Grassroots approach and resistance: upgrading the conception of sustainable development

Abstract

A critical body of literature has emerged focusing on the spectrum of resistance against impositions engendered by the modus operandum of western capitalism, including the nuances of the productive patterns considering the environment as a device attached to the triple bottom line of the traditional view of sustainable development. Regarding the theory, solidarity economy (economic pillar), social movements (social pillar), political ecology (environmental pillar), and cultural roots (cultural pillar) are important apparatus that cannot be left behind if an alternative concept of sustainable development is to be structured. This article considers such apparatus as having elements of resistance, since they have different characteristics when compared to the standard features of the pillars that form the base of the criticized conception of sustainable development. Therefore, the main goal of this article is to conceive alternative elements to the standard concept of sustainable development, considering aspects of the grassroots approach. This study is relevant as it offers alternative and complementary elements in order to provide an understanding of the updated conjectures. The prospects of grassroots development, involving less developed communities worldwide, are being used as practical guidelines in local development actions. They have rarely been conjectured as conceptual elements to offer a new format for the conception of sustainable development. This article concludes that the traditional version of sustainable development can be upgraded with the alternative elements emerging from the grassroots approach.

Keywords:
Sustainable Development; Grassroots Approach; Resistance.

Resumo

Em contrapartida às especificidades impositivas do modelo de produção capitalista - incluindo-se nesse modelo os meandros de arranjos produtivos que inserem o meio ambiente enquanto alinhado à versão tríplice da concepção tradicional de desenvolvimento sustentável -, tem surgido uma massa crítica de literatura focada na resistência ao modo de funcionamento do capitalismo ocidental. Em relação à teoria, economia solidária (pilar econômico), movimentos sociais (pilar social), ecologia política (pilar ambiental) e raízes culturais (pilar cultural) são aparatos importantes que não devem ficar à margem na estruturação de uma concepção alternativa do desenvolvimento sustentável. Tais aparatos são considerados elementos de resistência, visto terem fatores diferenciados quando comparados com as características tradicionais dos pilares da criticada concepção de desenvolvimento sustentável. Assim, o objetivo do presente ensaio teórico é conceber alternativas à concepção padrão do desenvolvimento sustentável, considerando aspectos da abordagem grassroots importantes para esse propósito. A contribuição é relevante tendo em vista a consideração de aspectos alternativos e complementares envolvidos na leitura da atualização conjecturada. Os prospectos do desenvolvimento grassroots têm sido usados como guia prático em ações de desenvolvimento local envolvendo comunidades menos desenvolvidas em várias partes do mundo, sem a conjectura que sinaliza para elementos conceituais que podem oferecer uma conformação alternativa à concepção do desenvolvimento sustentável. Conclui-se que a versão tradicional do desenvolvimento sustentável pode ser atualizada com elementos alternativos advindos da abordagem grassroots.

Palavras-chave:
Desenvolvimento Sustentável; Abordagem Grassroots; Resistência.

Resumen

En contrapartida a las especificidades impositivas del modelo de producción capitalista, incluyendo en dicho modelo los meandros de los arreglos productivos que encuadran al medioambiente como alineado con la versión triple de la concepción tradicional de desarrollo sostenible, ha surgido una masa crítica de literatura que enfoca la resistencia en relación con el modo de funcionamiento del capitalismo occidental. Con relación a la teoría, economía solidaria (pilar económico), movimientos sociales (pilar social), ecología política (pilar ambiental) y raíces culturales (pilar cultural) son instrumentos importantes que no deben dejarse al margen en la estructuración de una concepción alternativa de desarrollo sostenible. Tales instrumentos son considerados elementos de resistencia, por tener características diferenciadas al compararlos con las características tradicionales de los pilares de la criticada concepción de desarrollo sostenible. Así, el objetivo del presente ensayo teórico es concebir alternativas a la concepción estándar de desarrollo sostenible, considerando aspectos del enfoque grassroots significativos para este propósito. La contribución es relevante teniendo en cuenta la consideración de aspectos alternativos y complementarios involucrados en la lectura de la actualización conjeturada. Los prospectos del desarrollo grassroots se usaron como guía práctica en acciones de desarrollo local que involucraron comunidades menos desarrolladas en varias partes del mundo, sin la conjetura que apunta hacia elementos conceptuales que pueden ofrecer una conformación alternativa a la concepción de desarrollo sostenible. Se concluye que la versión tradicional de desarrollo sostenible puede actualizarse con elementos alternativos derivados del enfoque grassroots.

Palabras clave:
Desarrollo sostenible; Enfoque grassroots; Resistencia.

Introduction

The last decades of the past century and the beginning of the 21^st Century has been marked by intense transformations in the socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural relations, resulting from rapid changes in technical, scientific, informational patterns and multi-faceted interactions that permeate the dynamics of modern societies. This, somehow, can be interpreted as nuances of the current phase of capitalism, to glimpse the possibility of the emergence of alternative arrangements in an intense process of multi-dimensioned globalization (BOSSLE, 2011).

In the midst of this process, the emergence of new referrals to the traditional capitalism wouldn’t be able to absorb (although more recently the alternative forms of production have been merged with the intricacies of traditional market capitalism) - possibilities that embed humanistic, social, environmental and cultural aspects in socio-economic activities. Such a perspective is of crucial importance as a focus of resistance to demands for traditional accumulation, which often forges a social imagery turned to material consumerism and diffuses a socially unsustainable standard of living, with a substantial part of the population aside from the access to any benefits generated.

The economic structure of the traditional capitalist system is characterized, in the framework of the productive forces, by the employment of capital (machine), work and technology, based on the private ownership of the means of production. That means, from the Industrial Revolution, who had access to an initial capital stock, or who had accumulated during centuries, could be owner of the means of production - a highly exclusive initial process.

In search for alternatives to these forms Universalists and concentrating of property, income and consumption, to make it possible to speculate that enter the socio-environmental, the cultural and the very lives of human beings, Escobar (1995) points two directions: the resistance location, perpetrated by base groups, the dominant forms of capitalist intervention; and the deconstruction of traditional economic development.

