1. INTRODUCTION
1.3 N OMINAL D EFINITIONS
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
10
Upon graduating university, I spent a year traveling around Asia and the Middle East and some time working and studying in Taiwan and have only become more interested in the intersections of society, environmental issues and economics.
This research can be seen as an attempt to carry on the good work of Dr. Daugherty.
1.2 Purpose
Much of the history of the Social Sciences has involved an internal reflection
regarding the degree to which its disciplines can be considered part of the “sciences.”
With this self-consciousness in mind, many social scientists have made great attempts to seek universal truths (or Truth with a capital “T”) or rules that can be applied to human experience. Economics is one such discipline; in which opposing perspectives of Capitalism and Marxism, among others, have endeavored to see human experience and behaviour through universalizing lenses. While it is beyond the scope of this research to actually disprove such assumptions, the more modest goal is to make a small contribution to the ever-growing body of work that attempts to complicate the matter. Following in the footsteps of other cases of Alternative Economic Spaces, by telling the stories, experiences and perspectives of one piece of the complex puzzle of human experience, this research attempts to contribute to our understanding of the diversity of human economic meanings and motivations. By following in the feminist tradition of deconstructing the binary oppositions that make up so much of our
vocabulary and contributing to a more nuanced understanding of human economic interaction, this research hopes to support a more inclusive and pluralistic
conversation about economics, development, nature, culture and agriculture. And, as mentioned in the previous section, to prioritize the different perspectives in talking about economic development and environmental protection.
Furthermore, much of the research on Alternative Economic Spaces and Alternative Food Networks, while deconstructing Western-centric economic vocabulary and assumptions, has taken place in a Western context. This research, following that of Abrahams (2006) in South Africa hopes to expand that lens by looking at the applicability and significance of such frameworks in the experience of an indigenous population in an industrialized Asian country.
1.3 Nominal Definitions
Alterity: An individual or group’s sense of difference or ‘otherness.’
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
11
Alternative Economic Spaces (AES): Defined by Fuller et. al. (2010) as “the
enactment of economies through socio-spatial relations that are to a greater or lesser degree distant or disengaged from global capitalism” (p. 2).
Alternative Food Networks (AFN): a variety of organizations and behaviours diverse in scale, motivations, outcomes and degrees of integration with each other and the global capitalist system. While they may or may not be based on cohesive themes of organic food, sustainability, localism, community development, rejection of mainstream capitalism, etc., they are more easily categorized by their “alternativeness” to so-called “Conventional Food Networks” (CFNs) Development: A highly contested, culturally constructed and frequently critically
deconstructed term that refers to interventionist efforts at improving human well-being. Although originally linked to post-WWII reconstruction in Europe and then investment and loans to former European colonies through the work of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), such a system has been widely denounced variously as a failure by its own narrow measures, a cover for cold-war proxy conflicts or hegemonic power struggles and a form of neo-imperialism. While it is still debated by its critics whether or not the term should be abandoned completely (ex. post-development and alternatives to development), this research still makes use of the term but favouring a critical, deconstructing and pluralistic approach to these issues.
Indigenous Culture: As with the terms discussed above, a concrete definition of what it means to be indigenous is difficult to agree upon. For this reason, the United Nations (UN) Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has not agreed upon a formal definition for the term indigenous and, rather, relies on self-definition of identity. As a guideline, the forum outlines some main qualities of
indigenous peoples:
Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
Distinct social, economic or political systems
Distinct language, culture and beliefs
Form non-dominant groups of society
Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities. (UNPFII)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
12
While there is some debate in Taiwan surrounding the indigeneity and
categorization of other groups, the indigeneity of the Atayal People, on whom this research focuses, is broadly consensual and enshrined in article 1 of the
“Indigenous Peoples Basic Law” of 2005.
Organic Agriculture and Natural Farming: The term Organic refers to a set of principles relating to what are considered “natural” techniques for producing agricultural products usually due to environmental and/or health concerns.
Definitions, regulations and promotion of such terms is overseen by individual nations and independent international certification bodies based largely on the standards of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM) established in 1972, which declares the goal of organic farming to be,
"Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved...” (IFOAM website)
In Taiwan, the Association of Taiwan Organic Agriculture Promotion (ATAOP) has assumed the task of regulating and promoting both domestic organic farming practices and imported organic products. Standards and regulations are a difficult hurdle for producers in the transition to organic agriculture: getting certified can be a long, expensive and arduous process for farmers.
In the case of the Farmers in Jianshi Township, many have adopted organic farming practices yet are still not officially certified as organic by the relevant governing bodies. Furthermore, their method of organic farming has been influenced by a technique called “Korean Natural Farming,” which makes use of local microbes. For these reasons, their current production is often referred to as “natural farming” or “Indigenous Natural Farming”
while the phenomenon discussed in this research is referred to as the
“transition to organic farming” as Organic certification is the goal of their hard work.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
13 1.4 Research Questions
Looked at within the theoretical context of “Alternative Economic Spaces” and
“Alternative Food Networks,” focusing on the work of the Jianshi Farmers’ Academy, what are the meanings, motivations and experiences of local participants in the shift to organic farming in Jianshi Township and how does it contribute to thinking about AES and AFN?
1. What is the history and context of the founding of the Farmers’ Academy and Dream-weaving group?
a. Historical, cultural, economic, geographic context
2. Why are the participants promoting the transition to organic farming?
a. What are the material benefits of such transition? (i.e. more secure, value-added product, environmental protection)
b. What are the “non-material” motivations? (i.e. fits better with cultural ethics, aids community cohesion through labour and knowledge sharing, supports local autonomy, keeps young adults in the area, supports
traditional water-sharing culture, bolsters local pride. Aspects outside the purview of orthodox development thinking)
i. What are local values relating to agricultural development? (i.e.
nature/culture dualism, traditional crops/ relationship between production and conservation)
ii. What are the priorities of the participants? (i.e. what are the main goals, ideas about the ‘good-life.’)
iii. What is the symbolic meaningfulness?
3. Relating to the concept of alterity: What is the nature of the participants’
interpretation of the mainstream society and economy or “conventional food chains?”
a. What criticisms, rejections or negotiations of a mainstream system are implied, how is this framed/experienced by participants?
b. How is the mainstream system represented? In terms of mediums and symbols.
c. What aspects of the mainstream system do case participants reject, criticize, accept, negotiate, internalize? Why? (i.e. industrial agriculture techniques are criticized, are actions seen as overly individualistic, whereas certain
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
14
outside technologies, medicines, music and clothing seem to be more accepted)
d. What are the wider goals of the participants? i.e How do the participants interpret their project as interacting or impacting the rest of the world?
(Through previous observations, research has indicated that members of the Farmers’ Academy situate their actions in a global paradigm of
environmentalism and pan-indigeneity, this area of questioning aims to explore how, why and to what extent they hope to impact global issues)
i. To what extent do participants hope to undermine the mainstream system? Are impacts mainly intended to be local with outside support?
ii. How to interact with outside world? Through expansion of organic agriculture, academic discussion, knowledge sharing, local example?
4. How does the case relate to, support and/or adapt the theories of “Alternative Economic Spaces” and “Alternative Food Networks” in terms of a conscious attempt to create livelihoods that run on different principles from those in the mainstream?” i.e. inclusive of other values of ecology, community, tradition…
rather than rational self-interest, individualism, profit.
a. How? To what extent? With what implications for these theories?
1.5 Methodology
1.5.1 Methods
The main sources of information for this research have been conversation with community members in the research area, observation of daily life and community events, and, most informative, the reports and presentations by members of the Dream Weaving Foundation and Farmers’ Academy themselves. The members of the
organizations are very aware of the importance of presenting their work on their own terms, in fact these skills, the ability to report on successes, plans and motivations, are part of the capacity building that is central to their efforts. Thus, much of the
information used in this research comes from presentations made by members at various workshops and gatherings that I, with the help of Chen Yi-chieh and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
15
Catherine Xu, have translated into English. These presentations involved
sophisticated use of technology (PowerPoint, video, projectors, graphics, maps, GIS), academic terminology and strategic inclusion of local language and self-definition.
For personal, qualitative reflections on the meaning of their work, I found short documentaries in a series by Qinghua University to be very helpful. For whatever reason, those interviewed in the films shared their feelings more openly in this medium than they did in conversation with me. Of course, previous academic writing on the area and some news articles were very helpful. While my plan was to ask questions in “in-depth interview” style, I found it difficult to make participants (and myself!) feel comfortable, for this reason much of my time spent in the field involved more informal conversation and participation observation in daily life and special events. While not the original plan, I actually found this method quite illuminating.
1.5.2 Analysis
This research has found that there are particular values being expressed, interpreted and preserved through the economic choices of the community and the “Alternative Economic Space” they are working to create. In the “Analysis and Discussion”
section of this work, these values are listed and analyzed with examples from the above-mentioned sources. This research focuses on the local meaning and significance of local cultural values and how they are expressed and interpreted through economic strategies, a qualitative, discursive analysis that tries to reflect local perspectives on the issues is employed. This research endeavors to present this local perspective and interpret it in terms of its significance to global thinking on economic and social development.
1.5.3 Ethical Considerations
From the outset, this research has not intended to be critical of the efforts of the participants in the research area. It was always intended to try to understand and present their perspective as best could be understood and presented by an outsider.
While there are unlikely to be any ethical issues impacting participants in this study, it is important to consider that, while very vocal and involved, they are not the only members of the community and there are others who have chosen not to participate in these actions, perhaps it is limited to assume that they speak on the behalf of their whole communities. Even if they have very positive, long-term, inclusive intentions,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
it must be assumed that there are other perspectives that this research has failed to include.
1.6 Research Limitations
This research has many limitations, some of which are common in Anthropological study such as language, which was an issue at every step despite the patient and generous help of many. This is part of the reason why the afore-mentioned short documentary films were so helpful: lots of time could be spent carefully translating and discussing the participants’ answers. Also as mentioned above, gaining a rapport was difficult. The people in the research area are incredibly friendly, generous and outgoing, but sometimes other than in set, academic situations were a bit hesitant to answer my more general questions about their cultural values, perhaps because they were unsure about speaking on behalf of their whole community: there is a strong traditional of egalitarianism and consensus-building. Probably with better language ability and time contributing to more carefully considered interview questions this research could have overcome these difficulties.
Another difficulty encountered in doing research is that the area is a few hours’ drive from Taipei, where I live and work. When I visited, unless I got a ride, I would take a bus, subway, three trains and then rely on a local person to pick me up and take me up the mountains, and then I also must rely on them for food and shelter.
A testament to the kindness and generosity of people in the community: all of these things were never hard to procure. However, it did mean that I was at the mercy of whoever I was staying with, mostly Sayun. Though I had expected to spend more time working on the farm to earn my stay and learn about that work, mostly we traveled around the area visiting people and chatting. While I can of course only be incredibly grateful that Sayun brought me along for this, and also recognize that this was not just for my benefit and in fact her important job with the group, it was unexpected and sometimes left me feeling uncomfortable that I was not contributing enough in return for their generosity.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
17
2. Theoretical Considerations
2.1 Overview
The purpose of this research is to analyze the local meanings and experiences of Atayal Indigenous Peoples in North-Central Taiwan in their attempt to promote economic development in their community through a transition to organic farming.
This research situates their efforts in the broader contexts of “Alternative Food
Networks” (AFN) and “Alternative Economic Spaces” (AES) but focuses attention on the local meanings, motivations and significance of such efforts. By showing that the case does in fact represent an expression of “alternative” development goals and actions, it is then situated in the larger issue of development studies (Alternative Development) and global economic thinking which has, in the past (this being a contribution to a growing body of critical analysis), embodied a set of universalizing, ethnocentric assumptions about the goals, principles and assumptions of development.
This research attempts to support a more nuanced approach to human betterment that includes a greater number of voices, perspectives and values.
2.2 Literature Review
2.2.1 Alterity and Alternative Economic Spaces
Central to this research are the concepts of Alterity and “Alternative Economic Spaces” (AES) Alterity is important in terms of a self-defined concept of being different or marginalized, often but not always related to indigeneity. The people of Jianshi see their alterity not just in terms of ethnicity, but as an active culture with values that are different from those of the mainstream society in Taiwan. Furthermore they are applying these different values and perspectives towards creating alternative forms of economic development, farming methods, charity work and ecological conservation, not least in that they do not compartmentalize these aspects of their work but rather take a holistic approach.
AES, according to Fuller et. al. (2010), are “the performance and enactment of economies… through socio-spatial relations and networks that are to a greater or lesser degree distant or disengaged from global capitalism and the system of territorial states” (p. 2). This definition, of course, still leaves room for much diversity in the forms, motivations and philosophies that may create AES. For
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
18
example, while some groups may consciously create economic spaces with the overt rejection of (their perception of) the capitalist system, how does this apply to more nuanced initiatives? The AES concept is developed by Fuller et al. as an extension of Gibson-Graham’s model of a “Diverse Economy” (2006). They argue that AES reflect a diversity of exchange relations, social networks, forms of collective action and human experiences in different places and regions.
Gibson-Graham draws on political economy, post-structuralism and radical feminism to, on the one hand, point out that there are many economic actions, motivations and relations within capitalist economies which are not typically
recognized in conventional economics, such as gifting, women’s unpaid labour, etc.
and, on the other hand, the concept of self-conscious and intentional activities that undermine and criticize the mainstream capitalist economy. Thus the model of the diverse economy, upon which the concept of AES rests, is one that embraces the diversity of human economic experiences both within and between economies and does away with overly simplistic dichotomies. Having said that, Gibson-Graham does offer a chart that visually organizes the diversity of types of economic behaviours and organization (see figure 1).
Figure 1 –
A Diverse Economy (Gibson-Graham 2006)Thus AES, as the name implies, represent forms of socio-economic organization that posit themselves as outside or at the margins of the mainstream economic and social system. There are two main themes in the approach to studying
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
19
AES: recovering and revealing aspects of human economic interaction that lie outside the homogenizing uniformity of globalization. The recovering aspect refers to delving deeper into human relations within a capitalist society to show the hidden
non-capitalist relationships, values or transactions that have always been there. The revealing side refers to Gibson-Graham’s call for cases, narratives, models, and projects of that are examples of non-capitalist or alternative-capitalist development.
This research can be seen as a contribution to the latter.
A key contributing concept for Gibson-Graham’s diverse economy that is exceedingly relevant to this work is Arturo Escobar’s (1995) poststructuralist critique of a “capitalcentric” model of development, which will be further outlined below in
A key contributing concept for Gibson-Graham’s diverse economy that is exceedingly relevant to this work is Arturo Escobar’s (1995) poststructuralist critique of a “capitalcentric” model of development, which will be further outlined below in