MOVING BEYOND "GLOBAL" AND "LOCAL"

NE-185 Working Statement

October 2, 1998

[DRAFT]

Developed by Iowa group (Clare Hinrichs) and Wisconsin group (Jack Kloppenburg, Steve Stevenson, Sharon Lezberg, John Hendrickson, Kathy DeMaster)

We often speak of the "global" and the "local," employing a sort of conceptual shorthand. Taken together, the terms suggest a tidy, self-evident binary opposition. But as we know from any careful examination of other binary oppositions common in intellectual and public discourse (e.g., nature vs. culture; primitive vs. modern; real vs. ideal; art vs.science), the sharp dichotomy can prove misleading.

With that in mind, it becomes challenging to specify precisely what distinguishes the terms "global" and "local" with respect to food and agriculture and especially to come up with guidelines that might serve us in empirical research. This document represents a beginning effort to clarify what we are examining in our study of food systems. We begin by reviewing some of the contrasts often associated with the terms "global" and "local." We then discuss some questions raised by these associations, focusing in particular on the problem in conflating spatial relations with social relations. Our expectation is to stimulate dialogue, which we hope will lead to some agreement about how to distinguish between the "alternative" (or "sustainable") and the "conventional" (or "mainstream") dimensions of food systems.

Many of us assign different characteristics or qualities to the "global food system" and a "local food system." (Such language itself is telling, revealing the assumption of one global food system, but the possibility of multiple and distinct local food systems.) The following table presents some of these contrasts, which are drawn from NE-185 project notes and the scattered, emergent literature on local or community food systems.

One problem with the oppositions posed above is the overarching assumption that "global" and "local" are neatly bounded, separate and static. Work in at least two areas suggests this assumption is problematic. First, a systems based approach to the study of food and agriculture, modeling itself on ecology, would emphasize the "systemness" or inter-relatedness of the entire domain (Dahlberg 1993). There are functional components or fields within the overall system that connect and feedback in terms of structure and processes. Therefore, "global" and "local" are necessarily related within an overall system. Second, recent work in urban sociology on globalization stresses the simultaneity and interpenetration of global and local processes (Clarke and Gaile 1997; Eade 1997; Reid 1997). Robertson (1994), for example, rejects an analytical emphasis on globalization, referring instead to "glocalization" to evoke the dynamism and mutuality of global-local relationships.

Overall, we need to avoid reifying either "global" or "local." "Global" and "local" are fundamentally spatial referents, which, taken literally, designate two poles of a continuum. Certainly there are some interesting things happening at either end, but most events occur somewhere along the continuum between the local and the global, and so are often more hybrid in character. Additionally, there is the serious matter of conceptual compression-- forcing an enormous amount of complexity under a simple spatial referent. Making "local" a proxy for the "good" and "global" a proxy for the "bad" may oversimplify actual experiences and outcomes for people, communities and the environment.

If this is so, why have we been so fixated on "local," "localness," and "locality?" There are several reasons. First, lots of people and big thinkers are doing the same thing. A wide variety of well known and very influential analysts (e.g., Barnet and Cavanagh 1994; Berry 1996; Brecher and Costello 1994; Korten 1995; Shuman 1998) are proffering various versions of "going local" as a premier means of confronting social and ecological problems. Too often, however, these paeans to the "local" are founded on axioms and assumptions rather than on good evidence.

Second, this emphasis on the local as a solution is the flip side of a similar fixation on the "global." Globalization is THE issue of the day. Having defined the "global" as the problem, it is easy to look to the "local" for relief (Mander and GoldsmithÆs book The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn to the Local is a paradigmatic manifestation of this tendency). As suggested above, the "global/local" pivot is a false dichotomy, but dualistic thinking remains a difficult pitfall to avoid-- even when you know it is there. In fact, the local can be confining and oppressive and the global can be expansive and liberating û as well as vice versa (see Henwood 1996; Young 1996).

Third, there is now a tremendous amount of interesting and inspiring activity going on at the local level, especially in the area of food systems. From the community kitchens of Lima to the CSAs of WisconsinÆs "driftless region," people in particular places are organizing what are often small scale initiatives that challenge and provide alternatives to conventional food systems. Those of us interested in working to realize a sustainable food system would be seriously remiss if we did not honor and engage these projects. But while it is important to understand why this opposition is appearing in particular (local) places, it is perhaps equally important to investigate the broader context in which such opposition is emerging, and and to explore possible connections between different local manifestations of "resistance."

Fourth, locality is closely associated with traditional notions of community and the positive elements of intimate face to face human interaction. We suspect that those of us with an interest in farming and food are particularly susceptible to the strain of Jeffersonian idealism that has long been an integral feature of agricultural thought in the United States and that this gives "localization" a special appeal. A tendency to romanticize the local is not necessarily a bad thing - we do, after all, need to give meaning to what we do. Knowing what we want allows us to bring an energy to our work. But we need to be clear-eyed about our normative inclinations if we are to work effectively. Following romantic tendencies too far can ultimately have debilitating effects: a slide into reaction or utopianism, commitments to pasts that never were or futures that never can be.

