Salı, Şubat 17, 2015

Community and Guerrilla Gardening



Suçtan uzaklaştırma, komşuluğun gelişmesi, kültürel mirasın aktarımı, boş zaman değerlendirme, topluluk ve dayanışma ruhunun gelişmesi, kentin yeşillendirilmesi gibi hususları öne çıkaran fayda temelli yaklaşım, bu yönüyle, topluluk bahçeciliğinin, toplumsal ve ekonomik sorumluluğu devletten alıp haneye ve topluluğa yükleyen bir neoliberal yönetimsellik (governmentality) biçimi/uygulaması olarak tartışılmasına yol açıyor.

The focus on framing the ‘benefits’ of community gardening in moderate and instrumental terms has even led some to argue that community gardens have become implements of neoliberal governmentality, implicit in the shifting of social and economic responsibility from the state to the household and ‘community’.

Kentsel tarımın (urban agriculture) belki de en popüler olan ve hakkında çok fazla yayın yapılan formu topluluk/halk bahçeleri/bostanları (community garden). Ancak gerek ana akım medya gerekse literatürün konuya yaklaşımı, ağırlıklı olarak “bireysel/toplumsal fayda” odaklı ve teknik rehber/el kitabı niteliğinde. Topluluk bahçeciliğine bir “toplumsal hareket/eylem” olarak bakan akademik çalışmalar oldukça az. Suçtan uzaklaştırma, komşuluğun gelişmesi, kültürel mirasın aktarımı, boş zaman değerlendirme, topluluk ve dayanışma ruhunun gelişmesi, kentin yeşillendirilmesi gibi hususları öne çıkaran fayda temelli yaklaşım, bu yönüyle, topluluk bahçeciliğinin, toplumsal ve ekonomik sorumluluğu devletten alıp haneye ve topluluğa yükleyen bir neoliberal yönetimsellik (governmentality) biçimi/uygulaması olarak tartışılmasına yol açıyor.

Tarihsel olarak savaş ve mali kriz dönemlerinde ortaya çıkan topluluk bahçelerinin kökleri, II.Dünya Savaşı yıllarına dek uzanıyor. O dönemde yaşanan kıtlıkla mücadele ve savaşın desteklenmesi amacıyla hükümetlerce desteklenen ve yönlendirilen bir araç oluyor kent/topluluk bahçeciliği ve savaş/zafer bahçeleri olarak anılıyor. Topluluk bahçelerinin 1970’li yıllarda yeniden canlanmasına neden olarak da, o dönemde yaşanan petrol krizi gösteriliyor.

Topluluk bahçeleri, küçük veya orta ölçekli, gıda üretme ve süs bitkileri yetiştirme amaçlı, bitişik veya ayrık parseller halinde konut bölgeleri, kamu veya özel araziler üzerinde gruplar tarafından ekilip, biçilen ve yönetilen ticari olmayan bahçeler olarak tanımlanıyor.[1] Gerilla bahçeciliği, her şeyden önce, topluluk değil bireysel ve örgütlü değil kendiliğinden olma özellikleriyle topluluk bahçeciliğinden ayrılıyor. Gerilla bahçeciliği izinsiz yapılan, politik bir faaliyet olarak nitelendiriliyor. Gerilla bahçeciliği, Henri Lefebvre ve David Harvey’in “kent hakkı ve kentsel mekanın üretimi” kavramları üzerinden inceleniyor.