Both aspects require the effort towards the denaturalization and deuniversalization of modernity Western capitalist - what the author called anti-globalcentrism. In this case, there is a need for anthropology of modernity that leads to an understanding of Western modernity as a cultural phenomenon and specific history, and this must be the deuniversalization of the customs and practices of a large part of the activities of the modern societies of the West. Deuniversalization here has meaning restricted, signaling the break or the adaptation of Western processes that are designed ‘from the outside’, without the perception that the site should be the focus of the intervention, taking into account the customs, beliefs, culture and the environment in local level. In this interim, it is understood that the traditional version of sustainable development is full of bias linked to practices linked to Western capitalism and the consideration of alternative approaches, such as those relating to grassroots approach; it can be used to better design the default version of this type of development. From the perspective of anthropology of modernity, to understand the essence of the capitalist economy, one should critically look at the formation of its structure, seeing it as an institution made up of production systems, power and meaning. These production systems joined the end of the 18th Century and led to the advent of the first industrial revolution, being inseparably linked to the development of capitalism and the current Western modernity. Must be seen, as well as forms by means of which human beings are transformed into productive objects.

The improvements and adjustments that occurred in capitalism, mainly from the end of the 20th Century, led to the system greater flexibility with regard to the inclusion of aspects vital to humanity: the advent of sustainable development has brought, at once, the prospects economic, social and environmental, to emphasize that no capitalist activity in block capitals could be dignified if the three pillars (economic, social and environmental) were not met (BRUNDTLAND, 1987). Plus, future generations would be preserved in order to have guaranteed access, at a minimum, the same stock of natural capital of this generation.

Given the critical nature that surrounds the debate about the nuances and metamorphoses of the capitalist system over the centuries and the new conjecture that present themselves today, the post-conception of ‘sustainable development’, this article proposes covering with elements of resistance from the grassroots approach to the economic, social and environmental spheres of the traditional conception of sustainable development. A fourth pillar (cultural), which has already been incorporated into the literature on sustainable development, is also part of the analysis. The vision being followed is that the traditional design, of great importance for the prospects of capitalism since the late 1980, is incomplete and still fully attached to the regent order of tax capitalism that shapes the current Western economic development.

On the above, the objective of this article is to provide the conception of sustainable development of alternative elements connected to the grassroots approach, considered here as containing elements of resistance. For each of its pillars proposed a more flexible model compared to the traditional version. Thus, the economic pillar brings us to the solidarity economy. Introducing the perspective of solidarity economy in the economic pillar of sustainable development inserts conjecture and expands the traditional design under a much more promising and appropriate perspective to the true character of economic development sustainable: equality, cooperation, freedom and self-management - key figures of the solidarity economy. So, a better way to refer to this pillar would be titling it “economic solidarity pillar” and not just “economic pillar”.

In relation to the social pillar of traditional sustainable development, social movements could be clamoring for this much yearned extolled as a source of resistance. Such conjecture is relevant since social movements can be designed to revindicate improvements in socioeconomic and environmental standards - aspects designed in the three pillars of sustainable development. Already with regard to the environmental pillar, the political ecology could be of unique importance as a source of resistance. More generally, one can say that the political ecology important struggles and ecopolitical achievements embed, and it could coat with the resistance force “environmental pillar” of sustainable development.

In relation to the cultural pillar, inserted in the literature of sustainable development more recently, the connotation of resistance would be introduced via local identity. In this pillar would be emphasized to local preservation global front. Thus, local identity could be seen as a font to coat the new “pillar” with the prospect of resistance.

The structuring of the article starts with the theoretical framework on sustainable development and its three pillars, and the grassroots approach. Following are the blends of traditional pillars of sustainable development with the alternative elements of the grassroots approach. The final considerations emphasize the main points and the achievement of objectives, as well as the possibilities for future studies.

Theoretical apparatus: The concept of sustainable development and Grassroots development

The construction of the concept of development is a portrait of the evolution of the global economy and is divided into three phases: i) that places it as synonymous with economic growth; ii) denies the possibility to exist an effective global development; and iii) that aggregates the environmental value as mainstay development, giving prominence to sustainable development (MAGALHÃES and MOTA, 2012).

According to Sachs (2008), the idea of development times confused with growth, based on the economic fundamentals, as quoted previously. However, the economic growth part of the premise that the more the material progress, the improvement of social standards in a particular population, i.e. the elevation of social benefits would be a natural consequence of economic growth. Has a vision of development that focuses on quantitative vision economic phenomenon and its social impacts, while State interventionism, not fold as well as economic actors’ ability to self-regulate and find the point of balance necessary to maintain stable global economic scenario via market forces.

There emerged so criticism about the direct relationship between growth and development, not to be denied the importance of first to second range. However, economic growth is no longer seen as an end in itself, and, also, as the only way to reach the development (VEIGA, 2005).

According to Magalhães and Mota (2012), this observation comes from observing the applicant difference between economic growth and development. The growth is not always accompanied by social change. Indeed, in scenarios of rapid economic growth, the development has been shown to be a historical exception and not the rule. Another much criticized in relation to economic growth is favoring the high concentration of wealth and income in the hands of a few. This characteristic is especially present in economic models that stimulate the creation of isolated archipelagos of generating wealth, providing exclusive growth patterns.

Given these perceptions, many theorists, such as Arrighi (1998) and Sen (1999), protest against the creation of development. Arrighi (1998), one of the great exponents of this current skepticism, conceived the so-called “1ch pattern” to try to explain how the world socioeconomic dynamics could achieve development. Sen (1999) marked a new phase of development theory with the assertion that this would consist in elimination of all limits the choices and the opportunities of the people. That is, the development is associated not only to economic growth but fundamental human rights, promoting equality and maximizing the benefits of those who live in conditions of underdevelopment.

According to Magalhães and Mota (2012), one of the features that stand out in this new style of development is the shift from quantitative to a qualitative vision, which puts it in the background the accounting logic-public economic, to make way for a perspective of social governance.

In 1990, the United Nations (UN) introduced the world to one of the best-known indexes of development: the human development index (HDI). This follows the index formula based on geometric mean of three sub-indices: life expectancy, education and per capita income. Subsequently, criticism arose as a result of the limitation of the index proposed by the UN, in particular with regard to the use of only three criteria for the measurement of development. For these critics, other indicators, other than those relating to health, education and income could prove equally important in order to obtain a more accurate vision of development. One of the alternate indexes of potential consideration would be linked to access to environmental quality, a fundamental right that every society would chase and that would be associated with the ecological balance. The introduction of this concept inaugurates the phase of sustainable development (MAGALHÃES and MOTA, 2012).

In the Brundtland Report, has expressed the classical definition of sustainable development: “{...} meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (DINIZ and BERMANN, 2012, p. 323). Economic development begins to be rethought in a new way, taking into account the equality between the generations. Even so, economic development had a somewhat more restricted optics and usually considered the fundamental determinants of economic growth without taking into account the environment. For Sachs (2008), sustainable development is characterized by the integration of human and ecological dimensions, for the dignity of all human beings through the eradication of poverty and the realization of their fundamental rights.

Analyzing sustainable development via different views, levels and meanings, and seeking a broader view with the objective of scoring actions and goals, Sachs (2008, p. 15) defined five dimensions of sustainability:

i): Fundamental for reasons intrinsic as instrumental, both because of the prospect of social disruption that looms menacingly over many troubled places of our planet; ii): With two dimensions - life support systems as resource providers and as ‘ containers ‘ for the disposal of waste; iii): Related to territorial spatial distribution of resources, activities and populations; iv) Economical {a}: Being the economic viability the conditio sine qua non for things to happen; and v) Politics: democratic governance is a founder and a necessary tool to make things happen.

According to the five dimensions proposed by Sachs (2008), we will give emphasis to the economic, social and environmental pillars, directly linked to the triple base of sustainable development, treated by Elkington (2001) as the design of the three pillars of development traditional sustainable. The subsection following merges the traditional conception of sustainable development with the alternative perspective of grassroots development, given the prospect of resistance contained in this alternative approach.

Economic pillar

In the conventional view, the economic pillar has as main economic growth or profit, submitting environmental aspects to a second plan. The approach requires a search for economic support in the long term. When assessing this pillar, taking into consideration the concept of sustainable development, it is necessary to instill the idea of economic capital, human capital and intellectual capital, concepts that, as Elkington (2001), were being gradually incorporated into the analysis of the economic capital. In addition, the concepts of natural and social capital are fundamental in the development of the pillar economic analyses.

The economic analysis of issues related to the environment can give both the aspect of microeconomics and macroeconomics. In the context of microeconomics, one can, for example, verify that the adoption of cleaner technologies or more efficient is feasible. In macroeconomics, one can analyze the relationship between the environment and economic development, that is, duly studied the issue of sustainability in aggregate form. In this section, for example, assesses the existence or not of an environmental Kuznets curve for a given pollutant.

One of the newer concepts, added to sustainable development, is the concept of green economy. Green economy is defined as one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while reducing significantly the environmental risks and ecological scarcity (UNITED NATIONS apud DINIZ and BERMANN, 2012). It should be stressed that the economic pillar of the traditional version of sustainable development is based on environmental economics, whose purpose is to combine economic growth with preservation of natural resources. Such a vision is restricted and well-adjusted to the precepts of the mode of production in current capitalism in the sense that preservation of natural capital would be subjugated to the precepts of economic growth.

Finally, we believe the economic pillar as a socio-economic and environmental equity proposal aimed at the good of mankind respecting natural resources and thereby strengthening the concept of sustainable development

Social pillar

The social pillar, according to Sachs (2008), includes the view that bad social situations in many parts of the world are related to neglect of governmental authorities vis-à-vis the social inequality has accumulated over the years. According to Extend and Pitta (2008), issues such as social and educational inequality, among others, are not part of the concepts of sustainability linked to economic and environmental issues. For these authors, what really matters is that the social system is not equalized, i.e. is not progressing equitably, environmental and economic issues will not be addressed or resolved the way you want.

Sustainable development, in front of society, seeks ways to equalize opportunities and riches, so as to deter economic growth hub. The transparency proposal by the social front of sustainability offers a mix between society and organizations, producing possibilities of reducing social inequalities actions.

Environmental pillar

According to Dias (2006), at the beginning of civilization, all the strategies developed by man for your maintenance and survival were liable to cause changes in the environment.

With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, a series of major transformations in the capitalist mode of production, production activities cease to be handmade to become manufactured. Spread changes in economic systems: industrial processes are using large amounts of energy and natural resources.

According to Dias (2006), several were the problems caused by industrialization: accelerated urbanization and unplanned, high population concentration, excessive consumption of non-renewable natural resources, pollution of the air, water and soil, deforestation, among others.

The number of industrial accidents caused by the unbridled search for increasing levels of production and the situations in which the waste generation wasn’t receiving proper treatment in order to be reabsorbed by nature became the main problems whose solutions have various actors which fund education the possibility of awareness of the population about situations that have affected the environment.

The main environmental problems that concern the population are inextricably linked to the process of capitalist production, which directly affects the environment, causing, in many cases, difficult recovery or irreversible effects, like quote Balasubramaniam and Ferreira (2009, p. 28):

{...} Today the risks produced expand in almost all dimensions of human life, forcing us to review the way we act on the natural environment and the social relationships themselves, forcing us to question the consumption habits and ways of production material. Often the conscience of the risks caused by new technologies on the natural environment becomes an alarmist, but nobody can deny the seriousness of the situation.

Sustainable development, in this context, it is proposed that the preservation of natural resources, so that the growth consider continuity and support of ecosystems. It is necessary that the patterns of consumption and take into account the conservation of the environment and the improvement in quality of life, essential aspects for the continuity of human life at acceptable standards.

Grassroots development and resistance

According to Escobar (1992), the grassroots approach is based on: i) local social movements: responses to specific problems for groups of people, pluralistic fights that may or may not form horizontal chains and/or regional movements; ii) local economic demands: even though economic motivations are present and are explicitly placed, they are always merged with aspects of local culture and community concerns; iii) rejection of ‘impositive expertise’: the knowledge of experts and governmental agencies are not accepted as a guide to the way about how communities should lead their claims and decisions.

