‘It connects me to the earth:’ marginalized environmentalism and a resistance to capitalist logic among subsistence food producers in Chicago

ABSTRACT

Using qualitative methodologies to explore subsistence food production in Chicago, this paper suggests that in the process of self-producing food, self-provisioners are becoming more acquainted with the ecological conditions of their existence, thereby countering the logic of the capitalist food system which inherently distances and alienates. Some of the reported practices of subsistence food production include composting, water saving/reduction, food localization, closed-loop nutrient cycling, soil remediation, and promoting biological diversity. This research suggests that those seeking to study positive human-environment innovation should look beyond those that simply identify as political environmentalists. We must begin to look at populations that are marginalized by the relatively privileged environmentalist community in order to learn about important directions in sustainable futures.

KEYWORDS:

• Subsistence food production
• environmental sociology
• environmentalism
• alternatives
• sustainablitiy

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. All names are pseudonyms. All identifying details have been changed to protect anonymity.

2. Subsistence food production (SFP) has been defined in my sample as a population of people who have self-reported to produce at least 50% of their food needs in the high season of production. As the anthropological literature shows (Apfel-Marglin 1997; McMichael 2012), around the world subsistence production is almost never responsible for all individual food needs. Instead, most SFPers globally weave together a complex set of practices both self-producing for consumption and also earning a wage to purchase goods (McMichael 2012).

3. Using these five proxy indicators, participants were then individually marked as either ‘0’ or ‘1’ in each indicator, and then categorized into a class status category. Those marked with a ‘1’ on three indicators or more are labelled as upper class. Those that have a ‘1’ on two indicators or less are marked as lower class. It must be noted that these class categorizations do not fully represent these individuals’ class status. Indeed, even though participants are put into one of the two categories for the purpose of analysis, most participants fall somewhere on a class status continuum.

4. Based on the short-form, six question USDA ERS Food Security Survey Module, as asked within the semi-structured interview (USDA ERS 2012).

5. Area median income >200% of national median (U.S. Census 2010, American Community Survey 2009–2013).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ashley Colby

Ashley Colby is Co-director of Rizoma Field School in Colonia, Uruguay, a school for experiential learning on the topic of sustainable livelihoods in the Global South. She completed her Ph.D. in sociology at Washington State University in 2018. Her research focuses on environmental sociology, sociology of food and agriculture, sustainable consumption and social movements. She is generally interested in the myriad creative ways individuals and communities are exploring a resilient, post-capitalist future. Her dissertation research focused on subsistence food producers in Chicago, and her current research project explores communities of Earthship builders, a type of bioconstruction.