Kentsel tarımın, üretimin yanında bir de tüketim/dağıtım yönü bulunuyor. Üye temelli bazı topluluklar, perakende yerine toptan satın alma ile pazarlık güçlerini artırıyorlar. Buna örnek olarak African-American community of Chicago’s Healthy Food Hub[2] gösterilebilir. 2009 yılında kurulan üye temelli bir organizasyon ve Güney Şikago’daki yaklaşık 500 aileye hizmet veriyor. Cumartesi günleri düzenlenen pazar (market day) aynı zamanda bir sosyal etkinlik ve üyeler arasında dayanışmayı da sağlıyor. Pazar, bildiğimiz perakendeci ile tüketicinin karşı karşıya geldiği bir yer değil. Pazardan önce gerçekleşen iki turlu bir sipariş mekanizması ile toplu satın alma ve dolayısıyla fiyat indirimi sağlanabiliyor. Pazar kurulmadan önce üyeler web sitesi veya telefonla ön-siparişlerini iletiyorlar. Bu ön-siparişler bütün üyelere e-posta ile bildiriliyor. Satıcıların sundukları teklifler alıcıya pazarlık imkanı veriyor ve yapılan pazarlık sonrası sipariş kesinleştiriliyor. Alıcılar bireysel olarak değil, topluluk halinde (aileler) hareket ettiğinden sistem, siyahlar arasında geçmişten gelen toptan satın alma geleneğinin günümüze uyarlanmış şekli olarak nitelendiriliyor.  Organizasyonun 40 dönüm kadar bir üretim merkezi de bulunuyor ve ayrıca çiftçilere eğitim programları da uyguluyor. Aşağıda bahsi geçen Meleiza Figueroa’nın makalesi bu örnek üzerinden alternatif tarım modellerine bakıyor. Ayrıca aşağıda topluluk ve gerilla bahçeciliğiyle ilgili bazı kaynaklara (Türkçe ve İngilizce) dair bir bilgiler yer alıyor.


Şehir Tarımı, Bahçeciliği

ŞEHİRLERDE TARIM

Kent topraklarının tarımsal amaçlı kullanımı: Kentsel Tarım

Sara RASOULİ

Kent Bahçeleri İstanbul Deneyimi

Editör: Devin Bahçeci

Kuzguncuklular Derneği Deneyimi
Tan Morgül



Community and Guerrilla Gardening

Community gardens had its roots in the Victory gardens of World War II are an increasingly popular form of urban agriculture. Urban agriculture initiatives focusing on communal urban food production have a long history and have taken many forms around the world. Through whichever form communal garden activities have taken, they have played significant roles in ensuring food security in times of national crisis. Notably, this occurred throughout the two World Wars, during the Great Depression and in the 1970s Oil Crisis.[3]

The history of urban gardening in the United States demonstrates a cyclical process of urban garden creation and destruction that moves in conjunction with economic crisis and recovery. Victory gardens were developed in the United States to support the war effort and to supplement food production at home during a time when much of the agricultural labor force was overseas.[4] Widely advertised and popularized, victory gardens marked a shift away from gardening as only a recreational activity or for hard times. Not only were the gardens seen as a method to promote food sovereignty and help the war effort but they were also important social activity.[5]

In the 1970s the Lower East Side of Manhattan was the center stage for a burgeoning urban gardening movement taking place throughout the city. Urban gardens were sprouting in low-income neighborhoods of the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Manhattan in response to a need to reclaim and revitalize a way of life to counter the decaying landscape. NYC experienced one of their worst fiscal crises in history. Cutbacks in public services affected low-income neighborhoods the worst. By 1977 there were more than 25,000 vacant lots in New York City. Today there are still 11,000 vacant lots, but
there are also approximately 650 community gardens serving 20,000 urban residents on 200 acres of open space. Throughout New York City, urban residents have taken the initiative to use vacant lots for the community’s benefit through the creation of community gardens.[6]

Much of the literature produced about community gardens has aimed to strengthen the legitimacy of community gardening and to identify and demonstrate the range of tangible outcomes community gardens provide to individuals and communities. Partial, but nonetheless useful, views of community gardening have been provided by accounts of them as sites of leisure, health promotion, community development, urban greening and sustainability, the development of social capital, learning and skills development, cultural maintenance and production, inter-cultural interaction, urban agriculture and self-provisioning in times of economic need. The focus on framing the ‘benefits’ of community gardening in moderate and instrumental terms has even led some to argue that community gardens have become implements of neoliberal governmentality, implicit in the shifting of social and economic responsibility from the state to the household and ‘community’.[7]

Accounts of community gardening as a form of collective social action are rare. Social action provides a useful frame for capturing some of the experiences and perspectives of community gardeners that lie beyond the
bounds of policy discourse. But while academic analysis of community gardening in terms of social change is limited, the use of community gardening for social change has been receiving attention within social movements. Community gardening has recently been adopted as a political performance by a number of radical social movements. Community gardens are frequently mentioned in writings from and about broad global justice and anti-capitalist movements, for example. Within these movements, there has been some shift in emphasis away from the mass protests and ‘summit hopping’ of the ‘Battle of Seattle’ and ‘Global Carnival Against Capital’ in 1999 towards creating alternatives to capitalism and the state, building community infrastructure and developing sustainable cultural practices. Community gardens have been identified by movement writers as an exemplar of this alternative-building approach, along with co-operatives, independent media producers, neighbourhood assemblies and community housing associations. However, in short, although mentions of community gardening have become frequent in writing from and about social justice and environmental activism, even here there has been little analysis of the relationships between community gardening and social change.[8]

The relationship between community gardening and guerrilla gardening is an unsteady one. Community gardening has a definite set of practices and meanings produced through the practice of gardening but also through normalized meanings and expectations on what a community garden is. Conversely, guerrilla gardening is still emerging and firm definitions have yet to be developed. Guerrilla gardening is a gardening or planting in an unadministered way in an urban space. It is not performed by a specific state or official organization. Instead, it is an individual or a group of individuals who frequently operate spontaneously, anonymously and voluntarily. While there may or may not be unlawful activity the lack of explicit permission and unexpected nature allow for guerrilla gardening to be a form of spatial intervention. This connotation of spatial intervention adds an element of subversion or transgression that is not found in other forms of urban agriculture, most notably community gardening. In this way guerrilla gardening relies upon more legitimized forms of urban agriculture to derive relational meanings and practices. Through guerrilla gardening, which frequently occurs in forgotten urban space, questions about who decides how urban space is used and for what means are called into mind. This notion of guerrilla gardening as a critique of city space is absent from mainstream sources. Likewise, despite differences on an underlying ideological basis, both mainstream and alternative media sources focus on the technical aspects and actual practice of community gardening.[9]



Community Gardening: An Annotated Bibliography
Published by Australian City Farms and Community Gardens Network
Written and researched by Claire Nettle
Copyright © 2008 claire nettle and Australian City Farms and Community Gardens Network
Community Gardening: An Annotated Bibliography includes brief descriptions of guidebooks and manuals, books, honours and masters theses, articles in academic and professional journals, and a number of other research-based documents, such as project evaluations and submissions. In addition, there are brief introductions to sources on key areas that provide additional context and evidence for community gardening: therapeutic horticulture, urban agriculture, organics and permaculture. The emphasis is on furthering understanding of community gardening in Australia. Hence we have attempted to be exhaustive in our inclusion of Australian sources. Community Gardening: An Annotated Bibliography also includes many sources from and about North America and Britain.”
http://communitygarden.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/CG-Bibliography-2nd-Ed-small.pdf

Community Gardening as Social Action. Claire Nettle. Ashgate. May 2014.
There has been a resurgence of interest in gardening from academics recently – from Lisa Taylor’s A Taste for Gardening (2008) to George McKay’s Radical Gardening (2011) and Clare Hickman’s Therapeutic Landscapes (2013). Claire Nettle’s contribution, Community Gardening as Social Action, marks another welcome addition to this growing area of study. Nettles, a community food systems researcher and consultant, aims to examine the social and political role of community gardens in Australia from a social movement standpoint.[10]


