Department of Geography & Planning

University of Toronto

GRADUATE COURSE SYLLABUS

Course: JPG1429 The Political Ecology of Food and Agriculture

Term: Winter 2018

Course Director: Dr. Michael Ekers

Email: mekers@utsc.utoronto.ca

Office: Sidney Smith 5027D

Office Hours: Tuesdays 12:00-2:00

Dr. Ryan Isakson

Email: risakson@utsc.utoronto.ca

Office: Sidney Smith 5021

Office Hours: Tuesdays, 12:00-2:00

Time: Tuesdays 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM

Location: SS2124A (Sidney Smith Hall)

Objectives:

1. Develop a broad understanding of historical, geographical and theoretical understandings

of the political ecology of food, agriculture and the agrarian question.

2. Examine how the roots of many debates in political ecology have been informed by

studies of food and agriculture.

3. Investigate historicist methods, with a focus on how texts, concepts and research travel

and change historically and geographically.

4. Develop students’ presentation and research skills through applying course themes and

readings to an agrarian/food issue of their choice.

Course Description:

Agrifood systems, connecting production and consumption, markets and various types of agrarian

labour, are undergoing profound social and ecological change. Among these developments are

large-scale land grabs, the financialization of food and farming, challenges to settler agriculture

and the resurgence of indigenous food systems, the emergence of robust ‘urban’ and ‘rural’

alternatives to industrial and colonial agriculture. In trying to make sense of these changes, and

the various social movements that have emerged in their wake, this course deploys the related

paradigms of agrarian political economy and political ecology to analyze the forces and social

relations that define land-based and food-focused transformations, both historically and in the

contemporary moment.

This course examines the often forgotten roots of contemporary debates in political ecology and

food studies, that is, the enduring agrarian question. The agrarian question examines the extent to

which capital has transformed agricultural production and the degrees to which producers have

been able to resist dispossession and the industrialization and capitalization of agriculture.

Arguably, access to food and the viability of alternative and conventional agriculture is shaped by

the particular, and at times limited, ways that capital takes hold of agrarian production processes

and transforms small-scale and peasant farmers. This course examines these questions through a

series of historical and geographical accounts of the agrarian question and discusses how they

might inform or limit understandings of the political ecology of food. We start with competing

historical accounts of agrarian production in the works of Lenin, Kautsky and Chayanov and

debates regarding peasant politics and uprisings. Next, we explore the influences of these

historical debates in accounts of peasant studies, agrarian political economy and political ecology

in the 1970s and 1980s and the chasm existing between marxist and populist accounts of the

peasantry and agrarian change. Finally, we trace the endurance and relevance of political

ecology approaches and the agrarian question in contemporary readings of alternative agriculture,

urban agriculture, land-based social movements, anti-colonial struggles over, and understandings

of, food and land and renewed forms of enclosure and the financialization of land.

Debates on food, social movements, alternative and urban agriculture and settler-colonialism,

much of it channeled through the lens of political ecology, have exploded over the past 10 years.

However, frequently much of the literature has overlooked the extended historical debates on

agrarian change and the politics associated with different forms of production (peasant, petty-

commodity production, and capitalist). Through this course we explore to what degree more

recent studies of political ecology and food might be reinvigorated through a historically and

geographically expansive reading of the agrarian question and also how contemporary debates

ask us to rethink ‘classic texts’. In doing so, the course seeks to provide a theoretical and

empirical foundation for students interested in food and agriculture, political ecology, land-based

social movements and critical perspectives on development.

As detailed in below, these themes are examined through four blocks that structure the course:

I: Starting Points II: Engaging the ‘Classics’ III: Peasants Studies,

Agrarian Political

Economy and the Origins

of Political Ecology

IV: Contemporary

Transformations in the

Political Ecology of Food,

Agriculture and Land

Orientation and Course Organization Surveying the Agrarian Question Political Ecology

Origins of the Agrarian

Question

Agrarian Capitalism and

Development Paths

The Peasant Economy

Peasant Wars

Petty Commodity

Production

Commodified and Non-

Commodified Labour

Peasantries and the Moral

Economy

Broadening Agrarian

Transformations

Financializing Food and Land

Agrarianism, Alternatives

and their Limits

Urban Agriculture

Agrarian Social Movements

Indigeneity, Decolonization,

Land and Food

1. Weekly Reading Reflections (20%) Weekly

2. Mid-Course ‘Check-In’ (5%) February 13th

3. Participation (20%) Weekly

4. Major Paper Proposal (15%) February 27th

5. Major Paper (40%) April 21st

Weekly Reading Reflections

Weekly reading reflections play an important role in ensuring that everyone (including your

instructors!) is carefully engaging with the required readings. Moreover, the readings represent a

common reference point and anchor class discussions, as we will draw on your various

contributions and comments. You are required to write a 1-2 page double-spaced reflection on the

required readings for 10 weeks of the term. No reflection is required for Class 1 and you can skip

one further week throughout the term.

