Advertisement

The Global Rise of Populism as a Socio-material Phenomenon: Matter, Discourse, and Genetically Modified Organisms in the European Union

  • Shane MarkowitzEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Global Political Sociology book series (GLPOSO)

Abstract

Among the most influential perspectives examining populism are discursive and ideological approaches. The recent “material turn” though has put to challenge many of the conventions of social science scholarship, highlighting the vibrant and agentive capacities of material things. Employing Karen Barad’s agential realism perspective premised on the notion of phenomena as constituted by the entanglements between matter and discourse and facilitated by interview fieldwork, this chapter interrogates the global rise of populism as a socio-materially constituted process, specifically examining the case of plant biotechnology in the European Union. Farmer mobilization patterns and the nuances therein—rejection of GMOs in food but tolerance toward GM animal feed—are argued to have not simply emerged from social contestation, but rather to have been contingent phenomena constituted socio-materially through the relations between pollen, soybeans, and landscapes and different practices, including production and consumption patterns, regulatory frameworks, and food retailer branding moves, within and across conventionally conceived political borders. The broader intelligibility gained is that certain policy prescriptions, deemed populist (or not), emerge out of decision-making landscapes that materialize socio-materially through complex relations between local and global with implications on the types of political interventions that can be introduced to improve the world.

Keywords

Populism Biotechnology Agriculture Environment New materialism Constructivism European union 

References

  1. Abbott, Allison. 2009. Germany Bans GM Maize. Nature, April 14. https://www.nature.com/news/2009/090414/full/news.2009.364.html.
  2. Ansell, Chris, R. Maxwell, and D. Sicurelli. 2006. Protesting Food: NGOs and Political Mobilization in Europe. In What’s the Beef?: The Contested Governance of European Food Safety, ed. Christopher Ansell and D. Vogel, 97–122. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aradau, C. 2010. Security That Matters: Critical Infrastructure and Objects of Protection. Security Dialogue 41 (5): 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Backus, G. 2008. EU Policy on GMOs: A Quick Scan of the Economic Consequences (No. LEI Report 2008-070). The Hague: Wageningen University and Research Centre.Google Scholar
  5. Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrionuevo, A. 2007. China’s Appetite for Meat Feeds a Brazilian Soybean Boom. New York Times, April 5. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/business/worldbusiness/05iht-soy.4.5164446.html.
  7. Barry, A. 2013. Material Politics: Disputes Along the Pipeline. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauer, M.W. 2015. Atoms, Bytes and Genes: Public Resistance and Techno-scientific Responses. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bayerische Staatskanzlei Pressemitteilung. 2014. Bericht aus der Kabinettssitzung (No. 50). München: Bayerische Staatskanzlei.Google Scholar
  10. Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz. n.d. Gentechnikanbaufreie Kommunen in Bayern. http://www.stmuv.bayern.de/umwelt/gentechnik/kommunen/index.htm. Last accessed 24 July 2018.
  11. Bennett, J. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Binimelis, R. 2008. Coexistence of Plants and Coexistence of Farmers: Is an Individual Choice Possible? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (5): 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bollmann, R., and M. Hägler. 2008. CSU-Politiker Söder über grüne Politik “Im Wahlkampf fahre ich Rad”. taz, July 28. http://www.taz.de/!5178402/.
  14. Brookes, G. 2006. The Coexistence of GM and Non-GM Arable Crops in the EU: Economic and Market Considerations. In International Trade and Policies for Genetically Modified Products, ed. R.E. Evenson and V. Santaniello, 64–78. Wallingford: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bund Naturschutz. 2013. BN empört über Ablehnung der Anträge für ein gentechnikfreies Bayern im bayerischen Landtag (Pressemitteilung). Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., July 11. https://www.bund-naturschutz.de/pressemitteilungen/bn-empoert-ueber-ablehnung-der-antraege-fuer-ein-gentechnnikfreies-bayern-im-bayerischen-landtag.html?no_cache=1&cHash=3cfc9ae8acc8a6b0f949b2f708e8491b&L=0.
  16. Busi, R., Q. Yu, R. Barrett-Lennard, and S. Powles. 2008. Long Distance Pollen-Mediated Flow of Herbicide Resistance Genes in Lolium Rigidum. Theory of Applied Genetics 117 (8): 1281–1290.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-008-0862-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clancy, K.A. 2016. The Politics of Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States and Europe. Basingstoke, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Connolly, W. 2013. The ‘New Materialism’ and the Fragility of Things. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41 (3): 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coole, D. 2010. The Inertia of Matter and the Generativity of Flesh. In New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics, ed. D. Coole and S. Frost, 92–115. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coole, D., and S. Frost. 2010. Introducing the New Materialisms. In New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics, ed. D. Coole and S. Frost. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Danube Soya Association. 2015. Danube Soya Market Report: Soybean Supply, Demand and Price in Europe (no. 1, vol. 1). Danube Soya Association, May. http://www.donausoja.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Press/Newsletter/Newsletter_2-2015/Danube_Soya_Market_report_May_2015.pdf.
  22. De la Cruz, A., 2016. Spain’s GM Maize Production. Eur. Seed 3.Google Scholar
  23. Devos, Y., K. Lheureux, and J. Schiemann. 2010. Regulatory Oversight and Safety Assessment of Plants with Novel Traits. In Genetic Modification of Plants: Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry, ed. F. Kempken and C. Jung, 553–574. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Die Welt. 2005. Bundesrat blockt Gentechnikgesetz ab. Die Welt, April 29. http://www.welt.de/politik/article668136/Bundesrat-blockt-Gentechnikgesetz-ab.html.
  25. Doherty, B.G., and G. Hayes. 2012. Tactics, Traditions and Opportunities: British and French Crop-Trashing Actions in Comparative Perspective. European Journal of Political Research 51 (4): 540–562.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02048.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Doleschel, P. 2015. Unpublished Interview Conducted by Shane Markowitz, July.Google Scholar
  27. Euractiv. 2011. MEPs Want to End ‘Protein Deficit’ for EU Livestock. Euractiv, March 10. https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/meps-want-to-end-protein-deficit-for-eu-livestock/.
  28. European Commission. 2015. European Commission—Fact Sheet: Questions and Answers on EU’s Policies on GMOs. European Commission, April 22. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4778_en.htm.
  29. European Environment Agency. 2002. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): The Significance of Gene Flow Through Pollen Transfer, March 20. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2002_28.
  30. European Parliament, Council of the European Union. 2003. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed. Official Journal of the European Union 268 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
  31. Eurostat. 2016. Small and Large Farms in the EU—Statistics from the Farm Structure Survey. Eurostat, October. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Small_and_large_farms_in_the_EU_-_statistics_from_the_farm_structure_survey.
  32. Felt, U. 2015. Keeping Technologies Out: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Formation of Austrian National Technopolitical Identity. In Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power, ed. S. Jasanoff and S.-H. Kim, 103–125. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Funk, C., and L. Rainie. 2015. Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Pew Research Center: Internet & Technology, January 29. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/.
  34. Graf, J. 2015. Unpublished Interview Conducted by Shane Markowitz, July.Google Scholar
  35. Hadiz, V.R., and A. Chryssogelos. 2017. Populism in World Politics: A Comparative Cross-Regional Perspective. International Politics Scientific Review 38 (4): 399–411.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512117693908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Häusling, M. 2011. The EU Protein Deficit: What Solution for a Long-Standing Problem? (No. 2010/2111(INI)). Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, European Parliament, February 4. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2011-0026&language=EN.
  37. Hayes, G. 2006. From Symbolism to Resistance: Anti-GM Actions in France. Presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Nicosia.Google Scholar