In the search for alternatives to traditional forms contained in the pillars of sustainable development and linked to the capitalist mode of production pattern, Escobar (1995) points to two complementary directions: local resistance groups of dominant forms of base intervention; the deconstruction of development (ESCOBAR, 1995), which implies the effort of denaturalization and deuniversalization of modernity. This will require anthropology of modernity that leads to an understanding of Western modernity as a cultural phenomenon and specific history (ESCOBAR, 1995).

Escobar (1995) contributes and argues that, although we are in the midst of modernity, with capitalism increasingly strong, given the changes brought in recent centuries, it is of extreme importance for humanity, respectable by the cultures and history of each region and by population it belongs. In relation to resistance movements that affect organizations, Dellagnelo, Bohm and Mendonça (2014) highlight the relevance of political discourse theory and organizational studies. According to these authors, the theory of political discourse has been used in analysis of resistance and social antagonism in the sphere of organizations, explaining the nuances regarding the structuring of resistance movements. This contribution, although important, is not in line with the goals outlined here, since it aims to analyze resistance movements that affect companies, a much more restricted sense when compared to the conceptual precepts of sustainable development.

With regard to definitions of resistance, Hollander and Einwohner (2004) point out that the variety of uses of the resistance must take into account two conceptual dimensions: resistance and resistance. These authors use the two dimensions in the development of a typology of resistance - useful in terms of sociological use of the concept.

According to Montero (1998), based on the many voices that seek alternatives to traditional capitalist mode of production, it is possible to speak of the existence of a form of interpreting the world and act on it, what constitutes an episteme. For Montero (1998) central ideas promoters of this paradigm are the following: i) a conception of community and participation, as well as to know how popular forms of Constitution and at the same time producing an episteme of relationship; ii) release by Praxis, which presupposes the mobilization of conscience and a critical sense driving the denaturalization of the canonical forms of learn-build-be in the world; iii) redefinition of the role of the social researcher, recognize the “other” himself and, therefore, the subject-object of research as social actor and builder of knowledge; iv) the historic character, unspecified, undefined, unfinished and relative of knowledge involving the multiplicity of voices, of life-worlds, the epistemic pluralism; v) perspective of dependence and, soon, resistance: tension between minorities and majorities and alternative ways of doing-knowing; and vi) revision of methods and contributions and transformations caused by them.

Such alternative views of different worlds refer us to the possibility of glimpsing sustainable production modes, i.e. linked to the precepts of sustainable development, which has as one of its features to increase the quality of life, especially for the most poorer. Sustainability requires a standard of living within the limits of nature, living within the capacity of natural capital and respect and preservation of ecosystems. The traditional version of sustainable development comprises three essential pillars: i) economic; ii) social; and iii) environmental.

In this study, these three pillars (and an additional - the cultural pillar) will be reviewed and coated with essential elements linked to the grassroots approach, that is, emphasis will be given to the precepts of solidarity economy (economic pillar), the importance of social movements (pillar social), relevance of the political ecology (environmental pillar) and the local identity (cultural pillar). The grassroots approach is fully framed in perspective ‘from the bottom up’. It is defined, according to Escobar (1992), as a set of assumptions which emphasizes the interest by local and cultural knowledge as the basis for a redefinition of representations, including the critical aspect in relation to established scientific knowledge, and the defense and promotion of local pluralistic movements.

When using this grassroots approach resistance conjecture, our goal is to provide the traditional conception of sustainable development - typified by Willis (2005) as technocentric approach-elements of globalcentrism resistance and, especially, the universal way that sustainable development brings while still traditional mode of operation of the traditional capitalist regime. To this end, the prospect of resistance of the grassroots approach will be considered through the use of four strands that are merged, as alternatives to the four respective pillars of the traditional conception of sustainable development: i) Economics grassroots-solidarity (traditional economic pillar); grassroots social movements (social pillar); iii) grassroots political ecology (environmental pillar); and iv) culture-identity and grassroots-local (cultural pillar, added to the three traditional pillars).

According to Veiga (2006), the prevailing thinking model in economic science, and embedded in the design of traditional, sustainable development has always been a mechanic and dominated by the idea of balance. However, this way of thinking has always ignored the union between economical and biotic systems, in addition to disregard the existence of natural limits and the environment in relation to the expansion of economic activities. In addition, it can be said that the standard Western economic doctrine, present in the design of sustainable development, sees not humanistic characteristics (such as those present in solidarity economy), or social perspective in social movements reinvindicatory (as considered in the grassroots-local movements), and suggested either the conjecture of environmental policy (like this on political ecology). In addition, the cultural perspective is reinforced as regards the prospect of local identity.

It is in this context that the figure 1 proposes an alternative view merged to the traditional approach of sustainable development, including the three pillars of traditional design, and the addition of the cultural pillar, mentioned above, with their respective alternatives linked to the perspective of grassroots approach resistance.

Figure 1
Sustainable development and Grassroots Approach (Resistance)

In this way, the three pillars of sustainable development, more traditional cultural pillar, is merged with the grassroots approach alternatives, that is, the solidarity economy economic pillar merged, social movements linked to the social pillar political ecology merged the environmental pillar, and the local cultural identity merged to pillar. The blends are analyzed in detail below.

Merging the Traditional Pillars with the Grassroots Approach

The economic pillar and the grassroots solidarity-economy

Solidarity economy is a form of production, consumption and distribution of wealth based on valuation of the human being and not the capital. Associative basis-community cooperative and is focused on the production, consumption and marketing of goods and services of self-managed mode, having as purpose the enlarged reproduction of life (PESSOA, 2008). The principles and concepts of solidarity economy emerged in the middle of the 16th century, with the contributions of Claude Saint-Simon (1760-1825), who advocated the pursuit of workers’ welfare through the production of useful things to life and was contemplating the redistribution of wealth through associations of citizens.

Different authors have been devoted to the concept of solidarity economy - Singer (2002) and Mance (1999) are the two main. Singer proposes that the solidarity economy is a possible strategy for combating social inequalities and unemployment:

The construction of solidarity-based economy is one of these other strategies. She takes advantage of the change in relations of production brought about by big business to launch the Foundation of new forms of organization of production, based on a logical opposite to that which governs the capitalist market. Everything leads to believe that the solidarity economy will, after a few years, many waiting in vain for a new job, the opportunity to rejoin own-account production, either individually or collectively {...} (SINGER, 2002, p. 138).

According to Mance (1999), the concept of solidarity economy goes beyond individual issues related to employment and income and adds not only the generation of jobs, but also a solidary collaboration aimed at the construction of post-capitalist societies in which ensure the good living of all the people involved:

{...} When we consider the solidary collaboration as a work and shared consumption whose reciprocal link between people comes, first, of a moral sense of co-responsibility for the good living of each and every one in particular, seeking to expand as much as possible the practical exercise of personal freedom and public, we introduced at the core of this definition the human pursuit of freedom {...} (MANCE, 1999, p. 178).

Godoy (2011) reports that it was during the modern industrial capitalism that emerged the experiences and projects of society closer to the notion of emergence of a solidarity economy, such as the ideas defended by the associative ideology. An experience that serves as an example for the debate is the case of the embryonic cooperatives of the 16th century, which inspired the recovery of the ideas of the collective work under workers ‘ control and that is present in the current notion of solidarity economy.

The solidarity economy in various countries of the world arose given the industrial crisis, when the machine was present and, in many cases, replaced workers. Since the 19th century, mainly in European countries and the United States, initiatives created by workers in cooperatives and associations leveraged the emergence and dissemination of experiences of solidarity. In Brazil, only from 1980, and gaining strength in the 1990, the solidarity economy spread, with the landmark Meeting of culture and Socioeconomics of solidarity, which had as aim to seek support and recognition of the society and of the political bodies jurisdiction in relation to the concepts and objectives of that economy as a whole (PESSOA, 2008).

The solidarity economy has the following features:

1. Cooperation: existence of interests and common goals; Union of efforts and capabilities; collective ownership of property and shares the results with joint and several liabilities. Involves various types of collective organization: self-manageable companies or retrieved (assumed by employees); community associations; networks of production, marketing and consumption; informal productive groups’ specific segments (women, youth etc.); barter clubs etc. In most cases, these collective organizations add a large set of individual and family activities;

2. Self-management: participants of organizations exercise participatory practices of self-management of worker processes, strategic and everyday settings of the ventures, the direction and coordination of actions in its various degrees and interests. The external restraints of managerial and technical assistance, training and advice, should not replace or prevent the protagonism of the true subject of the action and applying their expertise and localized;

3. The economy is the basis of aggregation of motivation and personal resources and efforts from other organizations for production, processing, credit, marketing and consumption. Involves the set of elements of economic viability, permeated by criteria of efficiency and effectiveness, along with the cultural, social and environmental aspects;

4. Solidarity: expressed in different dimensions, such as the fair distribution of the results achieved; the opportunities that lead to the development of capacities and the improvement of the living conditions of the participants; the commitment to a healthy environment; established relations with the local community; on active participation in the processes of sustainable development of local, regional, national and regional; in relations with social movements and popular of emancipating character; in concern for the well-being of workers and consumers; and respect for the rights of workers.

Considering these characteristics, the solidarity economy signals to the prospect of another sustainable development logic on the economic pillar, generating work, and your income distribution, by a fair economic development-supportive, with protection of ecosystems. The economic results, social, political and cultural rights are shared by the participants, irrespective of gender, age and race. Implies the reversal of logic of the precepts of the economic pillar of sustainable development, which includes labor and natural resources subject to capital, rather than consider the human being in your entirety as subject and purpose of economic activity. That doesn’t necessarily rule out market activities, involvement of public and private agents, well-structured financial sector, all of modern capitalism and essential to the strengthening of solidarity economy.

According to França Filho (2004), the term solidarity economy acquires a scientific concept in the years 90. This author considers the emergence of solidarity economy, or your concept, as a result of the emergence of socio-economic practices that first appeared in Europe and were related to local initiatives. The author understands as “local practice” that which is represented by new arrangements for employment as a service of proximity or supportive services. Other authors, like Icaza (2004), referring to the solidarity economy in Brazil, point out that, by your character to remain with few resources and little or no capital and meet primarily the poor sectors, the concept of solidarity-based economy should be understood as a set of broader practices: the popular economy.

In this context, it can be said that the solidarity economy calls for the understanding of the work as an economic democratization process, creating an alternative to the traditional economic dimension of sustainable development pattern. In addition, the solidarity economy has a purpose multidimensional, involving the social, economic, political, ecological and cultural. That’s because, in addition to the economic vision of the generation of work and income, inherent in modern capitalism, the experiences of solidarity economy project in the social space in which are inserted, with the construction of a socially just and sustainable environment.

Thus, it can be said that the solidarity economy is a different way of producing, selling, buying and exchanging what it takes - socially and politically correct, respecting the local culture without destroying the environment. Despite the understanding that there are mechanisms of solidarity markets variables by other capitalists, Castanheira and Pereira (2008) do not consider acceptable the concept of competition when it comes to principles of solidarity economy. This requires a change in behavior based on solidarity, creating a challenge for the achievement of a collective rehabilitation.

According to Turcato (2011), the design of the solidarity economy perfectly captures a perspective of more sustainable character of that development, in the sense of the traditional economic pillar can be merged to the precepts of solidarity economy and also not to consider only the prospect of an economy whose objectives appear in a lot of clash contexts more real sustainable development imperatives, which would involve dimensions and overthought and more holistic, when compared to the technocentric and conjecture fragmented economic pillar of traditional development.

Everything that was exposed above, several features of the solidarity economy can be coupled to traditional economic pillar under the perspective of grassroots approach resistance. In the interim, emphasis would be given to the precepts of solidarity economy linked to the importance of local knowledge and culture as the basis for a redefinition of productive activities, including the defense and promotion of local pluralistic movements, the claims local economic merged with aspects of local culture and community concerns, socio-humanistic respect economic relations between participants and the environmental awareness in each production process-distributive involved in productive activities of a true grassroots economy-solidarity.

The social pillar and grassroots social movements

From the years 1960, social movements have gained visibility in society while concrete historical phenomena. The development of theories about the social and collective actions has gained new heights, in wider universes, a new conception of civil society.

According to Gohn (2007), the main theories of social movements about collective actions in contemporary globalization era are as follows:

1. Resource mobilization theory: social movements are addressed as interest groups. Are seen as organizations and analyzed under the perspective of bureaucracy to an institution. Resource mobilization is perhaps the Marxist School of thought not better structured, explaining the social movements at the individual, organizational, but;

2. Theory of political mobilization: the development of the political process, in which the field of culture is reactivated and the interpretation of collective action is focused as a process. The emphasis is now on the political structure, the degree of organization of groups of agents, and cultural analysis is applied in the interpretation of the authors’ discourses of the movements. Finally, the theory of political mobilization reintroduced the social psychology as a tool for understanding the collective behaviors of social groups;

3. Theory of new social movements: these movements appear as reaction to structural changes in Western capitalist societies. There are characterized by: anti-modernist values, forms of unconventional action, formed by groups sensitive to results of capitalist modernization, new aspirations and the satisfaction of needs requirements risked bureaucratization and the increasing industrialization, which led to the loss of traditional links and structures of existing loyalties.

In relation to the characterization of social movements, Mark (1989) States that, in the years 1970, structure via collective action, resulting from the logic of the system (emphasis on the socio-economic context) and via motivation, whose actions resulted from personal beliefs with emphasis on papers the ideology and values. After the years 70’s, the formation of social movements going on involving a systemic structural approach, with changes in modern capitalism pointing the emergence of new forms of conflict and new actors.

Escobar (2010) identifies the new social movements as a contribution to the regeneration of people in their spaces, a form of resistance and survival to the age of capitalism and modernism. Defend social movements as symbols of resistance to dominant policies of knowledge and organization of the world, seeking some paths toward the preservation of culture in less favored communities, not submitting to the dominant globalcentrism.

In the long run, what is in vogue, as regards social movements of the Third World, there is generating new ways of seeing, to renew the cultural self-descriptions, possible via disposal of the categories under which the third world groups have been built. It’s a matter of contributing to regeneration or recreation of new community spaces, working with those who have survived the age of development and modernity, via her resistance or creatively if self-insinuating against the mechanisms of capital and modernization (ESCOBAR, 1992, p. 421).

In the current literature on the new wave of social movements, concrete experiences related to grassroots perspective are diverse. Bebbington and Abramovay (2008) emphasize that the political spectrum of ethics and grassroots development has reached considerable levels in discussions of conjecture pro-development rural social movements in Latin America. In relation to the importance of the ‘ local ‘ in the grassroots approach, Escobar (2001) emphasizes that more and more debates and struggles of social movements related to this element are present in the daily life of anti-globalizing cultural resistance.

The social movements of grassroots lineage, in the midst of modern capitalism, have promoted discussions on local defense, seen that continually shape your worlds through pluralistic political activism, which includes clothing, symbols and visions alternative meanings, taking into account the prerogatives of culture, politics and the environment where they are located. Despite the existence of ample and varied definitions of sustainable development and of integration and overlap contemplating economic, social and environmental problems, and without the pretension of making such elements without importance, grassroots social movements can be seen as resistance forces fighting forms from enforcement models that don’t support concerns and local practices, since they promote the loss of identity, culture and sustainability. For this reason, can they be of utmost importance to give more sustainable format to the social pillar of sustainable development concept. Socio-economic issues, even though adorned by the precepts of productive activities environmentally correct, are not strong enough to enter the resistance force of local social movements of grassroots.

The environmental pillar and grassroots-political ecology

The Industrial Revolution and the growing globalization that took place in the 18th Century have alerted us to the specifics of the reorganization process in politics, ecology and the cultural and economic relations. In this subsection we will give emphasis to political ecology, which, although we offer wide literature, is fragmented into various disciplines, including geography, sociology, anthropology, biology and ecology.

Boeira (2002) states that in Brazil ecopolitical discussions include historic rescue of movements in defense of the environment that have occurred between 1987 and 1992.

In relation to the perspective of the political ecology and its nuances, taking into account the grassroots approach, Rocheleau (2007) points out that participants focus their writings in criticism about content and emphasis of the interventions, rather than actions. Others apply research results prospectuses observer-participant families and also formal research to implement field practices and techniques involving farmers and non-governmental organizations to inform policy and practice ecologically correct.

Considering the importance of political ecology and its crisscross with the grassroots approach, Blaikie (2012, p. 231) clarifies:

‘It should be useful in some way to political ecology (EP)?’ and (would be helpful) to review the challenges and opportunities which face academic researchers eager to engage with policymakers, politicians, activists, media and social movements, both in the North as in the South of the globe. Environmental Justice offers us a justification for political engagement ethic, but a political ecology (EP) essentially critical and challenging can put in front of research funders, and national and international actors linked to the formulation of policies. EP, especially the EP poststructuralist is always misunderstood and disparaged by many, both in the Academy and outside it, and a critical realist approach would be better recognized by audiences targeted. There are many reasons to justify the resistance to an EP engaged, especially as she has been and continues to be associated with “development”.

With the relevant call of Blaikie (2012) in mind, we give emphasis to two authors whose ideas have contributed to issues of political ecology: Ramos Filho (2005) and Capra (2002). Boeira (2002) draws a parallel between Capra (2002) and branches (2005), based on criticism by both modern companies born of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th Century. The economy is the theme that approaches the works of these authors, since both criticize the overvaluation of the economic dimension and the totalitarian expansion of market values. The dual economy, i.e. the coexistence of mutual guidance systems, in which its members produce for themselves a large part of the goods and services that directly consume, as well as profit-oriented systems, in which the members are holders of jobs - which implies decentralization (emphasis of Capra) and demarcation (of Branches) of space-time of economic life. Both advocate the need for regulation of the economy by an ecological policy.

In front of the machine, the Industrial Revolution and Globalization, already mentioned above, the relationship between technology and natural resources deserve attention, and bind the authors with regard to ecology. Both advocate the rational use of non-renewable resources, to reduce environmental impacts. For them the economic activities must be subject to certain guidelines of political ecology, which are aimed at the dynamic equilibrium between human societies and the environment, which implies the same balance within human societies.

Escobar (1996) discusses the ecological and human nature, in which the working relationship must respect the limits and conditions of both. Understand that the State must exercise a supervisory role, in order to defend the life and conditions of production against excesses of capital, in addition to get control over policies to restructure the production conditions and ecosystems.

The cultural pillar and grassroots local identity

The process of globalization brings us to massification and homogeneity of culture, by means of which often are imposed strategic patterns of production, which leads to the loss of local identity in the face of the global, which seeks standardization of behaviors and habits, mainly.

For Escobar (2001), is of the utmost importance to meet the “place” under globalization; you must have the sensitivity to discern the aid and obstacles involving the cultural and economic issues. The fact that the ‘place’ remains important in the lives of many people. However, in globalization, the place lost visibility, which brought some consequences for our understanding of culture, knowledge, nature and the economy. The forms of resistance for Escobar does not imply elimination of space as an area of strength and authority, but rather a question about space in the analysis of the dynamics of culture, power and economy (ESCOBAR, 2001).

In the context of globalization, capitalism is presented as inherently and of course stronger than the forms of capitalist economy (traditional economies and socialists), because it presents a supposed ability to universalize the market, involving the violation of other non-capitalist economy. Within the context of the site, it is an invasion and imposition on capitalist production methods, making these sites under the capitalism.

In the field of globalization {...} only capitalism has the ability to brim and invade. Capitalism is presented as inherently and of course stronger than the forms of capitalist economy (traditional economies, economies of “Third World”, socialist economies, communal experiments) by virtue of your presumed ability to universalize the capitalist goods market. {...} Globalization according to this nuance involves rape and eventual death of the “other” forms of non-capitalist economies. {...} All forms of non-capitalism become defective, broken, destitute, subordinate to capitalism. {...} How can we challenge the standard representation of globalization as able to “usurp” the life of non-local capitalists, particularly of the “third world”? (GIBSON-GRAHAM, 1996 apud ESCOBAR, 2001, p. 154).

For Escobar (2001), in the face of globalization and the capitalist mode of production, the localization strategy is based on networking and social movements, which together seek the preservation of their cultures and their values, not discarding the capital, but within the limits human and natural. The networks are not necessarily hierarchical, but can, in some cases, be described as a self-organized, non-linear and non-hierarchical.

Escobar (2001) differentiates the cultural pillar, the fourth pillar added to three sustainable development, from the perspective that involves local identity. Cultural preservation and emphasis on local identity are interrelated aspects, but in different contexts can be treated separately, what must be avoided, according to grassroots cultural-identity approach.

In short, one can condense the main points developed, in order to signal that the economic, social and environmental pillars of the original-traditional version of sustainable development can be merged with the elements of an alternative approach (grassroots), in which economic solidarity, social movements and political ecology become relevant to the scope of that purpose. Update the traditional conception of sustainable development by supplementing it with the grassroots approach is of paramount importance as a contribution of this essay. It should be stressed that the main contribution of the essay refers not to the novelty of the grassroots approach, elements that have already been considered in later versions of sustainable development, but to merge those elements with the explicit pillars of development traditional sustainable.

Final Notes

The mixing of the pillars of the traditional conception of sustainable development, possible when conjectured alternative perspective from the grassroots approach resistance elements, the main contribution of this theoretical test. Based on consideration of these elements, while integrated to the traditional pillars of sustainable development, conceived the central objective of this work.

The traditional conception of the economic pillar is merged to the precepts of solidarity economy, expanding its reach extension in addition to the economic margins of society, and of the processes of production and consumption that are constituted itself in transformative action of the factors of production, including natural capital, and all the complexity of biodiversity and ecosystems.

Equalize the distribution of income, promote equity and reduce social disparities make up the theoretical framework of the social pillar of sustainable development. Supported by social movements, this Foundation can be a unique form of people in their spaces, paying attention to dominant policies that affect negatively the aspirations of local populations.

The environmental pillar supported the preservation of the environment, in the forms of production that preserve and promote the continuity of natural ecosystems. For the political ecology, allied resistance vector to this pillar, work relations should consider the limits of ecological and human nature and the State should be the instrument of supervision, avoiding the excesses of capitalist logic that exceed these limitations natural.

Another contribution concerns the definition of sustainable development in relation to your cultural pillar. We emphasize the preservation of local identity in opposition to globalcentrism and to production modes that try to universalize cultures and enforce standards. These resistance forces manifest themselves as a means of cultural preservation. Sustainable development is thus the emancipation movements and economic systems authority naturally stronger, while promoting this social transformation with affective attachment to the preservation of local cultures and identities. In this perspective, consideration and treatment of grassroots approach are essential as a source of alternative elements to a more complete formatting of sustainable development. In the central section of the test, showed up as the blends of the pillars of sustainable development with the economic solidarity, social movements and political ecology do and as such blends are of relevance to the achievement of the desired objective.

In terms of importance for society in general and business in particular, the concepts developed here could support implementations or adjustments in local productive arrangements in various areas. For example, the production ‘Fair Plot’ covers a number of concepts here.

In future studies, we intend to apply the merge proposed here to capitalist activities conceptual alternatives that involve economic solidarity, social movements, political ecology and local identity.