Your reading reflections should represent a thoughtful engagement with the required readings

associated with any given class in question. These reflections should be more than a simple

summary of the readings and should discuss some of the following questions: What key questions

and/or issues do the readings provoke you to consider? Why do these readings matter, or not?

What is the relevance of the readings to debates on the agrarian question, the political ecology of

food or for your own research? What is of value in the readings, what critiques might be offered

and what are the limits of the work? While criticism is important, sometimes there is a temptation

to engage in critique for the sake of critique so be sure to identify the strengths and value of the

various pieces of writing. When writing your reflections remember that particular, focused

engagements are always better than overly general comments.

Your Reading Reflections must be submitted to both of us as an email attachments no later than

12:00 PM on the Monday preceding our scheduled class. With your consent, your reflections will

be shared with the class through a Dropbox folder. If you have concerns about this please speak

to us directly.

Participation

Your substantive, constructive and respectful participation in weekly class discussions is crucial

for the success of this course. While we will provide structure for our discussions we expect

everyone to make thoughtful contributions to the discussions on the weekly topics and readings.

Your comments should always be respectful of others and we should all strive to be considerate

of everyone’s specific backgrounds, perspectives, stages of study and comfort level regarding

participation. Relations of race, gender, sexuality, class and learning styles subtend experiences of

the classroom. Finally, we ask that everyone be mindful about the amount of time they are

speaking. There needs to be time and space for everyone to contribute and sometimes that may

mean not immediately conveying some burning thought or idea. If we feel that someone is

dominating the discussions or is being unconstructive we may speak with you about the situation.

We flag this simply in the spirit of fostering a productive, equitable and safe learning

environment.

Mid-Course Check-In

Individual meetings will be scheduled on Feb. 14th during which we will discuss your progress in

the course, your Reading Reflections, your thoughts on the course and my instruction and what

might be working and what might require rethinking during the second half of the semester. The

meeting will also be an opportunity to have preliminary discussions around your Major Research

Proposal and Paper.

Major Paper

In addition to the topics covered on this syllabus, you will also have an opportunity to research

and write a term paper on a related theme of personal interest. The topic of your paper is of your

choice, however, it must be sufficiently related to the agrarian question and/or the political

ecology of food and agriculture. Your paper may take on different forms depending on your stage

of study and specific interests but it could include a critical literature review, a theoretically

oriented argument, a paper based on empirical/concrete/discursive research or even a grant

application. If you are uncertain whether your topic is appropriate, please discuss it with us in

office hours or during the scheduled meeting.

The length of the papers should be between 20-25 double-spaced pages, excluding the

bibliography. There is no minimum number of pages, however there is a firm maximum of 25

pages, again excluding the references. All papers should develop a clear and well-supported

thesis. Evaluation of your essays will be based upon your demonstrated knowledge of – and

thoughtful engagement with – the relevant academic literature, additional research and the quality

of your writing. Like most readers, including the editors of academic journals, we value well-

organized essays and concise writing. The minimum number of sources will depend upon the

type of texts you are engaging with and the substantiveness of the engagement. Obviously,

reading a book takes more time than an article. We expect that you will read the equivalent of

10-20 journal articles for this assignment. You are welcome to use your preferred citation style

(APA, AAG, Chicago, etc.), but please use it consistently throughout your paper.

Essays are due no later than April 21st. Please send them to us as an email attachment,

preferably in a format that is compatible with Microsoft Word. It is much harder to comment on

PDF files.

