Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology - Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology - ALiSEA

Additional Information

Field	Value
Data last updated	November 12, 2024
Metadata last updated	August 20, 2025
Created	November 12, 2024
Format	PDF
License	Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
Datastore active	False
Datastore contains all records of source file	False
Has views	True
Id	79639752-5a4f-4c47-afdb-66641771a05e
Mimetype	application/pdf
Name translated	{'en': 'Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology', 'km': 'Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology', 'lo': 'Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology', 'my_MM': 'Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology', 'vi': 'Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology'}
Package id	32e6cc89-f4d9-4969-95fe-1db516099db9
Position	0
Resource description	{'en': 'Legitimacy is at the heart of knowledge politics surrounding agriculture and food. When people accept\r\nindustrial food practices as credible and authoritative, they are consenting to their use and existence. With their\r\nthick legitimacy, industrial food systems paralyze the growth of alternative agricultures, including agroecology.\r\nQuestions of how alternative agricultures can attain their own thick legitimacy in order to compete with,\r\nand displace, that of industrial food have not yet attracted much scrutiny. We show that both agroecological\r\nand scientific legitimacy grow out of a web of legitimation processes in the scientific, policy, political, legal,\r\npractice, and civic arenas. Crucially, legitimation often comes through meeting what we call ‘credibility tests’.\r\nAgroecologists can learn to navigate these co-constituted, multiple bases of legitimacy by paying attention\r\nto how credibility tests are currently being set in each arena, and beginning to recalibrate these tests to open\r\nmore room for agroecology. Using a schematic of three non-exclusive pathways, we explore some possible\r\npractical interventions that agroecologists and other advocates of alternative agricultures could take. These\r\npathways include: leveraging, while also reshaping, the existing standards and practices of science; extending\r\ninfluence into policy, legal, practical, and civic arenas; and centering attention on the ethical legitimacy of food\r\nsystems. We conclude that agroecologists can benefit from considering how to build legitimacy for their work.', 'km': 'Legitimacy is at the heart of knowledge politics surrounding agriculture and food. When people accept\r\nindustrial food practices as credible and authoritative, they are consenting to their use and existence. With their\r\nthick legitimacy, industrial food systems paralyze the growth of alternative agricultures, including agroecology.\r\nQuestions of how alternative agricultures can attain their own thick legitimacy in order to compete with,\r\nand displace, that of industrial food have not yet attracted much scrutiny. We show that both agroecological\r\nand scientific legitimacy grow out of a web of legitimation processes in the scientific, policy, political, legal,\r\npractice, and civic arenas. Crucially, legitimation often comes through meeting what we call ‘credibility tests’.\r\nAgroecologists can learn to navigate these co-constituted, multiple bases of legitimacy by paying attention\r\nto how credibility tests are currently being set in each arena, and beginning to recalibrate these tests to open\r\nmore room for agroecology. Using a schematic of three non-exclusive pathways, we explore some possible\r\npractical interventions that agroecologists and other advocates of alternative agricultures could take. These\r\npathways include: leveraging, while also reshaping, the existing standards and practices of science; extending\r\ninfluence into policy, legal, practical, and civic arenas; and centering attention on the ethical legitimacy of food\r\nsystems. We conclude that agroecologists can benefit from considering how to build legitimacy for their work.', 'lo': 'Legitimacy is at the heart of knowledge politics surrounding agriculture and food. When people accept\r\nindustrial food practices as credible and authoritative, they are consenting to their use and existence. With their\r\nthick legitimacy, industrial food systems paralyze the growth of alternative agricultures, including agroecology.\r\nQuestions of how alternative agricultures can attain their own thick legitimacy in order to compete with,\r\nand displace, that of industrial food have not yet attracted much scrutiny. We show that both agroecological\r\nand scientific legitimacy grow out of a web of legitimation processes in the scientific, policy, political, legal,\r\npractice, and civic arenas. Crucially, legitimation often comes through meeting what we call ‘credibility tests’.\r\nAgroecologists can learn to navigate these co-constituted, multiple bases of legitimacy by paying attention\r\nto how credibility tests are currently being set in each arena, and beginning to recalibrate these tests to open\r\nmore room for agroecology. Using a schematic of three non-exclusive pathways, we explore some possible\r\npractical interventions that agroecologists and other advocates of alternative agricultures could take. These\r\npathways include: leveraging, while also reshaping, the existing standards and practices of science; extending\r\ninfluence into policy, legal, practical, and civic arenas; and centering attention on the ethical legitimacy of food\r\nsystems. We conclude that agroecologists can benefit from considering how to build legitimacy for their work.', 'my_MM': 'Legitimacy is at the heart of knowledge politics surrounding agriculture and food. When people accept\r\nindustrial food practices as credible and authoritative, they are consenting to their use and existence. With their\r\nthick legitimacy, industrial food systems paralyze the growth of alternative agricultures, including agroecology.\r\nQuestions of how alternative agricultures can attain their own thick legitimacy in order to compete with,\r\nand displace, that of industrial food have not yet attracted much scrutiny. We show that both agroecological\r\nand scientific legitimacy grow out of a web of legitimation processes in the scientific, policy, political, legal,\r\npractice, and civic arenas. Crucially, legitimation often comes through meeting what we call ‘credibility tests’.\r\nAgroecologists can learn to navigate these co-constituted, multiple bases of legitimacy by paying attention\r\nto how credibility tests are currently being set in each arena, and beginning to recalibrate these tests to open\r\nmore room for agroecology. Using a schematic of three non-exclusive pathways, we explore some possible\r\npractical interventions that agroecologists and other advocates of alternative agricultures could take. These\r\npathways include: leveraging, while also reshaping, the existing standards and practices of science; extending\r\ninfluence into policy, legal, practical, and civic arenas; and centering attention on the ethical legitimacy of food\r\nsystems. We conclude that agroecologists can benefit from considering how to build legitimacy for their work.', 'vi': 'Legitimacy is at the heart of knowledge politics surrounding agriculture and food. When people accept\r\nindustrial food practices as credible and authoritative, they are consenting to their use and existence. With their\r\nthick legitimacy, industrial food systems paralyze the growth of alternative agricultures, including agroecology.\r\nQuestions of how alternative agricultures can attain their own thick legitimacy in order to compete with,\r\nand displace, that of industrial food have not yet attracted much scrutiny. We show that both agroecological\r\nand scientific legitimacy grow out of a web of legitimation processes in the scientific, policy, political, legal,\r\npractice, and civic arenas. Crucially, legitimation often comes through meeting what we call ‘credibility tests’.\r\nAgroecologists can learn to navigate these co-constituted, multiple bases of legitimacy by paying attention\r\nto how credibility tests are currently being set in each arena, and beginning to recalibrate these tests to open\r\nmore room for agroecology. Using a schematic of three non-exclusive pathways, we explore some possible\r\npractical interventions that agroecologists and other advocates of alternative agricultures could take. These\r\npathways include: leveraging, while also reshaping, the existing standards and practices of science; extending\r\ninfluence into policy, legal, practical, and civic arenas; and centering attention on the ethical legitimacy of food\r\nsystems. We conclude that agroecologists can benefit from considering how to build legitimacy for their work.'}
Size	696.3 KiB
State	active
Url type	upload
Name	Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology
Description	Legitimacy is at the heart of knowledge politics surrounding agriculture and food. When people accept industrial food practices as credible and authoritative, they are consenting to their use and existence. With their thick legitimacy, industrial food systems paralyze the growth of alternative agricultures, including agroecology. Questions of how alternative agricultures can attain their own thick legitimacy in order to compete with, and displace, that of industrial food have not yet attracted much scrutiny. We show that both agroecological and scientific legitimacy grow out of a web of legitimation processes in the scientific, policy, political, legal, practice, and civic arenas. Crucially, legitimation often comes through meeting what we call ‘credibility tests’. Agroecologists can learn to navigate these co-constituted, multiple bases of legitimacy by paying attention to how credibility tests are currently being set in each arena, and beginning to recalibrate these tests to open more room for agroecology. Using a schematic of three non-exclusive pathways, we explore some possible practical interventions that agroecologists and other advocates of alternative agricultures could take. These pathways include: leveraging, while also reshaping, the existing standards and practices of science; extending influence into policy, legal, practical, and civic arenas; and centering attention on the ethical legitimacy of food systems. We conclude that agroecologists can benefit from considering how to build legitimacy for their work.