Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agroecology as a Philosophy of Life

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Use of the term “agroecology” has greatly increased over the past few decades, with scholars, civil society actors, and intergovernmental organizations identifying agroecology as a promising pathway for realizing more just and sustainable food systems. Using a community-engaged approach, we explore how diverse agroecological actors in southern Brazil describe and define agroecology. We find that across a range of social differences, agroecological actors come together in describing agroecology as a philosophy of life that promotes well-being, positioning agroecology as a counter-narrative to global discourses on “development” that promote economic growth and productivism as the path to a good life. Our findings suggest that the practice of agroecology can enhance diverse rural peoples’ well-being by providing a pathway to overcoming alienation, commodification, and exploitation, although broader political-economic conditions constrain this potential. As socioecological crises continue to accelerate and undermine human and environmental health and well-being, the capacity for agroecology to promote wellness from various ontological and epistemological positions warrants further attention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The phrase “traditional populations” is used in the Brazilian constitution and context to refer to a variety of land-based social groups, including Indigenous peoples, quilombolas (Afro-Brazilians), ribeirinhos (small-scale fishers who live along rivers), and extrativistas (harvester-gatherers), among others.

References

  • Altieri, M. A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. In Invertebrate Biodiversity as Bioindicators of Sustainable Landscapes, ed. M. G. Paoletti, 19–31. Elsevier.

  • Anderson, C. R., J. Bruil, M. Jahi Chappell, C. Kiss, and M. P. Pimbert. 2019. From transition to domains of transformation: getting to sustainable and just food systems through agroecology. Sustainability 11 (19): 5272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antkowiak, T. M. 2020. A ‘Dignified Life’ and the Resurgence of Social Rights. Northwestern Journal of Human Rights 18(1).

  • Avcinova, G., and G. Nikiporets-Takigawa. 2018. Political Well-Being: Concept and Research Framework. In Research Paradigms Transformation in Social Sciences, eds. I. B. Ardashkin, B. Vladimir Iosifovich, and N. V. Martyushev, 884–890. Future Academy.

  • Bezner Kerr, R. 2020. Agroecology as a Means to Transform the Food System. Journal of Sustainable Organic Agricultural Systems 70 (2): 77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezner Kerr, R., C. Hickey, E. Lupafya, and L. Dakishoni. 2019. Repairing rifts or reproducing inequalities? Agroecology, food sovereignty, and gender justice in Malawi. The Journal of Peasant Studies 46 (7): 1499–1518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezner Kerr, R., J. Liebert, M. Kansanga, and D. Kpienbaareh. 2022. Human and social values in agroecology: a review. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 10 (1): 00090.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blesh, J., and H. Wittman. 2015. ‘Brasilience:’ Assessing resilience in land reform settlements in the Brazilian Cerrado. Human Ecology 43: 531–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bombardi, L. M. 2017. Geografia do Uso de Agrotóxicos No Brasil e Conexões Com a União Européia. Sao Paulo: Laboratorio de Geografia Agraria: FFLCH-USP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breilh, J. 2015. Epidemiología Del Siglo XXI y Ciberespacio: Repensar La Teoría Del Poder y La Determinación Social de La Salud. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia 18 (4): 972–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, S. 2019. The impact of advanced capitalism on Well-Being: an evidence-informed model. Human Arenas 2 (2): 200–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capio, C. M., C. H. P. Sit, and B. Abernethy. 2014. Physical Well-Being. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, ed. A. C. Michalos, 4805–4807. Springer Netherlands.

  • Council on Social Work Education. 2016. Working Definition of Economic Well-Being. Available at: https://www.cswe.org/centers-initiatives/economic-wellbeing-clearinghouse/working-definition-of-economic-wellbeing/.

  • CRIAW. 2020. Community Vitality Index (CVI). https://www.criaw-icref.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CVI-Overview-Dec.-2021.pdf.

  • Damman, S., W. B. Eide, and H. V. Kuhnlein. 2008. Indigenous peoples’ nutrition transition in a right to food perspective. Food Policy (33)2: 135–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Mota e Silva, M. S., M. Da Glória Da Costa Carvalho, J. Costa Moreira, E. De Oliveira Barreto, K. Fireman De Farias, C. Araújo Nascimento, F. M. Nunes Da Silva, T. Gomes De Andrade, R. Raggio Luiz, R. Soares De Moura Neto, and F. Lattario Ribeiro. 2018. Green Tobacco Sickness among Brazilian Farm Workers and Genetic Polymorphisms. BMC Research Notes 11(1):1–5.

  • Da Silva, V. I. 2014. Classe Camponesa: Modo de Ser, de Viver e de Produzir. Candiota, RS: Instituto Cultural Padre Josimo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, M. K., and T. Robin. 2020. Healthy on our own terms: Indigenous wellbeing and the colonized food system. Journal of Critical Dietetics 5 (1): 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowler, C. 2020. Soya, Corn and Cotton make Brazil World Leader for Hazardous Pesticides. Unearthed Retrieved January 10: 2021. https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/02/20/brazil-pesticides-soya-corn-cotton-hazardous-croplife/).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumont, A. M., and P. V. Baret. 2017. Why working conditions are a key issue of sustainability in agriculture? A comparison between agroecological, organic and conventional vegetable systems. Journal of Rural Studies 56: 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmons, R. A. 2004. Personal goals, life meaning, and virtue: Wellsprings of a positive life. In Flourishing: positive psychology and the life well-lived, 105–128. American Psychological Association.

  • FAO. 2018a. Scaling Up Agroecology Initiatve: Transforming Food and Agricultural Systems in Support of the SDGs. Rome.

  • FAO. 2018b. The 10 Elements of Agroecology: Guiding the Transition to Sustainable Food and Agricultural Systems. Rome.

  • Fassa, A. G., N. M. X. Faria, and R. D. Meucci, N. Spada Fiori, V. Iribarrem Miranda, and L. A. Facchini. 2014. Green Tobacco sickness among Tobacco Farmers in Southern Brazil. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 57(6):726–35.

  • Ferguson, I. 2007. Neoliberalism, Happiness and Wellbeing. International Socialism: A Quarterly Review of Socialist Theory (117).

  • Firpo de Souza Porto, M. 2018. The tragic ‘Poison Package’: Lessons for Brazilian society and public health. Cadernos de Saúde Pública 34 (7): e00110118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fromm, E. 1955. The Sane Society. Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Given, L. M. 2008. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gonçalves, L. A. P., R. Gondim de Oliveira, A. G. Dos Santos Gadelha, and T. Monteiro de Medeiros. 2019. Saúde Coletiva, Colonialidade e Subalternidades - Uma (Não) Agenda? Saúde Em Debate 43(spe8):160–174.

  • Greenhalgh, T., G. Wong, G. Westhorp, and R. Pawson. 2011. Protocol-Realist and Meta-Narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES). BMC Medical Research Methodology 11(115).

  • Gudynas, E. 2011. Buen Vivir: today’s tomorrow. Development 54 (4): 441–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HLPE. 2019. Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems That Enhance Food Security and Nutrition. Rome.

  • Huambachano, M. 2015. Food Security and Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge: El Buen Vivir-Sumaq Kawsay in Peru and Tē Atānoho, New Zealand, Māori-New Zealand. Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 5(3):1–47.

  • Huambachano, M. 2020. Indigenous Good Living Philosophies and Regenerative Food Systems in Aotearoa New Zealand and Peru. In Routledge Handbook of Sustainable and Regenerative Food Systems, ed. J. Duncan, M. Carolan, and J. S. C. Wiskerke, 38–49. Taylor & Francis Group.

  • Huergo, J., A. Belén Morello, J. Seplovich, and Y. Belén Valerio. 2018. Body Self-Perception: Sense that Triggers the Transition Process towards Agroecological Productive Practices. Diaeta 36 (163): 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPES-Food. 2016. From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Systems.

  • James, D. 2022. The transformative potential of agroecology: Integrating policies, practices, power, and philosophies for living well. PhD Dissertation, University of British Columbia.

  • James, D., A. A. Cazella, E. Bowness, N. Magnanti, and H. Wittman. 2022. (De)institutionalising Agroecology: A Historical-Relational-Interactive Perspective on the Evolution of Brazil’s Agri-Environmental State. In Agriculture, Environment and Development: International Perspectives on Water, Land and Politics, ed. A. R. Antonio Ioris and Bernardo Mançano Fernandes. Ch. 14. Springer Nature.

  • Keyes, C. L. M. 2004. Complete mental health: an agenda for the 21st century. In Flourishing: positive psychology and the life well-lived, 293–312. American Psychological Association.

  • Kowii, A. 2011. El Sumak Kawsay. Aportes Andinos 28: 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Via Campesina. 2011. 2nd Latin American Encounter on Agroecology: Final Declaration. Retrieved January 31, 2023 https://viacampesina.org/en/2nd-latin-american-encounter-on-agroecology/.

  • La Via Campesina. 2019. Agroecology: Real Innovation from and for the People. Nyeleni Newsletter (36).

