The genetically modified organism shall not be refused? Talking back to the technosciences

Starting from Marcel Mauss’ observation that “one has no right to refuse a gift”, this paper explores the politics of refusal in the context of field trials with genetically modified organisms in Flanders (Belgium). Based on a decade of activist research, and focusing on the genetically modified organism field trials of the Flemish Institute for Biotechnology, we show that the business model of this strategic research center – with its triple mission of carrying biotechnology research, technology transfer, and the promotion of biotechnology through communication and lobby activities – fosters a climate in which innovations in the technosciences have to “be accepted”. The future is laid out without including the possibility of refusal. Consternation is great when this is exactly what happens. Irrational fears and lack of understanding or lack of familiarity are invoked to explain refusal. Language of precision, innovation, safety, and control are deployed to re-assure the public. Refusal is not considered a legitimate option. Yet, if farmers and grassroots initiatives would accept the gift of genetically modified organisms, it would mean the acceptance of their dispossession and the impossibility of diverse food sovereignties. Starting from theoretical work on “the gift” and “the politics of refusal”, we argue that recognizing innovation as the intrinsically plural and divergent process it is, entails including options to refuse particular pathways as a first step to open up others. As we will argue, saying no to genetically modified organisms is part of saying yes to peasant autonomy, agrobiodiversity, and peoples’ food sovereignties

Ecological citizenship and democracy: Communitarian versus agonistic perspectives

Grassroots environmental movements have recently started to question the focus on sustainable consumption as a main strategy to tackle climate change. They prefer to address individuals as citizens rather than as consumers, and focus on collective rather than individual change. Two prominent movements in this regard are Transition Towns and Climate Justice Action. While both movements criticise conventional approaches, they put forward entirely different strategies for what has to happen instead. Based on extensive qualitative research, I analyse how these movements manifest themselves in Flanders (Belgium). The focus is on their different accounts of how and why collective practices have to be built, and the place they attribute to â the politicalâ in this. The analysis reveals the existence of two different forms of ecological citizenship: one communitarian, the other agonistic.peerreview_statement: The publishing and review policy for this title is described in its Aims & Scope. aims_and_scope_url: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=fenp20status: publishe

Searching for 'the political' in environmental politics

Situating the 'post-ecologist turn' within the framework of post-politics, we not only investigate why environmental issues are so easily represented in consensual and technocratic terms, but also seek avenues for repoliticisation. We thereby try to avoid the pitfall of a voluntaristic or substantively normative approach to what repoliticisation can mean. By pointing to the subtle polemic on a meta-level which lurks beneath even the most consensual discourse, a potential starting point for repoliticisation is uncovered, which also enables a political rereading of the 'post-ecologist turn'. Finally, we argue that the same characteristics that make the environmental question liable to depoliticisation can also turn it into a field of politicisation par excellence

The role of temporality in climate change activism : time and (de)politicisation

Time has become a key reference point for measuring the success, failure, and progress of climate action. Yet, there is little reflection about how time is constructed in these targets, by whom, for what purpose, and to what effect. While the academic debate about time in energy and climate studies reflects the broad nature of techno-economic and socio-institutional analyses, we argue that temporal dynamics are not only tied to questions of technological choices and scientific knowledge-making but also broader social and political change. In this roundtable, we outline how we can engage with the contested nature of time and temporality in climate change activism. The discussion starts from the observation that the climate change movement is distinct from most other social movements by the temporality of its main concern: climate change will have irreversible consequences that will become inevitable as soon as certain tipping points are crossed. This temporality makes urgency one of the main driving forces behind and challenges for the climate movement. Yet while this urgency is undoubtedly related to the effects of ‘basic physics, ’we should also see the temporality and implied urgency of climate change as a social construct that can be challenged. This roundtable brings together reflections on how we can understand today’s climate activism as essentially linked to, and driven by, a socially constructed sense of urgency. The themes covered focus on the links between questions about temporality and the imagined futures in climate activism (1), the identification of meaningful goals based on these scenarios (2), the politics behind time-making (3), and the development of strategies to turn those imaginaries, goals, and politics into concrete action (4). While these themes are intertwined, each will be addressed, particularly by one of the four contributors to this panel. The plenary discussion seeks to connect them

A Race Against the Clock? On the Paradoxes of Acting “Now” in the Climate Struggle

status: publishe

Voorbij individuele gedragsverandering: een pleidooi voor een herpolitisering van milieuactie

status: publishe