Major Paper Proposal

Quality writing typically requires a long gestation period and we encourage you to begin

researching and refining your major paper topic as soon as possible. To encourage this, a

proposal for your major research paper is due no later than February 27th. It should clearly

identify the topic that you intend to research and explain how it relates to the political ecology of

food and the agrarian question. If you are uncertain whether your chosen topic is appropriate, We

would be happy to discuss it with you. Your proposal should also articulate a tentative

thesis/argument. We encourage you to clearly spell out the significance and/or relevance of your

proposed topic for your own research interests and for broader debates. You should also provide a

basic outline of your paper and identify and comment on at least five relevant texts that you plan

to draw upon. Your proposal should be 5 double-spaced pages in length and should be submitted

to us as an email attachment in a Word-compatible format.

Deadline Policy

Late work will be penalized by two percentage points per day, excluding weekends.

Course Texts

All of the course texts will be available through a course Dropbox folder. You can also bring a

memory stick to my office hours and we can transfer the files for you.

Weekly Topics and Readings

This course and syllabus are works in progress. Please feel free to offer any suggestions or

constructive criticism about the subject matter, readings, methods of evaluation, and class

dynamics. As a class we may alter this syllabus – including the topics and readings – as we deem

appropriate at any time during the course of the semester. You will be expected to adjust your

reading accordingly.

I. Starting Points

Class 1 (Jan. 9): Surveying the Agrarian Questions Required:

Desmarais, A. A., & Wittman, H. (2014). Farmers, foodies and First Nations: Getting to food

sovereignty in Canada. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 1153–1173.

Akram-Lodhi, H., & Kay, C. (2010). Surveying the agrarian question (part 1): Unearthing

foundations, exploring diversity. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(1), 177-202.

Watts, M. (2015).Now and then: the origins of political ecology and the rebirth of adaptation as a

form of thought. In T. Perreault, G. Bridge & J. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of

Political Ecology (pp. 19-50). New York: Routledge. 19-50.

Recommended:

Watts, M., & Goodman, D. (1997). Agrarian questions: Global appetite, local metabolism: Nature,

culture, and industry in fin-de-siecle agro-food systems. In D. Goodman, & M. Watts (Eds.),

Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and Global Restructuring (pp. 1-32). New York:

Routledge.

Borras, S. M. (2009). Agrarian change and peasant studies: Changes, continuities and challenges –

an introduction. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 5-31.

Bernstein, H. (2006). Is there an agrarian question in the 21st century? Canadian Journal of

Development Studies, 27(4), 449-460.

Hall, D. (2015). The political ecology of international agri-food systems. In. T. Perreault, G.

Bridge, & J. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology, (pp. 406-417). New

York: Routledge.

II. Engaging the ‘Classics’

Class 2 (Jan. 16): The Agrarian Question: Marx, Kautsky and Lenin

Required:

Marx, K. (1850-2). Peasantry as a class. In T. Shanin (Ed.), Peasants and Peasant Societies (pp.

229-237). Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Kautsky, K. (1899/1988). The Agrarian Question. London: Zwan Publications. (1-12, 133-197))

Lenin, V. I. (1899/2004). The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Honolulu: University Press of

the Pacific. (Chapter 2, pp. 175-190)

Lenin, V. I. (1905-07/1977). The Agrarian Programme of Social Democracy in the First Russian

Revolution. Moscow: Progress Publishers. (Chapter 1, pp. 7-32)

Recommended:

Alavi, H., & Shanin, S. (1988). Introduction to the English edition: Peasantry and capitalism. In

The Agrarian Question Vol. 1 (pp. xi-xxxix). London: Zwan Publications.

Mann, S. (1990). Agrarian Capitalism in Theory and Practice. Chapel Hill: The University of

North Carolina Press.

Goodman, D., & Watts, M. (1997). Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and Global

Restructuring. New York: Routledge.

Bernstein, H. (2009). V. I. Lenin and A. V. Chayanov: Looking back, looking forward. Journal of

Peasant Studies, 36(1), 55-81.

Patnaik, U. (1976). Class differentiation within the peasantry: An approach to analysis of Indian

agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly, 11(39), 82-101.

Byres, T. J. (2009). The landlord class, peasant differentiation, class struggle and the transition to

capitalism: England, France and Prussia compared. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 33–54.

Class 3 (Jan. 23): The Peasant Economy: Chayanov

Required:

Chayanov, A.V. (1986). On the theory of non-capitalist economic systems. In D. Thorner, B.

Kerblay, & R. Smith (Eds.), The Theory of Peasant Economy (pp. 1-29). Madison: The University

of Wisconsin Press.