  38. Heller, C. 2013. Food, Farms, and Solidarity: French Farmers Challenge Industrial Agriculture and Genetically Modified Crops. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Henchion, M., M. Hayes, M. Fenelon, B. Tiwari. 2017. Future Protein Supply and Demand: Strategies and Factors Influencing a Sustainable Equilibrium. Foods 6 (7): 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6070053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hogan, M. 2014. Germany’s KTG to Expand Soy Crop, Citing European Demand for GMOs. Reuters, September 29. http://www.reuters.com/article/germany-farming-ktg-idUSL6N0RU2WQ20140929.
  41. Højgaard, L., and D.M. Søndergaard. 2011. Theorizing the Complexities of Discursive and Material Subjectivity: Agential Realism and Poststructural Analyses. Theory & Psychoanalysis 21 (3): 338–354.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309359965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hüsken, A., and A. Dietz-Pfeilstetter. 2007. Pollen-Mediated Intraspecific Gene Flow from Herbicide Resistant Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus L.). Transgenic Research 16 (5): 557–569.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-007-9078-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Huysmans, J. 2006. The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Isermann, R. 2009. Gentechnik, nein Danke! Shiva hat die CSU umgepolt. N-TV, May 19. http://www.n-tv.de/politik/dossier/Shiva-hat-die-CSU-umgepolt-article297904.html.
  45. James, C. 2012. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012. ISAAA Briefs No. 44. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/download/isaaa-brief-43-2011.pdf.
  46. Jasanoff, S. 2007. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Krön, M., and U. Bittner. 2015. Danube Soya—Improving European GM-Free Soya Supply for Food and Feed. Oil & Fats Crops and Lipids 22 (5): 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2015050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kurasch, A.K., V. Hahn, et al. 2017. Identification of Mega-environments in Europe and Effect of Allelic Variation at Maturity E loci on Adaptation of European Soybean. Plant Cell Environment 40 (5): 765–778.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Levidow, L., and S. Carr. 2009. GM Food on Trial: Testing European Democracy. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lynch, D., and D. Vogel. 2001. The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics. Council on Foreign Relations. https://cfrd8-files.cfr.org/sites/default/files/book_pdf/The%20Regulation%20of%20GMOs%20in%20Europe%20and%20the%20United%20States.pdf.
  51. Mathiesen, K. 2014. Is a Ban on GM Crops More Harmful Than Growing Them? The Guardian, November 20. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/20/is-a-ban-on-gm-crops-more-harmful-than-growing-them.
  52. Mertens, M. 2015. Unpublished Interview Conducted by Shane Markowitz, July 2015.Google Scholar
  53. Mitchell, T. 2002. Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  54. Mitchell, P. 2003. Europe Angers US with Strict GM Labeling. Nature Biotechnology 21 (6).  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0103-6a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mitchell, T. 2011. Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  56. Mutlu, C.E. 2013. The Material Turn: Introduction. In Research Methods in Critical Security Studies, ed. M.B. Salter and C.E. Mutlu, 158–161. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Müller, M. 2015. Unpublished Interview Conducted by Shane Markowitz, July.Google Scholar
  58. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2012. Census of Agriculture—United States Data. United States Department of Agriculture, May 2. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf.
  59. Oberbayerisches Volksblatt. 2006. Bauern gegen grüne Gentechnik. Initiative „Zivilcourage“ in Halfing. Freie Bauern Bürg. AG - Gegen Gentech, https://www.zivilcourage.ro/pdf/halfing_060508.pdf.
  60. OVB Online. 2009. Aufruf zum Kampf um freies Saatgut. OVB Online Rosenheim, https://www.ovb-online.de/rosenheim/aufruf-kampf-freies-saatgut-433962.html.
  61. Reuters Staff. 2010. German Court Upholds GMO Planting Curbs. Reuters, November 24. http://www.reuters.com/article/germany-gmo-idUSNLDE6AN1LT20101124.
  62. Ruppaner, M. 2015. Unpublished Interview Conducted by Shane Markowitz, July.Google Scholar
  63. Sassatelli, R., and A. Scott. 2001. Novel Food, New Markets and Trust Regimes: Responses to the Erosion of Consumers’ Confidence in Austria, Italy and the UK. European Societies 3 (2): 213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Scaturro, M. 2013. Farmers Struggle to Survive in Eastern Germany. Deutsche Welle, December 17. http://www.dw.com/en/farmers-struggle-to-survive-in-eastern-germany/a-17299993.
  65. Schimpf, M. 2014. Unpublished Interview Conducted by Shane Markowitz, July.Google Scholar
  66. Schoen, C. 2015. Unpublished Interview Conducted by Shane Markowitz, July.Google Scholar
  67. Schurman, R., and W.A. Munro. 2010. The Struggle Over Biotechnology in Western Europe. In Fighting for the Future of Food: Activists Versus Agribusiness in the Struggle Over Biotechnology, ed. R. Schurman and W.A. Munro. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  68. Seifert, F. 2009. Consensual NIMBYs, Contentious NIABYs: Explaining Contrasting Forms of Farmer GMO Opposition in Austria and France. Sociologica Ruralis 49 (1): 20–40.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00473.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sheller, M. 2014. Aluminium Dreams: The Making of Light Modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  70. Söder, M. 2006. Nicht die Natur dem Kommerz opfern. Tagesspiegel, June 16. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/meinung/nicht-die-natur-dem-kommerz-opfern/721148.html.
  71. Spiegel. 2009a. Genetically Modified Corn: German Lawmakers Mull a Frankenfood Ban. Spiegel Online, April 10. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/genetically-modified-corn-german-lawmakers-mull-a-frankenfood-ban-a-618557.html.
  72. Spiegel. 2009b. Monsanto Uprooted: Germany Bans Cultivation of GM Corn. Spiegel Online, April 14. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/monsanto-uprooted-germany-bans-cultivation-of-gm-corn-a-618913.html.
  73. Steffan-Dewenter, I., and A. Kuhn. 2003. Honeybee Foraging in Differently Structured Landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 270 (1515): 569–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Toke, D. 2004. Politics of GM Food: A Comparative Study of the UK, USA and EU. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. United States Department of Agriculture. 2014. 2012 Census of Agriculture: Highlights—Farms and Farmland. United States Department of Agriculture, May 4. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Farms_and_Farmland/Highlights_Farms_and_Farmland.pdf.
  76. de Visser, C.L.M., R. Schreuder, and F. Stoddard. 2014. The EU’s Dependency on Soya Bean Import the Animal Feed Industry and Potential for EU Produced Alternatives. Oilseeds & Fats Crops and Lipids 21 (4): 1–8.Google Scholar
  77. Warfield, K. 2016. Making the Cut: An Agent Realist Examination of Selfies and Touch. Social Media + Society 2 (2): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilbert, C. 2006. Profit, Plague and Poultry: The Intra-active Worlds of Highly Pathogenic Avian Flu. Radical Philosophy 139 (September/October): 1–8. https://philpapers.org/archive/WILPPA-10.pdf.
  79. Woerlein, H. 2015. Unpublished Interview Conducted by Shane Markowitz, July.Google Scholar
  80. Zander, P., T.S. Amjath-Babu et al. 2016. Grain Legume Decline and Potential Recovery in European Agriculture: A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 36 (26). First Online. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs13593-016-0365-y.pdf.
  81. Zivil Courage Neumarkt. 2015. Unpublished Interview Conducted by Shane Markowitz, July.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations