This paper focuses on two groups of reconnections; farmers and agency and food and nature. The reconnection of food and nature is a clear indication of today’s discussion on materialities and cross breeding. On the other hand, reconnection of farmers and agency reminds us about the conventional fundamental inquiries of social science that were based on the action of people and structures (Winter 610).
In the reconnection of food and nature, hybridity was viewed as an act of giving out important theoretical and experimental lines of questions for agro-food investigation. Whatmore’s critique as cited by Winter (610) captures on political economy and cultural studies that affect the restating of the classification of output and expenditure. The political wealth approaches that view food more than just production to the next step of processing and marketing share a trend to organize the geographies of food as an independent transformation of socio-economic value from the farm to the plate. On the other hand, the most important part in cultural studies is purchasing, preparation and consumption of food as it portrays food ingestion as collectively and culturally multifaceted. Therefore, the important thing in food and nature depends on the geographies of food and the beneficially is the subject (Winter (610),
Currently, agro-food study is affected continuously by the current improvements in the agro-food geographies, especially when one considers the formulation of environment and the material. For instance, Donaldson and Wood as cited by Winter (610) argues that surveillance can assist in control of the increase or spread of foot and mouth disease, as a means that entraps people and other living creatures to change the unconditional globe perceptions of people into materialities (Winter 610-611).
In the framework of food security and food insufficiency, the farm businessmen faced the farmers who obstinately declined to conform to the economic groups and rule that had been set. In the year 1980s, political wealth approach left out the farmers’ agency in its services where it emphasized on Common Agricultural Policy and food orders. Political wealth also led to the establishment of the greatest farmers based reviews. The farmers’ surveys came up with three inputs to put more effort on farmers group in agro-food learning. These three inputs were the sustainability discussion that focused on the social aspect, cultural change in human geography and policy of reterritorialization (Winter 614).
Reterritorialization and re-identification of high environmental importance of farming methods centers its interest from the farmers’ activities and considers special natural areas and features to their actions in a greater maintainable farming framework. Various answers to the reterritorialization policy, alteration of market and chances have led to innovative interest to the belief structure of the farmers, factors that affect their character and techniques of convincing farmers (Winter 614).
Agro-food studies are an interesting and lively field of geographical questions not only to scholars but also to the farmers and organizations. There exist a link between food and nature hence a symbiosis relationship. On the other hand, farmers have an impact on agencies and so do agencies in agro-food geographies. Whatmore’s view on agro-food in terms of cultural studies and political economy clearly elaborate on the reconnection of food and nature. Similarly, rhizome, a metaphor developed by Deleuze, Guattari and Murdoch as cited by Winter (611) brings in the idea of heterogeneous networking or relationship within the agro-food geographies that comprise of both human beings and other living creatures.
Works cited
Winter, Michael. “Geographies of food: agro-food geographies – food, nature, farmers and agency”. Progress in Human Geography. 2009.