gardens have had over time (and maybe still have). Gardening has a long and complex

history, whose complete review would go well beyond the scope of this thesis. This section

provides an (non-exhaustive exemplary) overview of several kinds of gardens throughout the last

century with a focus on gardens as AFIs and their transformative and controversial aspects which

McKay (2011) terms “horticountercultural”. McKay (2011) states that “[G]rowing a garden has

become – at least potentially – an act of resistance. But it’s not simply a gesture of refusal. It’s a

positive act. It’s praxis17.” (p. 10).

More than one hundred years ago, Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City, a city in a garden and a

city of gardens surrounded by a green belt (McKay, 2011), demonstrated how planning can affect

quality of life. Howard tried to “combine idealism and landscape in order to produce what” he 17 Following Wakefield (2007, p. 331, 334), this thesis defines praxis as the: “melding of theory/reflection and practice/action as part of a conscious struggle to transform the world.”. In short, praxis has close links to activism in order to question the status quo and is therefore necessary to implement change.

46

“called ‘a new life, a new civilization’” in order for people to lead a socially just life in a

healthful and green environment (McKay, 2011, p. 26). In 1901, Raymond Unwin (a Garden City

Architect and member of the Socialist League), already held the view that social change can

occur through design. Unwin hoped that by merging gardens and open green spaces a

“cooperative practice of living, as opposed to the atomising effects of the old life” (McKay, 2011,

p. 31/32) could be created. However, after WWI the concept of the Garden City had to make way

for more space for cars so that trees and other greenery were removed and never replaced

(McKay, 2011, p. 33). From today’s viewpoint it could possibly be argued that Howard sought

social change with ecological support by bringing together ‘town and country’ (McKay, 2011, p.

31) to create a Fair Trade community with ethical consumption (McKay, 2011, p. 33).

During both World Wars (and in the time immediately after) food was planted in Liberty

(WWI) and Victory Gardens (WWII) to raise funds for warfare (for example for the Red Cross)

(Australian War Memorial Encyclopaedia, n. d.), to contribute to food security on the local

(including the idea to grow food locally in order to save on fuel for its transportation) as well as

on the international scales (during WWI the US produced food for their European Allies who

were not able to produce enough food themselves) (Lawson, 2005; Sidewalk sprouts, n. d.).

During WWII Victory Gardens were supported by the US government to facilitate people’s

access to nutritious food (in the face of rising food prices) and as a recreational activity under the

umbrella of rising quality of life. Approximately 23 million households gardened in US Victory

Gardens and harvested produce valued at an estimated $ 36 million (Lawson, 2005). As Victory

and Liberty gardens demonstrate, gardening has a long history of being an alternative way of

accessing food outside the commodity food system. To some extent Victory and Liberty gardens

helped bring people closer together and fostered a sense of community as members of all socio-

economic classes worked the soil together (Lawson, 2005) while at the same time providing an

47

opportunity to act together in opposition to the common enemy. Several decades later, in

Milwaukee, the Victory Garden Initiative, a grass roots group, aims to merge the ideas and spirit

of Victory Gardens and community gardens to advance “social justice, environmental

sustainability, food sovereignty, food security, health and wellness” (Victory Gardens Initiative,

n. d.) through growing food as a and in a community. In the face of the current economic crisis

that is shaking many countries, a community in Portugal started a garden, run by volunteers, to

support its members (Die Zeit, 2013). Today, about 600 million people worldwide and around

40% of the people who live in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) grow their own food to some

extent (Kortright and Wakefield, 2010).

While gardens have always been first and foremost spaces to increase access to food, gardens

have also been spaces in which protest is expressed. In his book ‘Radical Gardening’, McKay

(2011) gives an historical overview of protests, demonstrations and political activism (not always

with official approval) taking place for example through guerrilla gardening, or by congregating

on public urban green spaces, or public gardens. Further, he discusses the countercultural

attributes of community gardens, visible by providing alternative spaces for interacting as well as

for growing food. Gardens’ “horticountercultural” potential, or how they represent contesting and

contested spaces, is the topic of the next part of the thesis.

2.9 Gardens as contesting and contested spaces

As this overview over the history of gardens illustrates, gardens can support alternative ways of

doing and living. This section provides several examples to elaborate how gardens can be

contesting and contested. The arising dual perspective makes gardens an especially interesting

AFI to investigate.

48

There is a relationship between contesting gardens and contested gardens. A prominent

example is the removal of the “Garden of Eden”, once a community garden in the city of New

York founded in 1975, which was destroyed in 1986 by city authorities (McKay, 2011, p. 169).

The destruction of this garden takes its place alongside a range of other demolitions of

community gardens by the city of New York. Under former Mayor Giuliani, the city considered

community gardens as temporary and as empty lots waiting for “development”. Theories of why

the city sold off so many of these gardens which created and held their neighbourhood

community together, provided fresh healthy (and often ethnic) food, and actively supported

cultural diversity, reach from the elimination of critical voices who were frequently found in

these gardens and helped these gardens to become contesting spaces, to the urgently needed cash

for a hard-up city (Schmelzkopf, 2002, NYT, 1999; Ferguson, 1999). Giuliani himself provided

one possible reason for the destruction of New York’s community gardens: “This is a free-market

economy — welcome to the era after communism.” (Ferguson, 1999). The example of the sell-

off of community gardens in New York illustrates how different scales and also values can clash.

The personal or community scales and the municipal scale disagreed on what is more valuable,

the tangible exchange value of the property (what the City is convinced of) or the more intangible

use value of the garden (what the gardeners believe in) (Schmelzkopf, 2002). Schmelzkopf

(2002, p. 335) sees the issue of scale also reflected in the fact the community gardeners valued

their gardens as ‘localized’ and ‘appropriated’ places whereas the city considered these gardens

as ‘abstract places of exchange value’.

Another example of a contested and contesting garden is Michelle Obama’s White House

Garden. When the First Lady started her garden in 2009 she was urged by the pesticide industry,

which probably became aware of the huge impact as a role model this garden might have, to use

pesticides instead of organic gardening practices (which Ms. Obama refused) (The London

49

Times, 2009). And, the story of an Orlando couple who planted a front yard garden and was

ordered by the municipality to remove it illustrates how gardeners can unintentionally become

active resisters. The couple, who “[…] really didn’t do it in terms of being revolutionary…” and

who “[…] just wanted some vegetables” is still protesting to keep their front garden as is (Mother

Earth News, 2012). This example shows that not every gardener is deliberately practising some

kind of resistance or counter-hegemonic action but that the sheer existence of a garden can at the

same time be perceived as such by others. The manifold ways in which gardens can be contested

and are contesting offer an interesting case to study counter-hegemonic potential.

Despite being contested and contesting spaces, edible garden practices themselves are

contested as well. Similar to Peck and Tickell (2002), Pudup (2008) argues that while community

gardens are often seen as counter-movements, within neoliberalism they mostly represent

fragmented reactions. She perceives most community gardens as based on individualism as she

holds the view that most gardeners garden mainly or only for their self-development. She bases

her argument on the history of community gardens, which over time have experienced higher

popularity especially in times of crises because they are able to support people by growing their

own food. She continues to argue that the first school gardens were instruments of societal

education with the goal to indoctrinate children with social values valid at that time to ensure that

children be socially ‘aligned’. According to her, most community gardens therefore support the

current neoliberal order as their capacities help to buffer crises and educate people according to

neoliberal values. This thesis takes this argument very seriously and will return to it in greater

detail in chapter 5. Departing from the background on food systems, the theoretical framework

and edible gardens this chapter provided thus far, the next section, the research gap and the

research questions are elucidated.

50

2.10 Research gap and questions

The commodified and alternative food systems have been studied, analysed, discussed and

critiqued from the local (e.g. Lacy, 2000, Dupuis and Goodman, 2005; DeLind, 2011) to global

scales (e.g. McMichael, 2000; Morgan, 2010) from different perspectives such as environmental

issues and social justice (e.g. Agyeman and Evans, 2004; Allen, 2010) human rights (e.g. Rideout

et al. 2007; Anderson, 2008, Riches, 2005), policy (e.g. Nestle, 2007), economic (e.g. Friedmann,

1993, Holloway et al. 2005), health (e.g. Wakefield et al., 2007; Desjardins et al., 2010, Power,

2004) place (e.g. Harris, 2010), and provenance (e.g. Morgan et al. 2006) across manifold

disciplines for many years. Many approaches on how to progress food system change (e.g.

Levkoe, 2011; Roff, 2007; Blay-Palmer, 2010) have been developed, analysed, critiqued as well.

In a food system context edible gardens, such as school gardens (Miller, 2007), backyards

(Kortright and Wakefield, 2011), and community gardens (Ovkat and Zautra, 2011; Firth et al.,

2011; Hale et al., 2011), have been extensively looked at from multiple perspectives to learn for

example about their benefits (Wakefield et al., 2007; Ovkat and Zautra, 2011) or about gardens’

potential for representing a counterculture (McKay, 2011).

Based on the analysis of the food system literature, cultural and counter-hegemony, scale, and

gardens, a research gap that reaches across several scales emerges. Focussing on food system

participants on smaller scales, such as consumers and small producers, it becomes apparent that,

despite close scrutiny over the years, the commodity food system continues to reproduce itself.

So far, several approaches sought to explain this issue more broadly. For instance, Levkoe (2011)

addresses the related moderate success of AFIs with the argument that fragmentation as part of

the current neoliberal food system is a major culprit. He sees fragmentation materialized for

example in the distancing of people from their food (how it is grown and by whom) as well as in

51

how food movements often exclude social justice aspects from their efforts. However, as

elaborated earlier, this thesis views fragmentation as a means (but not the root cause) to the end

of the neoliberal hegemony of the commodity food system.

The questions of scales and resistance have been discussed extensively in the context of

scaling up and out or scale jumping (2.6 and 2.7) and the demonstrations that the local scales are

not more or less powerful than the global ones (Gibson-Graham, 2002; Born and Purcell, 2006).

However, the role of scales for the effectiveness of hegemony (and here the effectiveness of the

hegemony of the commodity food system in particular) has not been analysed thus far.

Acknowledging that AFIs mainly operate on the smaller scales (Allen et al., 2003), while

Gramsci’s counter-hegemony is based on the masses challenging the current cultural hegemony

this thesis integrates the concept of scales into the theoretical framework to understand and

resolve the question of how the efficiency of hegemony is linked to scale. Hereby this research

follows Gramsci, who was interested in how the relations of different scales impact social,

political and economic issues (Jessop, 2005).

Finally, a more specific question, the question whether gardens as AFIs, bear any counter-

hegemonic potential, grounds the broader questions in a more specific lower-scale context.

Synthesising these parts through a scaled Gramscian lens the following research questions arise:

(i) Why do AFIs (seen as many initiatives combined in an alternative food system)

underachieve and how can their achievements be enhanced?

(ii) Do AFIs in general, and edible gardens as an example of AFIs, have counter-hegemonic

potential?

Arguably, these sub-questions have been asked before (e.g Allen et al. 2003; Levkoe, 2011).

Hence it shall be underlined that this thesis proposes new and relevant insights to these questions

by synthesising the Gramscian perspective and scale. Despite the earlier demonstration about

52

Gramsci’s relevance for current social science in the literature (e.g. Ekers et al. 2009) and the

implied and indirect use or acknowledgement of his concept primarily in Marxist approaches

(Allen et al. 2003; DeLind and Howard, 2008; Dupuis and Goodman, 2005; Goodman and Watts,

1994, 1997; Goodman and DuPuis, 2002; Guthman’s work, for example 2008; Harvey’s work,

for example, 1985; Horlings and Marsden, 2012; McMichael, 2000; Peck and Tickell, 2002 and

many more), Gramsci’s concept has been used very sparsely, especially in a food system context

(exceptions e.g. Johnston, 2007; Andreé, 2011). The next chapter provides details and a

justification on the chosen study site as well as explanations about how the interviews were

conducted and analysed.

53

3 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH APPROACH AND DESIGN

3.1 Overview

Based on the analysis of the literature and the discussion of the theoretical framework, this

chapter elucidates how the research method and methodology address the research questions. To

that end I will share my personal bias with the reader in section 3.2 in order to increase greater

transparency. Section 3.3, which describes the study site, Kitchener-Waterloo, is followed by the

discussion of the research method and details about how the data was gathered. The last part of

this chapter, section 3.5, elaborates grounded theory as methodology used for this research.

While this thesis is of course primarily based on the academic literature and interview-data,

the timeliness and nature of this topic required to also consult news articles. For example, media

reports not only drew a clear picture of the tainted meat at the XL meat plant in Alberta in

Autumn 2012 (an event frequently mentioned by the respondents) but the coverage itself also

revealed the societal and political discourse which made this event possible (lenient laws on food

safety and quality combined with the public’s hunger for large amounts of cheap meat). While

this research does not use discourse analysis per se, it acknowledges the importance Gramsci

attached to it and its significance for enhancing comprehension of topical events, which impact

the interviewees. Data gained from the interviews with gardeners contributed by providing an

immediate account of what people think about the commodity food system. This also included

making visible issues that are hard to catch otherwise, such as patterns of fragmentation, which

were then reflected upon by means of the academic literature. In a sense, academic literature,

interview data, and (to some degree) media, complement each other in an iterative process, which

highlights issues and insights that arose in the literature but not in the interviews and vice versa.

54

Acknowledging the impact personal bias has on research, in what follows I will state my

positionality.

3.2 Researcher’s positionality

My personal bias and experiences impact every stage of my research from my initial research

interests, to the research questions, how I pursue them, and how I finally interpret and present the

results of my research. Consequently, in what follows I state my positionality to increase

transparency for the reader.

I was born and raised in Munich, where food and drink are an intrinsic part of the region’s rich

history and culture. My interest for food was developed out of my deep compassion for animals

and the environment, which I felt since I remember and which let me become a vegetarian at age

13. After high school graduation I moved to Vienna and studied political science at the

University of Vienna. I graduated with a thesis that utilizes Gramsci’s concept of cultural

hegemony to understand why the North African Jews who mainly immigrated to Israel from the

1940s to the 1960s passively accept their disadvantaged status in Israeli society. Ever since then,

Gramsci’s concept of cultural and counter-hegemony intrigued me as it can help understand what

takes place in Western capitalist societies.

