Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

“We do this because the market demands it”: alternative meat production and the speciesist logic

“We do this because the market demands it”: alternative meat production and the speciesist logic The past decades’ substantial growth in globalized meat consumption continues to shape the international political economy of food and agriculture. This political economy of meat composes a site of contention; in Brazil, where livestock produc- tion is particularly thriving, large agri-food corporations are being challenged by alternative food networks. This article analyzes experiential and experimental accounts of such an actor—a collectivized pork cooperative tied to Brazil’s Landless Movement—which seeks to navigate the political economy of meat. The ethnographic case study documents these livestock farmers’ ambiguity towards complying with the capitalist commodification process, required by the intensifying meat mar - ket. Moreover, undertaking an intersectional approach, the article theorizes how animal-into-food commodification in turn depends on the speciesist logic, a normative human/non-human divide that endorses the meat commodity. Hence the article demonstrates how alternative food networks at once navigate confines of capitalist commodification and the speciesist logic that impels the political economy of meat. Keywords Livestock revolution · Alternative food networks · Political economy of meat · Brazil’s landless movement · MST · Commodification · Speciesism · Animal liberation · Political intersectionality · Intersectional resistance The political economy of meat and alternative arrangements for producing, distributing and consuming food (Friedmann and McNair 2008; McMi- A most dynamic phenomenon has arisen in the international chael 2008; Campbell 2009). With the globalized tendency political economy of food and agriculture; globalized meat of expanding meat consumption and production—and its consumption is booming, the livestock sector is expanding. entailed social conflicts—we here recognize a political The global average of yearly consumed meat has grown economy of meat. substantially, from 23 kg/capita in 1961 to 43 kg/capita in Scholarly research seems to mirror the defining, conten- 2013. ‘Emerging economies’ like China and Brazil (though tious feature of that political economy of meat. On the one not India) carry the strongest consumption increase. At the hand, rural development scholars welcome the dramatic same time we see how Europe and especially the United rise in global meat consumption as “the next food revolu- States remain the fiercest meat consumers on the planet, tion” (Delgado et al. 1999). The key argument here is that while low meat consumption continues to define food habits livestock farming provides high net income (Kaufmann and in the world’s ‘least developed countries’ (Rae and Nayga Fitzhugh 2005; Nin et al. 2007), which means that small- 2010; see also; Pica-Ciamarra and Otte 2011; FAOSTAT scale farmers in ‘developing countries’ are now offered sig- 2018). This observable trend typifies the international politi- nificant economic opportunities (Delgado et al. 2003; Hall cal economy of food and agriculture (Fine 1994; Koç et al. et al. 2004). This “pathway from poverty” is particularly 2017), an intricate nexus of global trade relations compris- paved by large agri-food corporations that connect small- ing a most contentious feature—conflict between corporate holders to previously unreachable global markets (Brown 2003; Waldron et al. 2003). On the other hand, critical schol- ars have disclosed how small-scale farmers, vertically inte- * Markus Lundström grated into agri-food corporations, have become alarmingly markus.lundstrom@ekohist.su.se dependent (Heffernan 2004); unable to afford the required Department of Economic History, Stockholm University, technical upgrading, livestock smallholders, marginalized Universitetsvägen 10A, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 128 M. Lundström from other marketing options, often end up severely indebted an advanced alternative food network—in our case Brazil’s (Khan and Bidabadi 2004; Millar and Photakoun 2008; Landless Movement—relates the logic of speciesism to its Lundström 2011). To cope with these undesired social out- applied, political intersectionality. comes, scholars viewing livestock production as poverty alleviation here concede to cooperative solutions, predicting that “smallholder livestock farming in developing countries Political intersectionality will be driven by collective action” (Narrod et al. 2010). By acknowledging resistance from agrarian social move- This article maps the political economy of meat by analyzing ments, the dynamic consumption of food animals, defining speciesism’s location in intersectional resistance struggles, the political economy of meat, therefore becomes an inher- often conceptualized as political intersectionality, through ently political affair (Williams 1999; Neo and Emel 2017). an empirical case study of a collectivized pig farm, linked to The critical food studies field, emblematically focused on a most iconic agrarian social movement, one of the strong- that precise vibrancy of politicized foodways, have come to est advocates for food sovereignty: Brazil’s Landless Rural document a variety of social struggles for food sovereignty, Workers’ Movement (MST). As we will see in the empirical organized searches for political and economic autonomy analysis, MST typifies an alternative food network seeking across the food chain (Patel 2010; Ayres and Bosia 2011; to enact political intersectionality, while at the same time Riches and Silvasti 2014). This line of research has, in navigating the political economy of meat. order to capture the agency behind these heterodox political The notion of political intersectionality, or intersectional economies, increasingly come to study how alternative food resistance, stems from the feminist school that in the early networks (AFN’s) bridge the consumption-production divide 1990s began theorizing the interlocked workings of sexism of globalized capitalism (Renting et al. 2003; Goodman et al. and racism, under a capitalist political economy. Over the 2012). The AFN conceptualization aims to transcend nar- years, intersectional theory has not only been used to expose row foci on re-localized foodways (Wald and Hill 2016), interlinked logics of domination, but also to comprehend mere value-adding in alternative food production (Blum- how resistance is articulated against that multiplication berg 2018) and contextually disembodied views on ethical of oppressions. Intersectionality scholars here distinguish consumption (Grasseni 2013). Hence the notion of alterna- between structural intersectionality, the wickerwork of inter- tive food networks carries decisive, political implications. linked power structures, and political intersectionality as Reflecting the contentious dynamic of the political economy the compound, many-faced resistance struggles against these of food and agriculture, the AFN conceptualization typi- entangled axis of power (Crenshaw 1991). The notion of fies prefigurative searches for autonomy, vis-à-vis hegem- political intersectionality thus aims to capture the “reshap- onic foodways (Lang and Heasman 2004; McMichael 2009; ing modes of resistance beyond allegedly universal, single- Wilson 2016). Aside from their ideological fuel (Sage 2003; axis approaches” (Cho et  al. 2013, p.  800). In this vein, Forssell and Lankoski 2015), alternative food networks usu- social movement scholars have accordingly come to docu- ally emerge to cope with harsh, economic realities (Gordon ment collective action that articulate—at the intersection and Chatterton 2004; Grasseni 2013; Rakopoulos 2014). of resistance—a variety of socio-political struggles (Oke- Given the conflictual dynamics of globalized meat pro- chukwu 2014; Davis 2016; Daum 2017). Hence the notion duction, it becomes particularly topical to study how an of political intersectionality aptly applies to agrarian move- agrarian social movement—an alternative food network ments that, in their cultivation of alternative foodways, con- advocating food sovereignty—navigates the contentious sciously entwine politico-economic struggles for autonomy political economy of meat. In this article, we will begin and equality. mapping that uneven topography by specifically explor - But intersectional theory also offers an analytical lens ing how capitalist commodification of animal-derived for comprehending how the innate logic of speciesism oper- foods intersects with the logic of speciesism, the norma- ates through the political economy of meat. In the research tive divide between human and non-human animals that field of critical animal studies, scholars have come to include underpins meat production. As suggested in the following speciesism in analyzes of interlocked workings of domina- section, an intersectional analysis through the social move- tion under capitalism (Nibert 2002; DeMello 2012). With ment lens—focused on the ramifications of alternative meat the notion of intersectionality, critical animal studies have production—arguably captures the elusive nature of the documented how the speciesist operative—that of social speciesist logic. Through an empirical case study, we will differentiation—intersects with the logic of racism (Svärd then see how that peculiar silence, the invisibility of specie- 2014; Monteiro et al. 2017; Olivier and Cordeiro-Rodrigues sism, impregnates an alternative food network that otherwise 2017), as well as sexism (Adams 2010; Rothgerber 2013; engages in intersected struggles for autonomy and equal- Allcorn and Ogletree 2018). Guided by the intersectional ity. In this regard the concluding discussion addresses how approach, the human-animal nexus has been exposed as a 1 3 “We do this because the market demands it”: alternative meat production and the speciesist logic 129 normalized, yet highly unequal, and exploitative, social rela- the commodification of meat. At the most extreme stage tion (Cudworth 2014; Nocella et al. 2014; Wyckoff 2015). of this animal-into-food transformation—in the modern Accordingly, social movement scholars have documented slaughterhouse—workers tend to nurture a social distanc- how the Animal Liberation Movement actively seeks to link ing to cope with violent labor practices (Smith 2002; Dil- its critique of speciesism to parallel struggles against sexism, lard 2008; Baran et al. 2016). Quite similarly, Rhoda Wilkie racism and capitalism (Johnston and Johnston 2017; von (2010) documents how livestock farmers develop emotional Essen and Allen 2017), a collective resistance that becomes detachment towards their food animals, a detachment expo- notably enacted through conscious, dietary refusals to con- nential to the level of involvement in the meat commodifica- sume animal-derived food products (Hamilton 2016; DeLes- tion process. Livestock farmers constantly need to negotiate sio-Parson 2017; Glover 2017). this “fine perceptual line”, as Rhoda Wilkie (Wilkie 2010, From this intersectional point of view, sexism is identified p. 182) puts it, “of seeing animals as both economic com- as particularly informative to the speciesist logic; human modities and sentient beings.” And it is that precise balanc- othering of non-human animals mirrors a relational setup ing act we find at MST’s collectivized pig farm in Southern akin to the objectifying logic of sexism (MacKinnon 2004; Brazil. McWeeny 2014; Adams 2016). That objectifying, speciesist logic informs, I would argue, a most fundamental working of the political economy of meat: the transformation of cattle, Confines of alternative pork production pigs and chickens into food commodities (Torres 2007; Neo and Emel 2017). This process of commodification, the mak - Brazil is a key player in the international political economy ing of market commodities for value extraction, famously of meat. Besides having the second largest cattle herd in the identified by Marx as a key function in the capitalist mode of world, it has recently emerged as a leading national producer production, is arguably a linchpin of the globalized political of poultry and now also pig meat. Furthermore, as we can economy of meat. Food animals are commodified to gen- see in Table 1, Brazilian meats have become high-ranked, erate profit, rather than food (Gunderson 2013 ), which in export commodities in the World Economy. turn requires normalizing notions to establish non-human This incredibly fast-growing meat sector has been par- animals as precisely as property (Francione 2004), the most ticularly intense in Southern Brazil (Florit and Sbardelati fundamental requirement for commodity exchange. Capi- 2016). And precisely here, in this hotbed of the political talist commodification of meat accordingly depends on an economy of meat, we also find an articulate agrarian social anthropocentric understanding of the human/non-human movement that actively seeks to navigate that economic divide (Morton 2017), a psychosocial process by which we reality. Brazil’s Landless Movement (Movimento dos Tra- differentiate between, and then assign certain values to, the balhadores Rurais Sem Terra—MST) was forged in this variety of non-human animals (Joy 2010; Cudworth 2011; agrarian context nearly four decades ago. It was actually Dowsett et al. 2018). By acknowledging how humans value, the cattle ranches of Northern Rio Grande do Sul that were classify and conceptualize non-human flesh as edible food, first targeted by the emergent landless movement, occupied a process indeed variegated and contextually embedded by rural workers who firmly believed they, if settled, would (Chiles and Fitzgerald 2018), we may very well diagnose increase the productive output with enhanced food quality speciesism—the hierarchical divide between human and (Medeiros 2012). Forty years later we find that very same non-human animals—as an innate logic that propels inten- movement, now including experienced small-scale farmers, sifying commodification of meat. The logic of speciesism organized in producer cooperatives to advance their food arguably denotes, as John Sanbonmatsu (2011, p. 21) puts sovereignty. Quite tellingly, the contemporary organizational it, “a complex, dynamic, expansive system that is materially basis for Brazil’s Landless Movement, at least in Southern and ideologically imbricated with capitalism as such.” Brazil, is now producer cooperatives rather than geographi- At the same time, the speciesist logic seems to have this cal MST-sites. elusive character; it is rarely exposed, evaded even by social movements enacting political intersectionality. Carol Adams Table 1 Brazilian meat production and export quantity (million tons), (2016, p. 24) has famously theorized how food animals and world ranking, in 2013. Source: FAOSTAT (2018) become “an absent referent”: when speaking about meat as Production Export food, the actual animal, this complex and unique individual being, is peculiarly unrecognized. In this vein, Melanie Joy MT Rank MT Rank (2010, p. 30) argues that the anthropocentric gaze—viewing Bovine 9.68 # 2 1.68 # 1 animal flesh as edible food—depends on a “belief system Poultry 12.49 # 3 3.98 # 2 in which eating certain animals is ethical and appropriate.” Pig 3.12 # 6 0.61 # 9 Such an intricate belief system also informs, I would argue, 1 3 130 M. Lundström As a key member of the global peasant movement Via (Schneider and Niederle 2010), as being more autonomous Campesina, MST is not only a collaborate architect of the than rural workers and tenant farmers. At the same time, food sovereignty concept; Brazil’s Landless Movement also interviewed MST participants also portrayed structural, typifies the image of a politically holistic, alternative food economic confines to the promise of cooperativism. The network. For MST participants, food sovereignty seems to procedure of vertical integration, especially applicable in align with their search for autonomy or, as a key MST coor- the capital intensive soy sector, was reflected upon with dinator puts it, the struggle of “communities of the people caution. MST-farmers here described, on the one hand, to construct their own destiny” (Itelvina Masioli, quoted how collective work increased their economic autonomy, in Wittman 2010, p. 34). This search for autonomy is, as I although they, on the other hand, had no real option than have argued elsewhere (Lundström 2017), quite formative to approach large-scale soy corporations to establish reli- for Brazil’s Landless Movement. MST’s search for auton- able distribution channels. When I specifically asked about omy refers not only to the state, or allied political parties, this precarious situation, interviewed MST-farmers replied, rural labor unions, and supportive factions of the Catholic with notable ideological frustration, that vertical integration Church; autonomy also signifies, especially for settled MST- with soybean corporations was a mere economic necessity; participants, independence from agri-food corporations. it meant reliable market access. The interviewees portrayed Hence, MST-participants typically struggle for economic a no-escape situation, an economic reality that eventually self-determination, to reap the fruits of their own labor, required submission to, as they so often came to put it, “the becoming their own bosses. In order to facilitate and propel capitalist logic.” mutual aid between small-scale farmers, they have set up a The very same confines—of collective attempts to elabo - number of collective producer cooperatives, in which labor rate alternative food production—were described by farmers and revenues are equally divided among cooperative mem- trying to navigate the political economy of meat. In order bers (Fabrini 2003; Lazzaretti 2007; Thomaz 2015). As we to document these experiences more closely, I spent a good shall see, these cooperatives are typically understood, by the part of my field study at one of MST’s pork producing members themselves, as micro-scale examples of alternative cooperatives in Southern Brazil. This particular setting was food production. selected due to its positive recognition within the Landless Movement; it is frequently depicted as an example of an “But we cannot escape the workings of capitalism” organizational rigor that allows for both political radicalism and economic sustainability. To study how these politicized In 2012–2013 I had the opportunity to conduct ethnographic farmers navigate the political economy of meat, I recurrently research in Southern Brazil, attending a variety of MST- visited this MST site, taking part in the daily work as a par- activities: everyday agricultural labor, collective meals, ticipant observer, conducting informal interviews as well as festivals, school lessons, youth and women conferences, formalized, in-depth interviews with the cooperative lead- settlement inaugurations, demonstrations and occupations. ership, along with, as we will see exemplified below, focus Along with this participant observation, I interviewed group interviews. The focus group method was chosen to approximately 100 MST-participants, both individually specifically capture collective, political reflection—and its and in focus group settings. My book The Making of Resist- entailed silences (Wilkinson 2008). In my particular search ance: Brazil’s Landless Movement and Narrative Enact- for reflections on the speciesist logic, I combined moder - ment (Lundström 2017) contains a historiographic analysis ated focus groups, semi-structured by a thematic interview extracted from these field notes, interviews, and from MST’s guide (Morgan 1988; Krueger and Casey 2000), with infor- internal newspaper between 1981 and 2013. This article, mal group discussions that naturally came about through my however, presents a different set of findings; it focuses on temporary participation in the meat production. Through this MST’s experiential navigating of the political economy of ethnographic approach, I hence came in contact with nearly meat in Southern Brazil. all members of the MST pork cooperative. Throughout my ethnographic field work, I soon found Fifteen years before I visited this MST-site, the farm land how MST-participants were referring to cooperativism as had been part of a huge ranch, owned by one family only. an anti-capitalist practice, consciously activated to restrain Landless rural workers, organized under the MST-banner, commodification of human labor. Interviewees depicted began occupying the ranch, claiming the land instead for how the autonomous small-scale farmer—in control of pro- plentiful families. After years of intense struggle, evic- duction, manufacturing and marketing—targets the central tions and repercussions, state officials eventually legalized social relation of capitalism: the exploitative wage labor. By the claim of the Sem Terra; the land was expropriated and organizing production through various forms of coopera- divided between the hundred families that now had become tion, MST participants described themselves, as do many settled, small-scale farmers. In this process, some 30 fami- small-scale farmers experimenting with cooperativism lies chose to merge their lands to facilitate cooperative 1 3 “We do this because the market demands it”: alternative meat production and the speciesist logic 131 production of grains and legumes. But on their collective also express an ideological frustration of submitting to land the MST settlers also encountered an abandoned pig the very “capitalist logic” which they so characteristically pen, along with a minor slaughterhouse. The new-founded struggle against. In the following interview excerpt, from a cooperative soon decided to incorporate pork into their focus group interview with five cooperative members (self- collective, agricultural portfolio. They began to breed and identified as male and female, aged between 17 and 62), we slaughter pigs, initially on a small, subsistent level, but soon discern that precise ambivalence: succeeded to scale up the stock and process facilities. Marcela: Some things we’re doing within capital- These MST-farmers now run a collectivized pork coop- ism. But our work is different. It’s collective, it’s not erative; labor and surplus are equally divided between the me alone. You see, capitalism has always reinforced cooperative members. Participants meet on a daily basis at the ego, it’s about me, what I want. But we have been their collective lunch, and attend weekly meetings and fes- pushing the question of organic production, instead tivities. The cooperative members typically rotate between of monocultures. We have always emphasized ‘never the various work sectors: breeding and slaughter of pigs, stop at just one area of production’. Because today, grain and legumes production, collective child care, kitchen if our cooperative agrees, we’ll never stop at the pri- activities and cooperative administration. Surplus is distrib- mary material, we’ll proceed with manufacturing. We uted on a monthly basis, according to labored hours in any of would never leave production, because the primary these sectors. The cooperative organization orbits these same material means resistance, it means autonomy. This work sectors; discussions and decision-making are enacted is one aspect of our organization here. Another is the in de-centralized, work-sector settings, independently elect- social, which is important. We have our own childcare, ing coordinators that, on a 2-year basis, constitute the coop- where we all work, where we all have the opportunity erative’s rotating leadership. “We are not some corporation, to work. The youth remain here on the land with us. with bosses and all; here we all take responsibility”, one of It’s not that we, the parents, capitalize while the youth the cooperative members explains. is left with nothing. We are distributing the surplus Production of pork meat comprises a substantial part of among us. We have everything for our existence right the MST-cooperative. Around 1000 pigs are continuously here with us. But we cannot escape the workings of held for breeding, and some 100 pigs are daily slaughtered capitalism, because of our pork production. (including a slaughter service offered to local pig holders). The cooperative’s pork meat is finally cut and sold at the Natália: Because the cooperative has the character of local butcher’s shop, a distribution channel described by a corporation. It´s different in its logic, but the produc- cooperative members as an intentional market choice. Since tion, the logic of selling, is the same as within capital- the large, corporate meat processors dominate metropolitan ism. You cannot escape this is if you want to survive. and international markets, the MST pork cooperative pre- For people to survive, there is no way to escape. But fers this alternative foodway to guarantee product quality, our cooperative, for sure, has a distinct role in society. but also to secure their economic autonomy. “You see”, Fernanda: It has this whole structure, a different one of the coordinators explains, “otherwise we would be organization, a mode of production that is already dif- completely dependent on the meat corporations. They alone ferentiated. benefit from all their rules and standards. We’ve not been struggling for our piece of land, and creating this coopera- Bruno: Any piece of machinery, everything that you tive, only to become dependent on the big corporations.” buy, it’s all capitalism. Most of it, everything that is At the same time, this limited market access, disabling beautiful; it all goes to the big corporations. the cooperative’s meat commodity to reach larger consumer Fernanda: And at the same time there is nothing you groups, also restrains and thereby threatens the economic can do. You live in a system that is capitalistic. But you sustainability of the pork cooperative. Interviewees portray can have a different logic, another opinion. We have a conflictual situation in which alternative foodways oper - another way of life, but we cannot escape totally. You ate alongside—albeit confined by—the political economy of sell, you buy, what else can you do? meat. In other words, the politicized, collective and horizon- tally organized pork cooperative, opting for local distribu- In this focus group discussion, participants collectively tion channels, clearly qualifies as an alternative food network construe the producer cooperative as an alternative to capi- that seeks to navigate the political economy of meat. And talist social relations, albeit operating within its economic very much in line with the scholarly recognition that AFN’s logic. The pork cooperative is portrayed as a prefigurative, are not quite so neatly separated from—but rather asymmet- alternative foodway, contrasted against—yet also confined rically competitive to—conventional foodways (Sonnino and by—the “workings of capitalism.” On the one hand, these Marsden 2006), these politicized smallholders of livestock livestock smallholders speak of economic autonomy, how 1 3 132 M. Lundström their cooperative carves out a space of self-determination, 2007). MST has participated in the broad, alter-globalization which allows them to work collectively and share their movement (Karriem and Benjamin 2016) and more recently surplus equally. On the other hand, they also find it nec- in urban, radical-democracy mobilizations (Vanden 2014). essary to comply with a dominant market logic: they have Furthermore, and perhaps most notably, Brazil’s Landless to produce and distribute a commodity that is compatible Movement has quite actively adopted an explicit, feminist with the political economy of meat, the very economic real- agenda, seeking to restrain social tendencies of male domi- ity these MST-farmers find themselves located in. And this nation (Silva 2004; Naase 2009). But MST’s political con- exact commodification process also entails, as we shall see, text also contains a fast-growing Animal Liberation Move- additional contention. The commodification process, at the ment (Levai 2013; Barboza 2017; Freire 2017), one that heart of the political economy of meat, compels livestock has been particularly active in southern Brazil (Carbornar smallholders to negotiate everyday, routinized transforma- de Souza 2016). However, disregarding the human-animal tions from animals into food, flesh into meat, and in our issue raised by this neighboring social movement, MST’s case, pigs into pork. political intersectionality yet evades the intricate question of non-human exploitation. During my 6 months of field “Not much of a life, is it?” study, the human-animal question was never even remotely addressed; at collective meals and farming practices, food MST’s collectivized pork cooperative engrosses the breed- animals remained what Carol Adams (2016, p. 24) aptly ing, raising and slaughter of pigs, each production step