The effects of our gravitation to the local/global pivot as an organizing principle for work on food systems can also be seen in a dichotomous structuring of our own intellectual community. There is now a substantial literature on globalization of agro-food systems (e.g., Bonanno 1994; Goodman and Watts 1997; McMichael 1994). This literature is highly abstract and tends to have a deterministic flavor. It generally treats globalization as an independent variable and localities as dependent variables. It concentrates on the agency of state and capital in achieving "restructuring." The oppositional activities of people in localities are briefly noted, but are almost entirely neglected in an analytical sense. Local responses to globalization, when they are even noted, are interpreted largely as defensive protests. This literature is rarely prescriptive.

On the other hand, there is a growing literature explicitly or implicitly promoting the local (e.g., Berry 1996; Crouch 1992; Dahlberg 1993; DeLind 1994; Feenstra 1997; Friedmann 1993; Getz 1991; Gottlieb and Fisher 1998; Gussow 1993; Kloppenburg et al. 1996; Kneen 1989). This literature now has a distinct utopian cast inasmuch as it asserts the desirability of local/regional food systems without a great deal of evidence. Initiatives such as CSAs, farmers markets, and small-scale processing are cited as embryonic forms of alternative food systems which might be brought into being alongside or in replacement of conventional food systems. Despite its often prescriptive character, this literature has for the most part not yet gotten down to specification of the ways in which local responses are organized and what their nature and dynamics are. Nor has it generally addressed the structural constraints imposed on local initiatives by "globalization" and so far it has not attempted to account for the success or failure of local initiatives.

To release ourselves from some of the traps posed by "global" and "local," we need to focus instead, as Larry Busch and others have suggested, on changing types of relations. In the next sections, we expand further on the challenge in evaluating spatial relations in food systems, and suggest that a reframing around social relations may provide better guidance for our research.

Despite the conceptual compression forced on the notion "local," there are some good reasons that proximity and distance do matter in food systems (Kloppenburg et al. 1996; Kneen 1993). Our concern with distance stems from awareness of the highly negative environmental and energy impacts of transportation in the conventional food production and distribution system. Keeping food movements-- from seed to table-- closer to a given place promises to be more environmentally sound and possibly more protective of human health, in yielding fresher, more nutritious foods.

However, how do we evaluate spatial relations for the food system overall? There is the overall measure of distance from point of production to consumption, as evaluated in the Rodale state studies of the early 1980s. But no clear agreement exists as to the precise physical distance beyond which the relation or the circuit is no longer acceptably local or regional. Would this distance be the same for all types of foods (i.e., grains, meats, dairy, fruits, vegetables) and across different regions of the U.S.? Is distance, per se, important or is it the fact that agricultural and food inputs and products have traveled across territorial boundaries (of nations, of states/provinces, of counties or towns)?

Some difficulties in evaluating spatial relations become evident in the following two examples. When small-scale independent specialty food producers sell their products mail-order to geographically distant consumers, are they engaged in relations of distance? (And is that bad?) And when the Quaker Oats plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa produces quick oats cereal (from regionally sourced oats) which actually appears on the shelves in the local supermarket, is Quaker Oats engaged in relations of proximity? (And is that good?) Clearly proximity and distance are only part of the story here. Our spatial terminology doesnÆt adequately reflect either the social dimensions of food systems, or the way in which social characteristics and dynamics might vary in their association with space. While proximity (or localness) is an interesting and important attribute of food systems, other dimensions of the food system may deserve closer attention, both analytically and practically. In its work, the Wisconsin group has determined that the key dimensions of interest in a given food system are the degree to which it is ecologically sustainable, economically sustaining, just, participatory, healthful, diverse and culturally meaningful. But although the "local" can be associated with these preferred dimensions of the food system, the "local" is not necessarily associated with them.

The form, process and outcomes of relations between actors in the food system-- input suppliers, producers, regulators, distributors, nutrition educators and eaters-- merit our close attention. "Alternative" or "sustainable" food systems (possibly local, but not necessarily) are, we argue, associated with greater democratic participation and control, with shared decision-making, with community (and possibly non-economic) priorities and goals. With these criteria, we can return to our small independent producer with the mail-order business and to Quaker Oats operating in Cedar Rapids. A budding entrepreneur, the independent producer may be very much interested in profits and only marginally connected to the community. He/she may only pay packers for the business minimum wage; benefits are not offered. As for Quaker Oats, it may now have in place socially responsible workplace policies and state of the art environmental management at its plant. Bound by the call for profits, it is nonetheless a valued source of local jobs, a piece in the puzzle of the local community economy. And most Quaker Oats workers make decent money and like their jobs. The picture can become complicated, but some means of assessing participation, control and decision-making in the food system is clearly necessary.