Chayanov, A.V. (1986). Peasant farm organization. In D. Thorner, B. Kerblay, & R. Smith (Eds.),

The Theory of Peasant Economy. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. (pp. 35-89)

van der Ploeg, J. D. (2010). The peasantries of the twenty-first century: the commodititsation

debate revisited. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(1), 1-30.

Recommended:

Chayanov, A.V. (1986). The Theory of Peasant Co-operatives. Columbus: Ohio State University

Press.

Ellis, F. (1993). The drudgery averse peasant. In Peasant Economics: Farm Households and

Agrarian Development (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Chapter 6)

Harrison, M. (1977). The peasant mode of production in the work of A. V. Chayanov. The Journal

of Peasant Studies, 4(4), 323-336.

Shanin, T. (1973). The nature and logic of the peasant economy 1: A generalisation. The Journal

of Peasant Studies, 1(1), 63-80.

Shanin, T. (2009). Chaynov’s treble death and tenuous resurrection: An essay about

understanding, about roots of plausibility and about rural Russia. Journal of Peasant Studies,

36(1), 83-101.

Thorner, D. (1965). A post-Marxian theory of peasant economy. Economic and Political Weekly,

XVII(5-6-7), 227-236.

van der Ploeg, J. D. (2008). The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in

an Era of Empire and Globalization. London: Earthscan

Class 4 (Jan. 30): Peasant Uprisings and Politics

Required:

Gramsci, A. (1978 [1926]). Some aspects of the Southern Question. In Selections from Political

Writings, 1921-1926, ed. and trans. Q. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

Wolf, E. (1969). Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

(pp. IX-48)

Fanon, F. (1971[1967]). The revolutionary proletariat of our times. In T. Shanin (Ed.), Peasants

and Peasant Societies (pp. 372-374). Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Recommended:

Davidson, A. (1984). Gramsci, the peasantry and popular culture. The Journal of Peasant Studies,

11(4), 139-154.

Hobsbawm, E.J. (1973). Peasants and politics. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1(1), 3-22.

James, C.L.R. (1989). The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo

Revolution. New York: Vintage Books.

Kipfer. S. (2013). City, country, hegemony: Antonio Gramsci’s spatial historicism. In M. Ekers,

G. Hart, S, Kipfer & A. Loftus (Eds.), Gramsci: Space, Nature, Politics (pp. 83-103). Oxford:

Wiley-Blackwell.

Watts, M. (2016). The mafia of a Sicilian village, 1860-1960; a study of violent peasant

entrepreneurs. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(1), 67-91.

Wolf, E. (1966). Peasants. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

III. Peasant Studies and Agrarian Political Economy and the Origins of Political

Ecology

Class 5 (Feb. 6): Petty Commodity Production: the Commodified to the Non-Commodified

Required:

Bernstein, H. (1979). African peasantries: A theoretical framework. The Journal of Peasant

Studies, 6(4), 421–443.

Friedmann, H. (1978). World market, state, and family farm: Social bases of household production

in the era of wage labor. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 20(4), 545–586.

Smith, G. (1985). Reflections on the social relations of simple commodity production. The Journal

of Peasant Studies, 13(1), 99–108.

Deere, C.D. & de Janvry, A. (1979). A conceptual framework for the empirical analysis of

peasants. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(4), 601-611.

Recommended:

Bhattacharya, S. (2014). Is labour still a relevant category for praxis? Critical reflections on some

contemporary discourses on work and labour in capitalism. Development and Change, 45(5), 941-

962.

De Janvry, A. (1981). The Agrarian Question and Reformism in Latin America. Baltimore: John

Hopkins University Press.

Deere, C. D. (1990). Household and Class Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Friedmann, H. (1980). Household production and the national economy: Concepts for the analysis

of agrarian formations. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 7(2), 158-184.

Harriss-White, B. (2014). Labour and petty production. Development and Change, 45(5), 981-

1000.

Smith, G. A. (1979). Socio‐ economic differentiation and relations of production among rural‐based petty producers in central Peru, 1880 to 1970. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 6(3), 286-

310.

Class 6 (Feb. 13): Peasantries and the Moral Economy

Required:

Scott, J. (1976). The Moral Economy of the Peasant. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 1-34,

56-90

Edelman, M. (2005). Bringing the moral economy back in …to the study of 21st-century

transnational peasant movements. American Anthropologist, 107(3), 331-345.

Recommended:

Popkin, S. (1980). The rational peasant: The political economy of peasant society. Theory and

Society, 9(3), 411-471.