fol- calls “an absent referent.” lowing the general stages of modern pork production. The This remarkable silence—MST not speaking about a par- female pigs are first inseminated, and as they give birth they allel and most noticeable social movement—is also found at are moved to a farrowing pen to rear their piglets. When the nation-wide level; in Journal Sem Terra, the movement’s these piglets turn 2 months of age they are separated from internal newspaper and key vehicle to connect MST com- their caregiver and placed in a separate pen, in order to munities across Brazil (Bezerra 2011), the animal rights the- enable yet another insemination procedure. Between 4 and matic is entirely ignored. From a computerized search in all 6 months of age, the pigs are considered to be in a ‘grow- Jornal Sem Terra issues published between 1981 and 2013 finish’ stage, in which they are intensively fed for fattening. (a corpus comprising approximately 4.5  million words), The MST-held pigs, like all domestic pigs across the global direito dos animais (animal rights) is only mentioned once, meat industry, are finally put to slaughter at the age of 6 or while bem-estar animal/proteção animal (animal welfare), 7 months, bred and raised in complete confinement. libertação animal (animal liberation), vegetarian* and “Not much of a life, is it?”, one of the breeding-workers vegan* are not mentioned at all. suddenly breaks in, while explaining to me the stages of Yet Brazil’s Landless Movement still nurtures an pork production. Still in her youth, this cooperative mem- immense critique against the corporate, large-scale meat ber, herself born on the settlement, explains that she will industry, pointed out as a key driver behind intensified land soon move out, study at the university. “But I will not be a competition. As the vast pork and poultry sectors require an veterinary”, she exclaims, as if referring to an expectation ever-growing amount of arable land to produce animal feeds from the cooperative, with its ever-growing need for just (Dickson-Hoyle and Reenberg 2009; Davis and D’Odorico that type of on-site professionality. While perceiving, on an 2015), Brazil’s Landless Movement characteristically tar- everyday basis, the pigs’ complete life cycle, from breed- gets this precise tendency of corporate land grabbing (Lund- ing to slaughter, birth to death, she here expresses a subtle ström 2011). Yet MST’s general response, as an alternative hesitation towards the pork commodification procedure. Yet food network, has not been to question the innate logic that the speciesist logic is not called upon to address hesitation drives Brazil’s land-consuming and rapidly expanding meat about these confines; her critical thought lingers, and is soon sector. To the contrary, as we see in the collectivized pork lost in detailed, technical explanations about the stages of cooperative in Southern Brazil, settled MST-farmers instead pork production. try to find an alternative course for navigating the political The speciesist logic is in fact never brought into the open, economy of meat. Their approach has been to elaborate a exposed, let alone questioned, during my field work with this collectivised economy, with equal surplus distribution, cir- pork cooperative. And here we shall remember that Brazil’s culating divisions of labour, de-centralized decision mak- Landless Movement typically embraces what we must recog- ing, and representation through a rotating, female-inclusive nize as political intersectionality. Over its near 40 years as an leadership. But as MST-participants submit to, as they put it, articulate, social movement, MST has been engaged in vari- “the capitalist logic”—through their pork production—they ety of social and political struggles; it has expressed solidar- also silently submit to, I would argue, the speciesist logic, ity with indigenous and anti-racist struggles (Nugent 2002; the innate idea that legitimates and drives commodification Lundström 2017), as well as industrial unionism (Sandoval of food animals. 1 3 “We do this because the market demands it”: alternative meat production and the speciesist logic 133 a splitting saw, and then washed and finally refrigerated. “We do this because the market demands it” The working environment is sutured with noise, especially from the loud splitting saw, but also from live pigs that The speciesist logic is a delicate matter; is seems never fully accepted, but instead recurrently upheld—precisely by dodg- scream, throughout their very last act of defiance. At the coffee break, taken in the colorful garden located outside the ing hesitations about the violent nature of meat production. Even in direct animal presence—through the process of slaughterhouse, the collective mood instantly changes. The conversation frequently touches upon, as so often in MST- meat commodification—individual, non-human animals become invisible, yet peculiarly present as “an absent refer- settings, socio-political themes. How could the cooperative relieve economic poverty in their neighboring, rural sur- ent.” MST’s collectivized slaughterhouse in Southern Brazil typify that elusive submission to the speciesist logic. roundings? How should they advance feminist issues at the local school? The discussion is vivid, reflective and open- During my field study I noticed how the slaughterhouse workers shifted between doing their routinized killings in ended; it appears as if anyone political question could be brought to the table. Yet this exciting discussion, engaged complete silence, and joking brutally about their labor. “Wanna try the knife?”, one of them asked me, chuckling; while sipping coffee in the gazing sun—all dressed in white, blood-stained robes—enclose a most absent referent at our “You afraid of blood?” Another worker was clearly drunk. This particular day he was responsible for luring or forcing work break, this temporary pause in commodifying pigs into pork meat. each pig out of the pen, into a narrow hallway leading up to a hatch, behind which the pigs were to be electrically stunned, hanged upside down, and then have their throats cut. “Yes, of course they know what’s going on”, he told me. “They Concluding remarks see the other pigs disappear, one by one, and they smell the blood.” And then quite swiftly, clearly troubled by my While I approached Brazil’s Landless Movement, with sin- cere respect and eagerness to learn about the most com- questioning, he continued his work, now with noticeable stronger affection, pushing and beating the next pig lined pound making of resistance, I soon came to ask myself how such a reflexive milieu could overlook a pressing issue raised up for slaughter. Inside the slaughterhouse, the floor, walls and ceiling— by social movements in MST’s immediate surroundings. How could speciesism be so profoundly ignored in MST’s and the workers themselves, all dressed in white clothes, rubber boots and aprons—are painted in blood. The pigs, intersectional, political thought? I believe the answer is partway found in recognizing although partly stunned, kick and shake after having their throats cut, making the blood spurt all over. Drained on their speciesism’s function in the political economy of meat. As we have seen in our case study from Southern Brazil, set- blood, the pigs’ bodies are put into a rumbling machine, filled with hot water for scalding and then dehairing the bod- tled MST-farmers, well vested in the pork producing sector, have little choice than to submit to the “the capitalist logic”, ies before their primary cuts. I see how some of the pigs seem to be yet alive in this procedure, still kicking when being unable to “escape the workings of capitalism.” They describe blunt, economic relations that their pork coopera- placed in the dehairing machine. The workers take no notice when this happens, which is frequently; they continue their tive simply have to cope with; they depict economic confines to alternative meat production. And what’s more, these con- work, in silence. “We do this because the market demands it”, one of the workers explains, as he notices my astonished, fines of “the capitalist logic” also entail, as we have seen, most embodied confines prompted by the speciesist logic . wide-eyed observation. Although his explanation most prob- ably refers to the rigorous procedure undertaken to guarantee Because at the heart of the capitalist, political economy of meat resides the commodification process, this intricate a certain product standard, which the MST-workers view as a market-dictated confinement, it also accentuates elusive sub- animal-into-food-transformation, informed by the speciesist logic. Since speciesism adds another layer to the confines mission to the speciesist logic, upheld and fortified though the intensified process of meat commodification. To survive of the political economy of meat, alternative food networks, in our case a collectivized pork cooperative tied to Brazil’s in the political economy of meat, as a small-scale, alterna- tive meat producer, the MST cooperative must comply with Landless Movement, inescapably need to navigate multiple confines. standardized market demands. And to do that, they need to submit to the speciesist logic, the human-animal divide In this delicate balancing act, livestock smallholders seem to evade full exposition of the speciesist logic, while at once so conspicuously manifested in the modern slaughterhouse. Then, in an assembly line, the MST slaughterhouse work- partaking in its silent approval. The slaughterhouse workers of MST’s pork cooperative nurtured an ambiguous relation- ers enact a professional, routinized array of work tasks. Eve- ryone knows exactly what to do; the scalded pigs are now ship towards their animals; while executing confinement and slaughter, some workers also expressed what could be read de-capitated, emptied from internal organs, cut in half with 1 3 134 M. Lundström Carbornar de Souza, C. 2016. #govegan: Veganismo, vegetarianismo e as hesitation, a silent doubt, about their everyday work tasks. dever moral nos enquadramentos da mobilização pelos direitos It so appears that speciesism has this intangible character, animais no brasil. Curitiba: Universidade Federal do Paraná. always eluding full exposition, which makes it less vis- Chiles, R., and A. Fitzgerald. 2018. Why is meat so important in west- ible, even for radical social movements with intersectional ern history and culture? A genealogical critique of biophysical and political-economic explanations. Agriculture and Human sensibilities. Although alternative food networks, typified Values 35 (1): 1–17. by Brazil’s Landless Movement, advance the meaning of Cho, S., et al. 2013. Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, political intersectionality, their navigating of the political applications, and praxis. Signs 38 (4): 785–810. economy of meat necessarily submits, albeit quietly, to the Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law speciesist logic that drives capitalist commodification of Review 43: 1241–1299. food animals. On a critical note, then, one must consider Cudworth, E. 2011. Walking the dog: Explorations and negotiations of the ramifications of an ‘alternative’ meat production that species difference. Philosophy Activism Nature 8: 14. allows (non-human) labor exploitation to continue under Cudworth, E. 2014. Beyond speciesism: Intersectionality, critical soci- ology and the human domination of other animals. In The rise of the socialist banner (Hudson 2011). Given meat produc- critical animal studies: From the margins to the centre, eds. R. tion’s dependence on concentrated, “institutionalized vio- Twine, and N. Taylor, 19–35. New York: Routledge. lence” (Cudworth 2015), with documented asocial effects Cudworth, E. 2015. Killing animals: Sociology, species relations and on communities that hold slaughterhouses (Fitzgerald et al. institutionalized violence. The Sociological Review 63 (1): 1–18. Daum, C. 2017. Counterpublics and intersectional radical resistance: 2009), we clearly recognize boundaries to alternative food Agitation as transformation of the dominant discourse. New networks’ political intersectionality, boundaries following Political Science 39 (4): 523–537. from the amalgam confines of capitalist meat commodifica- Davis, A. 2016. We have to talk about systemic change. In Freedom tion and its innate, speciesist logic. is a constant struggle: Ferguson, palestine, and the foundations of a moment, ed. F. Barat, 31–50. Chicago: Haymarket Books. Davis, K., and P. D’Odorico. 2015. Livestock intensification and the OpenAccess This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea- influence of dietary change: A calorie-based assessment of com- tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco petition for crop production. Science of The Total Environment mmons.or g/licenses/b y/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu- 538: 817–823. tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate DeLessio-Parson, A. 2017. Doing vegetarianism to destabilize the credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the meat-masculinity nexus in la plata, argentina. Gender, Place & Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Culture 24 (12): 1729–1748. Delgado, C., et al. 1999. Livestock to 2020: The next food revolution. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Delgado, C., et al. 2003. Meating and milking global demand: Stakes References for small-scale farmers in developing countries. In The livestock revolution: A pathway from poverty, ed. A. G. Brown, 13–23. Adams, C. 2010. Why feminist-vegan now? Feminism & Psychology Portville, NY: The ATSE Crawford Fund. 20 (3): 302–317. DeMello, M. 2012. Animals and society: An introduction to human- Adams, C. 2016. The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian animal studies. New York: Columbia University Press. critical theory. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Dickson-Hoyle, S., and A. Reenberg. 2009. The shrinking globe: Allcorn, A., and S. Ogletree. 2018. Linked oppression: Connecting Globalisation of food systems and the changing geograhies of animal and gender attitudes. Feminism & Psychology 0 (0): 1–13. livestock-production. Geografisk Tidsskrift 109 (1): 105–112. Ayres, J., and M. Bosia. 2011. Beyond global summitry: Food sover- Dillard, J. 2008. A slaughterhouse nightmare: Psychological harm suf- eignty as localized resistance to globalization. Globalizations 8 fered by slaughterhouse employees and the possibility of redress (1): 47–63. through legal reform. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Baran, B., et al. 2016. Routinized killing of animals: Going beyond Policy 15 (2): 391–408. dirty work and prestige to understand the well-being of slaugh- Dowsett, E., et al. 2018. Neutralising the meat paradox: Cognitive dis- terhouse workers. Organization 23 (3): 351–369. sonance, gender, and eating animals. Appetite 123: 280–288. Barboza, R. 2017. Vive la révolution animale!: An ethnography of Fabrini, J. 2003. A resistência camponesa nos assentamentos de sem- the social consumer movement of vegetarianism. Säo Paulo: terra. Cascavel: Edunioeste. Fundação Getulio Vargas. FAOSTAT. 2018. Food supply—livestock and fish primary equivalent/ Bezerra, A. 2011. O jornal dos trabalhadores rurais sem terra e seus livestock primary/crops and livestock products. http://www.fao. temas 1981–2001. São Paulo: Pontifícia Universidade Católica org/faost at/en/#data. Accessed 25 May 2018. de São Paulo. Fine, B. 1994. Towards a political economy of food. Review of Inter- Blumberg, R. 2018. Alternative food networks and farmer livelihoods: national Political Economy 1 (3): 519–545. A spatializing livelihoods perspective. Geoforum 88: 161–173. Fitzgerald, A., et al. 2009. Slaughterhouses and increased crime rates: Brown, A. G. 2003. The livestock revolution: A pathway from poverty. An empirical analysis of the spillover from “the jungle” into the In The livestock revolution: A pathway from poverty, ed. A. G. surrounding community. Organization & Environment 22 (2): Brown., Parkville, MD: The ATSE Crawford Fund. 158–184. Campbell, H. 2009. Breaking new ground in food regime theory: Cor- Florit, L., and C. Sbardelati. 2016. Intensive speciesism regions in porate environmentalism, ecological feedbacks and the ‘food brazil: Ethical and social stains in territories supplying global from somewhere’ regime? Agriculture and Human Values 26 meat markets. In Impact of meat consumption on health and (4): 309–319. environmental sustainability. eds. T. Raphaely and D. Marinova, 277–294. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 1 3 “We do this because the market demands it”: alternative meat production and the speciesist logic 135 Forssell, S., and L. Lankoski. 2015. The sustainability promise of Lundström, M. 2011. Dynamics of the livestock revolution: Marginali- alternative food networks: An examination through “alternative” zation and resistance in southern brazil. Journal of Sustainable characteristics. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (1): 63–75. Agriculture 35 (2): 208–232. Francione, G. 2004. Animals–property or persons? In Animal rights: Lundström, M. 2017. The making of resistance: Brazil’s landless move- Current debates and new directions. eds. C. Sunstein and M. A. ment and narrative enactment. Cham: Springer International Nussbaum, 108–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Publishing. Freire, M. 2017. Sobre o que ogram os veganos? Uma análise das MacKinnon, C. 2004. Of mice and men: A feminist fragment on animal atividades do grupo ogros veganos no facebook. Razón y rights. In Animal rights: Current debates and new directions, Palabra 20 (3): 402–424. C. Sunstein, and M. Nussbaum, eds. 263–276, Oxford: Oxford Friedmann, H., and A. McNair. 2008. Whose rules rule? Contested University Press. projects to certify ‘local production for distant consumers. McMichael, P. 2008. Peasants make their own history, but not just as Journal of Agrarian Change 8 (2/3): 408–434. they please. Journal of Agrarian Change 8 (2 and 3): 205–228. Glover, M. 2017. Animals off the menu: A racist proposal? In Ani- McMichael, P. 2009. A food regime genealogy. Journal of Peasant mals, race, and multiculturalism, eds. L. Cordeiro-Rodrigues, Studies 36 (1): 139–169. and L. Mitchell, 175–199. Cham: Springer. McWeeny, J. 2014. Topographies of flesh: Women, nonhuman animals, Goodman, D., et al. 2012. Alternative food networks: Knowledge, and the embodiment of connection and difference. Hypatia 29 place and politics. Abingdon: Routledge. (2): 269–286. Gordon, N., and P. Chatterton. 2004. Taking back control: A jour- Medeiros, R. 2012. Territórios e luta pela terra no rio grande do sul. ney through argentina’s popular uprising. Leeds: University Boletim Dataluta 55: 2–8. of Leeds. Millar, J., and V. Photakoun. 2008. Livestock development and poverty Grasseni, C. 2013. Beyond alternative food networks: Italy’s solidar- alleviation: Revolution or evolution for upland livelihoods in Lao ity purchase groups. London: Bloomsbury Academic. PDR? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 6 (1): Gunderson, R. 2013. From cattle to capital: Exchange value, animal 89–102. commodification, and barbarism. Critical Sociology 39 (2): Monteiro, C. A., et al. 2017. The carnism inventory: Measuring the 259–275. ideology of eating animals. Appetite 113: 51–62. Hall, D., et al. 2004. The livestock revolution, food safety, and small- Morgan, D. L. 1988. Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury scale farmers: Why they matter to us all. Journal of Agricul- Park, CA: Sage Publications. tural and Environmental Ethics 17 (4): 425–444. Morton, T. 2017. Humankind: Solidarity with nonhuman people. Lon- Hamilton, C. 2016. Sex, work, meat: The feminist politics of vegan- don: Verso. ism. Feminist Review 114 (1): 112–129. Naase, K. 2009. “The dream of making a living from the land”: Ama- Heffernan, C. 2004. Livestock and the poor: Issues in poverty- zon settler women as change agents. Boletim do Museu Paraense focused livestock development. In Responding to the livestock Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas 4 (2): 247–260. revolution: The role of globalisation and implications for pov- Narrod, C., et al. 2010. Socioeconomic implications of the livestock erty alleviation, ed. E. Owen, et al., 229–246. Nottingham: industrialization process: How will smallholders fare? In Live- Nottingham University Press. stock in a changing landscape. Volume 1: Drivers, consequences, Hudson, L. 2011. A species of thought: Bare life and animal being. and responses, ed. H. Steinfeld, et al., 269–282. Washington, Antipode 43 (5): 1659–1678. DC: Island Press. Johnston, G., and M. Johnston. 2017. ‘We fight for all living things’: Neo, H., and J. Emel. 2017. Geographies of meat: Politics, economy Countering misconceptions about the radical animal liberation and culture. London: Routledge. movement. Social Movement Studies 16 (6): 735–751. Nibert, D. 2002. Animal rights, human rights: Entanglements of Joy, M. 2010. Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An intro- oppression and liberation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. duction to carnism: The belief system that enables us to eat Nin, A., et al. 2007. Livestock productivity in developing countries: some animals and not others. San Francisco, CA: Conari Press. An assessment. In Handbook of aricultural economics, Volume Karriem, A., and L. Benjamin. 2016. How civil society organizations 3: Agricultural development: farmers, farm production and farm foster insurgent citizenship: Lessons from the brazilian land- market, eds. R. Evenson, and P. Pingali, 2461–2532. Amsterdam: less movement. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Volun- Elsevier. tary and Nonprofit Organizations 27 (1): 19–36. Nocella, A., et al. 2014. Introduction: The emergence of critical ani- Kaufmann, R. R. v., and H. Fitzhugh. 2005. The importance of live- mal studies. The rise of intersectional animal liberation. Defining stock for the world’s poor. In Perspectives in world food and critical animal studies: An intersectional social justice approach agriculture, eds. C. Scanes, and J. Miranowski, 137–160, Iowa, for liberation 448: 19–36 IA: Iowa State Press. Nugent, S. 2002. Whither o campesinato? Historical peasantries of bra- Khan, A. A., and F. S. Bidabadi. 2004. Livestock revolution in india: zilian amazonia. Journal of Peasant Studies 29 (3–4): 162–189. Its impact and policy response. South Asia Research 24 (2): Okechukwu, A. 2014. Shadows of solidarity: Identity, intersectionality, 99–122. and frame resonance. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts Koç, M., et al. 2017. The interdisciplinary field of food studies. In and Change 37: 153–180. Critical perspectives in food studies, eds. J. Mustafa Koç, Sum- Olivier, A., and L. Cordeiro-Rodrigues. 2017. Racism, speciesism ner, and A. Winson, 3–18. Ontario: Oxford University Press. and suffering. In Animals, race, and multiculturalism, eds. L. Krueger, R. A., and M. A. Casey. 2000. Focus groups: A practical guide Cordeiro-Rodrigues, and L. Mitchell, 147–174. Cham: Springer. for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Patel, R. 2010. What does food sovereignty look like? In Food sover- Lang, T., and M. Heasman. 2004. Food wars: The global battle for eignty: Reconnecting food, nature & community, eds. H. Witt- mouths, minds and markets. London: Earthscan. man, A. Desmarais, and N. Wiebe., Oakland, CA: Food First. Lazzaretti, M. 2007. A produção da ação coletiva no mst: Relações de Pica-Ciamarra, U., and J. Otte. 2011. The ‘livestock revolution’: Rheto- poder e subjetividade. João Pessoa. Brazil: Universidade Federal ric and reality. Outlook on Agriculture 40 (1): 7–19. da Paraíba. Rae, A., and R. Nayga. 2010. Trends in consumption, production, and trade in livestock and livestock products. In Livestock in Levai, L. F. 2013. A luta pelos direitos animais no brasil: Passos para o futuro. Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal 7 (10): 175–187. 1 3 136 M. Lundström a changing landscape. Volume 1: Drivers, consequences, and sem terra (mst) e as cooperativas de produção agropecuárias de responses, eds. H. Steinfeld, et al., 11–34. Washington, DC: cuba. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo. Island Press. Torres, B. 2007. Making a killing: The political economy of animal Rakopoulos, T. 2014. The crisis seen from below, within, and against: rights. Edinburgh: AK Press. From solidarity economy to food distribution cooperatives in Vanden, H. 2014. Taking the streets, swarming public spaces. In greece. Dialectical Anthropology 38 (2): 189–207. Rethinking latin american social movements: Radical action Renting, H., et al. 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: from below, eds. M. Becker, H. Vanden, and R. Stahler-Sholk, Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural develop- 233–249. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ment. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 35 (3): von Essen, E., and M. Allen. 2017. Solidarity between human and non- 393–411. human animals: Representing animal voices in policy delibera- Riches, G., and T. Silvasti. 2014. Hunger in the rich world: Food aid tions. Environmental Communication 11 (5): 641–653. and right to food perspectives. In First world hunger revis- Wald, N., and D. Hill. 2016. ‘Rescaling’ alternative food systems: From ited, eds. G. Riches, and T. Silvasti, 1–14. Cham, Switzerland: food security to food sovereignty. Agriculture and Human Values Springer. 33 (1): 203–213. Rothgerber, H. 2013. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculin- Waldron, S., et al. 2003. Transforming lives with livestock-based agri- ity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men business. In The livestock revolution: A pathway from poverty? & Masculinity 14 (4): 363. ed. A. G. Brown, 27–39. Portville, NY: The Crawford Fund. Sage, C. 2003. Social embeddedness and relations of regard: Alterna- Wilkie, R. 2010. Livestock/deadstock: Working with farm animals from tive ‘good food’networks in south-west ireland. Journal of Rural birth to slaughter. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Studies 19 (1): 47–60. Wilkinson, S. 2008. Focus groups. In Qualitative psychology: A practi- Sanbonmatsu, J. 2011. Introduction. In Critical theory and animal cal guide to research methods, ed. J. Smith, 186–206. London, liberation, ed. J. Sanbonmatsu, 1–34. Lanham, MD: Rowman UK: Sage. & Littlefield. Williams, M. 1999. The political economy of meat: Food, culture and Sandoval, S. 2007. Alternative forms of working-class organization and identity. In Political economy, power and the body: Global per- the mobilization of informal-sector workers in brazil in the era of spectives, ed. G. Youngs, 135–158, Houndmills, UK: Palgrave neoliberalism. International Labor and Working-Class History Macmillan. 72 (1): 63–89. Wilson, M. 2016. Introduction: Sovereign food spaces? Openings and Schneider, S., and P. Niederle. 2010. Resistance strategies and diver- closures. In Postcolonialism, indigeneity and struggles for food sification of rural livelihoods: The construction of autonomy sovereignty: Alternative food networks in subaltern spaces, ed. among brazilian family farmers. Journal of Peasant Studies 37 M. Wilson, 19–32. New York: Routledge. (2): 379–405. Wittman, H. 2010. Seeing like a peasant. In Food sovereignty: Recon- de Silva, C. B. 2004. Relações de gênero e subjetividades no devir necting food, nature & community, eds. H. Wittman, A. A. Des- MST. Estudos Feministas 12 (1): 269–287. marais, and N. Wiebe., Oakland, CA: Food First. Smith, M. 2002. The’ethical’space of the abattoir: On the (in) human Wyckoff, J. 2015. Analysing animality: A critical approach. The Philo- (e) slaughter of other animals. Human Ecology Review 9 (2): sophical Quarterly 65 (260): 529–546. 49–58. Sonnino, R., and T. Marsden. 2006. Beyond the divide: Rethinking relationships between alternative and conventional food networks Markus Lundström PhD, specializes in resistance and social movement in europe. Journal of Economic Geography 6 (2): 181–199. studies. His work covers agrarian movements in the Global South, Svärd, P.-A. 2014. Slaughter and animal welfarism in sweden 1900– urban riots the Global North, as well as political thought developed in 1944. In Political animals and animal politics, eds. M. Wissen- transnational anarchism and fascism. burg, and D. Schlosberg, 135–149, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Thomaz, F. 2015. A coletivização agrícola em questão: Comparação entre a produção coletiva do movimento dos trabalhadores rurais 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agriculture and Human Values Springer Journals

“We do this because the market demands it”: alternative meat production and the speciesist logic

Agriculture and Human Values , Volume 36 (1) – Dec 6, 2018