As a teenager who learned about “good”, i.e. fresh, healthy, nutritious, and culturally

acceptable food from a family member, and also as a cash-strapped student in Vienna, I observed

that access to “good” food is positively related to the size of one’s wallet. This question of

limited food access together with my passion for animals, which translated into concerns for

animal welfare in the food system, laid the foundation for my academic interest in food. Now, as

an adult who enjoys relative financial security, the same basic question remains – but with the

55

difference that more questions have been added over the years. My family is increasingly able to

purchase organic food that is locally grown from smaller locally owned stores, during summer

and autumn we get our vegetables from a CSA, and we also grow some of our food in our

backyard. To what extent do I resemble the white privileged middle class Slocum (2007) talks

about in her paper? Having read so many excellent critical works about the food system and

being able to pay more for food than many others, should I change the way we access food? Or

should I not? While my research questions stem from curiosity and further developed throughout

the literature review, the related sub-questions do reflect some of the issues I, as a privileged

person, struggle with.

In a nutshell, I perceive food to be connected with everything around us as I view food choices

as impacting the health of every living being on our planet, gender relations (e.g. food

production, processing, preparation), and justice (access to fresh, healthy food, fair trade). In

addition I view food to be tightly woven into our culture, identities, and histories. For that reason

I have embarked upon this research, fully convinced that change of the commodity food system

could enable a huge momentum for further broader change towards protection of the

environment, better health, human rights and gender equality, as well as social justice. The next

segment discusses and justifies the study site, Kitchener-Waterloo, whose potential for food

system change through AFIs is investigated in this thesis.

3.3 Boundaries, study site and justification This segment introduces the study site, Kitchener-Waterloo to the reader. In addition by drawing

on historical and demographical aspects, as well as the situation of gardens and access to food in

this area, this section also justifies why this area was selected as study site.

56

3.3.1 History

This thesis focuses mainly on the area of the twin cities Kitchener and Waterloo (KW). These

cities are situated in the Waterloo Region (WR) which is located in South-Western Ontario. The

WR’s agricultural history dates back for more than 200 years and was initiated by Mennonite

farmers from Pennsylvania (FoodLink, n. d.). In fact, it was agriculture that spurred economic

growth in the WR as the towns and villages in the WR started to develop in order to serve farms

in the area (WR (a), n. d.). Also today the soil within the WR is considered to be one of the most

fertile in Canada (FoodLink, n. d.) and agriculture represents the largest land use activity in the

WR (WR, 2011).

3.3.2 Demographics

Currently 507,096 people live in the WR (WR (b) n. d.) (compared to 13,505.900 Ontario

residents; Statistics Canada, n. d.), approximately 3.75% of Ontario’s population, with a forecast

to increase to approximately 712 000 by 2029 (WR, 2009). The City of Waterloo stretches across

64 km2 and had 124,600 residents (including 31,670 post-secondary students) in 2012 and the

City of Kitchener had 204,668 residents in 2006 and encompasses an area of 136.88 km2 18.

3.3.3 Gardens

Currently, the Community Garden Council of Waterloo Region (CGCWR) lists 24 community

gardens in Kitchener and 15 community gardens in Waterloo (CGCWR, n. d.) on its website.

When in 2009 the Regional Council approved its official plan in 2009, it included general

policies to improve the local food system of the WR region and more specific initiatives 18 Together Kitchener and Waterloo represent approximately 2.43% of Ontario’s population.

57

including support for community gardens (WRFSRT, 2009). Also Kitchener and Waterloo have

outlined in their official plans the support of community gardens (City of Waterloo, 2012; City of

Kitchener, 2011). Backyard as well as community gardens are subject to municipal and regional

policies. For instance, the keeping of backyard chickens in residential backyards is not allowed in

KW (City of Waterloo, 2009, p. 5; City of Kitchener, 2008, p. 408.7).

3.3.4 Food access

Despite high agricultural productivity (which still has room for improvement as Desjardins et al.,

2010 assert), most of the food eaten in the WR is brought from outside the region (Desjardins et

al., 2010). In 2007 approximately 25000 people (or about 5% of the population of the WR) have

used the WR food bank (WR food bank, n. d.) and in 2009/10 8.6% of the Region’s population

was food insecure (WR public health, 2012). The food bank of the WR states that people who

earn fixed incomes, seniors and people with low incomes represent a growing group of food bank

recipients. However, at 45.3%, the largest group of food bank recipients is children (under 18

years) (WR food bank, n. d.). Linking the anticipated population growth, the particularly fertile

soil, the fact that only a small amount of food for the WR is actually produced within the WR,

and the significant food insecurity, the Region makes a suitable candidate for the analysis of

edible gardens as an AFI as gardens touch on all these issues. The next section, section 3.4,

elaborates on another important component of the research design: interviews as the research

method.

3.4 Research method: interviews

58

Determined by the study’s objective – to inquire about gardeners’ experiences, knowledge,

thoughts, and skills with regard to gardening, food system, scale, and change – structured

interviews were chosen as the research method. As opposed to questionnaires, which are more

stiff and constraining, participation in an interview gives the respondents more flexibility in

answering the questions (Valentine, 1997). Open replies gained from interviews particularly suit

this method as it enables the researcher to explore the qualitative realm. As well, interviews have

the potential of giving a voice to people who are marginalized (Hays, 2010). Despite all the

benefits interviews bring to the research process, it is important to keep in mind that qualitative

interviews never represent the public opinion but rather provide “insights into different opinions”

(Hays, 2010, p. 52). Hence, interviews can help close knowledge-gaps left by other research

methods such as questionnaires, or observation (Hays, 2010). The following two segments

provide more details on the interviews and how they were conducted.

3.4.1 Interviews

Interviews with backyard and community gardeners were conducted to distil meanings of

gardening and to inquire whether gardening is seen as counter-hegemonic or not. In addition,

people’s opinions on the actual effectiveness of this practice were solicited. The results of this

study were analysed using grounded theory before they were merged with the literature with the

goal to offer preliminary answers to the research questions.

From October 4 to November 10, 2012, eleven backyard gardeners and 21 community

gardeners from and around KW19 were interviewed. Since Gramsci holds that experts are crucial

for effective counter-hegemonic efforts, this pool of participants also included four experts who

have more than average knowledge about the food system and/or gardening. Except for one 19 Please see appendix for map of community gardens in KW.

59

interview, which was conducted over the phone, all interviews were face-to-face interviews. Out

of the 32 interviews 29 were recorded. The recording of the interviews made it possible to refer

back to the interviews and to facilitate the iterative process of reflection about them. All

interviewees were asked the same 31 questions (for the complete list of questions please refer to

the appendix) always in the same order with only explanations of questions (where needed).

Some interview questions were combined as the process of interviewing revealed overlap.

However, these changes were not very substantial and since the initial respondents answered the

new/changed questions in their replies to other questions, the first seven interviews could still be

included in the analysis.

3.4.2 Sampling strategy

The recruitment of participants differed with respect to the two different types of gardeners I

interviewed. As a starting point for my search for community gardeners I visited the website of

the Community Garden Council of the Waterloo Region, which provides a list of community

gardens in KW. I emailed the garden coordinators on the list and asked them to forward my

interview-request to their gardeners. While some did not respond, and some declined

participation, many kindly emailed my request (taking into account that some coordinators look

after multiple gardens the response rate for the garden coordinators is approximately 25%). After

having received ethics clearance I met with the respondents mostly in cafés or (when the weather

allowed it) in their community gardens for the interview. Contacting the garden coordinators by

email and then scheduling interviews with interested community gardeners (as opposed to wait

for people in their gardens and then try to approach them) proved to be an effective method as it

saved time and was less intimidating as gardeners had the opportunity to decide without pressure

60

whether they wanted to be interviewed or not. Backyard gardeners were initially approached by

me in person (after ethics clearance) and within my neighbourhood. After having conducted

several interviews, I was able to find a few new respondents through the snowball system as

interviewees directed me to other potentially interested backyard gardeners. I conducted

interviews until I ran out of interested participants, which overlapped with the point at which the

data started to become repetitive. However, by combining more and different recruiting

techniques I could possibly have contacted a larger pool of potentially interested gardeners.

While using email to approach community gardeners was an effective means, it has limitations,

too. It is not clear whether I have reached every gardener from the gardens that responded to my

request as not all community gardeners might use email. By using some of the neighbourhood

email-lists I could have probably reached out to more backyard gardeners, who are not organised

through a mailing list as the community gardeners are. Combining the digital and the analog, for

example in the form of putting up posters in community gardens with my request for interview

participation, would possibly have extended my reach to more respondents overall.

As a qualitative study, which is interested in the experiences of gardeners, this study does not

focus on statistical significance and empirical exhaustiveness. Therefore, the experiences of the

interviewees can also not be generalised easily (Valentine, 1997). Future research however could

increase broader representation (on a provincial or national scale) by increasing the sample size

and interviewing gardeners from more and different locations. The succeeding segment explains

how grounded theory was used in this research and how it was applied to analyse the results of

the conducted interviews.

3.5 Methodology: grounded theory

61

Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss created grounded theory in 1967 in an effort to create new

theory that emerges from gathered data rather than simply testing existing theories with data

(Birks and Mills, 2011). In grounded theory gathered data is studied during the data gathering

process to direct subsequent steps in the data collection. During the period of data collection, for

example interviewing, data and analysis always inform each other. While interviewing is still

ongoing, data analysis is conducted by linking ideas to the gathered data through constant data-

coding: information is grouped into categories, central issues are discovered. This iterative

process continues on until the gathered data starts to repeat itself. During the next stage,

memoing, the intermediate product of data collection and analysis is reflected upon and merged

and/or compared with the literature. The final step consists of bringing together the memos into a

theory by seeing how they fit together (Simmons, 2003).

Interviews are a very common and tested method to be used in tandem with grounded theory

(Birks and Mills, 2011; Gasson, 2004). As Birks and Mills (2011) demonstrate, grounded theory

is a very flexible approach as it does not require following a pre-set path in order to generate

insights; rather, its fluidity acknowledges the dynamic nature of the theory generating process.

For example, grounded theory allows going back to the literature during the discussion of data.

Further, grounded theory understands that the verbatim transcription of interviews does not

always make sense as this could stand in the way of the researcher’s first impressions (Birks and

Mills, 2011). Arguably, this is a contested position and this research has opted for a middle

ground: a combination of field notes integrated in an analogous transcription of each interview

question and the use of quotes where appropriate.

62

Data analysis

The foregoing explanation of grounded theory represents the ideal and theoretical way in which

grounded theory should be carried out, which helps as guide when applying grounded theory.

However, in reality many factors impact how data is gathered and analysed. Often certain

accommodations, due to for example shortage of time, are required that limit pursuing open-

ended research to the point of saturation (Mason, 2010). Hence, as Strauss and Corbin (1990, p.

292) admitted: “Sometimes the researcher has no choice and must settle for a theoretical scheme

that is less developed than desired” (in Mason, 2010, n. p.). This was the case for the interviews I

conducted and I had to adapt my application of grounded theory to a partial one. Since the

interviews were conducted very close together in order to accommodate the schedule of the

interviewees and to not let them wait and lose interest, the lion’s share of reflection on the gained

data could only take place after the interview period ended. The point of saturation was

determined when the interviews did not add anything significantly new. According to Cresswell

(2012, p. 105), Sandelowski (1995), and a study done by Mason (2010), the recommended

sample size for grounded theory varies 10 to 60. This arguably large range demonstrates how

difficult it is to give and follow strict recommendations within qualitative research where the goal

of exploring experiences has to be balanced with a certain representativeness that allows drawing

solid conclusions from the research that can indicate emerging issues and trends.

The interview questions were designed to help answer the research questions. Since the

questions are concerned with Gramsci’s concept of cultural and counter-hegemony, I decided not

to ask directly about this concept in order to keep the questions uncomplicated and

straightforward. Instead, I asked indirectly about cultural and counter-hegemony by inquiring

about cultural and counter-hegemonic attributes. In order to approach the two research questions,

I divided the questions into six thematic groups. The first group, meanings, perceptions, and ideas

63

of gardening, consisted of the questions 4, 6, 15, and 31. These questions served to get a basic

understanding about what gardening means at all to the respondents. Questions regarding

hegemony and the counter-hegemonic potential of gardening (partially based on Johnston’s

(2007) list of counter-hegemonic criteria) were the focus of the second group of questions,

namely questions 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Based on counter-hegemonic criteria, these

questions asked for example whether gardening teaches the respondents anything (questions 8

and 9) or inquired whether the respondents accept certain cultural norms as given (question 5).

The aim of third set of questions (16, 17, 18, 19, and 20) was to inquire what the interviewees

thought about the commodity and the alternative food system. To this end, questions for instance

about where the gardeners usually shop for their groceries (question 16) or whether they consider

the food system as functional were asked. Scale was the concern of the fourth group of questions

(21, 22, 23, and 24). These questions were looked into by asking about the relations the

interviewees have to larger scales. For example, the gardeners were asked whether they know any

farmers (question 21) or whether they identify with any bigger food movement or alternative

food initiative (question 22). The fifth category (25, 26, and 27) intended to find out the

gardeners’ ideas about change. The respondents were asked for example whether gardening can

make a difference (question 25) or how change should be implemented (question 27). The

objective of the last group of questions (1, 2, 3, 29, and 30) was to provide a demographic

background. However, as the research progressed, it turned out that the last set of questions is not

critical as the responses to these questions did not impact the results of the research.

Data analysis began with an initial overview of the responses, which I grouped into these six

categories. As a next step, the coding process was realized in a visual way: the replies for each

theme were used to build six concept maps (using the program Cmap) which were integrated into

one large concept map. At this stage it was necessary to step back to be able to take in the “big

64

picture” and to let the information settle. The next round of data analysis looked for connections

and links between the different themes, questions, and answers by using a very large table. With

this table I tried to juxtapose the results of the literature review on cultural and counter-hegemony

as well as scale with the interview data on these issues. Again, this development needed to be

reflected on in order to determine the next step, which resulted in the illumination of links not

present in the replies. These links were identified as fragmentation and the literature on

fragmentation as a neoliberal characteristic helped to better understand the findings. In addition,

Gramsci’s cultural hegemony enabled a discussion as to why fragmentation occurs and together

with the literature on scale suggested ways to change. This point is elaborated in greater detail in

chapters 4 and 5. For the next round of analysis, which was also grounded in the literature, the

preliminary six categories were adjusted in order to accommodate the findings that emerged from

the previous round. The new categories were: food system, neoliberal hegemony, counter-

hegemony, scale, and change. Throughout this step I was able to unpack the links between these

categories. It became clear how strong the connection between change, scale, and hegemony is.