  • Méndez, V. E., C. M. Bacon, R. Cohen, and S. R. Gliessman. 2015. Agroecology: a Transdisciplinary, Participatory and Action-Oriented Approach. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, K. E., and R. G. Wilkinson. 2015. Income inequality and health: a causal review. Social Science and Medicine 128: 316–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins, S. J., L. M. Bates, K. M. Keyes, and C. Muntaner. 2015. Anxious? Depressed? You might be suffering from capitalism: contradictory class locations and the prevalence of depression and anxiety in the USA. Sociology of Health and Illness 37 (8): 1352–1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigotto, R. M., D. Paixão e Vasconcelos, and M. Melo Rocha. 2014. Pesticide Use in Brazil and Problems for Public Health. Cadernos de Saude Publica 30(7):1–3.

  • Rosset, P. M., L. Pinheiro Barbosa, V. Val, and N. McCune. 2020. Pensamiento Latinoamericano Agroecológico: The emergence of a critical Latin American Agroecology? Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 45 (1): 42–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selita, F., and Y. Kovas. 2019. Genes and Gini: what inequality means for heritability. Journal of Biosocial Science 51 (1): 18–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simbaña, F. 2011. El Sumak Kawsay Como Proyecto Político. La Línea de Fuego.

  • Spiegel, J. M., J. Breilh, and A. Yassi. 2015. Why language matters: Insights and challenges in applying a social determination of health approach in a North-South collaborative research program. Globalization and Health 11 (1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stratton, A. E., H. Wittman, and J. Blesh. 2021. Diversification supports Farm Profitability and Improved Working Conditions during Agroecological Transitions. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 41: 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, S., and M. Adams. 2019. Building on the Definition of Social and Emotional Wellbeing: An Indigenous (Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand) Viewpoint. ab-Original, 3(1): 48–72.

  • Timmermann, C., and G. F. Félix. 2015. Agroecology as a Vehicle for Contributive Justice. Agriculture and Human Values 32: 523–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toledo, V. M. 2022. Agroecology and spirituality: reflections about an unrecognized link. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 46 (4): 626–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanderWeele, T. J. 2017. On the Promotion of Human Flourishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (31): 8148–8156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanderWeele, T. J. 2019. Measures of Community Well-Being: A Template. International Journal of Community Well-Being 2 (3–4): 253–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viteri Gualinga, C. 2002. Visión Indígena Del Desarrollo En La Amazonía. Polis 3.

  • Walsh-Dilley, M., W. Wolford, and J. McCarthy. 2016. Rights for Resilience: Food Sovereignty, Power, and Resilience in Development Practice. Ecology and Society 21 (1): 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, A. M., C. Hergesheimer, B. Brisbois, H. Wittman, A. Yassi, and J. M. Spiegel. 2015. Food sovereignty, food security and health equity: a meta-narrative mapping exercise. Health Policy and Planning 30 (8): 1078–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wezel, A., B. Gemmill-Herren, R. Bezner Kerr, E. Barrios, A. L. Rodrigues, Gonçalves, and F. Sinclair. 2020. Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 40: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. 2009. Agroecology as a Science, a Movement and a Practice. A Review Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29 (4): 503–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, R., and K. Pickett. 2011. The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality makes Societies Stronger. Bloomsbury Publishing.

  • Wittman, H., D. James, and Z. Mehrabi. 2020. Advancing food sovereignty through farmer-driven digital agroecology. International Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources 47 (3): 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, R. 2021. Improving Well-Being through Food Sovereignty: A Meta-Narrative Literature Review. Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the research participants for so generously sharing their time and stories. The authors also gratefully acknowledge feedback and support from three anonymous reviewers and Garrett Graddy-Lovelace (all of whose comments greatly strengthened this manuscript), as well as Pedro Buss Martins, Evan Bowness, Heloisa de Campos Lalane, Ademir José Capellesso, Ademir Antonio Cazella, Juliana Luiz, Natal João Magnanti, Carol Couto Waltrich, and farmers who will remain unnamed (for confidentiality). Lastly, we thank Centro de Estudos e Promoção da Agricultura de Grupo (CEPAGRO), Centro Vianei de Educação Popular, and Movimiento de Economía Social y Solidaria del Ecuador (MESSE) for their active engagement with this work.

Funding

This work was supported by a Vanier CGS Award, SSHRC Joseph Armand Bombardier CGS-M Award, Mitacs International, and the SSHRC Insight Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, The University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, V6T 1Z4, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Dana James & Hannah Wittman

  2. Centre for Sustainable Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, V6T 1Z4, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Dana James & Hannah Wittman

  3. School of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia, 2206 E Mall, V6T 1Z3, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Rebecca Wolff

Authors
  1. Dana James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca Wolff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hannah Wittman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dana James.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

Research conducted for this project was approved by UBC’s Behavioral Research Ethics Board (UBC BREB number: H15-00600).

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

James, D., Wolff, R. & Wittman, H. Agroecology as a Philosophy of Life. Agric Hum Values 40, 1437–1450 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10455-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10455-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation