A Field Study on Food Communities in the Context of Ecological Habitus

Öz

This research reveals the relationship between social actors’ cultural capital, ecological predispositions, and food consumption practices. To achieve this, a qualitative analysis was carried out on the Antalya Food Community. Alternative food communities, which are part of ecological movements, address collective demands and social problems related to the production, distribution, and consumption of food. Participation in these communities requires certain kinds of cultural capital. Food consumption strategies are closely related to ecological habitus. Ecological habitus is a concept that points to the practice of how to live better in a particular place; the concept was developed under the influence of Bourdieu (1998). Alternative food communities are said to attract middle-class individuals who have a common ecological habitus. Information from in-depth interviews and participant observations are used to explain the main motivations of the members, the ecological habitus that makes the community possible, the relation networks they produce, and the various strategies and practices developed by these members. The fact that individuals develop ecological interests besides food after joining the community shows that these communities can be seen as “learning places” (Haluza-Delay, 2008). Thus, alternative food communities go beyond being a place for food exchange due to their ecological activities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ecology
• habitus
• ecological habitus
• cultural capital
• alternative food communities

Ekolojik Habitus Bağlamında Gıda Toplulukları Üzerine Bir Alan Araştırması

Öz

Bu araştırma, toplumsal aktörlerin kültürel sermayeleri, ekolojik yatkınlıkları ve gıda tüketim pratikleri arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya koymayı hedeflemektedir. Bu hedef doğrultusunda Antalya ilinde varlığını sürdüren Antalya Gıda Topluluğu üzerine nitel bir analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ekolojik hareketlerin bir parçası olan alternatif gıda toplulukları, gıdaların üretim, dağıtım ve tüketimi ile ilgili kolektif taleplere ve toplumsal problemlere yönelik ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu topluluklara katılım belli türden kültürel sermayeyi gerektirmektedir. Toplumsal aktörlerin topluluklar aracılığıyla geliştirdikleri gıda tüketim stratejileri, ekolojik habitus ile yakından ilişkili olmaktadır. Ekolojik habitus, belirli bir yerde nasıl daha iyi yaşanılacağına dair pratiğe işaret eden ve Bourdieu (1998) etkisiyle geliştirilen bir kavramdır. Bu kavramdan hareketle, bu çalışmada alternatif gıda topluluklarının ortak ekolojik habitusa sahip orta sınıftan bireylere cazip geldiği iddia edilmektedir. Bununla birlikte, alan araştırmasında gerçekleştirilen derinlemesine görüşmeler ve katılımcı gözlemler ile elde edilen veriler ışığında, üyeleri gıda topluluğuna yönelten temel motivasyonlar, mevzubahis topluluğu mümkün kılan ekolojik habitus, ürettikleri ilişki ağları ve bu üyelerin ekolojik habitus ekseninde geliştirdiği çeşitli stratejiler ve pratikler açıklanmıştır. Ayrıca, bireylerin topluluğa katıldıktan sonra gıda-dışı ekolojik ilgiler geliştirmesi, bu toplulukların Haluza-Delay'in (2008) deyimiyle "öğrenme yerleri" olarak görülebileceğini göstermektedir. Alternatif gıda toplulukları, gerçekleştirdikleri ekolojik faaliyetler dolayısıyla gıda alışverişi için birer yer olmanın ötesine geçmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ekoloji
• habitus
• ekolojik habitus
• kültürel sermaye
• alternatif gıda toplulukları

Kaynakça

1. Akarçay, E. (2016). Yeme pratikleri üzerinden (yeni?) orta sınıf(lar)ı anlamaya çalışmak. Sosyoloji Konferansları, 54(2), 33-60. google scholar
2. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. google scholar
3. Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London, UK: Sage Publications. google scholar
4. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason, on the theory of action. California, USA: Stanford University Press. google scholar
5. Bourdieu, P. (2015). Ayrım: Beğeni yargısının toplumsal eleştirisi [La Distinction, critique sociale du jugement] (A. google scholar
6. G.Berkkurt, & D. Fırat Şannan, Trans.), Ankara, Türkiye: Heretik Yayınları. google scholar
7. Bourdieu, P., & Chartier, R. (2015). The sociologist and the historian. Malden, USA: Polity Press. google scholar
8. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, USA: Polity Press. google scholar

9. Carfagna, L. B., Dubois, E. A., Fitzmaurice, C., Ouimette, M. Y., Schor, J. B., Willis, M., & Laidley, T. (2014). An emerging eco-habitus: the reconfiguration of high cultural capital practices among ethical consumers. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2), 158-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540514526227 google scholar
10. Cooper, L., & Baer, H. A. (2019). Urban eco-communities in australia -real utopian responses to the ecological. Parkville-Australia: Springer. google scholar
11. Cuellar-Padilla , M., & Ganuza-Fernandez, E. (2018). We don’t want to be officially certified! Reasons and implications of the participatory guarantee systems. Sustainability, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041142 google scholar
12. Ekoharita-Beta. (2019, 04 27). https://www.ekoharita.org/. Retrieved 01 17, 2020, from Ekoharita Beta site: https:// www.ekoharita.org/ekoloji-haritasi/ google scholar
13. Erbaş, H. (2017). Tarım-gıda etiği/politikası ve geleceğimiz: ekonomi-politik ve ötesi sosyolojik bir çerçeve. Türkiye Biyoetik Dergisi, 4(1), 14-28. google scholar
14. Featherstone, M. (2005). Postmodernizm ve tüketim kültürü [Consumer Culture and Postmodernism] (M.Küçük, Trans.), İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları. google scholar
15. Gâbler, K. (2015). Green capitalism, sustainability, and everyday practice. Global Sustainability: Cultural Perspectives and Challenges for Transdisciplinary Integrated Research, 63-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16477-9_4 google scholar
16. Gimenez, E. H., & Shattuck, A. (2011). Food crises, food regimes and food movements: Rumblings of reform or tides of transformation?, The Journal ofPeasant Studies, 38(1), 109-144. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/030 66150.2010.538578 google scholar
17. Grote, U. (2014). Can we improve global food security? A socio-economic and political perspective. Food Sec., 6, 187-200. DOI: 10.1007/s12571-013-0321-5 google scholar
18. Guthman, J. (2008). Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California. Geoforum, 1171-1183. google scholar
19. Haluza-Delay, R. (2008). A theory of practice for social movements: Environmentalism and ecological habitus. Mobilization: The International Quarterly, 13(2), 205-218. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.13.2.k5015r82j2q35148 google scholar
20. Hilgers, M., & Mangez, E. (2014). Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu’s social fields. In M. Hilgers, & E. Mangez (Eds.), Bourdieu’s Theory ofSocial Fields: Concepts and Applications (pp. 1-36). New York, USA: Routledge Press. google scholar
21. Home, R., Bouagnimbeck, H., Ugas, R., Arbenz, M., & Stolze, M. (2017). Participatory guarantee systems: organic certification to empower farmers and strengthen communities. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 526-545. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1279702 google scholar
22. Jourdain, A., & Naulin, S. (2016). Pierre Bourdieu’nün kuramı ve sosyolojik kullanımları [La theorie de Pierre Bourdieu et ses usages sociologiques] (Ö. Elitez, Trans.), İstanbul, Türkiye: İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
23. Kadirbeyoğlu, Z., & Konya, N. (2017). Alternative food initiatives in Turkey. In F. Adaman, B. Akbulut, & M. Arsel (Eds.), Neoliberal Turkey and its Discontents: Economic Policy and the Environment under Erdoğan (pp. 207230). London, UK: I. B. Taurus. google scholar
24. Karakaya Ayalp, E. (2021). Alternatif gıda ağları ve türkiye’de yurttaş temelli gıda inisiyatifleri. İDEALKENT, 12(33), 965-1005 https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.976618. google scholar
25. Kasper, D. V. (2009). Ecological habitus: Toward a better understanding of socioecological relations. Organization & Environment, 22(3), 311-326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026609343098 google scholar
26. Kaufmann, S., & Vogl, C. R. (2018). Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) in Mexico: A theoretic ideal or everyday practice?, Agriculture and Human Values, 457-472. google scholar
27. Kennedy, E. H., Parkins J. R., & Johnston J. (2018). Food activists, consumer strategies, and the democratic imagination: Insights from eat-local movements. Journal of Consumer Culture, 18(1), 149-168. google scholar
28. Kirby, J. (2017). Fleshing out an ecological habitus: Field and capitals of radical environmental movements. Nature and Culture, 12(2), 89-114. https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2017.120201 google scholar
29. Kirby, J. (2018). Grounding and comparing ecological habitus in environmental communities. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 10(2), 154-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2018.1463227 google scholar