For instance, neoliberal ideas of individual responsibility to “right the wrongs” of the commodity

food system intersected with scale in that it became clear that change was very often sought at

personal scales. In the last round of analysis the examinations of the results revealed connections

between what the respondents understood as a functional and alternative food system and their

motivations for gardening. Parallel to the elaborated data analysis this thesis developed

extensions to Johnston’s (2007) counter-hegemonic criteria. These developments were

incremental and drew from the literature as well as from the interview results. Thereby these

processes were part of a grounded theory approach as this procedure allowed the literature and

the interview results to inform each other gradually. Presenting and discussing the results of the

65

interviews, the following chapter moves from theory to practice, before ending with a theoretical-

practice hybrid as it connects, merges, and discusses the literature and results.

66

4 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter the findings from the interviews with gardeners are presented and discussed

using a Gramscian lens in order to explore the counter-hegemonic potential of edible gardens.

Certain demographics among the respondents are noted: most interviewed gardeners are female

(22 out of 32), are between 31 and 49 years old, and their interest in gardening is mostly of

private nature (as opposed to professional nature and for earning money). The findings will be

presented and discussed in two subsections. In the first subsection the findings from the

interviews are used to illuminate some of the key terms of this research: ‘functional’ and

‘alternative’ and how they are related. The second subsection contains additional findings, which

are categorized in line with the categories that emerged using grounded theory. Each category is

supported with direct quotes from the interviews. At the end of this chapter I return to the

counter-hegemony-table to summarise the findings with Johnston’s extended table of counter-

hegemonic criteria.

The analysis of results of the 31 questions utilised a partial application of grounded theory

with the goal to answer the research questions. It is important to note that the discussion of

interview-results is exploratory as they are based on a small sample size. While this might be an

appropriate size for a grounded theory methodology (as argued in the previous section) its

representativeness (which will be discussed in more detail in chapter 5) has to be reflected on

carefully. For this reason, I caution that the results of my research only allow the indication of

possibly emerging trends and issues.

4.1 ‘Functional’ and ‘alternative’

67

This section discusses the findings from the interviews about the meaning of the terms

‘functional’ and ‘alternative’. The meanings were distilled from the interviewees’ replies to the

questions about whether they consider the commodity food system functional and whether people

would be better or worse off in an alternative food system. I did not provide the respondents with

any pre-defined terms so I could get at their own ideas and thoughts about functional and

alternative. Therefore in their answers the interviewees provided a characterisation of how they

see a functional and an alternative food system. This helped me to distil how the interviewees

thought about a ‘functional’ and ‘alternative’ food system and to distill definitions of functional

and alternative food systems based on the interviews (see also section 5.1.1).

Apart from four gardeners who perceived the commodity food system (as partially) functional

in that it brings food to (almost) everybody, all other interviewees considered the established food

system as not functional. Interestingly, gardeners’ perceptions of a functional and an alternative

food system strongly converge and in addition they also overlap with their motivations for

gardening. For a better overview I have compiled the responses to these three questions in the

table below (table 3). The table allowed me to distil six categories from the respondents’ replies

and group the results accordingly. Furthermore, the table facilitated a comparison of the interview

results with the earlier developed definition of a functional food system based on the literature

analysed in section 2.1.

As Table 3 below shows, all three right columns strongly overlap suggesting that an

alternative food system is seen as consistent with a functional system and that the definition of a

functional food system derived from the literature earlier is in accordance with the definitions of

functional and alternative systems from the interview-results. Furthermore, the motivations for

gardening strongly correspond with the perceptions of a functional and alternative food system.

Hence, this research hypothesises that there might be a connection between the interviewees’

68

motivations for engaging in gardening as an AFI and the overlapping ideas of functional and

alternative food systems. The visible similarities between all four columns highlight the

differences to the dysfunctionalities the commodity food system exhibits. The overlap of the four

columns then could be interpreted that gardening can possibly contribute to some extent to the

system change. This hypothesis will be examined more closely in the conclusion of the thesis. In

addition the table showed that gardeners’ motivations for gardening reflect how the practice of

gardening relaxes the oftentimes found separation of the roles of consumers and producers

(Goodman et al., 2012) (consumers grow food, which they then consume but also often buy

supplementary food in stores). As the separation between consumers and producers could create a

binary similar to the local-global binary (see section 2.6), the application of a Gramscian

perspective is beneficial as it highlights the need for including all participants of the food system

and can help to prevent such a binary.

69

Table 3: Interviewees’ understandings of functional food systems and alternative food systems compared to literature-based definition

Categories Motivations for gardening Understandings of ‘functional20’ FS

Understandings of ‘alternative’ FS

Lit. FS system goals based on section 2.1

Just(ice) for all food system participants

Access to fresh healthy food grown by oneself • Self- sustaining

Access to fresh, healthy food must not depend on money • No processed and junk food • Balanced fair food trade with

developing countries • No redundant imports • Better infrastructure (better

public transport to reduce car dependency to improve food access)

• Access to fresh, healthy food

• Respect and pay small farmers the same way as doctors

• Provide access to food • Contribute to people’s

health

Connecting with community and environment

Community building, socialising, friends • Sharing space, produce,

tools, helping each other Leaving the world better than you found it (possible even on a small scale)

Food connected to health • Environmentally friendly • No agro-chemicals & no GMOs • No fossil fuel Diverse FS (no monocultures, diverse crops)

Participatory Self-sustaining • Connects people with

food Organic farming of diverse crops

• Nurture the social realm • Environmental

protection • Contribute to people’s

health

Trust(worthiness) in the food system and its participants

Desire for ability to trust FS visible through the wish of being in control (due to distrust in and dependency on established FS)

• No corporate concentration • No industrialised FS (makes

people sick: allergies, diabetes etc.)

• No corporate concentration

• No industrialised FS

Nurture the social realm

20 Functional is seen here as counter-point to dysfunctional.

70

Education Knowing, knowledge, skills • Teaching and educating

(children and others) • Leading by example

Educated and skilled eaters Educated and skilled eaters Encourage acquisition of food related skills, knowledge, and participation

Small system Gardens mirror small food systems: food is traceable, safe, organic

Local food, small FS • Traceability of food (knowing

where food comes from) • Food safety (easier in small

system)

More direct, shorter supply chains with small scale farmers and other food producers • Support small farmers (to

go organic)

• Contribute to the local economy

• Connect the world globally through food trade

Wellbeing • Enjoying to watch how things grow

• Pleasure, relaxation, balance, sense of accomplishment, happiness, satisfaction etc.

• Patience, humbleness • Outdoor exercise

Overall people are healthier, happier

Food can be part of preventative health care

• Contribute to people’s health

71

The majority of respondents views functional food systems as very similar if not identical to

alternative food systems. For the interviewees, functional and alternative food systems consist of

certain categories or key aspects, namely justice, sustainability, trustworthiness, and

communality. In addition they have to educate, be small and foster wellbeing. Altogether, these

key characteristics make the functional and alternative food system “different from the

mainstream and better” as one gardener summed up their meaning of alternative.

4.2 Categorized results This subsection presents and discusses the main findings from the interview results. The results

are grouped into five categories with respect to the research questions and to the findings

stemming from the literature (food system, neoliberal hegemony, counter-hegemony, scale,

change). Each category contains insights gained from the results, which are supported with

quotations from the respondents or figures where these provide a representative summary of a

large number of key informants.

4.2.1 Category 1: Food system The earlier analysis of the literature found several dysfunctionalities in the commodity food

system. This section compares the food systems’ current state based on the literature review with

the thoughts of the interviewees.

Insight 1:

• Figure 1, which was created by consolidating the answers into themed groups and then

stacking them on top of each other within their category (using MS Excel), reveals that

most gardeners are not self-sufficient and buy food mainly from supermarket chains and

farmers. Overall, the significance of non-mainstream options of food provision (i.e.

farmers’ markets) amongst the interviewed gardeners is relatively high and the

72

interviewees get their food at very diverse places – an observation Schumilas (2011) made

as well.

Figure 1: Where do you usually shop for your groceries?

Insight 2:

• With a few exceptions of individuals who see the commodity food system as functional in

that it gets food to everybody, gardeners consider the current FS to be dysfunctional to a

certain extent as the statements below demonstrate.

Examples:

• “On the surface it might seem functional and to many people it probably is, but if you

look deeper, there are serious shortcomings”

• “It [food system] is functioning but I don’t think it is functional.”

73

• “According to me, the food system contributes to the dividing line between the rich and

the poor, because local food, or organic food is usually more expensive than conventional

food. Which means that only few people can afford buying organic food regularly.”

• “Poor people and people with ill health can only afford processed foods. There is a

connection between being poor and ill health.”

Most of the interviewed gardeners have to complement their garden-food with trips to the grocery

store as the majority of them (except for four gardeners who are close to being self-sufficient

during harvest time) are not self-sufficient. This highlights an existing dependency of eaters on

the established food system. To some extent this dependency reflects how food security is

connected to ability of purchasing food from a food retail outlet. Therefore eating healthy, fresh,

and local food is linked to budget, mobility and possibly the availability of other resources as one

has to be able to get to the store and afford the food needed, challenging the claim that the food

system is functional. This aligns with the conclusion from the literature review that the

functionality (at least in some areas) of the food system can be interpreted as concessions from

the ruling class to maintain its hegemony.

4.2.2 Category 2: Neoliberal hegemony As AFIs such as edible gardens operate within the frame of a neoliberal food system it is useful

to understand how gardeners behave with respect to this hegemonic ideology. Some of the

respondents expressed some support for neoliberal attributes, which might be interpreted as an

indication of the normalisation of neoliberal ideology Gramsci saw as crucial for cultural

hegemony to prevail. The strongest neoliberal trait that emerged was the practice of leaving

individuals assuming responsibilities formerly carried out by governments. As will be elaborated

74

in greater detail below, one gardener, whom Gramsci would have called an ‘expert’, expressed

that s/he views the profit orientation of some gardens as problematic.

Insight 1:

• One gardener referred to the effectiveness of the practice of “voting” with one’s dollars in

order to bring change. This insight is a contested one. On the one hand, consumption

resembles another way of putting responsibility for the current problems on the

individual, which is clearly a neoliberal feature. On the other hand, some consumers may

feel that by buying sustainably produced food (sometimes also out of the mainstream food

procurement schemes) they beat neoliberalism at its own game. Yet, such consumption

practices are usually only accessible for people who can afford to buy food that way and

there is also a danger of mistaking “market participation as equivalent to community

participation” (DeLind, 2010, p. 278). This conflict is also discussed in the literature by

Goodman and DuPuis (2002).

Example:

• “My choices obviously in the stores will have an impact.”

Insight 2:

• Some interviewees feel responsible to compensate for the shortcomings of the neoliberal

food system in person without any government support.

Examples:

• “It [gardening] takes a little bit of pressure off the food system as well. I mean all these

hungry people who eat three times a day, when you think of the pressure that creates on

75

grocery stores and stuff. To just be feeding these hungry masses all the time; I think any

little bit you can do as an individual is a good thing.”

• “[…] it’s ridiculous that people don’t have access to food because they do not have

enough money. I am not saying it should be given away for free. But I think […] we need

a system that enables people to get the food they need. And we all need to shoulder that

responsibility.”

Insight 3:

• Some respondents expressed scepticism about the involvement of the government and its

willingness or ability to support food system change. To resolve this, the interviewees

emphasised their own responsibility to convince people in favour of alternative food

systems and also to actively progress food system change. That said, DeLind (2011)

argues that the idea that individual behaviour can change the world in fact leads to a

withdrawal from responsibility as it does not contest prevailing problems. She further

makes the point that local food entails “a public culture of democracy” (p. 279),

cooperation and shared responsibilities.

Examples:

• “I wouldn’t [change anything in the commodity food system] because I don’t think that’s

possible. And I wouldn’t want it. I want people to learn the lessons they need to learn by

going through the process.”

• “It’s just part of a mentality you have: save money, save money. I am hesitant to say they

need to change the regulations because I hate regulations. What I would rather see is some

sort of seminar or workshop, a sustained effort in awareness-raising about the importance

of these things. That would change it that way. “

76

Insight 4:

• Some gardeners felt powerlessness with respect to their agency21 to progress food system

change. While some respondents felt comfortable to be active agents from the personal to

the local scale, they feel that they do not have agency on larger scales. This observation

provides ground for assuming that the inevitability that the larger scales are overpowering

has been internalised to some extent by some of the respondents.

Examples:

• “Yes, because I am connected by email to various things, I write letters and so on [...] to

change some policies in the government, and I have given courses on organic gardening

and local gardening, and I try to teach by example now. Just do it. Hopefully some people

will think ‘oh, that’s interesting’, but on the big level I don’t really know what to do.”

• “Well, not satisfied with the outcome [of AFIs]. But people are trying, all these little

groups are trying but I don’t really know how it could affect the multinational people in

charge of the government and the food. But I hope that something will happen, that

enough people get involved. I don’t know how.”

Insight 5:

• One of the gardens sells some of the volunteer-grown produce to different local

businesses in the area. While volunteer gardeners are allowed to take some of the

harvested produce home with them, a gardener from this garden is ambivalent about the

garden’s partial profit orientation. According to her/him (at least some) community

gardens can only survive if they internalize the neoliberal goal of making some profit.

21 In line with Johnston (2007) having agency means that someone can affect the outcomes.

77

Since government support is meagre, gardens that find themselves in such a situation are

torn between their actual purposes (such as community service, self-sustaining), and

neoliberal concessions. This problem was mentioned by only one interviewee. Yet, this

gardener, who is also an expert on either gardening and/or the food system in a Gramscian

sense, raised an interesting point that merits further investigation to find out to what

extent gardeners who garden at other gardens might feel responsible for bridging this rift

in order to survive in a neoliberal system.