Clapp, R. A. J. (1988). Representing reciprocity, reproducing domination: Ideology and the

labour process in Latin American contract farming. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 16(1), 5-39.

Edelman, M. (2005). Bringing the moral economy back in …to the study of 21st-century

transnational peasant movements. American Anthropologist, 107(3), 331-345.

Haggis, J., Jarrett, S., Taylor, D., & Mayer, P. (1986). By the teeth: A critical examination of

James Scott’s the moral economy of the peasant. World Development, 14(12), 1435-1455.

Scott, J. (2010). The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

Thompson, E.P. (1971). The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past

& Present, 50(Feb.), 76-136.

Wolf, E. (1999[1969]). Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma

Press.

February 20th – No Class, Reading Week

Class 7 (Feb. 27): Broadening Agrarian Transformations: Social Difference

Required:

Deere, C. D. (1995). What difference does gender make? Rethinking peasant studies. Feminist

Economics, 1(1), 53-72.

Carney, J. & Watts, M. (1990). Manufacturing dissent: work, gender and the politics of meaning

in a peasant society. Africa, 60(4): 207-241.

O’Laughlin, B. (2009). Gender, justice, land and the agrarian question in Southern Africa. In A. H.

Akram-Lodhi, & C. Kay (Eds.), Peasants and Globalization: Political Economy Rural

Transformation, and the Agrarian Question (pp. 190-213). New York: Routledge.

Minkoff-Zern, L. A. (2013). The new American farmer: The agrarian question, food sovereignty

and immigrant Mexican growers in the United States. Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue.

International Conference Yale University, September 14-15. Available at:

https://www.tni.org/files/download/16_minkoffzern_2013.pdf

Recommended:

Carney, J. (2001). African Rice in the Columbian Exchange. The Journal of African History,

42(3), 377-396.

Gidwani, V. (2008). Capital, Interrupted: Agrarian Development and the Politics of Work in

India. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Introduction, Chapters 3-5)

McMichael, P. (2009). Food sovereignty, social reproduction, and the agrarian question. In A. H.

Akram-Lodhi & C. Kay (Eds.), Peasants and Globalization: Political Economy Rural

Transformation, and the Agrarian Question (pp. 288-311). New York: Routledge.

Kearney, M. (2002). Transnational Migration from Oaxaca, the Agrarian Question, and the

Politics of Indigenous Peoples. Osterreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaffen, 13(4),

7-21.

Razavi, S. (2009). Engendering the political economy of agrarian change. Journal of Peasant

Studies, 36(1), 197-226.

Trauger, A. (2004) ‘Because they can do the work’: Women farmers in sustainable agriculture in

Pennsylvania, USA. Gender, Place & Culture, 11(2), 289-307.

Paper Proposals Due No Later Than February 28th – Please Submit via Email

IV. Contemporary Transformations in the Political Ecology of Food, Agriculture

and Land

Class 8 (Mar. 6): Finance, Food and Land

Required:

Clapp, J. (2014). Financialization, distance, and global food politics. The Journal of Peasant

Studies, 41(5), 797-814.

Li, T. M. (2014). What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment. Transactions of the

Institute of British Geographers, 39(4), 589-602.

Fairbairn, M. (2014). Like gold with yield: Evolving intersections between farmland and finance.

The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(5), 777-795.

Williams, J. W. (2014). Feeding finance: A critical account of the shifting relationship between

finance, food, and farming. Economy and Society, 43(3), 401-431.

Recommended:

Breger Bush, S. (2012). Derivatives and Development: A Political Economy of Global Finance,

Farming, and Poverty. Palgrave Macmillan.

Ghosh, J. (2010). The unnatural coupling: Food and global finance. Journal of Agrarian Change,

10(1), 72-86.

Isakson, S. R. (2014). The financial transformation of agri-food supply chains. The Journal of

Peasant Studies, 41(5), 749-775.

Johnson, L. (2013). Index insurance and the articulation of risk-bearing subjects. Environment and

Planning A, 45, 2663-2681.

Ouma, S. (2014). Situating global finance in the land rush debate: A critical review. Geoforum,

57, 162-166.

Sommerville, M., & Magnan, A. (2015). Pinstripes on the prairies: Examining the financialization

of farming systems in the Canadian prairie provinces. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(1), 119-

144.

Class 9 (Mar. 13): The Political Economy of ‘Alternative’ Agriculture

Required:

Guthman, J. (2004). Agrarian Dreams. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 1-60, 172-

185.

Galt, R. (2013). The moral economy is a double-edged sword: Explaining farmers’ earnings and

self-exploitation in community-supported agriculture. Economic Geography, 89(4), 341–365.

Recommended:

Brown, S., and C. Getz. 2008b. Privatizing farm worker justice: Regulating labor through

voluntary certification and labeling. Geoforum 39(3): 1184-1196.

Buck, D., Getz, C., & Guthman, J. (1997). From farm to table: The organic vegetable community

chain of Northern California. Sociologia Ruralis, 37(1), 3-20.

Ekers, M., Levkoe, C., Walker, S, and Dale, B. (2016) Will work for food: Agricultural interns,

apprentices, volunteers and the agrarian question. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(3), 705-720.

Gray, M. (2014). Labor and the Locavore. Berkeley: University of California Press. (128-150)

Guthman, J. (2016). Life itself under contract: rent-seeking and biopolitical devolution through

partnerships in California’s strawberry industry. The Journal of Peasant Studies, (Latest Articles)

Pratt, J. (2009). Incorporation and resistance: Analytical issues in the conventionalization debate

and alternative food chains. Journal of Agrarian Change 9,155–74.

Class 10 (Mar. 20): Urban Agriculture: Possibilities and Limits

Required:

Altieri, M.A., Companioni, N., Cañizares K., Murphy, C., Rosset, P., Bourque, M. & Nicholls,

C.I. (1999). The greening of the “barrios”: urban agriculture for food security in Cuba. Agriculture

and Human Values, 16(2): 131-140.

McClintock, N. (2014). Radical, reformist, and garden-variety neoliberal: coming to terms with

urban agriculture’s contradiction. Local Environment 19(2): 147-171.

Tornaghi, C. (2014). Critical geography of urban agriculture. Progress in Human Geography,

38(4), 551-567

Heynen, N. (2009). Bending the bars of empire from every ghetto for survival: the Black Panter

Party’s radical antihunger politics of social reproduction and scale. Annals of the American

Association of Geographers, 99(2), 406-422.

Recommended:

Agyeman, J., & McEntee, J. (2014). Moving the field of food justice forward through the lens of

urban political ecology, Geography Compass 8(3), 211–220

Heynen, N. (2010). Cooking up non-violent civil disobedient direct action for the hungry: Food

Not Bombs and the resurgence of radical democracy. Urban Studies, 47(6): 1225-1240

Levkoe, C. (2014). The food movement in Canada: A social movement network perspective. The

Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(3), 385-403.

McClintock, N. (2011). From industrial garden to food desert: Demarcated devalution in the

flatlands of Oakland, California. In A.H. Alkon & J. Agyeman (Eds.), Cultivating Food Justice:

Race, Class, and Sustainability (pp. 89–120. Cambridge: MIT Press

Purcell, M. & Tyman S. (2015). Cultivating food as a right to the city. Local Environment, 20(10),

1132-1147.

Rosol, M (2012). Community volunteering as neoliberal strategy? Green space production in

Berlin. Antipode, 44(1), 239-257,

Class 11 (Mar. 27): Agrarian Social Movements and Food Sovereignty

Required:

Wittman, H. (2009). Reworking the metabolic rift: La Vía Campesina, agrarian citizenship, and

food sovereignty Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(4), 805-826.

Karriem, A. (2009). The rise and transformation of the Brazilian Landless Movement into a

counter-hegemonic political actor: A Gramscian Analysis. Geoforum, 40(3): 316-325.

McMichael, P. (2006). Reframing development: global peasant movements and the new agrarian

question. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 27(4), 471–83.

Bernstein, H. (2014). Food sovereignty via the ‘peasant way’: a skeptical view. Journal of Peasant

Studies 41(6), 1031-1063.

Recommended:

Agarwal B. (2014) Food sovereignty, food security and democratic choice: Critical contradictions,

difficult conciliations. Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6), 1247-1268.

Borras S.M. (2010) The politics of transnational agrarian movements. Development and Change,

41(5), 771-803.

Edelman, M. (2005) Bringing the Moral Economy Back In... to the Study of Twenty-first Century

Transnational Peasant Movements, American Anthropologist 107(3), 331-345.

Edelman, M. & Borras, S.M. (2016) Political Dynamics of Transnational Agrarian Movements.

Halifax: Fernwood.

van der Ploeg, J.D, (2014) Peasant-driven agricultural growth and food sovereignty. Journal of

Peasant Studies 41(6), 999-1030.

Wolford, W. (2010) This Land is Ours Now: Social Mobilization and the Meanings of Land in

Brazil. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press.

Class 12 (April. 3): Indigenous Politics, Land and Decolonizing Food

Required:

Daschuk, J. (2013). Clearing the Plains: Disease, Politics of Starvation, and the Loss of

Aboriginal Life. Regina: University of Regina Press (IX-XXII, 99-126).

Coulthard, G. (2014). For the land: The Dene Nation’s struggle for self-determination. In Red

Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press. pp. 51-78

Todd, Z. (2014). Fish pluralities: human-animal relations and sites of engagement in Paulatuuq,

Arctic Canada. Études/Inuit/Studies 38(1-2), 217-238.

Yerxa, J-R. (2014). Gii-kaapizigemin manoomin Neyaashing: A resurgence of Anishinaabeg

nationhood. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 3(3), 159-166.

Recommended:

Bradley, K., & Herrera, H. (2015). Decolonizing food justice: Naming, resisting, and researching

colonial forces in the movement. Antipode 48(1): 97-114.

Food Secure Canada. (2011). Discussion Paper 1: Indigenous Food Sovereignty. Discussion

Papers of the People’s Food Policy. Available at:

http://foodsecurecanada.org/sites/default/files/sites/foodsecurecanada.org/files/DP1_Indigenous_F

ood_Sovereignty.pdf

Grey, S., & Patel, R. (2014). Food sovereignty as decolonization: Some contributions from

Indigenous movements to food system and development politics. Agriculture and Human Values,

32(3), 431-444.

Morrison, D. (2011). Indigenous food sovereignty – A model for social learning. In H. Wittman,

A. A. Desmarais, & N. Wiebe (Eds.), Food Sovereignty in Canada: Creating Just and Sustainable

Food Systems (pp. 97-113). Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

Nadasdy, P. (2007). The gift in the animal: The ontology of hunting and human-animal sociality.

American Ethnologist, 34(1), 25-43.

Term Papers Due No Later Than April 21th – Please Submit via Email

Supplementary Information

Course Readings

All of the required course readings will be available through a shared Dropbox folder that will be

established. Please note that will be mindful of not deleting files when accessing the readings.

Please do not ‘drag and drop’ and readings from a folder as this will delete them from the

Dropbox folder. You must ‘copy’ the files and save them in a separate location.

Course Webpages

The course webpages include information relevant to the course. Course handouts and

assignments will be posted online. Other supplementary materials may be made available as the

course progresses. Finally, information about any timetable changes, special events and/or

lectures will also be posted on the course website. You are encouraged to consult the course

webpages frequently and follow the course announcements.

Email Policy

Email is a convenient and effective way to communicate with the Course Director. But please do

not expect an immediate reply to your email, although every effort will be made to get back to

you within 48 hours (weekends not included). Office hours are available for individual attention.

If we think that your question or concern is best dealt with in person we will suggest that you see

us during office hours. All email correspondence should have JPG1429 clearly identified in the

subject heading.

Accessibility Services

The University of Toronto is committed to accessibility. If you require accommodations or have

any accessibility concerns, please visit http://studentlife.utoronto.ca/accessibility as soon as

possible. Students may also want to contact Accessibility Services Office if they have problems

arising from chronic issues or injuries sustained during the term that affect their ability to do

assignments. For more information, see http://www.accessibility.utoronto.ca/Faculty-and-

Staff.htm.

Academic Integrity

Plagiarism is an academic offense at the University of Toronto. Plagiarism is quoting (or

paraphrasing) the work of an author (including the work of fellow students) without proper use of

citation (and quotations marks when using an author’s words). Students also should not be

submitting any academic work for which credit has previously been obtained or is being sought,

without first discussing with the instructor. Please consult the “Rules and Regulations” section of

the Arts and Science Calendar

(http://www.artsandscience.utoronto.ca/ofr/calendar/Rules_&_Regulations.html). For further

information and check the ‘How not to plagiarize’ website at:

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/using-sources/how-not-to-plagiarize. For further advice

and suggestions for instructors around issues of academic integrity, see:

http://www.artsci.utoronto.ca/osai/facultyandstaff/prevention