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/we-do-this-because-the-market-demands-it-alternative-meat-production-3jLSeWtCyB

References (127)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The Author(s)
Subject
Philosophy; Ethics; Agricultural Economics; Veterinary Medicine/Veterinary Science; History, general; Evolutionary Biology
ISSN
0889-048X
eISSN
1572-8366
DOI
10.1007/s10460-018-09902-1
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The past decades’ substantial growth in globalized meat consumption continues to shape the international political economy of food and agriculture. This political economy of meat composes a site of contention; in Brazil, where livestock produc- tion is particularly thriving, large agri-food corporations are being challenged by alternative food networks. This article analyzes experiential and experimental accounts of such an actor—a collectivized pork cooperative tied to Brazil’s Landless Movement—which seeks to navigate the political economy of meat. The ethnographic case study documents these livestock farmers’ ambiguity towards complying with the capitalist commodification process, required by the intensifying meat mar - ket. Moreover, undertaking an intersectional approach, the article theorizes how animal-into-food commodification in turn depends on the speciesist logic, a normative human/non-human divide that endorses the meat commodity. Hence the article demonstrates how alternative food networks at once navigate confines of capitalist commodification and the speciesist logic that impels the political economy of meat. Keywords Livestock revolution · Alternative food networks · Political economy of meat · Brazil’s landless movement · MST · Commodification · Speciesism · Animal liberation · Political intersectionality · Intersectional resistance The political economy of meat and alternative arrangements for producing, distributing and consuming food (Friedmann and McNair 2008; McMi- A most dynamic phenomenon has arisen in the international chael 2008; Campbell 2009). With the globalized tendency political economy of food and agriculture; globalized meat of expanding meat consumption and production—and its consumption is booming, the livestock sector is expanding. entailed social conflicts—we here recognize a political The global average of yearly consumed meat has grown economy of meat. substantially, from 23 kg/capita in 1961 to 43 kg/capita in Scholarly research seems to mirror the defining, conten- 2013. ‘Emerging economies’ like China and Brazil (though tious feature of that political economy of meat. On the one not India) carry the strongest consumption increase. At the hand, rural development scholars welcome the dramatic same time we see how Europe and especially the United rise in global meat consumption as “the next food revolu- States remain the fiercest meat consumers on the planet, tion” (Delgado et al. 1999). The key argument here is that while low meat consumption continues to define food habits livestock farming provides high net income (Kaufmann and in the world’s ‘least developed countries’ (Rae and Nayga Fitzhugh 2005; Nin et al. 2007), which means that small- 2010; see also; Pica-Ciamarra and Otte 2011; FAOSTAT scale farmers in ‘developing countries’ are now offered sig- 2018). This observable trend typifies the international politi- nificant economic opportunities (Delgado et al. 2003; Hall cal economy of food and agriculture (Fine 1994; Koç et al. et al. 2004). This “pathway from poverty” is particularly 2017), an intricate nexus of global trade relations compris- paved by large agri-food corporations that connect small- ing a most contentious feature—conflict between corporate holders to previously unreachable global markets (Brown 2003; Waldron et al. 2003). On the other hand, critical schol- ars have disclosed how small-scale farmers, vertically inte- * Markus Lundström grated into agri-food corporations, have become alarmingly markus.lundstrom@ekohist.su.se dependent (Heffernan 2004); unable to afford the required Department of Economic History, Stockholm University, technical upgrading, livestock smallholders, marginalized Universitetsvägen 10A, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 128 M. Lundström from other marketing options, often end up severely indebted an advanced alternative food network—in our case Brazil’s (Khan and Bidabadi 2004; Millar and Photakoun 2008; Landless Movement—relates the logic of speciesism to its Lundström 2011). To cope with these undesired social out- applied, political intersectionality. comes, scholars viewing livestock production as poverty alleviation here concede to cooperative solutions, predicting that “smallholder livestock farming in developing countries Political intersectionality will be driven by collective action” (Narrod et al. 2010). By acknowledging resistance from agrarian social move- This article maps the political economy of meat by analyzing ments, the dynamic consumption of food animals, defining speciesism’s location in intersectional resistance struggles, the political economy of meat, therefore becomes an inher- often conceptualized as political intersectionality, through ently political affair (Williams 1999; Neo and Emel 2017). an empirical case study of a collectivized pig farm, linked to The critical food studies field, emblematically focused on a most iconic agrarian social movement, one of the strong- that precise vibrancy of politicized foodways, have come to est advocates for food sovereignty: Brazil’s Landless Rural document a variety of social struggles for food sovereignty, Workers’ Movement (MST). As we will see in the empirical organized searches for political and economic autonomy analysis, MST typifies an alternative food network seeking across the food chain (Patel 2010; Ayres and Bosia 2011; to enact political intersectionality, while at the same time Riches and Silvasti 2014). This line of research has, in navigating the political economy of meat. order to capture the agency behind these heterodox political The notion of political intersectionality, or intersectional economies, increasingly come to study how alternative food resistance, stems from the feminist school that in the early networks (AFN’s) bridge the consumption-production divide 1990s began theorizing the interlocked workings of sexism of globalized capitalism (Renting et al. 2003; Goodman et al. and racism, under a capitalist political economy. Over the 2012). The AFN conceptualization aims to transcend nar- years, intersectional theory has not only been used to expose row foci on re-localized foodways (Wald and Hill 2016), interlinked logics of domination, but also to comprehend mere value-adding in alternative food production (Blum- how resistance is articulated against that multiplication berg 2018) and contextually disembodied views on ethical of oppressions. Intersectionality scholars here distinguish consumption (Grasseni 2013). Hence the notion of alterna- between structural intersectionality, the wickerwork of inter- tive food networks carries decisive, political implications. linked power structures, and political intersectionality as Reflecting the contentious dynamic of the political economy the compound, many-faced resistance struggles against these of food and agriculture, the AFN conceptualization typi- entangled axis of power (Crenshaw 1991). The notion of fies prefigurative searches for autonomy, vis-à-vis hegem- political intersectionality thus aims to capture the “reshap- onic foodways (Lang and Heasman 2004; McMichael 2009; ing modes of resistance beyond allegedly universal, single- Wilson 2016). Aside from their ideological fuel (Sage 2003; axis approaches” (Cho et  al. 2013, p.  800). In this vein, Forssell and Lankoski 2015), alternative food networks usu- social movement scholars have accordingly come to docu- ally emerge to cope with harsh, economic realities (Gordon ment collective action that articulate—at the intersection and Chatterton 2004; Grasseni 2013; Rakopoulos 2014). of resistance—a variety of socio-political struggles (Oke- Given the conflictual dynamics of globalized meat pro- chukwu 2014; Davis 2016; Daum 2017). Hence the notion duction, it becomes particularly topical to study how an of political intersectionality aptly applies to agrarian move- agrarian social movement—an alternative food network ments that, in their cultivation of alternative foodways, con- advocating food sovereignty—navigates the contentious sciously entwine politico-economic struggles for autonomy political economy of meat. In this article, we will begin and equality. mapping that uneven topography by specifically explor - But intersectional theory also offers an analytical lens ing how capitalist commodification of animal-derived for comprehending how the innate logic of speciesism oper- foods intersects with the logic of speciesism, the norma- ates through the political economy of meat. In the research tive divide between human and non-human animals that field of critical animal studies, scholars have come to include underpins meat production. As suggested in the following speciesism in analyzes of interlocked workings of domina- section, an intersectional analysis through the social move- tion under capitalism (Nibert 2002; DeMello 2012). With ment lens—focused on the ramifications of alternative meat the notion of intersectionality, critical animal studies have production—arguably captures the elusive nature of the documented how the speciesist operative—that of social speciesist logic. Through an empirical case study, we will differentiation—intersects with the logic of racism (Svärd then see how that peculiar silence, the invisibility of specie- 2014; Monteiro et al. 2017; Olivier and Cordeiro-Rodrigues sism, impregnates an alternative food network that otherwise 2017), as well as sexism (Adams 2010; Rothgerber 2013; engages in intersected struggles for autonomy and equal- Allcorn and Ogletree 2018). Guided by the intersectional ity. In this regard the concluding discussion addresses how approach, the human-animal nexus has been exposed as a 1 3 “We do this because the market demands it”: alternative meat production and the speciesist logic 129 normalized, yet highly unequal, and exploitative, social rela- the commodification of meat. At the most extreme stage tion (Cudworth 2014; Nocella et al. 2014; Wyckoff 2015). of this animal-into-food transformation—in the modern Accordingly, social movement scholars have documented slaughterhouse—workers tend to nurture a social distanc- how the Animal Liberation Movement actively seeks to link ing to cope with violent labor practices (Smith 2002; Dil- its critique of speciesism to parallel struggles against sexism, lard 2008; Baran et al. 2016). Quite similarly, Rhoda Wilkie racism and capitalism (Johnston and Johnston 2017; von (2010) documents how livestock farmers develop emotional Essen and Allen 2017), a collective resistance that becomes detachment towards their food animals, a detachment expo- notably enacted through conscious, dietary refusals to con- nential to the level of involvement in the meat commodifica- sume animal-derived food products (Hamilton 2016; DeLes- tion process. Livestock farmers constantly need to negotiate sio-Parson 2017; Glover 2017). this “fine perceptual line”, as Rhoda Wilkie (Wilkie 2010, From this intersectional point of view, sexism is identified p. 182) puts it, “of seeing animals as both economic com- as particularly informative to the speciesist logic; human modities and sentient beings.” And it is that precise balanc- othering of non-human animals mirrors a relational setup ing act we find at MST’s collectivized pig farm in Southern akin to the objectifying logic of sexism (MacKinnon 2004; Brazil. McWeeny 2014; Adams 2016). That objectifying, speciesist logic informs, I would argue, a most fundamental working of the political economy of meat: the transformation of cattle, Confines of alternative pork production pigs and chickens into food commodities (Torres 2007; Neo and Emel 2017). This process of commodification, the mak - Brazil is a key player in the international political economy ing of market commodities for value extraction, famously of meat. Besides having the second largest cattle herd in the identified by Marx as a key function in the capitalist mode of world, it has recently emerged as a leading national producer production, is arguably a linchpin of the globalized political of poultry and now also pig meat. Furthermore, as we can economy of meat. Food animals are commodified to gen- see in Table 1, Brazilian meats have become high-ranked, erate profit, rather than food (Gunderson 2013 ), which in export commodities in the World Economy. turn requires normalizing notions to establish non-human This incredibly fast-growing meat sector has been par- animals as precisely as property (Francione 2004), the most ticularly intense in Southern Brazil (Florit and Sbardelati fundamental requirement for commodity exchange. Capi- 2016). And precisely here, in this hotbed of the political talist commodification of meat accordingly depends on an economy of meat, we also find an articulate agrarian social anthropocentric understanding of the human/non-human movement that actively seeks to navigate that economic divide (Morton 2017), a psychosocial process by which we reality. Brazil’s Landless Movement (Movimento dos Tra- differentiate between, and then assign certain values to, the balhadores Rurais Sem Terra—MST) was forged in this variety of non-human animals (Joy 2010; Cudworth 2011; agrarian context nearly four decades ago. It was actually Dowsett et al. 2018). By acknowledging how humans value, the cattle ranches of Northern Rio Grande do Sul that were classify and conceptualize non-human flesh as edible food, first targeted by the emergent landless movement, occupied a process indeed variegated and contextually embedded by rural workers who firmly believed they, if settled, would (Chiles and Fitzgerald 2018), we may very well diagnose increase the productive output with enhanced food quality speciesism—the hierarchical divide between human and (Medeiros 2012). Forty years later we find that very same non-human animals—as an innate logic that propels inten- movement, now including experienced small-scale farmers, sifying commodification of meat. The logic of speciesism organized in producer cooperatives to advance their food arguably denotes, as John Sanbonmatsu (2011, p. 21) puts sovereignty. Quite tellingly, the contemporary organizational it, “a