It has been quite an interesting experience living in Peru these past several weeks. I have met many women and men, spent much time in the market, and traveled to many interesting areas that have shared their ways of life with me. I have learned a lot. As simplistic as that statement may be, it is the truth. I have seen, smelled, heard, and lived part of the Peruvian experience. I have laughed with people, learned about their lives, and read about their problems. The Andes are an incredibly beautiful place and the people amazingly friendly and giving. Their struggles for independence, freedom from poverty, and for food security are not so much different than people elsewhere in this world. This is why it is important to understand the connections between these things, between other worlds, and with ourselves. I believe that we have a lot to learn from Peru: government supported urban agriculture initiatives, creative market women, and an incredible sustainable, biodiverse food security program run by a collective of indigenous farmers, for starters. Yet, underneath all of this is the people's incredible persistence and will to survive in dignified ways. Ultimately, a true food secure system anywhere in this world rests on those principles: persistence and dignified survival. This is why it is so important to understand sustainability, to appreciate local cultures, and to live in contextualized ways.
For my final thoughts I have decided to discuss an article by Harriett Friedmann, "Remaking “Traditions”: How We Eat, What We Eat, and the Changing Political Economy of Food," (from one of my favorite books, Women Working the NAFTA Food Chain: Women, Food, and Globalization). Friedmann discusses the importance of really understanding what the word "tradition" entails. She claims that "People use the word “traditional” to name what they are used to. This word allows us to avoid thinking about how, when and why our patterns of work, trade, and family life came to be." Instead of understanding exactly how patterns of being unfolded, such as how gendered relationships in Peru stem from colonization, we instead label them "traditional" and try to adhere to them as we see culturally fit. She argues that “Every “tradition” was once constructed. Today we are experiencing rapid and comprehensive change. If we simply use the word “nontraditional” to name changes, we miss the opportunity to ask questions about the history of “traditions” that are changing." If we do not ask questions, if we do not see how traditions that were previously constructed can now change, then how can we ever shape the future for better? How can we actively create better traditions? The point is, we cannot. And a starting point for understanding what we need to do and what we need to change comes from understanding the complexity behind the notion of traditions.
As far as the resistance part of this goes, it is simply that we can re-examine traditions and learn from them. Learn from our own, and learn from others, so that we may build successful resistance to the undermining of our food security. Such examples as the urban agriculture initiatives, Parque de la Papa, and market women's incredible craftiness at survival serve to show us how we can change and what types of alternatives we have available to us. It is important to learn from such initiatives and to be able to apply them in the local, contextualized ways that Desai has mentioned (discussed in the previous post). Scattered resistances, it seems, will be the ultimate tool in the creation of true, food security systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment