18 Mar But who cares….part 2

I’ve been thinking long and hard about the exclusionary nature of social movements. A friend of mine recently worked with a group that helped to create a Free Farmer’s Market in San Francisco. I was so proud of him and everything he had accomplished, but as we began to speak about politics of poverty, he switched from a conversation about wanting people to have access to healthy food to “those people” deserving the kind of surveillance that is endemic in low-income neighborhoods. Last night, when relaying the conversation to another friend, he blurted out, “They deserve to be surveilled – they’re thugs and they rape and murder.” This, after talking about opening co-ops in low-income neighborhoods.
How does this relate? There is a new elitism (or is it an extension of an already existing elitism?) that points to the “rightness” of those supposing to know the superior moral and ethical way of being. In doing so, there is an automatic shutting out of those not in this knowing, thus strangling the possibility of reflexiveness, or political process of open and continuous discussion. There is an exclusion that is built from the already possessing the political will to make changes, to make “a difference.” Which brings me to a whole new ground (and kind of back to an earlier conversation that we had in seminar) – is it enough to only be interested in our particular social movement? Is it possible to be socially conscious about one particular aspect of living (in this case, food) without also recognizing and taking on the bigger issues that have gotten us to this point? While Dupuis and Goodman are concerned about the unreflexive politics of food, I find myself more and more concerned about the unreflexive politics of politics. Politics has become the purview of the white middle and upper classes. If we really want to get dirty – it is almost like there has been a re-pairing of class movements – the middle class working on issues that are supposedly “humbling” and “back to the earth” (read: working class). It’s worn as a badge of honor. I sound bitter.
Could this also be what happened to union-movements? the forcing of “right” politics on those who “just don’t know better?” What seems to really be missing is a political knowledge-base, an understanding of both RIGHTs and RESPONSIBILITIES and the abilities inherent in being a consumer and a citizen, but then, does this exclude non-citizens? How do we move from the do-good and possibly good-doing of well-meaning “food movementists” as an exclusionary club of middle-class white folks to something more embracing and encouraging? Obviously, people like Will Allen are a great start – but do we have to rely on food super heroes? Do the food movementists have responsibilities greater than simply trying to move to local foodism to fight against the kinds of structural inequalities that make it less possible for certain populations to engage in the food localization process? What is the responsibility of those with the luxury to “fight for change”? Dupuis and Goodman must have been hanging out with my friends, lately.
I think the neoliberal aspect of governmentality of food speaks to a shift in understanding what the actual social movement IS. Rather than this being a social movement of control – could it become one of rights? And if we shift the focus to rights – right TO food, right to food sovereignty, right to healthful living, then food localization cannot be just about the production and consumption of food, but of the totality of social ills that manifest not just in food, but in health, education, economics, etc.
In my arguments over the past few months with people (my goodness, how does anyone ever put up with having grad-student-friends? We’re quite the party poopers!), I’ve begun to realize that the deeper issue is the lack of education about political power. People lack political will because they lack the sensibility of privilege, the spare time to engage, the knowledge of political action. And as we begin to lose the interest of people in exercising their citizenship, we also lose more rights and fail to fulfill responsibilities.
But how do you acknowledge “all eating – like all human action – is imperfect and contradictory” without accepting it? Yes, eating is messy and contradictory – right eating isn’t a single way – but there is a whole other aspect of food politics which has to do with lack of access to HEALTHY foods to certain populations. Acknowledging this closed-ness is important, but it is far more important to acknowledge the inaccessibility, no?
If politics of place is performativity of the place in relation to the globalized world – does that mean that it is the performance of the expectations of that place? The inscribing of a particular political personality, as it were? Politics in place has more to do with the recognition of the ever-changing positionality of the place at multiple scales and in different formations, the place’s own identity always in contestation along with its placeMENT in global politics. Did I get that right?
In critiques of the “buy local” movement is a missing piece that is important, is that goods bought locally also means that more money is going back into the local economy. When you shop locally, 45 cents returns to your community whereas, when you buy from corporations less than 14 cents goes back into the local community – this means schools, roads, and other public goods. Not to mention jobs…this “patriotism” is very much tied to growing local economy and public goods.