Example:

• “[…] it’s the poor growing food for the rich, right? But that’s what we need to do in order

to make this project sustainable.”

Insight 6:

The respondents identified several barriers to gardening. The barrier that was mentioned most

frequently by gardeners was lack of time as they felt they could not devote as much time as they

wanted to tend their gardens. Several gardeners considered their gardening skills as not

satisfactory and acknowledged this as another barrier. A person’s physical condition has also

been stated as a barrier to gardening. However, as several gardeners mentioned, this problem has

been partially addressed as more community gardens become wheel chair accessible and have

raised beds and concrete paths. One barrier gardeners touched on was seen as a learning

opportunity at the same time: crop failures (due to animals or weather). For that reason, one

interviewee called gardeners “perpetual optimists”. Finally, the last barrier brought up is space-

related: the need for more gardening space and the difficulties of getting to community gardens.

This relates to the question community gardens in NYC face(d) about whether space shall be

used in order to maximise their exchange value or use value. In the face of poor and infrequent

78

public transport, this barrier also connects community gardens with the problem of car-

dependency. Many gardeners complained that they have to use a car in order to get to their

community garden.

Example:

• “Time, I think time is a barrier for most people. Especially families I think. This year my

goal was to get the garden in shape because I have to go back to work next year. What am

I gonna do next year? I am not gonna have the time and energy to at the end of the day to

go out and garden. […] I think for most people time is the biggest barrier. […] Unless you

truly enjoy gardening.”

• “Access to land in the city is always a big issue. There are always long waiting lists for

the community gardens. There is just never enough plots. […] There is a lot of land but

making it available and preparing it. […] Definitely also cost for some people just to get

their gardens up and running; getting seeds, knowing where to get seeds. Partly it’s

knowledge but also cost, tools, find wood if you wanna do raised beds, accessibility […].”

• “Some of the barriers again are transportation. Anytime that we’re involving diesel fuel

that is a barrier. We should not be promoting the use of diesel fuel in any way. […] The

major limitation actually is space, so space that is conveniently located in this area.”

Insights 1 to 3 in turn emphasise a sensed responsibility to counter the negative outcomes of a

neoliberal food system characterised by the absence of government supports. A stark contrast,

which demonstrates the paradox nature of neoliberalism, between those findings emerges: on the

one hand people feel weak but on the other hand they feel they should compensate for the

negative shortcomings of the very system that tells them that they are weak. Insight 5 reflects a

similar problem with respect to neoliberalism’s impact on some community gardens as one

79

community gardener felt that s/he has to accept neoliberalism’s ideology in order keep their

gardens going. Insight 4 is concerned with how some gardeners might have internalised the

hegemonic culture that individuals cannot make a difference against multinational corporations

on the large scales. Related is insight 6, which is concerned with various barriers to gardening

that were mentioned during the interviews. It could be argued here that neoliberalism consumed

labour to the extent that most people do not have the energy and commitment anymore to garden

and gardening could be perceived as not being able to help bring food system change on the

larger scales. The barriers identified by the respondents probably have their equivalents in other

AFIs and thus they could be seen as obstacles to building a historic bloc in that they slow down

its creation as it will take longer to convince more people to join.

4.2.3 Category 3: Counter-hegemony While the interviews revealed a tendency to normalise neoliberal hegemony ideology, i.e. to

agree to neoliberal values as the new given standard, the interviews also demonstrated that

gardeners possess counter-hegemonic elements.

Insight 1:

• When asked what they would like to change about the commodity food system, gardeners

focused strongly on education but also mentioned the need for a critical mass of people to

bring on change. A parallel to Gramsci’s emphasis on education, which is part of his

description on how to build a historic bloc, is recognizable and merits further study in

order to see whether this result turns into a pattern.

Examples:

80

• “If kids in school were taught right from the beginning everything there is to know […] a

lot more about where our food comes from, how it’s grown, the FS in general, how it

could be different, how what we do, what we want, what we eat has an impact on the

world and how so many people are not well served and in fact harmed by the commodity

food system. And I think if we grew up knowing about that, if that was just common

knowledge, things would change a lot faster than things are changing now.”

• “You have to get enough people behind you, behind your believe whatever it is that you

want to change and start a movement. If enough people talk, change will be made.”

Insight 2:

• Everybody considered gardening to be an inclusive practice open to for example any skill

level and also as an activity that attracts people with diverse backgrounds, which confirms

Firth et al.’s (2011) finding that community gardens have a high inclusive potential.

Hence, gardening’s easy accessibility represents a basic criterion for the building of a

historic bloc, which in turn is a criterion for counter-hegemony.

Example:

• “It [gardening] is about what we [people in general] have in common”

• “Yes, from people that can barely walk to people that can barely walk”

• “Anyone who wants to garden can join the community garden”

• “Yes, because everyone needs to eat. […] There is people from everywhere that enjoy it”

• “Yes, it does. Because everybody eats food and grows plants. All cultures do that. […]

All kinds of people garden and plants bring people together”

Insight 3:

81

• Gardeners’ replies show that they are mainly satisfied with gardening and its outcomes.

For example, through gardening they seek pleasure, satisfaction, and knowledge outside

the dominant consumer realm. This ability reflects another criterion for counter-

hegemony.

Examples:

• “I enjoy watching things grow.”

• “I like the idea of being able to be more a bit more in control of the food that I eat. I like

to grow my own food.”

• “I want to teach my kids that they can just grow stuff and that they are not dependent on

stuff wrapped in plastic at the grocery store.”

• “I get some enjoyment out of helping others at the community garden.”

• “The edibles are really an opportunity to provide us with the sense that we can provide for

ourselves.”

Insight 4:

• When asked to discuss any differences between edible and ornamental gardens, the

majority of gardeners disagreed with what they conceive as the prevailing opinion that

only ornamental gardens are acceptable in the front. The gardeners considered edible

gardens as more important. Based on Johnston’s counter-hegemonic criteria, the

questioning and challenging of internalized standards by the interviewees offers one

example of challenging what is commonly accepted as culturally hegemonic norm.

Example:

• “Decorative gardens always need to come after food gardens.”

82

• “I think edible gardens are a really important step towards, what do they call it, individual

sustainability I guess.”

• “The edibles are really an opportunity to provide us with the sense that we can provide for

ourselves.”

• “The ornamental gardens are useless. Edible gardens are useful. […] Unless it is a

wildflower garden.”

• “I think that edible can also be decorative and beautiful. And hopefully people will see it

that way that a vegetable garden can be a work of art. It doesn’t just have to be flowers for

it to be a sort of an acceptable thing to grow in the front yard. I think that’s changing. I

think often people may start with decorative gardening if they are new to gardening […]

and maybe naturalize their front lawn and it slowly creeps into starting to grow more

things for themselves. So often it is a starting place because it is not seen as radical to

grow, I don’t know, flowers and native grasses or something like that in your front lawn.

[…] I think there is a distinction for a lot of people – I don’t really see it.”

Insight 5:

• Related to the previous insights is the notion that counter-hegemonic statements need to

be interpreted carefully. As the following statement of one gardener demonstrates, not all

gardeners base their practices on ideological grounds.

Examples:

• “My garden is organic not because I am gung-ho about organic and saving, you know, the

butterflies and the whatever; it’s organic because it works.”

• “[…] most food movements are urban middle-class gentrified acts of symbolism.”

83

The respondents are living parts of their lives outside the dominant consumer realm as their ideas

and perceptions about the inclusiveness of gardening and their scepticism of the commonly

accepted perception of front gardens illuminate. A foundation for counter-hegemonic action

seems therefore to be present and it should be further researched whether and how it can possibly

be extended. However, this finding has to be interpreted with some caution as it could not be

investigated to what extent gardeners act upon any kind of counter-hegemonic perspective.

Hence, the impact of non-ideologically motivated practices, which at the same time are in line

with a counter-hegemonic movement, on the effectiveness of counter-hegemonic efforts has to be

further explored.

4.2.4 Category 4: scale The observations in this category point in several directions as the varying ideas about scales and

their impact and role in the following insights show. Gardeners’ identify with a great many of

different food movements and/or AFIs on the personal, community, and local scales as well as

with several movements that reach across scales as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 was created in a

similar way to Figure 1 by consolidating the answers into themed groups (according to the scales

they operate on) and then stacking them on top of each other within their category (using MS

Excel).

Insight 1:

• Approximately a third of the respondents felt that different scales of food regulation

impacted them. Most commonly mentioned were international (trade agreements),

national (food safety), and municipal (backyard chicken) regulations. However, certain

observations stemming from the interview-data point into the direction that scales were

84

often viewed in isolation (confirming Johnson and Baker, 2005), i.e. seen as independent,

disconnected from and not connected to each other. For example Figure 2 illustrates that

the interviewees identified more with movements up to the local scale and less with

national and international food movements or AFIs (except for food policy and food

sovereignty). In addition this is to some extent reflected in (i) how the observed attitudes

(as reflected in the bigger food movements gardeners identified with; see Figure 3) of

gardeners seem to contrast with their relatively common use of large supermarket chains

(see also McAllister Kattides and Bastos Lima, 2008) (see Figure 2), which operate on the

larger scales and whose operations often “break the link between sustainable and local

implicit in the original organics social movement” (Friedmann, 2007, p. 391); and (ii) in

how gardeners’ opinions differ whether large chain food retail outlets should sell more or

less organically and locally grown food.

Figure 2: Do you identify with a bigger food movement and/or alternative food initiatives?

85

Examples:

• “[…] Like at the Sobey’s where I go there is sort of a token organic food section. But you

don’t get the feeling that the manager or whoever is in charge really gets it and wants to

promote it. Whereas there is another Sobey’s store at [omitted] and you can just tell that

the person there really gets it and really thinks this is a good thing. And there is a much

greater selection and volume of organic food available there.”

• “And I think some of the smaller places like Pfenning’s and Bailey’s are working to

improve the food system. I honestly get a little bit worried when I see the big places like

Walmart and Zehrs getting used to organic because I am a bit worried about the size of

things. Can you keep the things that you hold dear and are important to your movement

when you have millions and millions of dollars behind it and always trying to get the best

deal? So, on one hand I am glad organics are becoming more commonplace but I also

start to think will the label lose its meaning as you go forward with going bigger? I am not

sure bigger is always better.”

Insight 2:

• In contrast to insight 4 in category 2, the “expert”-gardeners in particular reflected on a

certain connection of gardening to larger scales. These gardeners demonstrated that on

smaller scales, individuals do have agency that goes beyond the individual responsibility

the government and the economy left them with and that can contribute to change.

Examples:

• “It [gardening] teaches me patience, it teaches me about time and scale, and hope, and

how little actions translate into bigger things.”

86

• “The idea of land stewardship. […] No matter where you are, you can make your

property; leave it a bit better. […] Even if it’s a very small scale in the city. You can do

that.”

While the differences between the Gramscian-defined experts and non-experts were not very

strong, they were most visible in this category. The gardening experiences of “experts” and non-

“experts” primarily differed in the level of detail the experts elaborated on how they would

realize change and how they saw the role of scale. The two example-quotes for insight 2 are both

from what Gramsci would have deemed to be experts who both underlined the connections

between scales and pointed to how these connections are critical for food system change as single

disconnected scales cannot progress change on their own. These observations form a starting

point for further examination about the role of Gramscian experts in a historic bloc (as discussed

earlier in section 2.3.2.1) and war of position.

4.2.5 Category 5: Change This category is closely related to the previous one. As with scales, different perspectives on

change and the agency of smaller scales with respect to changing the food system can be seen

here.

Insight 1:

• Most gardeners agreed that gardening indeed makes a difference. Yet, gardeners also saw

gardening as more of a starting point for furthering reaching activities such as community

building. Similarly, gardeners felt that food movements (mainly the local and organic

movement) still have “room to grow” and see their main achievement in raising

awareness of food issues.

87

Examples:

• “I think they have achieved – and I am thinking mostly of the organic and local food

movement, I think they have given people an awareness of food issues and made people

think more about where they get their food. On some level I feel that people … it is more

of a “feel good” purchasing decisions. They are not necessarily benefiting or creating a

big movement by buying locally but it could be the start of something that leads to more

structured and engrained organic systems in the larger mass food production.”

• “Gardening also makes a big difference in a community. It brings the community

together, it creates a learning environment, you make connections, you network, you meet

other people that want to start some of these other alternatives […]. It gets people

together, it builds that community that is needed to change the food system. And

gardening is sort of the start of all of that.”

• “We need to start somewhere. It is really important to have it there, but it is not enough.

It’s a really important starting place.”

• “I think if people don’t stay connected with gardening there is a chance that you rely too

heavily on the larger corporations to provide food, something that is a basic need.”

• “I think gardening is inherently an optimistic and hopeful act and that kind of optimism

and hope can have all kinds of impacts in other areas of our lives as well. Gardening is

one place where you can actually control a lot about the effect your activity will have on

the planet. […]. We often feel that individually that we can’t stop climate change or

change a big complex international policy but we can garden without chemicals, we can

limit our footprint in all kinds of very immediate and practical ways in our immediate

environment.”

88

Insight 2:

• One gardener was sceptical about how gardening could bring change on larger scales, also

expressing a certain feeling that gardening it too small to transform anything (reflecting

the powerlessness of small scales Gibson-Graham encounter). This finding directly relates

to insight 4 in category 2 and insight 2 in category 5, which contain different perspectives

about questions of agency and scale with respect to counter-forces. While this sceptical

position about the impact of gardening beyond the personal scale was mentioned only

once, it represents an interesting point.

Example:

• “I think it makes a difference. I find it satisfying and I enjoy eating food I have grown. It

makes a difference in my life. I am not sure you can change the world by getting out a

hoe, I think it’s just a … - you are really doing it for yourself and maybe a few other

people near you but it’s not a huge thing.”

Insight 1 sheds some light on the paradox of why AFIs such as gardening enjoy increasing

popularity even though most people are not entirely satisfied with their progress. While gardens

alone will not change the world many gardeners see them as a starting point to start to change the

world. Gardening is seen as a base for further enabling change while providing gardeners in the

meantime with social, health, and nature benefits and putting them in charge of igniting sparks of

change.

Both insights represent two opposite perspectives on the potential of gardening and other AFIs

for counter-hegemonic action and change. And, both are related to scale in that they link agency

to scale. The examples from the first insight describe how gardening and other AFIs have the

potential to scale up and out and how gardening can become a starting point for change as it helps

89

build community and brings more people together. The example of the second insight, however,

understands the benefits of gardening only as immediate to the personal scale without any larger

further implications. What both insights make clear, though, is that gardening can be at least a

point of origin for change. In addition, the ways in which the interviewed gardeners describe how

gardens can contribute to change parallel Gramsci’s counter-hegemonic war of position as

change needs to move from smaller to larger scales and over time build up a critical mass of

supporters (the historic bloc). Departing from the insights from the interview results gained in

this chapter and the results of the previous literature review, Johnston’s (2007) list of counter-

hegemonic criteria is revisited below.

4.3 Comparing interviews with Johnson’s counter-hegemonic criteria

I have used and extended Johnston’s (2007) table of counter-hegemonic criteria to assess the

results of my interviews with gardeners. Based on this comparison the table had to be both

extended and changed.

Table 4: Johnston’s (2007) counter-hegemonic criteria – extended (version 2)

Counter-hegemonic criteria Edible gardens (in KW) a) creating just and participatory ways of building a historic bloc

Yes (table 4: categories justice and community)

b) Reclaiming the commons – a realm of social life which:

Yes, as gardens and gardening are open to everyone (insight 2 category 3)

• Restricts commodification • Limits commodification (insight 1 category 2)

• Develops alternative modes of meeting life goods (e.g. needs reduction and cooperation)

• Access to food through gardening (but limited)

• Decreases distance between production and consumption.

• Yes

c) Creating post-consumer needs & pleasures that:

Yes, seeking pleasure, satisfaction, and knowledge outside the dominant consumer realm (insight 3 category 3)

• Challenge consumerism’s hegemony • Sharing for community building (table 4:

90

motivations for gardening) • Provide a proactive vision; create

alternative pleasures and empowerment not based on ecological and social exploitation.

• Engagement with alternative food movements (insight 1 category 4), importance of education (insight 1 category 3)

d) Hegemony of current scalar constitution has to be questioned and challenged

Challenging occurs occasionally (insight 2 category 4), but also no challenging of current scalar constitution (insight 4 category 2 )

e) Scaling up and out; jumping scale No evidence found in interviews A gap emerges when we compare interview-findings with Johnson’s counter-hegemonic criteria.

The interviews reveal that “just and participatory approaches to building a historic bloc” need to

be added to the table to make it more complete (since this insight has been inserted under point

(a), the numbering of the other points changed and therefore they are in green colour). This

addition is consistent with Blay-Palmer and Knezevic’s (forthcoming) argument that a need for

more participatory ways to scale up and out exists. Furthermore, according to Gramsci’s work,

consent requires the engagement of the majority of the population in just and participatory ways.

This is also reflected in the perceptions the interviewees have about functional and alternative

food systems.

Table 4 compares attributes of edible gardens in KW with the counter-hegemonic criteria this

thesis has carved out further. This comparison facilitates our understanding of whether gardens

have counter-hegemonic potential or not. Gardens fulfill the counter-hegemonic criteria in most

instances, except for the criterion “restricts commodification”, which is only partially satisfied

and for the criterion “scaling up and out; jumping scale”, whose fulfillment is not clear. On the

one hand, gardeners did sympathise with being (at least to some degree) self-sustainable through

gardening. On the other hand, they did not entirely reject commodification insofar as gardeners

expressed some support for the idea that change can be brought through “voting with one’s

dollar” or by increasing the amount of local organic food sold at supermarkets. The results of the

91

interviews have only shown little evidence of gardeners attempting to jump scale or scale up and

out in order to achieve mass consent for a historic bloc for food system change. One could argue

that the person who sells the volunteer-grown produce of her/his garden to affluent customers

practices scaling up and out as s/he extends the reach of the garden to a greater audience. Yet,

one could also argue that in this case the selling of volunteer-grown produce represents the kind

of neoliberal concessions by the subalterns to the ruling class Gramsci cautions about (Cox,

1983). The reasons for the underperformance of gardens as AFIs with respect to building counter-

hegemony could possibly be found in the difficult question about how to scale up and out as well

as how to jump scale. This point will be discussed in the next chapter, which will conclude this

thesis with answers to the research questions.

92

5 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUDING REMARKS

This chapter, which concludes the thesis, will present and discuss answers to the posed research

questions. Alternative Food Initiatives (AFIs), which are often perceived as a response to the

food system, which is marked by dysfunctionalities, have thus far had limited success. To further

understand why this might be the case, this thesis explored the following research questions by

means of a Gramscian framework and the concept of scales and by conducting interviews with

local gardeners.

(i) Why do AFIs (seen as many initiatives combined in an alternative food system)

underachieve and how can their achievements be enhanced?

(ii) Do AFIs in general, and edible gardens as an example of AFIs, have counter-hegemonic

potential?

Earlier in this thesis, the commodity food system was assessed according to food system goals

derived from a variety of sources. The assessment showed that the commodity food system is not

currently capable of meeting these system goals and is therefore considered to be characterised

by several dysfunctionalities. To pinpoint the cause for the continuous reproduction of the

commodity food system, an application of Gramsci’s concept of cultural and counter-hegemony

confirmed that the commodity food system is grounded in neoliberal hegemony and that this is

maintained, in part, through fragmentation.

The next section presents the main findings of this research. Then, the following section

outlines future extensions, and the last sections details the limitations of this thesis.

5.1 Overview of the main findings

93

As stated earlier, this research is exploratory. Hence, the findings emerging from the analysis of

the literature and the interview-data are tentative in their nature and often raise ensuing questions,

which point to future research opportunities. The three main findings are summarized below.

5.1.1 Perceptions of ‘functional’ and ‘alternative’ in a food system context converge

The responses by the interviewed gardeners to questions about the alternative and functional food

systems confirm the results of the earlier literature review. In the opinion of the interviewed

gardeners, both a functional and an alternative food system have to provide access to fresh,

healthy food in a just manner, which also includes better infrastructure (e.g. public transport).

However, key informants emphasized that fresh healthy food should not be accessed at the

expense of “developing” countries in which people are all too often exploited as they produce

food for the “developed” countries. Any trade involving larger scales has to be fair and must

exclude redundant imports. Further, food is seen as connected to health and therefore has to be

produced in an environmentally friendly way without genetic modifications, agro-chemicals or

fossil fuels. An alternative food system is seen as helping to build community as it connects

people with their food and facilitates participation. Trust, according to the respondents, can only

be achieved when there is no more corporate concentration in the food system and also when

there is no more industrialisation of the food system. Functional and alternative food systems

consist of educated and skilled eaters. In addition, such food systems are small with direct and

shorter supply chains so that food can relatively easy be traced to its origin, which is also seen as

contributing to its safety. Finally, the contribution of a food system to well-being is perceived as

important. All of this confirms what is well documented in the literature.

94

5.1.2 Gardens as AFIs have some counter-hegemonic potential, but…

This thesis approached the question whether edible gardens can become counter-hegemonic

efforts by bringing together the literature on AFIs, (edible) gardens and interviews with

gardeners. The results from the interviews have been analysed from a Gramscian perspective

taking into account how issues of scale relate to hegemony.

The attributes of edible gardens align with many points using counter-hegemonic criteria.

However, as the interviews showed, edible gardens do not completely restrict commodification

but only limit it as certain neoliberal attributes were partially normalised. In addition, there was

no clear evidence found in the interviews that edible gardens as AFIs are utilising the practices of

scaling up and out and jumping scale for historic bloc building. Moreover, some gardeners

gardened not because they aim at food system change but for more pragmatic reasons such as

taste and teaching their children where food comes from as common knowledge. Nevertheless,

gardening is often seen by the interviewees as a good starting point for igniting food system

change. The following quote from a gardener shows how this could possibly be done:

“Yes, our garden is fairly small, but last year we partnered with another garden (name

omitted). They are gardening on the same piece of land we are using. […].When I look at

the bigger picture I can see how these small steps together are really combining just like

looking at pixels in a picture […] step back a bit and you see the picture.”

Therefore, the conducted interviews do not necessarily confirm Pudup (2008) point that

gardens support neoliberalism. However, as every garden in every place is different, it is

necessary to acknowledge that there is a certain possibility for community gardens to reproduce

neoliberalism. Yet, this thesis points to findings that disagree with Pudup’s findings. As the

interview results show, gardens alone cannot bring (food system) change. Thus, they cannot be

95

asked to do so and when they fail be accused of reproducing the neoliberal system. Based on the

interview results and the analysed literature I propose that gardens rather should be viewed to

work in concert with other activities, such as teaching, and other areas of advocacy, such as social

justice. This claim will be elaborated on in greater depth in the next section.

5.1.3 How counter-hegemonic performance of AFIs and gardens can be enhanced

Under the third summarised finding the question how AFIs can become more successful is

discussed. I argue that, most importantly, AFIs have to identify, challenge, and overcome

neoliberal fragmentation. Not only does fragmentation separate problems from their cause but it

also hinders AFIs sometimes from finding possible solutions. Further, the normalisation of

neoliberal attributes has to be questioned and challenged in order to strengthen critical agency as

people do not have power as individual consumers but only when they unite. Building historic

blocs is, according to Gramsci, an effective way to unite for change. In order to build historic

blocs AFIs have to scale up, out and jump scale.

Following Gramsci and the relational approach to scale, this thesis proposes that several

additional steps could be taken in order to develop effective counter-hegemony:

(i) Food gardening can locate itself in the bigger picture of AFIs to coordinate with other

projects to form the beginnings of a historic bloc. A place-based approach offers a

promising way to start such engagement as it can “[…] engage civil society, government

and other organisations in decision-making processes that foster social capital and

institutional learning, and as one that promotes a local sense of place and community

development, without being constrained by politically-delineated boundaries” (Edge and

McAllister, 2009, p. 279). In the case of FoodLink a place-based approach begins to bear

96

fruit as FoodLink’s promotion and support of the local food economy of the WR becomes

increasingly successful (Edge and McAllister, 2009).

(ii) To build up a historic bloc AFIs need to attract more people while maintaining diversity.

Hence, it could be useful if the objectives of AFIs were summarized into several

generalised main goals such as social justice, environmental protection and conservation,

health, human rights, and sustainable economy22. The need for coordinating and

consolidating action and efforts for food system change is for example noted by Holt-

Giménez and Shattuck (2011) (“convergence in diversity”) as well as in the Metcalf

Foundation’s report (2008) “Food connects us all”. By summarising objectives into main

goals more people with different priorities and motivations (such as protecting human

rights) are able to identify with and unite under these goals and build “political bridges

[…] as well as conceptual ones” (Dahlberg, 1993, p. 99).

(iii) This approach can only be successful when the historic bloc reaches across scales, includes

different societal groups, and different causes. According to Gramsci a historic bloc has to

be founded on a large and diverse base in order to counter fragmentation, which is a strong

support for the current cultural hegemony.

Translated into a food system context, a potential strategy that could possibly be adopted for

scaling up and out in an effective way is Westley et al.’s (2010) LEGO pathway for system

change. Developed in the context of social entrepreneurship, Westley et al.’s (2010) five

pathways to system change or scaling up take into account the different strengths and obstacles

that different types of social entrepreneurs face. It should be noted that in contrast to AFIs, social

entrepreneurs utilise business principles to find solutions to societal and environmental problems.

22 These goals could even be summarised under the one main goal of sustainability (Blay-Palmer, 2010).

97

While profit may not always be their maxim, social entrepreneurs do make a certain return from

their work (Achleitner, 2009; Ashoka, n. d.).

This thesis acknowledges that the concept of social entrepreneurship is contested. For

example, the concept of social entrepreneurship is sometimes accused of releasing the state from

its societal responsibility by letting private social entrepreneurs perform welfare tasks in lieu of

the state itself (Dey, 2010). Thus, by filling in for a retreated state, social entrepreneurship could

buffer neoliberalism’s negative outcomes instead of challenging them (Peck and Tickell, 2002)

and serve as neoliberalism’s handmaiden. In light of these criticisms, this thesis builds on the

transferability of Westley et al.’s (2010) core idea of “pathways to system change” from the

realm of social entrepreneurship to AFIs. To this end, I am borrowing the LEGO-pathway from

Westley et al.’s (2010). The LEGO-pathway recognises that certain positive change has been

achieved at the smaller scales and addresses difficulties in achieving changes on larger scales

(such as policy changes) through consolidation. Hence, according to LEGO, change can start on

the smaller scales (such as the community) and gradually grows. This idea has also come up

several times throughout this research.

Carroll and Rant’s (2010) concept of ‘master frames’ represents one possible option of

working towards a “LEGO-based” approach involving increased cooperation across scales,

population groups, and socio-economic classes to ultimately achieve change through counter-

hegemony or system change. According to Carroll and Rant and based on Gramsci’s historical

bloc, several groups have to unite under a ‘master frame’, the “shared understanding of the

sources and nature of injustice” (p. 10). In line with Carroll and Rant (2010) and Gibson-Graham

(2002), counter-hegemony has to be developed on a smaller scale to then gradually advance as it

is scaled up and out (Johnston and Baker, 2005) and jumps scale (Merk, 2009), which would

reflect the cross-movement activism, Carroll and Rant (2010) argue for.

98

A cross-movement, cross-scale, cross-class cooperation would not only improve the

effectiveness and strength of these movements as they would have an increased number of

followers, it would also demonstrate to a large group of people how the issues each individual is

concerned about are actually connected and mutually influence each other. For example, fair

trade of organically grown coffee beans entails the fair treatment of farmers in developing

countries (human rights) as well environmental protection.

Consequently it is not possible to look at food system change in isolation. Since the cultural

hegemony of neoliberalism infiltrated all areas of life, food system change is closely tied to the

change in our financial system and often of governments, too (see also Dahlberg, 1993). While

organic intellectuals need to have the knowledge specific to the food system they alone are not

able to build a functioning historic bloc for an effective counter-hegemony without cooperating

with people who want to change the current hegemonic financial system.

