Download Claudia Levy - Ruralities: Social Learning for Empowerment and its

Claudia Levy
Ruralities: Social Learning for Empowerment and its Socio-Spatial Embeddedness
Much debate surrounding the concept of space has taken place within the social sciences, notably
by Henri Lefebvre, David Harvey, Milton Santos and Robert D. Sack. The development of the
debate is analyzed but not scrutinized here in search of an analytical framework. The perspective
adopted is that of a “socially based spatiality”, where “organization, use[s], and meaning of space
is a product of social translation, transformation and experience” (Soja 1980: 210). In conceptual
terms, “socio-spatial formation” (Santos 1998) seeks to capture this fluidity, where space figures
actively in both production and social reproduction.
Geographers, to whom space is a fundamental concept, tend to concentrate the debate on urban
issues, leaving the rural in southern countries to anthropologists, rural sociologists and agricultural
scientists. On the other hand, the notion of a “social-ecological system” 1 has answered the
demand for an interdisciplinary debate on human-environment relationships. In a complementary
line the “social-spatial formation” notion aims to move a step further, embracing situated practices,
authority schemes, symbolic dimensions, economic activities, and uses of the territory and
territorialities. Rather than bridging two black boxes, the culture with the environment, the
human/social-environment/space interaction, is seen as intrinsic. Hence, the conception of a
dynamic socio-spatial formation proposes to shed light on these complexities of everyday life,
linking the local to the global. Moreover, “networks” are also inherent to this perspective of active
space. Whether in information diffusion as in Granovetter (1973) or drawing from Actor-Network
Theory as in Murdoch (2000), the concept is functional, for instance, to understand the diverse
forms and perspectives of the rural space. However for the purpose of
this short paper, only the shallow lines on the debate are presented.
The nexus with the rural sets out from the view of agricultural production
systems as human activity systems. These are established, maintained
and changed by the system’s manager. Hence, management practices
depend on the type of information taken into account and how it is
processed for creating knowledge (Ondersteijn et al. 2003). In this sense,
it is of fundamental importance to comprehend the socio-spatial formation
in which this system is inserted. Knowledge is therefore seen as spatially
embedded.
Referring to “social learning” emphasizes the systemic dimension of
learning, where learning occurs through collective engagement with
others rather than through the isolated activity of an individual. The
attention for social learning is particularly relevant in “situations which are
experienced as being characterized by complexity, uncertainty,
interdependency, having multiple stakeholding and often ongoing
controversy” (Collins and Ison 2009). Figure 1 illustrates a proposed
1
See also “Socio-ecological systems” (Gallopin et al. 1989); “Social-ecological systems” (Berkes and Folke
1998); “Coupled human-environment systems” (Turner et al. 2003)
Claudia Levy
framework for analysis of the comprehension of the nature of a social-ecological system in the face
of change, e.g. perceived climate change by peasant communities. This way a learning process
(steps 1 and 2: understanding and reflection) can evolve into a transformative one (step 3: change
in behavior) and lead to empowerment (step 4: set own agenda and take steps to change situation
and step 5: mobilize and access resources). However, because it is embedded in a particular
socio-spatial formation, this process is also subjected to a framework of influences that may hinder
and/or encourage its development.
Hence, the notion of social learning fills the gap indicated by Norman Long (1984) from the
Wageningen School of actor-oriented studies of development interventions. He condemns
technocratic visions of development for not paying attention to people's ability to “create space” for
their own projects. In this sense, social learning approaches anticipate the fulfillment of Röling’s
(2002) expectations towards a sustainable society. According to Vaarst (2007) the formation of
farmer groups facilitates learning as a cyclic process. Within this process the learner includes new
knowledge and experience into already existing experience, transforms it through practical
learning, and uses it. Experiential Learning Theory describes “the process whereby knowledge is
created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb 1984: 23). This line of thought is supported
by constructivist thinking, which considers that all knowledge is actively constructed. For example a
basic premise is that people learn not only through their own experiences, but also by observing
the actions of others and the results of those actions, plus the latter’s comprehension of human
behaviour (Pijnenburg 2004).
Research and development agendas on adaptation strategies in relation to climate change which
take into consideration a social learning approach pay attention to context-related factors in order
to identify suitable adaptation strategies as well as adaptation obstacles. Such obstacles may be
material, institutional or cultural; embedded in local or non-local institutions and practices including
widely held assumptions at policy-making level and “qualitative” choices black-boxed in scientific
assumptions or analytical tools. It is therefore critical that the methodology, departing from the
comprehension of the local socio-spatial formation, fosters active learning. In this sense
“empowerment” comes into being, as envisioned by Paulo Freire (1970, 1972, 1973), whereby
people act together upon their environment in order to critically reflect upon their reality and so
transform it through further action and critical reflection.
References
Collins, K. & Ison, R (2009) Environmental policy and governance. Special Issue: Living with
Environmental Change: Adaptation as Social Learning 19, 351-357.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, USA: Herder and Herder.
Freire, P. (1972). Cultural action for freedom. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, USA: Seabury Press.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360-1380.
Harvey, D. (1990). Between space and time: Reflections on the geographical imagination. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 80 (3), 418-434.
Claudia Levy
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, New York, USA: Prentice Hall.
Lefebvre, H. (1991) The production of space. Translated by D. Nicholson-Smith. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell (Original 1974).
Long, N. (1984), A perspective on the Sociology of Development. Sociologia Ruralis, 24: 168–184.
Murdoch, J. (2000) Networks - a new paradigm of rural development? Journal of Rural Studies 16,
407-419.
Ondersteijn, C.-J.M., Giesen G.-W.J. & Huirne R.-B.M. (2003) Identification of farmer
characteristics and farm strategies explaining changes in environmental management and
environmental and economic performance of dairy farms. Agricultural Systems 78, 31-55.
Pijnenburg, B. (2004) Keeping it vague: discourses and practices of participation in rural
Mozambique. PhD Thesis. Wageningen University, Netherlands.
Röling, N.G. (2002) Beyond the aggregation of individual preferences: Moving from multiple to
distributed cognition in resource dilemmas. In: Leeuwis C. & Pyburn R. (Eds.), Wheelbarrows
full of frogs: Social learning in rural resource management (pp. 25-47). Assen, The
Netherlans: Van Gorcum.
Sack, R.D. (1983) Human territoriality: A theory. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 73 (1), 55-74.
Sack, R.D. (1980). Conceptions of space in social thought. London, Macmillian
Santos, M. (1998). O retorno do território. In: Santos M., Souza M.A. & Silveira M.L. (Eds).
Território: Globalização e fragmentação. 4th ed. São Paulo, Brazil: Hucitec.
Soja, E.W. (1980) The socio-spatial dialectic. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
70, 207-225.
Vaarst, M. (2007) Participatory common learning in groups of dairy farmers in Uganda (FFS
approach) and Danish stable schools. DJF Animal Science, 78. http://orgprints.org/13731/