30. Konyar, H. (2017). Etik gıda tüketimine bağlı olarak ortaya çıkan beğeni tercihleri: İstanbul’da etnografik alan çalışması. Senex: Yaşlılık Çalışmaları Dergisi, 1, 33-47. google scholar
31. Lande, B. (2007). Breathing like a soldier: Culture incarnate. The Sociological Review, 55(1), 95-108. google scholar
32. Leahy, T., Nilan, P., & Alam, M. (2019). Learning from Greenpeace: Activist habitus in a local struggle. Electronic Green Journal, 1(42). https://doi.org/10.5070/G314237888 google scholar
33. Lenoir, R. (2006). Scientific habitus. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(6), 25-43. google scholar
34. Levenstein, H. (2013). Gıda korkusu:beslenmeye dair endişelerin tarihçesi [Fear of Food: A History of Why We Worry about What We Eat]. (A. Özbek, Trans.) İstanbul, Türkiye: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. google scholar
35. May, C. (2008). Organics international. PGS guidelines. How to develop and manage Participatory Guarantee Systems for organic agriculture. Bonn, Germany: IFOAM. Retrieved from http://www.ifoam.bio/sites/default/ files/pgs_definition_in_different_languages.pdf google scholar
36. Mellor, P. A., & Shilling, C. (2010). The religious habitus: Embodiment, religion, and sociological theory. In B. s. Turner (Ed.), Sociology of Religion (pp. 201-220). Chicester, UK: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781444320787.ch9 google scholar
37. Muramoto, J., Hidaka, K., & Mineta, T. (2009). Japan finding opportunities in the current crisis. In S. R. Gliessman, & M. Rosemeyer (Eds.), The Conversion to Sustainable Agriculture. Principles, Processes, and Practices (pp. 274-297). Florida, USA: CRC Press. google scholar
38. Nelson, E., Tovar, L. G., Gueguen, E., Humphries, S., Landman, K., & Rindermann, R. S. (2016). Participatory guarantee systems and the re-imagining of Mexico’s organic sector. Agric Hum Values, 33, 373-388. google scholar
39. Nilan, P. (2017). The ecological habitus of Indonesian student environmentalism. Environmental Sociology, 3(2), 370-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1320844. google scholar
40. Nizam, Bilgiç, D. (2021). Yeni nesil kooperatifler: Topluluk, aidiyet ve yer-temellilik. İstanbul, Türkiye: Oğlak Yayınları. google scholar
41. Nizam Bilgiç, D. (2021). Kooperatifler, belediyeler ve gıda ağları: Tire Süt Kooperatifi örneği. Journal of Business, Innovation and Governance, 4(1): 113-131. google scholar
42. Özden, F. (2020). Gıda etiği bağlamında topluluk destekli tarım modeli üzerine bir inceleme. Türkiye Biyoetik Dergisi, 7(3), 84-98. google scholar
43. Ritzer, G. (2012). Modern sosyoloji kuramları [Modern sociological theory] (H. Hülür, Trans.), Ankara, Türkiye: De Ki Basım Yayın. google scholar
44. Schwarz, O. (2015). The sound of stigmatization: Sonic habitus, sonic styles, and boundary work in an urban slum. American Journal of Sociology, 121(1), 205-242. google scholar
45. Slowfood. (2015, July). Good, clean and fair: the Slow Food Manifesto for quality. Retrieved from https://www. slowfood.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/Manifesto_Quality_ENG.pdf google scholar
46. Smith, M. (2001). An ethics of place: Radical ecology, postmodernity, and social theory. New York: State University of New York Press. google scholar
47. Soysal Al, İ. (2020). The promising momentum and collective practices of the recently expanding network. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 40, 129-162. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2020.40.1.0046 google scholar
48. Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, USA: The University of Chicago Press. google scholar
49. Thorpe, C. (2015). İlişkisel bir sosyolojik paradigma uygulamak için eleştirel stratejiler. In C. Powell, & F. Depelteau (Eds.), İlişkisel Sosyoloji Ontolojik ve Teorik Yönelimler (pp. 167-192). Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi. google scholar
50. Velde, K., & Holemans, D. (2019). Fair and healthy food. Green European Foundation. Retrieved from https://gef. eu/publication/fair-and-healthy-food-paper google scholar
51. Wallace, R. A., & Wolf, A. (1995). Contemporary sociological theory: continuing the classical tradition. New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall. google scholar
52. Wezel, A., Goette, J., Lagneaux, E., Passuello, G., Reisman, E., Rodier, C., & Turpin, G. (2018). Agroecology in Europe: Research, education, collective action networks, and alternative food systems. Sustainability, 10(1214). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041214 google scholar
53. Wills, W., Backett-Milburn, K., Roberts, M.-L., & Lawton, J. (2011). The framing of social class distinctions through family food and eating practices. The Sociological Review, 59(4), 725-740. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2011.02035.x google scholar