5.2 Contributions and limitations

5.2.1 Contributions

This thesis makes multiple contributions to the literature. At the outset it encompasses the

respondents’ perceptions about how functional and alternative food systems should look. These

perceptions converge and overlap with their motivations for gardening, and they also correspond

with the previous distilled food system goals. Connected to this contribution is the need for

further investigation of the purpose of gardening as well as the purpose of other AFIs with

respect to advancing food system change and/or compensating for a food system characterised by

several dysfunctionalities.

99

This work adds to a strong tradition of radical analysis in conjunction with food system

analysis by exercising and extending the analytical insights of the Gramscian approach into the

field of food studies where it has been rarely used thus far. Further it adds to the literature on

edible gardens and scale. By means of a Gramscian framework I was able to show that the

underachievement of AFIs and the reason for the continuous reproduction of a food system that

exhibits several dysfunctionalities are grounded in the neoliberal hegemony of the food system.

What is more, I demonstrated that hegemony is related to scale, wherefore I could link the degree

of success of AFIs and gardens in particular in challenging the current hegemony to scale and the

capability to scale up and out as well as to jump scale.

In addition, this research adds to the list of counter-hegemonic criteria developed by Johnston

(2007). These further developed criteria are useful tools to analyse neoliberal food systems and

their counter-movements. In addition, they could take on the role of a guide to decipher

neoliberal hegemony and help boost performance of AFIs and similar groups within

neoliberalism.

The literature demonstrates that the current scalar constitution, in which the global appears to

be more powerful than the local, is based in part on neoliberal hegemony. Hence, in order to

possibly achieve mass support and to begin to build a historic bloc, counter-hegemonic

movements, which are often place-based, have to be critical of the current scalar constitution and

also expand by scaling up and out as well as by jumping scale (see Table 5). Insights derived

from the interview results highlight that a historic bloc has to be created in just and participatory

ways (see Table 5). Again, it should be noted that this table is not set in stone but that it is, in the

same way as hegemony, rather dynamic and its functionality is contingent on it being

continuously challenged.

100

5.2.2 Limitations

Recalling that diverse participants and mass-consent are crucial criteria for Gramscian counter-

hegemony, one limitation this research faces is that I only spoke with people who were already

interested in food system issues or at least in how to eat healthier as within the confines of the

commodity food system. I was basically talking with the “converted” as one respondent

described it. Hence further research should include people who are less interested in food system

issues or more sceptical about the potential of AFIs for food system change (see category 5,

insight 1) as their perception about conventional food systems and alternative food systems also

shape the current system and influence the level of performance of AFIs. In order to get a deeper

understanding of why the dysfunctional commodity food system continues to reproduce itself,

contrasting opinions from the members of AFIs have to be taken into account. Following the

concept of master frames, future research that employs a Gramscian framework could include

other people who are interested in various social causes to explore how they could possibly unite

under ‘master frames’. It is crucial to know from many different people how scaling up, out and

jumping scale can be realized for the building of a historic bloc.

While certain problems related to the commodity food system, such as “the growing exclusion

of smaller actors in the food system, the erosion of food cultures, the adoption of nutritionally-

poorer diets, and the overall loss in sustainability and well-being” represent global phenomena

(McAllister Kattides and Bastos Lima, 2008, p. 55), the applicability of this research is limited

due to its geographical location within the cities of KW. Allen et al.’s (2003, p. 63) statement

“the local is not everywhere the same” underlines that all places are different, which at the same

time shows the need to expand the geographical range of such a study. Further, it has to be kept

in mind that Gramsci’s concept of cultural and counter-hegemony with respect to food systems is

101

still at a theoretical stage and its application will differ with different locations. As shown earlier,

the frame of neoliberal hegemony makes it difficult to form reflexive counter-hegemonic

movements, which underlines the long-term nature of this processes. Since we find ourselves in

the midst of the emergence of manifold AFIs and other social movements it is almost impossible

to assess to what extent counter-hegemonic movements have grown. However, while it is

important to keep these limitations in mind, the multiplier effects of AFIs such as gardens with

respect to different “ways of knowing and growing”, participating, sharing, and learning (about)

food should not be underestimated (Goodman et al., 2012) and could potentially provide an

indication of the level of food system change.

5.3 Future research opportunities

In the course of the work new questions, which represent future research opportunities, have

arisen. Taken together, these new questions, which stem from the exploration of this thesis’

research questions and the related findings, represent the base for a future pursuit of this research

topic with a full application of grounded theory.

The impact of non-ideologically motivated practices, which at the same time are in line with a

counter-hegemonic movement (as in category 3, insight 5), on the effectiveness of counter-

hegemonic efforts has to be further investigated. Are people who have a more pragmatic

approach to eating healthy food part of a historic bloc or does one have to bring a certain set of

ideological motivation for this to work? Related is the question about the motivation behind

gardening and other AFIs and to what this extent this depends on different places. Additionally, it

would be important to understand to what extent gardeners or members of other AFIs engage (or

would be willing to as the building of the historic bloc progresses) with radical and revolutionary

102

counter-hegemonic ideas, for example trying to be independent from the established food system

by becoming self-sufficient as well as the idea of food sovereignty. The question, to what extent

gardeners and participants in other AFIs feel that they have to give in to certain neoliberal

demands in order to survive in a neoliberal system (as in category 2 insight 5), needs further

study. Also, the role of Gramscian experts and intellectuals with respect to advancing change in a

war of position needs to be investigated in more depth. Several insights (1, 2, 3) in category 2,

neoliberal hegemony, are concerned with how individuals should compensate for the negative

outcomes of the retreat of the state. It has to be further investigated whether in neoliberalism the

government does not even need to imply the application of force to maintain the hegemony of the

ruling class, which Gramsci considers to be part of cultural hegemony. Rather, it is possible that

the internalisation and normalisation of neoliberal ideology could be sufficient to maintain

neoliberalism’s hegemony. In addition the parallels to Foucault’s theory of disciplinary power

merit further research.

Employing a Gramscian perspective on food systems underlined the interlinkages between food

system participants (such as eaters, producers, businesses representing civil society and the

government) and how all these participants can work together in order to create change. Thinking

back to the significance of food emphasised at the beginning of this thesis, food and the food

system represent an appropriate way of initiating such an undertaking. Or, in the words of

Kloppenburg et al. (1996, p. 40):

“To begin the global task to which we are called, we need some particular place to begin,

some particular place to stand, some particular place in which to initiate the small,

reformist changes that we can only hope may some day become radically transformative.

We start with food. Given the centrality of food in our lives and its capacity to connect us

103

materially and spiritually to each other and to the earth, we believe that it is a good place

to start.”

The ways in which gardens blur the roles of consumers and eaters and engage them in non-

capitalist ways of “knowing and growing” food and how gardens bear the potential of community

building could further help with building a historic bloc and progressing a war of position to

overcome neoliberal hegemony. Gardening with Gramsci then has confident and encouraging

potential to grow the success of gardens and other AFIs for change.

104

6 REFERENCES • Achleitner, A.-K. (2009), Social Entrepreneurship, in Gregoriou, G. (ed.), Encyclopaedia of

Alternative Investments, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 436 – 437.

• Agyeman, J. and Evans, B. (2004), 'Just Sustainability': The Emerging Discourse of Environmental Justice in Britain?, The Geographical Journal, 170, (2), pp. 155 – 164.

• Allen, P., FitzSimmons, M., Goodman, M., and Warner, K. (2003), Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: the tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California, Journal of Rural Studies, 19 (1), pp. 61–75.

• Allen, P. (2008), Mining for justice in the food system: perceptions, practices, and

possibilities, Agriculture and Human Values, 25 (2), pp. 157 – 161. • Allen, P. (2010), Realizing justice in local food systems, Cambridge Journal of Regions,

Economy and Society, 3, pp. 295 – 308.

• ALUS (n. d.), Southwestern Ontario Farmer Earns National Award for Environmental Leadership, http://www.norfolkalus.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5:southwestern-ontairo-farmer-environmental-leadership&catid=1:no-date&Itemid=23), accessed August 13, 2012.

• Anderson, M.D. (2008), Rights-based food systems and the goals of food systems reform,

Agriculture and Human Values, 25 (4), pp. 593 – 608. • Andrée, P. (2011), Civil society and the political economy of GMO failures in Canada: a

neo-Gramscian analysis, Environmental Politics, 20 (2), pp. 173 – 191. • Ang, I. (1996), Living Room Wars: Rethinking Media Audiences, Routledge, in Goldberg,

M. (n. d.), http://faculty.washington.edu/mlg/courses/definitions/hegemony.html, accessed July 10, 2012.

• Annan, K. (2011), Speech to delegates at the 34th International Fund for Agricultural

Development’s (IFAD) Governing Council, Rome, http://kofiannanfoundation.org/newsroom/speeches/2011/02/kofi-annan-speaks-to-delegates-thirty-fourth-international-fund-agricultur, accessed August 9, 2012.

• Ashley, B., Hollows, J., Jones, S., and Taylor, B. (2004), Food and cultural studies,

Routledge, NY, USA.

• Ashoka (n. d.), What is a social entrepreneur?, http://canada.ashoka.org/what-social-entrepreneur, accessed April 21, 2013.

105

• Australian War Memorial Encyclopaedia (n. d.), Victory Gardens,http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/homefront/victory_gardens.asp, accessed August 11, 2012.

• Bagdonis, J.M. Hinrichs, C.C., and Schafft, K.A. (2009), The emergence and framing of

farm-to-school initiatives: civic engagement, health and local agriculture, Agriculture and Human Values, 26 (1-2), pp. 107 – 119.

• Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., and Berati, M. (2007), Evaluating the environmental

impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, pp. 279 – 286.

• Bell, D. and Valentine, G. (1997), Consuming Geographies: we are where we eat, Routledge

NY, USA. • Bellows, A.C. and Hamm, M.W. (2001), US-based community food security: influences,

practice, debate, Journal for the Study of Food and Society, 6 (1), pp. 31 – 44. • Birks, M. and Mills, J. (2011), Grounded Theory. A practical guide, SAGE Publications Ltd.

• Blay-Palmer, A. (2008), Food Fears: From Industrial to Sustainable Food Systems, Ashgate

Publishing, Aldershot, UK. • Blay-Palmer, A. (ed.) (2010), Imagining sustainable food systems – Theory and practice,

Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, UK. • Blay-Palmer, A. (2012), Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) and the Case for

Multifunctional Policy in Canada, in MacRae, R. and Abergel, E. (eds.) Advancing sustainability and health in the Canadian food system: new spaces for civil society organizations in food and agriculture policy making and the implications for advocacy, UBC Press, Vancouver.

• Blay-Palmer, A. and Knezevic, I. (forthcoming), Building sustainable communities through

alternative food systems, Handbook on the globalisation of agriculture, Edward Elgar Publishing.

• Born, J.C. and Purcell, M. (2006), Avoiding the local trap: scale and food systems in

planning research, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(2), pp. 195 – 207. • Brown, J.C. and Purcell, M. (2005), There’s nothing inherent about scale: political ecology,

the local trap, and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon, Geoforum 36, pp. 607 – 624.

• Buckel, S. and Fischer-Lescano, A. (eds.) (2007), Hegemonie gepanzert mit Zwang.

Zivilgesellschaft und Politik im Staatsverständnis Antonio Gramscis, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft; Baden Baden.

106

• Canning, P. (2011), A Revised and Expanded Food Dollar Series - A Better Understanding of Our Food Costs, USDA Economic Research Report 114.

• Carroll, W.K. and Ratner, R.S. (2010), Social Movements and Counter-Hegemony: Lessons

from the Field, New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry, 4 (1), pp. 7 – 22.

• CBC (May 2004), Genetically Modified Foods: a primer,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modification/, accessed June 8, 2012. • CBC (April, 2009), Wal-Mart 'rounding down' prices to lure shoppers,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2009/04/15/walmart.html, accessed June 8, 2012. • Community Garden Council of Waterloo Region (n. d.), Waterloo Region Community

Gardens, http://together4health.ca/workgroups/community-gardens-waterloo-region/community-garden-list, accessed December 31, 2012.

• City of Kitchener (2008), Chapter 408 – Animals regulation,

http://code.municipalworld.com/kitchener/408.pdf, accessed December 31, 2012. • City of Kitchener (2011), Draft Official Plan,

http://www.kitchener.ca/en/insidecityhall/resources/JUNEVERSION-CityofKitchenerDraftOP_June20.pdf, accessed December 31, 2012.

• City of Portland (2012), Food System Goals June 2012, http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/401088, accessed August 8, 2012.

• City of Waterloo (2009), By-law 09-074 – Being a by law to regulate animals,

http://www.city.waterloo.on.ca/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/LIBRARY_BYLAWS_documents/Animal_Control_By-law_No_09_047.pdf , accessed December 31, 2012.

• City of Waterloo (2012), Official Plan, http://www.waterloo.ca/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-

b282-c6475cdb7ee7/DS_COMMUNITYPOLICY_documents/Council-AdoptedOP.pdf, accessed December 31, 2012.

• Cohen, J.N., Gearhart, S., and Garland, E. (2012), Community Supported Agriculture: A

Commitment to a Healthier Diet, Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 7, pp. 20 – 37.

• Cornell University (n. d.), Discovering the food system,

http://www.discoverfoodsys.cornell.edu/glossary.html, accessed July 5, 2012

• Cox, R.W. (1983), Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method, Millenium – Journal of International Studies, 12 (2), pp. 162 – 175.

107

• Cresswell, J.W. (2012), Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among five approaches, Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA; 3rd revised edition.

• Cumbers, A., Nativel, C., and Routledge, P. (2008) The entangled geographies of global

justice networks, Progress in Human Geography, 32(2), pp. 183 – 201

• Dahlberg, K. (1994), A transition from agriculture to regenerative food systems, Futures, 26(2), pp. 170 – 179.

• Dangour, A.D., Dodhia, S.K., Hayter, A., Allen, E., Lock, K., and Uauy, R. (2009),

Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90, pp. 680 – 685.

• DEFRA (2010), Indicators for a sustainable food system.

• DeLind, L. and Howard, P. (2008), Safe at any scale?, Agriculture and Human Values, 25

(3), pp. 301 – 317. • DeLind, L. (2011), Are local food and the local food movement taking us where we want to

go? Or are we hitching our wagons to the wrong stars?, Agriculture and Human Values, 28 (2), pp. 273 – 283.

• Demirović, A. (2007): Politische Gesellschaft, zivile Gesellschaft: Zur Theorie des integralen

Staates bei Antonio Gramsci, in Buckel, S. and Fischer-Lescano, A. (eds.) (2007), Hegemonie gepanzert mit Zwang. Zivilgesellschaft und Politik im Staatsverständnis Antonio Gramscis, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft,Baden Baden.

• Demirović, A. (2008), Neoliberalismus und Hegemonie, in Butterwegge, C., Lösch, B., and

Ptak, R. (eds.), Neoliberalismus - Analysen und Alternativen, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 17 – 33.

• Desjardins, E. (2010), The urban food desert: spatial inequality or opportunity for change?,

in Blay-Palmer, A. (ed.) (2010), Imagining sustainable food systems – Theory and practice, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, UK.

• Desjardins, E., MacRae, R., Schumilas, T. (2010), Linking future population food

requirements for health with local production in Waterloo Region, Canada, Agriculture and Human Values, 27 (2), pp. 129 –140.

• Dey, P. (2010), The Symbolic Violence of ‘Social Entrepreneurship’: Language, Power and the Question of the Social (Subject), The Third Research Colloquium on Social Entrepreneurship – Saїd Business School, University of Oxford, 22nd-25th June, 2010, https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/export/DL/64862.pdf, accessed on April 23, 2013.

• Die Zeit (2013), Gärtnern gegen die Krise in Portugal, http://www.zeit.de/video/2013-01/2092459654001, accessed January 21, 2013.

108

• Dieticians of Canada (2009), Winter, Critical dietetics: a declaration. Practice Newsletter, p. 48, in Levkoe, 2011, p. 693).

• Dupuis, M. and Goodman, D. (2005), Should we go ‘‘home’’ to eat? Toward a reflexive

politics of localism, Journal of Rural Studies, 21, pp. 359 – 371.

• EU (n. d.), Subsidiarity principle, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/subsidiarity_en.htm, accessed February 17, 2013.

• Goodman, D. and DuPuis, M. (2002), Knowing Food and Growing Food: Beyond the

Production-Consumption Debate in the Sociology of Agriculture, Sociologia Ruralis, 42 (1), pp. 5 – 22.

• Edge, S. and McAllister, M.L. (2009), Place-based Local Governance and Sustainable Communities: Lessons from Canadian Biosphere Reserves, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52 (3), pp. 279 – 295.

• Ekers, M., Loftus, A. and Mann, G. (2009), Gramsci lives!, Geoforum 40 (3), pp. 287 – 291. • Evans, T.L. (2011), Living and Learning Sustainability: Pedagogy and Praxis in

Sustainability Education, Dissertation. • FAO (2006), Livestock’s long shadow – environmental issues and options.

• FAO (2011), State of food insecurity in the world.

• FAO (2012), Impacts of bioenergy on food security.

• Feagan, R. (2007), The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems,

Progress in Human Geography, February, 31 (1), pp. 23 – 42. • Ferguson, S. (1999), The Death of Little Puerto Rico: NYC gardens plowed under by a new

wave of urban development, http://www.newvillage.net/Journal/Issue1/1littlepuertorico.html, accessed July 28, 2012.

• Firth, C., Maye, D., Pearson, D. (2011), Developing “community” in community gardens,

Local Environment, 16 (6), pp. 555 – 568.

• FoodLink (n. d.), Agriculture in our region, http://www.foodlink.ca/index.php?p=39, accessed December 31, 2012.

• FoodShare (n. d.), School Food Gardens and Innovations, http://www.foodshare.net/school-

gardens, accessed January 4, 2013.

109

• Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (n. d.), Canada-EU Trade Agreement - Opening New Markets in Europe, http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/eu-ue/can-eu.aspx?view=d, accessed January 24, 2013.

• Friedmann, H. (2000), What on Earth is the Modern World-System? Foodgetting and

Territory in the Modern Era and Beyond, Festschrift for Immanuel Wallerstein, Part 1, Special Issue.

• Friedmann, H. (2007), Scaling up: Bringing public institutions and food service corporations

into the project for a local, sustainable food system in Ontario, Agriculture and Human Values, 24 (3), pp. 389 – 398.

• Friedmann, H. (2009), Discussion: moving food regimes forward: reflections on symposium essays, Agriculture and Human Values, 26 (4), pp. 335 – 344.

• Friedmann, H. in Allemang, (2011), And culinary justice for all, http://foodschool.ca/assignments/kitchen-map/contact-details/chef-instructor/broke-get-cooking/, accessed October 19, 2011.

• Gan, A. (2011), From “we” to “me”, in Palgi, M. and Reinharz, S. (eds.) (2011), One

Hundred Years of Kibbutz Life: A Century of Crises and Reinvention, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

• Gasson, S. (2004), Rigor in grounded theory: An Interpretive perspective on generating

theory from qualitative field studies, in Whitman, M. and Woszczynski, A. (eds.), The handbook of information systems research, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, USA.

• Geoforum (2009), Special themed issue on Gramscian Political Ecologies, 40 (3).

• Gibson-Graham , J.K. (2002), Beyond global vs. local: economic politics outside the binary

frame, in Herod, A. and Wright, MW (eds.), Geographies of Power: Placing scale, Oxford Blackwell.

• Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2006), A Postcapitalist Politics, University of Minnesota Press, USA.

• Goodman, D., DuPuis, M. (2002), Knowing Food and Growing Food: Beyond the

Production-Consumption Debate in the Sociology of Agriculture, Sociologia Ruralis, 42 (1), pp. 5 – 22.

• Goodman, D. & Watts, M. (1994), Reconfiguring the rural or fording the divide?: Capitalist

restructuring and the global agro‐food system, Journal of Peasant Studies, 22 (1), pp. 1 – 49. • Goodman, D. and Watts, M. (1997), Globalising food: Agrarian questions and globalising

food, Routledge, NY, USA.

110

• Goodman, D., DuPuis, M., Goodman, M. (2012), Alternative Food Networks - Knowledge, Practice and Politics, Routledge, NY, USA.

• Goodman, M., Maye, D., and Holloway, L. (2010), Ethical foodscapes?: premises, promises,

and possibilities, Guest editorial, Environment and Planning A, 42, pp. 1782 – 1796

• Graham, J. (1988), Postmodernism and Marxism, Antipode 20 (1), pp. 60 – 66.

• Gramsci, A. (1999), Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, edited and translated by Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell, Smith ElecBook, London, transcribed from the edition published by Lawrence & Wishart London 1971.

• Griffin, M.R. and Frongillo, E.A. (2003), Experiences and perspectives of farmers from

Upstate New York farmers’ markets, Agriculture and Human Values, 20 (2), pp. 189 – 203. • Guthman, J. (2003), Fast food/organic food: reflexive tastes and the making of 'yuppie

chow', Social & Cultural Geography, 4(1), pp. 45 — 58. • Guthman, J. (2007), The polanyian way? Voluntary food labels as neoliberal governance,

Antipode, 39 (3), pp. 456 – 478. • Guthman, J. (2008 a), Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California, Geoforum

39 (3), pp. 1171 – 1183. • Guthman, J. (2008 b), Thinking inside the neoliberal box: The micro-politics of agro-food

philanthropy, Geoforum, 39 (3), pp. 1241 – 1253. • Hale, J., Knapp, C., Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J., Sancar, F., and Litt, J.S.

(2011), Connecting food environments and health through the relational nature of aesthetics: Gaining insight through the community gardening experience, Social Science and Medicine, 72 (11), pp. 1853-1863.

• Halfnight, D. (2011), Canadian consumers in dark about genetically modified food, Guelph

Mercury, http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/local/article/559315--canadian-consumers-in-dark-about-genetically-modified-food, accessed July 11, 2012.

• Hall, S. (1987), Gramsci and us, Marxism Today, June, pp. 16 – 21

• Hammer, K. (2012), Kids and dirt behind school garden trend, The Globe and Mail,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/kids-and-dirt-behind-school-garden-trend/article4104894/, accessed January 4, 2013.

• Harris, E. (2010), Eat Local? Constructions of Place in Alternative Food politics, Geography

Compass, 4/4, pp. 355 – 369.

111

• Harvey, D. (2007), Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610, pp. 21 – 44.

• Harvey, D. (1985), Revolutionary and counter revolutionary theory in geography, Antipode,

17 (2-3), pp. 17 – 24. • Hassanein, N. (2003), Practicing food democracy: a pragmatic politics of transformation,

Journal of Rural Studies, 19, pp. 77 – 86. • Hay, I. (2010), Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, Oxford University

Press. • Herod, A. (2003), Scale: The local and the global, in Holloway, S.L., Rice, S.P., and

Valentine, G. (eds.) (2003), Key concepts in geography, Sage Publications, London. • Hinrichs, C.C. (2000), Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct

agricultural market, Journal of Rural Studies, 16 (3), pp. 295 – 303. • Hinrichs, C.C. (2003), The practice and politics of food system localization, Journal of Rural

Studies, 19(1), pp. 33 – 45.

• Hinrichs, C.C. (2010), Conceptualising and creating sustainable food systems: how interdisciplinarity can help, in Blay-Palmer, A. (ed.) (2010), Imagining sustainable food systems – Theory and practice, Ashgate Publishing, London.

• Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M., Venn, L., Cox, R., Dowler, E., and Tuomainen, H. (2005),

Possible food economies: food production-consumption arrangements and the meaning of ‘alternative’, Working paper.

• Holt-Giménez, E. and Shattuck, A. (2011), Food crises, food regimes and food movements:

rumblings of reform or tides of transformation?, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38 (1), pp. 109 – 144.

• Horlings, L.G. and Marsden, T. (2012), Exploring the ‘New Rural Paradigm’ in Europe:

Eco-economic strategies as a counterforce to the global competitiveness agenda, European Urban and Regional Studies, May 30.

• Jackson Lears, T.J. (1985), The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilities,

The American Historical Review, 90 (3), pp. 567 – 593. • Jaffe, J. and Gertler, M. (2006), Victual vicissitudes: Consumer deskilling and the (gendered)

transformation of food systems, Agriculture and Human Values, 23 (2), pp. 243 – 162. • Jessop, B. (2005), Gramsci as a spatial theorist, Critical review of international social and

political philosophy, 8 (4), pp. 421 – 437.

112

• Jóhannesson, G. T. and Bærenholdt, J. O. (2009), Actor-Network Theory/Network Geographies, in Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, pp. 15 – 19, Elsevier, Oxford.

• Johnston, J. (2007), Counter-Hegemony or Bourgeois Piggery? Food Politics and the Case of

FoodShare, in Wright, W., Middendorf, G. (eds.), The Fight Over Food: Producers, Consumers, and Activists Challenge the Global Food System, Rural Sociological Society’s Rural Studies Series and Pennsylvania State Press.

• Johnston, J. and Baker. L. (2005), Eating outside the box: FoodShare’s good food box and

the challenge of scale, Agriculture and Human Values 22 (3), pp. 313 – 325. • Karriem, A. (2009), The rise and transformation of the Brazilian landless movement into a

counter-hegemonic political actor: A Gramscian analysis, Geoforum 40 (3), pp. 316 – 325. • Katz, H. (2006), Gramsci, Hegemony, and Global Civil Society Networks, Voluntas, 17, pp.

333 – 348. • Kibbutz Lotan (n. d.),

http://www.kibbutzlotan.com/creativeEcology/organic/permaculture.htm#.UBlWkvVfFmc, accessed August 28, 2012.

• Kirschenmann, F. (2008), Food as relationship, Journal of Hunger & Environmental

Nutrition, 3 (2), pp. 106 – 121. • Kloppenburg, J. Jr., Lezberg, S., DeMaster, K., Stevenson, GW, and Hendrickson, J. (2000),

Tasting Food, Tasting Sustainability: Defining the Attributes of an Alternative Food System with Competent, Ordinary People, Human Organization, 59(2), pp. 177 – 186.

• Kloppenburg, J., Hendrickson, J. and Stevenson, GW (1996), Coming in to the foodshed,

Agriculture and Human Values, 13 (3), pp. 33 – 42. • Kneen, B. (1995), From land to mouth - Understanding the food system, NC Press Limited,

Toronto.

• Koç, M., Sumner, J., and Winson, A. (2012) (eds.), Critical Perspectives in Food Studies, Oxford University Press, Don Mills, Canada.

• Kortright, R. and Wakefield, S. (2011), Edible backyards: a qualitative study of household

food growing and its contributions to food security, Agriculture and Human Values, 28 (1), pp. 39 – 53.

• Lacy, W.B. (2000), Empowering Communities Through Public Work, Science, and Local

Food Systems: Revisiting Democracy and Globalization, Rural Sociology, 65(1), pp. 3 – 26.

113

• Larsen, K. and Gilliland, J. (2008), A farmers’ market in a food desert: Evaluating impacts on the price and availability of healthy food, Health and Place, 15, pp. 1158 – 1162.

• Lautenschlager, L. and Smith, C. (2007), Beliefs, knowledge, and values held by inner-city

youth about gardening, nutrition, and cooking, Agriculture and Human Values, 24 (2), pp. 245 – 258.

• Lawson, L.J. (2005), City Bountiful: A century of community gardening in America,

University of California Press.

• Lefebvre, H. (1991), The Production of Space, translated by D. Nicholson-Smith. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, cited in Schmelzkopf (2002), p. 334.

• Levkoe, C.Z. (2011), Towards a transformative food politics, Local Environment, 16 (7), pp.

687 – 705. • Loftus, A. (2009), Intervening in the environment of the everyday, Geoforum 40 (3), pp. 326

– 334. • Lyson, T.A. (2004), Civic Agriculture. Reconnecting Farm, food, and community, Tufts

University Press, Medford, Massachusetts. • Marsden, T. (2011), Towards a real sustainable agri-food security and food Policy: Beyond

the ecological fallacies?, The Political Quarterly, 83 (1), pp. 139 – 145.

• Mason, M. (2010), Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies - Using Qualitative Interviews, Forum: Qualitative Social Research/Sozialforschung, 11 (3), Art. 8.

• Massey, D. (1994), A Global Sense of Place, in Space, Place and Gender, University of

Minnesota Press, http://www.unc.edu/courses/2006spring/geog/021/001/massey.pdf, accessed July 20, 2011.

