Common Tables and Democratic Solidarity

INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this paper is to employ the tools provided by political theory in thinking about the relationship between food and democracy. I engage with two conversations: the literature on embeddedness and localism, and the literature on democracy as daily life, which stresses the separation between use and exchange value.Some of the literature on farmers' markets starts from the assumption that face-to-face interactions demonstrate all the benefits of social embeddedness, thus erroneously conflating spatial relations with social relations (Portes and Landholt 1996). In fact, social inequalities can exist in farmers' markets which often serve largely educated and middle-class consumers (Allen and Sachs 1991; DeLind 1993). Many farmers' markets "involve social relations where the balance of power and privilege ultimately rests with well-to-do consumers. Struggling farmers and poor consumers, in contrast, must weigh concerns with income and price against the supposed benefits of direct, social ties" (Hinrichs 2000, 301).In providing an alternative market, farmers' markets create a context for closer social ties between farmers and consumers, but remain fundamentally rooted in commodity relations. As Kneen points out, farmers' markets may provide a valuable alternative to the "monoculture market economy" (Kneen 1993, 196), but they do not challenge the fundamental commodification of food. Describing the tensions between the global industrialized food system and the alternative food system based solely on scale-for example, between the local (the "good") and the global (the "bad")-is misleading (Hinrichs 2003, 34-35). In fact, as Hinrichs maintains, local social relationships, power relations, and environmental management practices are not always positive, and communities may pursue elitist or narrow "defensive localization" strategies at the expense of wider societal interests (Hinrichs 2003, 36).Currently, many Farmer's Markets have become "corporate" in certain ways. They structure themselves around competition, instead of cooperation; utilize national currencies, instead of local currencies and/or trade/barter arrangements; and often travel upwards to 200 miles to establish sale sites, thus contradicting localization efforts. I believe the "value" of Farmers Markets, while appreciable, is often over-rated and likely stems from a misunderstanding of what is possible through smaller, regional efforts.The celebration of the "localization" of food must take seriously how democratization processes or building solidarity are in fact different from local markets. Local control of food is not sufficient to advance and reinvigorate democracy without processes, rituals, practices of diverse citizens dining together in public spaces supported by the common use of property. The private table can foster deliberative skills and teach civic values (Flammang 2009), but cannot provide the context of diversity and equality which is vital to democracy. The Aristotelian notion of the public or common table is useful as it points to food as political or democratic sustenance, as a way to build solidarity across differences that are absent at the private table.To support my argument, I will present the examples of the Transition Town Movement, which aims to raise awareness of sustainable living and build local ecological resilience; The Hermitage, a self-sustaining small farm in Mount Shasta, California; and the international network of Terra Madre, a project conceived by Slow Food, which brings together small food producers, cooks, farmers, and academics, who share the common goal of global sustainability.THE ANCIENT NOTION OF THE COMMON TABLE-ARISTOTLEIn ancient Greece, ceremonial eating and drinking were common occurrences. Commensality outside of the private home confirmed the membership and solidarity of the participants and was political in the sense that the people who came together were the citizens of the polis. …