Referências

• ARRIGHI, G. A ilusão do desenvolvimento. Rio de Janeiro: Vozes, 1998.
• BEBBINGTON, A.; ABRAMOVAY, R. Social Movements and the Dynamics of Rural Territorial Development in Latin America. World Development, v. 36, n. 12, p. 2874-2887, 2008.
• BERNARDES, J. A.; FERREIRA, F. P. M. Sociedade e Natureza. In: CUNHA, S. B.; GUERRA, A. J. T. (Org.). A questão ambiental: diferentes abordagens. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2009. p. 17-42.
• BLAIKIE, P. Should some political ecology be useful? The Inaugural Lecture for the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty Group, Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, April 2012. Geoforum, 43, p. 231-239, 2012.
• BOEIRA, S. L. Ecologia Política: Guerreiro Ramos e FritJof Capra. Ambiente e Sociedade - Ano V, n. 10, 1. Sem. 2002.
• BOSSLE, M. Comércio Justo no Brasil e a Comercialização dos Produtos do Algodão Ecológico. 2011. 118 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Administração) - Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, 2011.
• BRUNDTLAND, G. Health and the World Conference on Sustainable Development. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, v. 80, n. 9, p. 689, 1987.
• CAPRA, F. Conexões Ocultas. São Paulo: Editora Cultrix, 2002.
• CASTANHEIRA, M. E. M.; PEREIRA, J. R. Ação coletiva no âmbito da economia solidária e da autogestão. Revista Kátal, Florianópolis, v.11, 2008.
• DELLAGNELO, E. H. L.; BOHM, S.; MENDONÇA, P. M. E. Organizando movimentos de resistência: contribuição da Teoria Política do Discurso. Revista de Administração de Empresas - RAEv. 54, n. 2, p. 617- 629, 2014.
• DIAS, R. Gestão ambiental: responsabilidade social e sustentabilidade. São Paulo: Atlas, 2006.
• DINIZ, E. M.; BERMANN, C. Economia Verde e Sustentabilidade. A USP e Rio+ 20. Estudos Avançados, v. 26, n. 74, p. 323-330, 2012.
• ELKINGTON, J. Canibais com Garfo e Faca. São Paulo: Makron Books, 2001.
• ESCOBAR, A. Reflections on ‘Development’: Grassroots Approaches and Alternative Politics in the Third World. Futures, v. 24, n. 5, p. 411-436, 1992.
• ESCOBAR, A. Encoutering development the making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.
• ESCOBAR, A. Construcion Nature: Elements for a post-structuralist political ecology. Futures, v. 28, n. 4, p. 325-343, 1996.
• ESCOBAR, A. Culture sits in places: reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Political Geography, 20, p. 139-174, 2001.
• ESCOBAR, A. Latin America at a crossroads: alternative modernizations, post-liberalism, or post-development. Cultural Studies, v. 24, n. 1, p. 1-65, 2010.
• ESTENDER, A. C.; PITTA, T. T. M. O Conceito do desenvolvimento sustentável. Revista Terceiro Setor, v. 2, n. 1, p.22-28, 2008.
• FRANÇA FILHO, G. C. A economia solidária: uma abordagem internacional. Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS, 2004.
• GODOY, G. Rede justa trama - cadeia produtiva de algodão agroecológico: as territorialidades da economia solidária. 2011. 106 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Geografia) - Programa de Pós-Graduação em geografia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2011.
• GOHN, M. G. Teoria dos Movimentos Sociais: Paradigmas Clássicos e Contemporâneo. 6. ed. São Paulo: Editora Loyola, 2007.
• HOLLANDER J. A.; EINWOHNER, R. L. Conceptualizing resistance. Sociological Forum, v. 19, n. 4, p. 533-554, 2004.
• ICAZA, A. M. S. Solidariedade, autogestão e cidadania: mapeando a economia solidária no Rio Grande do Sul. Sentidos e experiências da economia solidária no Brasil. Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS , 2004. p. 17-54.
• MAGALHÃES, A. C. M.; MOTTA, A. B. P. A construção do desenvolvimento sustentável. Jus Navigandi, Teresina, ano 17, n. 3399,21 out. 2012. Disponível em: <Disponível em: http://www.jus.com.br/revista/texto/22847 >. Acesso em: 31 maio 2014.
  » http://www.jus.com.br/revista/texto/22847
• MANCE, E. A. A revolução das redes: a colaboração solidária como uma alternativa pós-capitalista à globalização atual. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1999.
• MELUCCI, A. Um objetivo para os movimentos sociais?Lua Nova, São Paulo, n. 17, 1989.
• MONTERO, M. Paradigmas, Conceptos y Relaciones para una nueva era. Cómo pensar lãs Ciencias Sociales desde América Latina. Seminario Las Ciencias Económicas y Sociales: reflexiones de fin de siglo, Caracas: Dirección de Estudios de Postgrado/Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales/ Universidad Central de Venezuela, 20 jun., 1998.
• PESSOA, R. A. Formação de redes de economia solidária: o caso da Rede Abelha Ceará. 2008. 114f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Administração) - Pós-Graduação em Administração de Empresas, Universidade de Fortaleza, Fortaleza, 2008.
• RAMOS FILHO, E. S. A Ofensiva do Capital no Campo Brasileiro e a Resistência do Campesinato. Revista Nera, v. 8, n. 6, p. 46-58,jan./jun., 2005.
• ROCHELEAU, D. E. Political ecology in the key of policy: from chains of explanation to webs of relation. Geoforum, 39, p. 716-727, 2007.
• SACHS, I. Desenvolvimento: includente, sustentável, sustentado. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond, 2008.
• SEN, A. Desenvolvimento como liberdade. São Paulo, Companhia das Letras, 1999.
• SINGER, P. Introdução à economia solidária. São Paulo: Perseu Abramo, 2002.
• TURCATO, C. P. O desenvolvimento sustentável na construção do coletivo por meio das interações em redes: o caso da cadeia rede Justa Trama. Dissertação (Mestrado) - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Centro de Estudos e Pesquisas em Agronegócios, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Agronegócio, Porto Alegre, 2011.
• VEIGA, J. E. Desenvolvimento sustentável - o desafio do século XXI. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Garamond, 2005.
• VEIGA, J. E. Meio Ambiente & Desenvolvimento. São Paulo: Ed. Senac, 2006.
• WILLIS, K. Theories and Practices of Development. New York: Routledge/USA, 2005.

• 6
  {Translated version} Note: All quotes in English translated by this article’s translator.

• 11
  Image source: Elaborated by the authors.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  July 2017

History

• Received
  25 June 2015
• Accepted
  07 July 2017