complex, dynamic, expansive system that is materially basis for Brazil’s Landless Movement, at least in Southern and ideologically imbricated with capitalism as such.” Brazil, is now producer cooperatives rather than geographi- At the same time, the speciesist logic seems to have this cal MST-sites. elusive character; it is rarely exposed, evaded even by social movements enacting political intersectionality. Carol Adams Table 1 Brazilian meat production and export quantity (million tons), (2016, p. 24) has famously theorized how food animals and world ranking, in 2013. Source: FAOSTAT (2018) become “an absent referent”: when speaking about meat as Production Export food, the actual animal, this complex and unique individual being, is peculiarly unrecognized. In this vein, Melanie Joy MT Rank MT Rank (2010, p. 30) argues that the anthropocentric gaze—viewing Bovine 9.68 # 2 1.68 # 1 animal flesh as edible food—depends on a “belief system Poultry 12.49 # 3 3.98 # 2 in which eating certain animals is ethical and appropriate.” Pig 3.12 # 6 0.61 # 9 Such an intricate belief system also informs, I would argue, 1 3 130 M. Lundström As a key member of the global peasant movement Via (Schneider and Niederle 2010), as being more autonomous Campesina, MST is not only a collaborate architect of the than rural workers and tenant farmers. At the same time, food sovereignty concept; Brazil’s Landless Movement also interviewed MST participants also portrayed structural, typifies the image of a politically holistic, alternative food economic confines to the promise of cooperativism. The network. For MST participants, food sovereignty seems to procedure of vertical integration, especially applicable in align with their search for autonomy or, as a key MST coor- the capital intensive soy sector, was reflected upon with dinator puts it, the struggle of “communities of the people caution. MST-farmers here described, on the one hand, to construct their own destiny” (Itelvina Masioli, quoted how collective work increased their economic autonomy, in Wittman 2010, p. 34). This search for autonomy is, as I although they, on the other hand, had no real option than have argued elsewhere (Lundström 2017), quite formative to approach large-scale soy corporations to establish reli- for Brazil’s Landless Movement. MST’s search for auton- able distribution channels. When I specifically asked about omy refers not only to the state, or allied political parties, this precarious situation, interviewed MST-farmers replied, rural labor unions, and supportive factions of the Catholic with notable ideological frustration, that vertical integration Church; autonomy also signifies, especially for settled MST- with soybean corporations was a mere economic necessity; participants, independence from agri-food corporations. it meant reliable market access. The interviewees portrayed Hence, MST-participants typically struggle for economic a no-escape situation, an economic reality that eventually self-determination, to reap the fruits of their own labor, required submission to, as they so often came to put it, “the becoming their own bosses. In order to facilitate and propel capitalist logic.” mutual aid between small-scale farmers, they have set up a The very same confines—of collective attempts to elabo - number of collective producer cooperatives, in which labor rate alternative food production—were described by farmers and revenues are equally divided among cooperative mem- trying to navigate the political economy of meat. In order bers (Fabrini 2003; Lazzaretti 2007; Thomaz 2015). As we to document these experiences more closely, I spent a good shall see, these cooperatives are typically understood, by the part of my field study at one of MST’s pork producing members themselves, as micro-scale examples of alternative cooperatives in Southern Brazil. This particular setting was food production. selected due to its positive recognition within the Landless Movement; it is frequently depicted as an example of an “But we cannot escape the workings of capitalism” organizational rigor that allows for both political radicalism and economic sustainability. To study how these politicized In 2012–2013 I had the opportunity to conduct ethnographic farmers navigate the political economy of meat, I recurrently research in Southern Brazil, attending a variety of MST- visited this MST site, taking part in the daily work as a par- activities: everyday agricultural labor, collective meals, ticipant observer, conducting informal interviews as well as festivals, school lessons, youth and women conferences, formalized, in-depth interviews with the cooperative lead- settlement inaugurations, demonstrations and occupations. ership, along with, as we will see exemplified below, focus Along with this participant observation, I interviewed group interviews. The focus group method was chosen to approximately 100 MST-participants, both individually specifically capture collective, political reflection—and its and in focus group settings. My book The Making of Resist- entailed silences (Wilkinson 2008). In my particular search ance: Brazil’s Landless Movement and Narrative Enact- for reflections on the speciesist logic, I combined moder - ment (Lundström 2017) contains a historiographic analysis ated focus groups, semi-structured by a thematic interview extracted from these field notes, interviews, and from MST’s guide (Morgan 1988; Krueger and Casey 2000), with infor- internal newspaper between 1981 and 2013. This article, mal group discussions that naturally came about through my however, presents a different set of findings; it focuses on temporary participation in the meat production. Through this MST’s experiential navigating of the political economy of ethnographic approach, I hence came in contact with nearly meat in Southern Brazil. all members of the MST pork cooperative. Throughout my ethnographic field work, I soon found Fifteen years before I visited this MST-site, the farm land how MST-participants were referring to cooperativism as had been part of a huge ranch, owned by one family only. an anti-capitalist practice, consciously activated to restrain Landless rural workers, organized under the MST-banner, commodification of human labor. Interviewees depicted began occupying the ranch, claiming the land instead for how the autonomous small-scale farmer—in control of pro- plentiful families. After years of intense struggle, evic- duction, manufacturing and marketing—targets the central tions and repercussions, state officials eventually legalized social relation of capitalism: the exploitative wage labor. By the claim of the Sem Terra; the land was expropriated and organizing production through various forms of coopera- divided between the hundred families that now had become tion, MST participants described themselves, as do many settled, small-scale farmers. In this process, some 30 fami- small-scale farmers experimenting with cooperativism lies chose to merge their lands to facilitate cooperative 1 3 “We do this because the market demands it”: alternative meat production and the speciesist logic 131 production of grains and legumes. But on their collective also express an ideological frustration of submitting to land the MST settlers also encountered an abandoned pig the very “capitalist logic” which they so characteristically pen, along with a minor slaughterhouse. The new-founded struggle against. In the following interview excerpt, from a cooperative soon decided to incorporate pork into their focus group interview with five cooperative members (self- collective, agricultural portfolio. They began to breed and identified as male and female, aged between 17 and 62), we slaughter pigs, initially on a small, subsistent level, but soon discern that precise ambivalence: succeeded to scale up the stock and process facilities. Marcela: Some things we’re doing within capital- These MST-farmers now run a collectivized pork coop- ism. But our work is different. It’s collective, it’s not erative; labor and surplus are equally divided between the me alone. You see, capitalism has always reinforced cooperative members. Participants meet on a daily basis at the ego, it’s about me, what I want. But we have been their collective lunch, and attend weekly meetings and fes- pushing the question of organic production, instead tivities. The cooperative members typically rotate between of monocultures. We have always emphasized ‘never the various work sectors: breeding and slaughter of pigs, stop at just one area of production’. Because today, grain and legumes production, collective child care, kitchen if our cooperative agrees, we’ll never stop at the pri- activities and cooperative administration. Surplus is distrib- mary material, we’ll proceed with manufacturing. We uted on a monthly basis, according to labored hours in any of would never leave production, because the primary these sectors. The cooperative organization orbits these same material means resistance, it means autonomy. This work sectors; discussions and decision-making are enacted is one aspect of our organization here. Another is the in de-centralized, work-sector settings, independently elect- social, which is important. We have our own childcare, ing coordinators that, on a 2-year basis, constitute the coop- where we all work, where we all have the opportunity erative’s rotating leadership. “We are not some corporation, to work. The youth remain here on the land with us. with bosses and all; here we all take responsibility”, one of It’s not that we, the parents, capitalize while the youth the cooperative members explains. is left with nothing. We are distributing the surplus Production of pork meat comprises a substantial part of among us. We have everything for our existence right the MST-cooperative. Around 1000 pigs are continuously here with us. But we cannot escape the workings of held for breeding, and some 100 pigs are daily slaughtered capitalism, because of our pork production. (including a slaughter service offered to local pig holders). The cooperative’s pork meat is finally cut and sold at the Natália: Because the cooperative has the character of local butcher’s shop, a distribution channel described by a corporation. It´s different in its logic, but the produc- cooperative members as an intentional market choice. Since tion, the logic of selling, is the same as within capital- the large, corporate meat processors dominate metropolitan ism. You cannot escape this is if you want to survive. and international markets, the MST pork cooperative pre- For people to survive, there is no way to escape. But fers this alternative foodway to guarantee product quality, our cooperative, for sure, has a distinct role in society. but also to secure their economic autonomy. “You see”, Fernanda: It has this whole structure, a different one of the coordinators explains, “otherwise we would be organization, a mode of production that is already dif- completely dependent on the meat corporations. They alone ferentiated. benefit from all their rules and standards. We’ve not been struggling for our piece of land, and creating this coopera- Bruno: Any piece of machinery, everything that you tive, only to become dependent on the big corporations.” buy, it’s all capitalism. Most of it, everything that is At the same time, this limited market access, disabling beautiful; it all goes to the big corporations. the cooperative’s meat commodity to reach larger consumer Fernanda: And at the same time there is nothing you groups, also restrains and thereby threatens the economic can do. You live in a system that is capitalistic. But you sustainability of the pork cooperative. Interviewees portray can have a different logic, another opinion. We have a conflictual situation in which alternative foodways oper - another way of life, but we cannot escape totally. You ate alongside—albeit confined by—the political economy of sell, you buy, what else can you do? meat. In other words, the politicized, collective and horizon- tally organized pork cooperative, opting for local distribu- In this focus group discussion, participants collectively tion channels, clearly qualifies as an alternative food network construe the producer cooperative as an alternative to capi- that seeks to navigate the political economy of meat. And talist social relations, albeit operating within its economic very much in line with the scholarly recognition that AFN’s logic. The pork cooperative is portrayed as a prefigurative, are not quite so neatly separated from—but rather asymmet- alternative foodway, contrasted against—yet also confined rically competitive to—conventional foodways (Sonnino and by—the “workings of capitalism.” On the one hand, these Marsden 2006), these politicized smallholders of livestock livestock smallholders speak of economic autonomy, how 1 3 132 M. Lundström their cooperative carves out a space of self-determination, 2007). MST has participated in the broad, alter-globalization which allows them to work collectively and share their movement (Karriem and Benjamin 2016) and more recently surplus equally. On the other hand, they also find it nec- in urban, radical-democracy mobilizations (Vanden 2014). essary to comply with a dominant market logic: they have Furthermore, and perhaps most notably, Brazil’s Landless to produce and distribute a commodity that is compatible Movement has quite actively adopted an explicit, feminist with the political economy of meat, the very economic real- agenda, seeking to restrain social tendencies of male domi- ity these MST-farmers find themselves located in. And this nation (Silva 2004; Naase 2009). But MST’s political con- exact commodification process also entails, as we shall see, text also contains a fast-growing Animal Liberation Move- additional contention. The commodification process, at the ment (Levai 2013; Barboza 2017; Freire 2017), one that heart of the political economy of meat, compels livestock has been particularly active in southern Brazil (Carbornar smallholders to negotiate everyday, routinized transforma- de Souza 2016). However, disregarding the human-animal tions from animals into food, flesh into meat, and in our issue raised by this neighboring social movement, MST’s case, pigs into pork. political intersectionality yet evades the intricate question of non-human exploitation. During my 6 months of field “Not much of a life, is it?” study, the human-animal question was never even remotely addressed; at collective meals and farming practices, food MST’s collectivized pork cooperative engrosses the breed- animals remained what Carol Adams (2016, p. 24) aptly ing, raising and slaughter of pigs, each production step fol- calls “an absent referent.” lowing the general stages of modern pork production. The This remarkable silence—MST not speaking about a par- female pigs are first inseminated, and as they give birth they allel and most noticeable social movement—is also found at are moved to a farrowing pen to rear their piglets. When the nation-wide level; in Journal Sem Terra, the movement’s these piglets turn 2 months of age they are separated from internal newspaper and key vehicle to connect MST com- their caregiver and placed in a separate pen, in order to munities across Brazil (Bezerra 2011), the animal rights the- enable yet another insemination procedure. Between 4 and matic is entirely ignored. From a computerized search in all 6 months of age, the pigs are considered to be in a ‘grow- Jornal Sem Terra issues published between 1981 and 2013 finish’ stage, in which they are intensively fed for fattening. (a corpus comprising approximately 4.5  million words), The MST-held pigs, like all domestic pigs across the global direito dos animais (animal rights) is only mentioned once, meat industry, are finally put to slaughter at the age of 6 or while bem-estar animal/proteção animal (animal welfare), 7 months, bred and raised in complete confinement. libertação animal (animal liberation), vegetarian* and “Not much of a life, is it?”, one of the breeding-workers vegan* are not mentioned at all. suddenly breaks in, while explaining to me the stages of Yet Brazil’s Landless Movement still nurtures an pork production. Still in her youth, this cooperative mem- immense critique against the corporate, large-scale meat ber, herself born on the settlement, explains that she will industry, pointed out as a key driver behind intensified land soon move out, study at the university. “But I will not be a competition. As the vast pork and poultry sectors require an veterinary”, she exclaims, as if referring to an expectation ever-growing amount of arable land to produce animal feeds from the cooperative, with its ever-growing need for just (Dickson-Hoyle and Reenberg 2009; Davis and D’Odorico that type of on-site professionality. While perceiving, on an 2015), Brazil’s Landless Movement characteristically tar- everyday basis, the pigs’ complete life cycle, from breed- gets this precise tendency of corporate land grabbing (Lund- ing to slaughter, birth to death, she here expresses a subtle ström 2011). Yet MST’s general response, as an alternative hesitation towards the pork commodification procedure. Yet food network, has not been to question the innate logic that the speciesist logic is not called upon to address hesitation drives Brazil’s land-consuming and rapidly expanding meat about these confines; her critical thought lingers, and is soon sector. To the contrary, as we see in the collectivized pork lost in detailed, technical explanations about the stages of cooperative in Southern Brazil, settled MST-farmers instead pork production. try to find an alternative course for navigating the political The speciesist logic is in fact never brought into the open, economy of meat. Their approach has been to elaborate a exposed, let alone questioned, during my field work with this collectivised economy, with equal surplus distribution, cir- pork cooperative. And here we shall remember that Brazil’s culating divisions of labour, de-centralized decision mak- Landless Movement typically embraces what we must recog- ing, and representation through a rotating, female-inclusive nize as political intersectionality. Over its near 40 years as an leadership. But as MST-participants submit to, as they put it, articulate, social movement, MST has been engaged in vari- “the capitalist logic”—through their pork production—they ety of social and political struggles; it has expressed solidar- also silently submit to, I would argue, the speciesist logic, ity with indigenous and anti-racist struggles (Nugent 2002; the innate idea that legitimates and drives commodification Lundström 2017), as well as industrial unionism (Sandoval of food animals. 1 3 “We do this because the market demands it”: alternative meat production and the speciesist logic 133 a splitting saw, and then washed and finally refrigerated. “We do this because the market demands it” The working environment is sutured with noise, especially from the loud splitting saw, but also from live pigs that The speciesist logic is a delicate matter; is seems never fully accepted, but instead recurrently upheld—precisely by dodg- scream, throughout their very last act of defiance. At the coffee break, taken in the colorful garden located outside the ing hesitations about the violent nature of meat production. Even in direct animal presence—through the process of slaughterhouse, the collective mood instantly changes. The conversation frequently touches upon, as so often in MST- meat commodification—individual, non-human animals become invisible, yet peculiarly present as “an absent refer- settings, socio-political themes. How could the cooperative relieve economic poverty in their neighboring, rural sur- ent.” MST’s collectivized slaughterhouse in Southern Brazil typify that elusive submission to the speciesist logic. roundings? How should they advance feminist issues at the local school? The discussion is vivid, reflective and open- During my field study I noticed how the slaughterhouse workers shifted between doing their routinized killings in ended; it appears as if anyone political question could be brought to the table. Yet this exciting discussion, engaged complete silence, and joking brutally about their labor. “Wanna try the knife?”, one of them asked me, chuckling; while sipping coffee in the gazing sun—all dressed in white, blood-stained robes—enclose a most absent referent at our “You afraid of blood?” Another worker was clearly drunk. This particular day he was responsible for luring or forcing work break, this temporary pause in commodifying pigs into pork meat. each pig out of the pen, into a narrow hallway leading up to a hatch, behind which the pigs were to be electrically stunned, hanged upside down, and then have their throats cut. “Yes, of course they know what’s going on”, he told me. “They Concluding remarks see the other pigs disappear, one by one, and they smell the blood.” And then quite swiftly, clearly troubled by my While I approached Brazil’s Landless Movement, with sin- cere respect and eagerness to learn about the most com- questioning, he continued his work, now with noticeable stronger affection, pushing and beating the next pig lined pound making of resistance, I soon came to ask myself how such a reflexive milieu could overlook a pressing issue raised up for slaughter. Inside the slaughterhouse, the floor, walls and ceiling— by social movements in MST’s immediate surroundings. How could speciesism be so profoundly ignored in MST’s and the workers themselves, all dressed in white clothes, rubber boots and aprons—are painted in blood. The pigs, intersectional, political thought? I believe the answer is partway found in recognizing although partly stunned, kick and shake after having their throats cut, making the blood spurt all over. Drained on their speciesism’s function in the political economy of meat. As we have seen in our case study from Southern Brazil, set- blood, the pigs’ bodies are put into a rumbling machine, filled with hot water for scalding and then dehairing the bod- tled MST-farmers, well vested in the pork producing sector, have little choice than to submit to the “the capitalist logic”, ies before their primary cuts. I see how some of the pigs seem to be yet alive in this procedure, still kicking when being unable to “escape the workings of capitalism.” They describe blunt, economic relations that their pork coopera- placed in the dehairing machine. The workers take no notice when this happens, which is frequently; they continue their tive simply have to cope with; they depict economic confines to alternative meat production. And what’s more, these con- work, in silence. “We do this because the market demands it”, one of the workers explains, as he notices my astonished, fines of “the capitalist logic” also entail, as we have seen, most embodied confines prompted by the speciesist logic . wide-eyed observation. Although his explanation most prob- ably refers to the rigorous procedure undertaken to guarantee Because at the heart of the capitalist, political economy of meat resides the commodification process, this intricate a certain product standard, which the MST-workers view as a market-dictated confinement, it also accentuates elusive sub- animal-into-food-transformation, informed by the speciesist logic. Since speciesism adds another layer to the confines mission to the speciesist logic, upheld and fortified though the intensified process of meat commodification. To survive of the political economy of meat, alternative food networks, in our case a collectivized pork cooperative tied to Brazil’s in the political economy of meat, as a small-scale, alterna- tive meat producer, the MST cooperative must comply with Landless Movement, inescapably need to navigate multiple confines. standardized market demands. And to do that, they need to submit to the speciesist logic, the human-animal divide In this delicate balancing act, livestock smallholders seem to evade full exposition of the speciesist logic, while at once so conspicuously manifested in the modern slaughterhouse. Then, in an assembly line, the MST slaughterhouse work- partaking in its silent approval. The slaughterhouse workers of MST’s pork cooperative nurtured an ambiguous relation- ers enact a professional, routinized array of work tasks. Eve- ryone knows exactly what to do; the scalded pigs are now ship towards their animals; while executing confinement and slaughter, some workers also expressed what could be read de-capitated, emptied from internal organs, cut in half with 1 3 134 M. Lundström Carbornar de Souza, C. 2016. #govegan: Veganismo, vegetarianismo e as hesitation, a silent doubt, about their everyday work tasks. dever moral nos enquadramentos da mobilização pelos direitos It so appears that speciesism has this intangible character, animais no brasil. Curitiba: Universidade Federal do Paraná. always eluding full exposition, which makes it less vis- Chiles, R., and A. Fitzgerald. 2018. Why is meat so important in west- ible, even for radical social movements with intersectional ern history and culture? A genealogical critique of biophysical and political-economic explanations. Agriculture and Human sensibilities. Although alternative food networks, typified Values 35 (1): 1–17. by Brazil’s Landless Movement, advance the meaning of Cho, S., et al. 2013. Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, political intersectionality, their navigating of the political applications, and praxis. Signs 38 (4): 785–810. economy of meat necessarily submits, albeit quietly, to the Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law speciesist logic that drives capitalist commodification of Review 43: 1241–1299. food animals. On a critical note, then, one must consider Cudworth, E. 2011. Walking the dog: Explorations and negotiations of the ramifications of an ‘alternative’ meat production that species difference. Philosophy Activism Nature 8: 14. allows (non-human) labor exploitation to continue under Cudworth, E. 2014. Beyond speciesism: Intersectionality, critical soci- ology and the human domination of other animals. In The rise of the socialist banner (Hudson 2011). Given meat produc- critical animal studies: From the margins to the centre, eds. R. tion’s dependence on concentrated, “institutionalized vio- Twine, and N. Taylor, 19–35. New York: Routledge. lence” (Cudworth 2015), with documented asocial effects Cudworth, E. 2015. Killing animals: Sociology, species relations and on communities that hold slaughterhouses (Fitzgerald et al. institutionalized violence. The Sociological Review 63 (1): 1–18. Daum, C. 2017. Counterpublics and intersectional radical resistance: 2009), we clearly recognize boundaries to alternative food Agitation as transformation of the dominant discourse. New networks’ political intersectionality, boundaries following Political Science 39 (4): 523–537. from the amalgam confines of capitalist meat commodifica- Davis, A. 2016. We have to talk about systemic change. In Freedom tion and its innate, speciesist logic. is a constant struggle: Ferguson, palestine, and the foundations of a moment, ed. F. Barat, 31–50. Chicago: Haymarket Books. Davis, K., and P. D’Odorico. 2015. Livestock intensification and the OpenAccess This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea- influence of dietary change: A calorie-based assessment of com- tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco petition for crop production. Science of The Total Environment mmons.or g/licenses/b y/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu- 538: 817–823. tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate DeLessio-Parson, A. 2017. Doing vegetarianism to destabilize the credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the meat-masculinity nexus in la plata, argentina. Gender, Place & Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Culture 24 (12): 1729–1748. Delgado, C., et al. 1999. Livestock to 2020: The next food revolution. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Delgado, C., et al. 2003. Meating and milking global demand: Stakes References for small-scale farmers in developing countries. In The livestock revolution: A pathway from poverty, ed. A. G. Brown, 13–23. Adams, C. 2010. Why feminist-vegan now? Feminism & Psychology Portville, NY: The ATSE Crawford Fund. 20 (3): 302–317. DeMello, M. 2012. Animals and society: An introduction to human- Adams, C. 2016. The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian animal studies. New York: Columbia University Press. critical theory. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Dickson-Hoyle, S., and A. Reenberg. 2009. The shrinking globe: Allcorn, A., and S. Ogletree. 2018. Linked oppression: Connecting Globalisation of food systems and the changing geograhies of animal and gender attitudes. Feminism & Psychology 0 (0): 1–13. livestock-production. Geografisk Tidsskrift 109 (1): 105–112. Ayres, J., and M. Bosia. 2011. Beyond global summitry: Food sover- Dillard, J. 2008. A slaughterhouse nightmare: Psychological harm suf- eignty as localized resistance to globalization. Globalizations 8 fered by slaughterhouse employees and the possibility of redress (1): 47–63. through legal reform. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Baran, B., et al. 2016. Routinized killing of animals: Going beyond Policy 15 (2): 391–408. dirty work and prestige to understand the well-being of slaugh- Dowsett, E., et al. 2018. Neutralising the meat paradox: Cognitive dis- terhouse workers. Organization 23 (3): 351–369. sonance, gender, and eating animals. Appetite 123: 280–288. Barboza, R. 2017. Vive la révolution animale!: An ethnography of Fabrini, J. 2003. A resistência camponesa nos assentamentos de sem- the social consumer movement of vegetarianism. Säo Paulo: terra. Cascavel: Edunioeste. Fundação Getulio Vargas. FAOSTAT. 2018. Food supply—livestock and fish primary equivalent/ Bezerra, A. 2011. O jornal dos trabalhadores rurais sem terra e seus livestock primary/crops and livestock products. http://www.fao. temas 1981–2001. São Paulo: Pontifícia Universidade Católica org/faost at/en/#data. Accessed 25 May 2018. de São Paulo. Fine, B. 1994. Towards a political economy of food. Review of Inter- Blumberg, R. 2018. Alternative food networks and farmer livelihoods: national Political Economy 1 (3): 519–545. A spatializing livelihoods perspective. Geoforum 88: 161–173. Fitzgerald, A., et al. 2009. Slaughterhouses and increased crime rates: Brown, A. G. 2003. The livestock revolution: A pathway from poverty. An empirical analysis of the spillover from “the jungle” into the In The livestock revolution: A pathway from poverty, ed. A. G. surrounding community. Organization & Environment 22 (2): Brown., Parkville, MD: The ATSE Crawford Fund. 158–184. Campbell, H. 2009. Breaking new ground in food regime theory: Cor- Florit, L., and C. Sbardelati. 2016. Intensive speciesism regions in porate environmentalism, ecological feedbacks and the ‘food brazil: Ethical and social stains in territories supplying global from somewhere’ regime? Agriculture and Human Values 26 meat markets. In Impact of meat consumption on health and (4): 309–319. environmental sustainability. eds. T. Raphaely and D. Marinova, 277–294. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 1 3 “We do this because the market demands it”: alternative meat production and the speciesist logic 135 Forssell, S., and L. Lankoski. 2015. The sustainability promise of Lundström, M. 2011. Dynamics of the livestock revolution: Marginali- alternative food networks: An examination through “alternative” zation and resistance in southern brazil. Journal of Sustainable characteristics. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (1): 63–75. Agriculture 35 (2): 208–232. Francione, G. 2004. Animals–property or persons? In Animal rights: Lundström, M. 2017. The making of resistance: Brazil’s landless move- Current debates and new directions. eds. C. Sunstein and M. A. ment and narrative enactment. Cham: Springer International Nussbaum, 108–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Publishing. Freire, M. 2017. Sobre o que ogram os veganos? Uma análise das MacKinnon, C. 2004. Of mice and men: A feminist fragment on animal atividades do grupo ogros veganos no facebook. Razón y rights. In Animal rights: Current debates and new directions, Palabra 20 (3): 402–424. C. Sunstein, and M. Nussbaum, eds. 263–276, Oxford: Oxford Friedmann, H., and A. McNair. 2008. Whose rules rule? Contested University Press. projects to certify ‘local production for distant consumers. McMichael, P. 2008. Peasants make their own history, but not just as Journal of Agrarian Change 8 (2/3): 408–434. they please. Journal of Agrarian Change 8 (2 and 3): 205–228. Glover, M. 2017. Animals off the menu: A racist proposal? In Ani- McMichael, P. 2009. A food regime genealogy. Journal of Peasant mals, race, and multiculturalism, eds. L. Cordeiro-Rodrigues, Studies 36 (1): 139–169. and L. Mitchell, 175–199. Cham: Springer. McWeeny, J. 2014. Topographies of flesh: Women, nonhuman animals, Goodman, D., et al. 2012. Alternative food networks: Knowledge, and the embodiment of connection and difference. Hypatia 29 place and politics. Abingdon: Routledge. (2): 269–286. Gordon, N., and P. Chatterton. 2004. Taking back control: A jour- Medeiros, R. 2012. Territórios e luta pela terra no rio grande do sul. ney through argentina’s popular uprising. Leeds: University Boletim Dataluta 55: 2–8. of Leeds. Millar, J., and V. Photakoun. 2008. Livestock development and poverty Grasseni, C. 2013. Beyond alternative food networks: Italy’s solidar- alleviation: Revolution or evolution for upland livelihoods in Lao ity purchase groups. London: Bloomsbury Academic. PDR? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 6 (1): Gunderson, R. 2013. From cattle to capital: Exchange value, animal 89–102. commodification, and barbarism. Critical Sociology 39 (2): Monteiro, C. A., et al. 2017. The carnism inventory: Measuring the 259–275. ideology of eating animals. Appetite 113: 51–62. Hall, D., et al. 2004. The livestock revolution, food safety, and small- Morgan, D. L. 1988. Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury scale farmers: Why they matter to us all. Journal of Agricul- Park, CA: Sage Publications. tural and Environmental Ethics 17 (4): 425–444. Morton, T. 2017. Humankind: Solidarity with nonhuman people. Lon- Hamilton, C. 2016. Sex, work, meat: The feminist politics of vegan- don: Verso. ism. Feminist Review 114 (1): 112–129. Naase, K. 2009. “The dream of making a living from the land”: Ama- Heffernan, C. 2004. Livestock and the poor: Issues in poverty- zon settler women as change agents. Boletim do Museu Paraense focused livestock development. In Responding to the livestock Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas 4 (2): 247–260. revolution: The role of globalisation and implications for pov- Narrod, C., et al. 2010. Socioeconomic implications of the livestock erty alleviation, ed. E. Owen, et al., 229–246. Nottingham: industrialization process: How will smallholders fare? In Live- Nottingham University Press. stock in a changing landscape. Volume 1: Drivers, consequences, Hudson, L. 2011. A species of thought: Bare life and animal being. and responses, ed. H. Steinfeld, et al., 269–282. Washington, Antipode 43 (5): 1659–1678. DC: Island Press. Johnston, G., and M. Johnston. 2017. ‘We fight for all living things’: Neo, H., and J. Emel. 2017. Geographies of meat: Politics, economy Countering misconceptions about the radical animal liberation and culture. London: Routledge. movement. Social Movement Studies 16 (6): 735–751. Nibert, D. 2002. Animal rights, human rights: Entanglements of Joy, M. 2010. Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An intro- oppression and liberation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. duction to carnism: The belief system that enables us to eat Nin, A., et al. 2007. Livestock productivity in developing countries: some animals and not others. San Francisco, CA: Conari Press. An assessment. In Handbook of aricultural economics, Volume Karriem, A., and L. Benjamin. 2016. How civil society organizations 3: Agricultural development: farmers, farm production and farm foster insurgent citizenship: Lessons from the brazilian land- market, eds. R. Evenson, and P. Pingali, 2461–2532. Amsterdam: less movement. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Volun- Elsevier. tary and Nonprofit Organizations 27 (1): 19–36. Nocella, A., et al. 2014. Introduction: The emergence of critical ani- Kaufmann, R. R. v., and H. Fitzhugh. 2005. The importance of live- mal studies. The rise of intersectional animal liberation. Defining stock for the world’s poor. In Perspectives in world food and critical animal studies: An intersectional social justice approach agriculture, eds. C. Scanes, and J. Miranowski, 137–160, Iowa, for liberation 448: 19–36 IA: Iowa State Press. Nugent, S. 2002. Whither o campesinato? Historical peasantries of bra- Khan, A. A., and F. S. Bidabadi. 2004. Livestock revolution in india: zilian amazonia. Journal of Peasant Studies 29 (3–4): 162–189. Its impact and policy response. South Asia Research 24 (2): Okechukwu, A. 2014. Shadows of solidarity: Identity, intersectionality, 99–122. and frame resonance. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts Koç, M., et al. 2017. The interdisciplinary field of food studies. In and Change 37: 153–180. Critical perspectives in food studies, eds. J. Mustafa Koç, Sum- Olivier, A., and L. Cordeiro-Rodrigues. 2017. Racism, speciesism ner, and A. Winson, 3–18. Ontario: Oxford University Press. and suffering. In Animals, race, and multiculturalism, eds. L. Krueger, R. A., and M. A. Casey. 2000. Focus groups: A practical guide Cordeiro-Rodrigues, and L. Mitchell, 147–174. Cham: Springer. for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Patel, R. 2010. What does food sovereignty look like? In Food sover- Lang, T., and M. Heasman. 2004. Food wars: The global battle for eignty: Reconnecting food, nature & community, eds. H. Witt- mouths, minds and markets. London: Earthscan. man, A. Desmarais, and N. Wiebe., Oakland, CA: Food First. Lazzaretti, M. 2007. A produção da ação coletiva no mst: Relações de Pica-Ciamarra, U., and J. Otte. 2011. The ‘livestock revolution’: Rheto- poder e subjetividade. João Pessoa. Brazil: Universidade Federal ric and reality. Outlook on Agriculture 40 (1): 7–19. da Paraíba. Rae, A., and R. Nayga. 2010. Trends in consumption, production, and trade in livestock and livestock products. In Livestock in Levai, L. F. 2013. A luta pelos direitos animais no brasil: Passos para o futuro. Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal 7 (10): 175–187. 1 3 136 M. Lundström a changing landscape. Volume 1: Drivers, consequences, and sem terra (mst) e as cooperativas de produção agropecuárias de responses, eds. H. Steinfeld, et al., 11–34. Washington, DC: cuba. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo. Island Press. Torres, B. 2007. Making a killing: The political economy of animal Rakopoulos, T. 2014. The crisis seen from below, within, and against: rights. Edinburgh: AK Press. From solidarity economy to food distribution cooperatives in Vanden, H. 2014. Taking the streets, swarming public spaces. In greece. Dialectical Anthropology 38 (2): 189–207. Rethinking latin american social movements: Radical action Renting, H., et al. 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: from below, eds. M. Becker, H. Vanden, and R. Stahler-Sholk, Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural develop- 233–249. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ment. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 35 (3): von Essen, E., and M. Allen. 2017. Solidarity between human and non- 393–411. human animals: Representing animal voices in policy delibera- Riches, G., and T. Silvasti. 2014. Hunger in the rich world: Food aid tions. Environmental Communication 11 (5): 641–653. and right to food perspectives. In First world hunger revis- Wald, N., and D. Hill. 2016. ‘Rescaling’ alternative food systems: From ited, eds. G. Riches, and T. Silvasti, 1–14. Cham, Switzerland: food security to food sovereignty. Agriculture and Human Values Springer. 33 (1): 203–213. Rothgerber, H. 2013. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculin- Waldron, S., et al. 2003. Transforming lives with livestock-based agri- ity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men business. In The livestock revolution: A pathway from poverty? & Masculinity 14 (4): 363. ed. A. G. Brown, 27–39. Portville, NY: The Crawford Fund. Sage, C. 2003. Social embeddedness and relations of regard: Alterna- Wilkie, R. 2010. Livestock/deadstock: Working with farm animals from tive ‘good food’networks in south-west ireland. Journal of Rural birth to slaughter. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Studies 19 (1): 47–60. Wilkinson, S. 2008. Focus groups. In Qualitative psychology: A practi- Sanbonmatsu, J. 2011. Introduction. In Critical theory and animal cal guide to research methods, ed. J. Smith, 186–206. London, liberation, ed. J. Sanbonmatsu, 1–34. Lanham, MD: Rowman UK: Sage. & Littlefield. Williams, M. 1999. The political economy of meat: Food, culture and Sandoval, S. 2007. Alternative forms of working-class organization and identity. In Political economy, power and the body: Global per- the mobilization of informal-sector workers in brazil in the era of spectives, ed. G. Youngs, 135–158, Houndmills, UK: Palgrave neoliberalism. International Labor and Working-Class History Macmillan. 72 (1): 63–89. Wilson, M. 2016. Introduction: Sovereign food spaces? Openings and Schneider, S., and P. Niederle. 2010. Resistance strategies and diver- closures. In Postcolonialism, indigeneity and struggles for food sification of rural livelihoods: The construction of autonomy sovereignty: Alternative food networks in subaltern spaces, ed. among brazilian family farmers. Journal of Peasant Studies 37 M. Wilson, 19–32. New York: Routledge. (2): 379–405. Wittman, H. 2010. Seeing like a peasant. In Food sovereignty: Recon- de Silva, C. B. 2004. Relações de gênero e subjetividades no devir necting food, nature & community, eds. H. Wittman, A. A. Des- MST. Estudos Feministas 12 (1): 269–287. marais, and N. Wiebe., Oakland, CA: Food First. Smith, M. 2002. The’ethical’space of the abattoir: On the (in) human Wyckoff, J. 2015. Analysing animality: A critical approach. The Philo- (e) slaughter of other animals. Human Ecology Review 9 (2): sophical Quarterly 65 (260): 529–546. 49–58. Sonnino, R., and T. Marsden. 2006. Beyond the divide: Rethinking relationships between alternative and conventional food networks Markus Lundström PhD, specializes in resistance and social movement in europe. Journal of Economic Geography 6 (2): 181–199. studies. His work covers agrarian movements in the Global South, Svärd, P.-A. 2014. Slaughter and animal welfarism in sweden 1900– urban riots the Global North, as well as political thought developed in 1944. In Political animals and animal politics, eds. M. Wissen- transnational anarchism and fascism. burg, and D. Schlosberg, 135–149, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Thomaz, F. 2015. A coletivização agrícola em questão: Comparação entre a produção coletiva do movimento dos trabalhadores rurais 1 3

Journal

Agriculture and Human ValuesSpringer Journals

Published: Dec 6, 2018

There are no references for this article.