Transforming Mindscapes
Rarely do academic papers come along that can understandably explain and model the complexity of living systems.
This report attempts to synthesize the key themes and learnings from an excellent academic paper published in the journal Agriculture and Human Values. “Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture” identifies 6 themes that express the characteristics of the discourse, and the common ground and tensions that create 3 clear opportunities.
The themes (extended phrases or sentences that identify what a unit of data is about and/or what it means) are that:
Regenerative agriculture work is conducted within nested, complex living systems.
Farms are relational; co-evolution occurs amongst humans and other landscape biota.
The innate potential of living systems is place-sourced.
Openness to alternative thinking and practice is transformative.
Multiple regenerative cultures are necessary for deeply regenerative agriculture.
Regenerative approaches depart from industrialism to varying degrees.
The question that authors Ethan Gordon, Federico Daila and Chris Reidy seek to answer is: can regenerative discourses (shared ways of apprehending the world) generate the changes required to shift industrial-productivist agriculture? Let’s work through some of the above themes using current examples.
These days, the predominant discourses across the spectrum of the food chain are generally about supply challenges caused by droughts and Black Sea conflict, and the price of food in urban retail outlets. The industrial-productivist view, based on its commitment to expansionist agriculture and reliance on government support for output and increased productivity, sees only supply-replenishment-via-yield as a solution to rising prices.
The first theme identified in this research is that regenerative agriculture’s work is conducted within nested, complex living systems, and that this influences its capacity to function. The capacity for regenerative agriculture practitioners to monetize additional quality attributes in their grain, for example, would require there to exist an economic system, i.e. a differentiated market, for non-commodity attributes that transcend yield.
The capacity exists for regenerative agriculture to be transformational only if the economic, political and social systems are also regenerative. The paper suggests that regenerative cultures span different bioregions, in addition to the multiple layers needed in any one place for deeply regenerative agriculture to take hold, and across other regenerative movements in society, such as architecture and health care. Integration in this way might allow a regenerative discourse to transcend the failing narratives of industrial-productivist commercial and political interests.
Simply put, these interests represent chemical manufacturers, commodity groups and multinational trading companies. By definition, commodities level the value of products from many different regions, and cannot recognize that the innate potential of living systems is place-sourced – theme 3.
It is generally accepted in regenerative agriculture that indigenous wisdom has always recognized the unique essence and potential of the living systems that form their place, and that the trauma experienced by places and their people at the hands of settler colonialism must be addressed through reconciliation. Perhaps there is some overlap between indigenous landholdings, the bio-regions that establish the context of regeneration, and new economic opportunities? It stands to reason that this could levitate the industrial-productivist conception of places, communities and markets, and pull the discourse beyond the commodity world’s two-dimensional perspective.
In only one area of this research do the authors appear to overstate the challenges for regenerative agriculture to generate the changes required to shift industrial-productivist agriculture. Theme 4 identifies openness to alternative thinking and practice, and describes regenerative farmers as demonstrating a radical evolution in thinking.
Certainly, curiosity is key. But perhaps because the research was published in 2021 and the movement is shape-shifting so quickly, this statement seems a bit extreme. Since then, several simple, common and logical characteristics of successful regenerative farmers have emerged. They are usually:
Younger,
New to farming, and
New to North America, i.e. recent European immigrants or BIPOC farmers.
Finally, let’s take a look at theme 6 - regenerative approaches depart from industrialism to varying degrees - since there are so many industrial-productivst actors in agriculture considering right now how regenerative agriculture might look to them and their organizations. The report points out how General Mills, Patagonia, and Cargill’s corporate commitments may only be semantic, but they are still disassociating their brands from extractive agricultural narratives.
Since 2021, brands have been piling into the regenerative movement, and proving along the way the power of starting into the combination of common ground and tension between topics, stakeholders, regions, and levels of society. This paper is highly informative in pondering one’s own pathway towards leveraging transformation in regenerative agriculture.
In summary, the reports identifies three opportunities:
Collective learning;
Discourse coalitions; and
Trans-local organizing.
Please reach out to discuss your options for onboarding regenerative principles - we are here to help at hello@prairieroutes.ca.