Another aspect of social relations centers on our understandings of what actually constitutes the "economic" realm. We tend to see atomized market relations as a defining, but negative feature of "global," while the "local" is characterized by embeddedness, social capital and relations of care-- in short, a more moral or associative economy. There are some dangers in such assumptions, however. All kinds of markets, be they futures markets or farmers markets, are embedded in social relations (Hinrichs 1998). Decision-makers in TNCs are, of course, guided by market considerations and prioritize profits, but they do so within a social context, through networks and interactions with other actors in the system. With "alternative" or "sustainable" food enterprises and intiatives, we have often privileged the community dimensions of such ventures, ignoring the vital matter of economic viability. Although caring community ties often prevail, is that uniformly the case? Recent work on CSAs, for example, points out the challenges of creating and maintaining community in some CSAs, when some members are more attuned to consumer options. Assessing the balance between economic sustenance and community building seems an important aspect of the social relations in food systems.

Additional valued or preferred outcomes of the food system include equity across social groups and sustainability through the generations. But how are these evaluated as well? If local food system initiatives mainly produce beautiful, but obscure specialty foods with expensive price tags, who benefits, in an economic, a nutritional or a gustatory sense? Should we understand access to "good food" as access to elements of the Food Pyramid in their prescribed proportions or as access to the foods people define as good (this could be chips and soda). Access by all sectors of the population to safe, healthful foods seems important, but the experience of beauty, novelty, even whimsy in food may also be an outcome we value. What sorts of social relations ensure such access?

Given the argument that social relations in food and agriculture are central, can they be combined with spatial considerations to help us understand the food system? The technique of commodity chain analysis essentially involves looking at multiple sequential relations, usually occurring across space, in the production, distribution and consumption of food. There are, of course, issues as to where the chain begins and where it ends. It has been used most often to study large scale, industrialized, internationally produced or merchandised commodities. But it could also be used with food system initiatives with which the NE-185 project is concerned (i.e., CSAs, community kitchens, farmers markets, entrepreneurial community gardens). We can consider each relation or link in the chain as a "local relation," inviting analysis. The accretion of local relations through the commodity chain-- few in some cases, many in others-- would seem to yield something that is more than merely the sum of the parts. We need some tool for evaluating these individual relations and also the overall result of their combination and connectons across sometimes considerable space. We should consider aspects of process (participation, decision-making, control) and outcomes (equity, sustainability, community). But we need also to decide how to incorporate dimensions of health, diversity and "cultural meaningfulness" into our study of the food system.

Another approach is to focus explicitly on food system initiatives, as the Wisconsin group is now orienting its work. Here the commodity is less central to analysis than the emergence and development of social action in the food system. Countless initiatives, many but not all of a "local" nature, now oppose the conventional food system or create alternatives to it. The empirical question is the extent to which such initiatives hold the potential for moving toward more sustainable and sustaining food systems. This can be explored through distinguishing between two broad types of "alternative" initiatives. One type of initiative is principally political inasmuch as it seeks to limit the activities of conventional firms or to create space for various alternatives by attempting to influence the structures of governance and shape social rules and regulations. This type of activity might be termed "warrior work." A second type of alternative initiative involves creating new productive structures based on alternative forms of socio-economic relationships. This type of activity can be seen as "builder work." Both forms of action are important, in that "warrior" activity creates political, regulatory and cultural space in which "builder" activity that is truly alternative can occur (for a fuller discussion, see Stevenson 1998). While the local basis of many such initiatives is important, the connections between them across space are critical. What appears to be necessary for "sustainable resistance" or "sustainable mobilization" is for local groups and initiatives to establish connections to similar groups in other localities and especially to groups capable of coordinating actions at regional and national levels.

Ultimately, "local" and "global" are useful hooks, but inadequate as the central frame for the work before us. We argue here that social relations, rather than spatial relations, should be focal. This means that we must come to agreement about what the dimensions of an "alternative" or "sustainable" food system are. And we must prepare ourselves for further hard discussions. Must all the dimensions of "alternative" or "sustainable" be present to trigger the attribution of "alternative" or "sustainable"? Which dimensions and in which combinations are absolutely necessary? Does this differ across either commodities or food system initiatives themselves?

Barnet, Richard J. and John Cavanagh

Berry, Wendell

Bonnano Alessandro et al. (eds.)

Brecher, Jeremy and Tim Costello

Clarke, Susan E. and Gary L. Gaile

1997 "Local politics in a global era: Thinking locally, acting globally." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 551: 28-43.

Crouch, Marti

Dahlberg, Ken

DeLind, Laura

Eade, John (ed.)

1997 Living the Global City: Globalization as a Local Process. London: Routledge.

Feenstra, Gail

Friedmann, Harriet

Getz, Arthur

Goodman, David and Michael J. Watts

Gottlieb, Robert and Andy Fisher

Gussow, Joan Dye

Henwood, Doug

Kloppenburg, Jack, Hendrickson, John and G.W. Stevenson.

1996 "Coming into the foodshed." In Vitek and Jackson (eds.), Rooted in the Land. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kneen, Brewster

Korten, David C.

Mander, Jerry and Edward Goldsmith (eds.)

McMichael, Philip (ed.)

Shuman, Michael H.

Stevenson, George W.

Young, Iris