• McAllister Kattides, M.L. and Bastos Lima, M.G. (2008), Changing Food Systems and Implications for Sustainable Communities: Cyprus, Canada and Brazil, Environments Journal, 36 (1), pp. 45 – 58.

• McKay, G. (2011), Radical Gardening: Politics, Idealism and Rebellion in the Garden, Frances Lincoln, London, UK.

• McLoughlin Torgerson, A. (2010), Fair trade banana production in the Windward Islands:

local survival and global resistance, Agriculture and Human Values, 27 (4), pp. 475 – 487. • McMichael, A.J., Powles, J.W., Butler, C.D., Uauy, R. (2007), Food, livestock production,

energy, climate change, and health, The Lancet, 370 (9594), pp. 1253 – 1263.

114

• McMichael, P. (2000), The Power of Food, Agriculture and Human Values, 17 (1), pp. 21 – 33.

• McMichael, P. (2009), A food regime genealogy, Journal of Peasant Studies, 36 (1), pp. 139 – 169.

• Merk, J. (2009). Jumping Scale and Bridging Space in the Era of Corporate Social Responsibility: cross-border labour struggles in the global garment industry, Third World Quarterly, 30(3), 599 – 615.

• Metcalf Foundation (2008), Food connects us all – Sustainable food in southern Ontario.

• Miller, D.L. (2007), The Seeds of Learning: Young Children Develop Important Skills

Through Their Gardening Activities at a Midwestern Early Education Program, Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 6 (1), pp. 49 – 66.

• Morgan, K. and Murdoch, J. (2000), Organic vs. conventional agriculture: knowledge, power

and innovation in the food chain, Geoforum 31 (2), pp. 159 – 173. • Morgan, K., Marsden, T. and Murdoch, J. (2006), Worlds of food – Place, power and

provenance in the food chain, Oxford University Press. • Morgan, K. (2010), Local and green, global and fair: the ethical foodscape and the politics of

care, Environment and Planning A, 42, pp. 1852 – 1867. • Morgan, K. and Sonnino, R. (2008), The School Food Revolution, Earthscan Publishing,

London. • Mother Earth News (2012), Homeowners Cited for Illegal Gardening: Orlando Couple Fight

for the Right to Grow Food, http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/illegal-gardening-zwfz1211zrob.aspx, accessed November 19, 2012.

• Mountain, J. (2012), Fake health food: How to spot it and what to eat instead, Grist, July 31,

http://grist.org/food/fake-health-food-how-to-spot-it-and-what-to-eat-instead/, accessed August 8, 2012.

• Nestle, M. (2007), Food Politics: how the food industry influences nutrition and health,

revised and expanded edition, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

• Neumann , R.P. (2009), Political Ecology, in Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.), International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography, pp. 228 – 233, Elsevier, Oxford.

• Neve Shalom (n. d.), Oasis of Peace, http://nswas.org/rubrique22.html, accessed July 31,

2012.

115

• NFU (2012), Farmer’s Share of Retail Food Dollar, http://www.nfu.org/images/July2012_Farmers%20Share.pdf, accessed August 7, 2012.

• Niggli, U. and Leifert, C. (2009), Advancing organic and low-input food, QLIF Integrated

Research Project, http://marktcheck.greenpeace.at/uploads/media/200908_qlif_studie.pdf, accessed June 30, 2012.

• NYT (1999), For Sale: The Garden of Eden,

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/14/opinion/for-sale-the-garden-of-eden.html, accessed July 28, 2012.

• O’Hara, J.K. (2011), Market Forces - Creating Jobs through Public investment in local and

regional Food systems, Union of concerned scientists. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/field/news/croptalk/2010/ct-0610a4.htm, accessed August 2, 2012.

• Ovkat, H.A. and Zautra, A.J. (2011), Community Gardening: A Parsimonious Path to

Individual, Community, and Environmental Resilience, American Journal of Community Psychology, 47, pp. 374 – 387.

• Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002), Neoliberalizing space, Antipode, 34 (3), pp. 380 – 404.

• People’s Food Policy Project (n. d.), http://peoplesfoodpolicy.ca/, accessed October 24,

2012.

• Perkins, HA (2011), Gramsci in green: Neoliberal hegemony through urban forestry and the potential for a political ecology of praxis, Geoforum 42 (5), pp. 558 – 566.

• Petrini, Carlo (2007), Slow food nation: why our food should be good, clean, and fair,

Random House, New York.

• Pollan, M. (2007), Unhappy meals, New York Times Magazine, January 28, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed March 10, 2013

• Pothukuchi, K. and Kaufman, J.L. (2000), The food system: a stranger to the planning field,

Journal of the American Planning Association, 66 (2), pp. 113 – 124.

• Power, E. (2004), The determinants of healthy eating among low-income Canadians, prepared for: The Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion Health Canada.

• Pudup, M.B. (2008), It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organized garden

projects, Geoforum, 39 (3), pp. 1228-1240.

116

• Riches, G. (2005), The Human Right to Adequate Food: Seeking domestic compliance with Canada’s international obligations. New possibilities for food security and social policy, Canadian Social Welfare Policy Conference.

• Rideout, K., Riches, G., MacRae, R. et al. (2007), Bringing home the right to food in

Canada: challenges & possibilities for achieving food security, Public Health Nutrition, 10(6), pp. 566 – 573.

• Roff, R. (2007), Shopping for change? Neoliberalizing activism and the limits to eating non-

GMO, Agriculture and Human Values, 24 (4), pp. 511 – 522. • Royte, E. (2009), Street Farmer, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/magazine/05allen-

t.html?pagewanted=all, accessed July 30, 2012.

• Sandelowski, M. (1995), Sample Size in Qualitative Research, Research in Nursing & Health, 18, pp. 179 – 183.

• Schmelzkopf, K. (2002), Incommensurability, land use, and the right to space: community

gardens in NYC, Urban Geography, 23 (4), pp. 323 – 343.

• Schumilas, T. (2011), An Exploration of the Local & Organic Food System in Perth-Waterloo-Wellington: “It Doesn’t Feel Like Shopping”, Canadian Organic Growers Perth-Waterloo-Wellington Chapter, March 2011.

• Shreck, A. (2005), Resistance, redistribution, and power in the Fair Trade banana initiative,

Agriculture and Human Values, 22 (1), pp. 17 – 29. • Sidewalk sprouts (n. d.), History of urban agriculture,

http://sidewalksprouts.wordpress.com/history/, accessed August 11, 2012. • Simmons, O. (2003), Outline of the GT process, http://www.groundedtheory.com/what-is-

gt.aspx, accessed November 5, 2012. • Slocum, R. (2007), Whiteness, space and alternative food practice, Geoforum, 38 (3), pp. 520

– 530. • Slow Food (n. d.), Our philosophy, http://www.slowfood.com/international/2/our-

philosophy, accessed April 4, 2012. • Smythe, E. (2012), Global Food and the Political Economy of Food Labeling: Case Studies,

Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Edmonton, Alberta June, 15, 2012.

• Sobal, J. and Wansink, B. (2007), Kitchenscapes, Tablescapes, Platescapes, and Foodscapes:

Influences of Microscale Built Environments on Food Intake, Environment and Behavior, pp. 124 – 142.

117

• Statistics Canada (2012), Household Food Insecurity in Canada in 2007-2008, based on

Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2007-2008, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/insecurit/key-stats-cles-2007-2008-eng.php#a, accessed August 7, 2012.

• Strauss (n. d.), Yotvata, http://www.strauss-group.com/aboutus-partnershipwithyotvata,

accessed August 28, 2012.

• Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

• The Guardian, (2001), Extracts from Jose Bové and Francois Dufour's book “The World Is

Not For Sale: Farmers Against Junk Food”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/jun/13/socialsciences.bookextracts, accessed December 30, 2012.

• The Guardian (2008), Israel re-brands kibbutzim to lure eco-aware generation,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/13/israelandthepalestinians.kibbutz, accessed August 28, 2012.

• The London Free Press (July 2008), Loblaws rebrands and cuts wages,

http://pbdba.lfpress.com/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=240383&s=shopping, accessed July 5, 2012. • The London Times (2009), Big Agriculture Takes Umbrage at Mrs. Obama’s Organic

Garden, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6146396.ece ,accessed November 1, 2012 through http://healthfreedoms.org/2009/04/22/big-agriculture-takes-umbrage-at-mrs-obamas-organic-garden/ .

• The Guardian (2011), EU agriculture policy 'still hurting farmers in developing countries',

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/oct/11/eu-agriculture-hurts-developing-countries, accessed December 23, 2012.

• Valentine, G. (1997), Tell me about... using interviews as a research methodology, in

Flowerdew, R. and Martin, D. (eds.), Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project, Pearson Education, Essex, UK.

• Via Campesina (2003), Food Sovereignty,

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47:food-sovereignty&catid=21:food-sovereignty-and-trade&Itemid=38, accessed February 26, 2011.

• Victory Gardens Initiative (n. d.), Victory Gardens Initiative,

http://www.victorygardeninitiative.org/, accessed August 11, 2012. • Wainwright, J. and Mercer, K. (2010), The dilemma of decontamination: A Gramscian

analysis of the Mexican transgenic maize dispute, Geoforum 40 (3), pp. 345 – 354.

118

• Wakefield, S. (2007), Reflective action in the academy: exploring praxis in critical geography using a "food movement" case study, Antipode, 39(2), pp. 331 – 354.

• Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., and Skinner, A. (2007), Growing urban

health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto, Health Promotion International, 22 (2), pp. 92 – 101.

• Watkins, K. (1996), Free Trade and Farm Fallacies: From the Uruguay Round to the World

Food Summit, The Ecologist, 26 (6), pp. 244 – 256.

• Watts, D.C.H., Ilbery, B., and Maye, D. (2005), Making reconnections in agro-food geography: alternative systems of food provision, Progress in Human Geography, 29 (1), pp. 22-40.

• Westley, F., Antadze, N., Riddell, D.J., Robinson, K, and Geobey, S. (2010), Pathways to System Change, Working paper, http://sig.uwaterloo.ca/sites/default/files/documents/Pathways%20to%20System%20Change%20Working%20Paper_0.pdf, accessed March 1, 2013.

• Wilkins, J. (2005), Eating right here: Moving from consumer to food citizen, Agriculture and Human Values, 22 (3), pp. 269–273.

• Winson, A. (2004), Bringing political economy into the debate on the obesity epidemic,

Agriculture and Human Values, 21 (4), pp. 299-312. • Wood, R., Lenzen, M., Dey, C., Lundie, S. (2006), A comparative study of some

environmental impacts of conventional and organic farming in Australia, Agricultural Systems, 89, pp. 324-348.

• World Hunger (2012), Hunger in America: 2012 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm, accessed August 7, 2012. • World Hunger (2012), Hunger in America: 2012 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm, accessed August 7, 2012. • WR (a) (n. d.), History,

http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/discoveringTheRegion/history.asp, accessed December 31, 2013

• WR (b) (n. d.), Population, http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/doingbusiness/population.asp,

accessed January 20, 2013.

• WR (2009), Planning information bulletin - Population and Employment Forecasts 2006-2029, http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/doingBusiness/resources/2013_Population_and_Employment_Forecasts.pdf, accessed January 20, 2013.

119

• WR (2011), Census Bulletin, Agriculture - Statistics from the 2011 Census of Agriculture for Waterloo Region, http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/doingBusiness/resources/CensusBulletin-FinalAgri.pdf, accessed January 4, 2013.

• WRFSRT (2009), Council approves Regional Official Plan,

http://www.wrfoodsystem.ca/forum/viewthread/10274, accessed December 31, 2012.

• WRFSRT (2010), Waterloo Food System Round Table: Priorities for Waterloo Region's Food System, http://www.wrfoodsystem.ca/priorities, accessed August 8, 2012.

• WR Food Bank (n. d.), For students, http://www.thefoodbank.ca/en/toolresources/for_students.asp#six, accessed January 5, 2013.

• WR Public Health (2012), Food insecurity, Waterloo Region & Ontario, 2005, 2007-2008 &

2009-2010, http://chd.region.waterloo.on.ca/en/researchResourcesPublications/resources/FOOD_INSECURITY.pdf, accessed January 4, 2013.

120

7 APPENDIX 7.1 Interview questions

1) Where do you garden? 2) What size is your garden plot? 3) What do you grow? 4) On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 being the lowest, how important is gardening to you? 5) Do you see any difference between edible and decorative garden, and if yes what

are they?

6) What are your motivations and expectations for gardening? 7) Are you satisfied with what gardening is providing to you? Can you tell me why (not)? 8) Does gardening teach you anything? 9) Where did you/do you get your gardening experience, knowledge, and skills from? 10) Do you find that you have to buy less produce during harvest time because you garden? 11) Do you experience any barriers to gardening or do you know of others who do? (If yes)

What kind of barriers? 12) Are you aware of opportunities that facilitate people’s access to gardening? 13) Do you find that gardening attracts people from diverse backgrounds? Why (not)? 14) Do find that gardening is inclusive? 15) Are you planning on gardening again next season? Why (not)? 16) Where do you usually shop for your groceries? 17) What is the percentage of fresh food among your groceries? 18) Do you think the current food system is functional? Why (not)? 19) Do you think that some people are better off or worse off because of the established food

system? 20) Do you think that some people are better off or worse off in an alternative food system? 21) Do you know any farmers? 22) Do you identify with bigger food movement, and/or alternative food initiatives?

Why (not)?

23) If you are part of a bigger food movement or alternative food initiative, are you satisfied with the outcomes? Do they achieve what you expect? Why (not)?

24) Do you feel that regulations about food made by your government(s) (local, provincial, national) or by international agreements affect you? If yes, how?

25) Do you think that gardening makes a difference? How and why (not)? 26) If you were to change anything in the food system, what would you change? 27) In your opinion, what are the most important ingredients for successfully implementing

change? 28) Are you fe/male? 29) Can you tell me how old you are by using the following categories? <18/19-30/31-49/50-

64/65+?

121

30) Where do you live? (country, province, city) 31) Is your interest in gardening of private or professional nature?

7.2 Ethics approval 7.2.1 Ethics approval

122

7.2.2 Letter of informed consent

123

7.3 Map of community gardens in KW