Food Sovereignty in Everyday Life: A People-Centered Approach to Food Systems
Meleiza Figueroa
Conference paper for discussion at:Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue, International Conference, September 14-15, 2013
Abstract
This paper presents outlines of a theoretical approach to food systems that attempts to decenter “food” in food-related research, placing social life as the central point of departure for a critical analysis of food systems and the search for revolutionary alternatives. “Food,” in this framework, is conceived relationally, as a “nodal point of interconnection” (Massey 1994) through which multiple historical, spatial, and social processes intersect and articulate with one another. If “race…is the modality by which class is lived” (Hall 1980), then food is a modality by which capitalism is lived, and made tangible in everyday practice. Revisiting the concepts of primitive accumulation (Perelman 2000), articulation (Hall 1980), and everyday life (Lefebvre 1991), this approach examines the ways in which proletarianization is continually reproduced, increasingly partial or incomplete, and contested at multiple conjunctures. In these moments of contestation, and the spaces that partial primitive accumulation leaves behind, new articulations - visible in the everyday social experience of food - can contain certain potentialities for real alternatives to life under capitalism.
http://www.yale.edu/agrarianstudies/foodsovereignty/pprs/44_Figueroa_2013.pdf


Guerrilla Gardening
Geographers and Gardeners, Actors and Networks: Reconsidering Urban Public Space
O L L Y Z A N E T T I
Copyright © Oliver Zanetti, 2007

Abstract
In this dissertation I discuss the phenomenon of Guerrilla Gardening, which I summarise as ‘any voluntary, and potentially illicit, gardening in space which can in some way be deemed public, over which the gardeners hold no direct or explicit ownership.’ I engage in this discussion in order to draw into question common sense conceptualisations of public space as space set out for the public, rather than a space the public can inhabit, and be involved in its material formation. In order to fully understand that reconceptualisation, I undertake a deeper examination of the idea central to Guerrilla Gardening, that of gardening. Drawing on the lessons from Science Studies, I examine the role of the nonhuman within Guerrilla Gardening. Using an actor-network approach, I suggest that Guerrilla Gardening’s key facet is the interaction of human and nonhuman agency. However, I do not adopt the actornetwork thesis uncritically. Instead, I examine the various debates that have surrounded this paradigm. I am not convinced by the arguments proposed in ‘strong’ actor-network approaches as I find the notion of completely symmetrical agency problematic. I thus examine the place of a ‘weak’ actor-network approach, and outline my reasons for espousing this. The material used in this dissertation was acquired through a mixture of particpant action research, interviewing, and analysis of various media sources in the public domain.
http://www.guerrillagardening.org/books/ZanettiGG.pdf


Intervening with agriculture: a participatory action case study of guerrilla gardening in Kingston, Ontario
Annie Crane
Queen’s University Department of Environmental Studies
Advisors: Leela Viswanathan and Graham Whitelaw
ENSC 502/503 Thesis Project: Final Draft
April 8, 2011

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to analyze guerrilla gardening’s relationship to urban space and social life using a critical Marxist approach. To achieve this two case studies of urban agriculture, one of guerrilla gardening and one of community gardening were developed. Through this comparison, guerrilla gardening was framed as a method of spatial intervention, drawing in notions of spatial justice and the right to the city as initially theorized by Henri Lefebvre. The case study of guerrilla gardening focuses on Dig Kingston, a project started by the researcher in June of 2010 and the community gardening case study will use the Oak Street Garden, the longest standing community garden in Kingston. The community gardening case study used content analysis and semi-structured long format interviews with relevant actors. The guerrilla gardening case study consisted primarily of action-based research as well as content analysis, and semi-structured long format interviews. By contributing to the small, but growing, number of accounts and research on guerrilla gardening this study analyzes the unique contributions of guerrilla gardening to understandings of urban agriculture by linking together material practices, social spaces and envisioned or possible geographies.
http://www.queensu.ca/ensc/undergraduate/courses/ensc501-2/pastprojects502/CraneENSC502.pdf

Gardens of Transgression, Spaces of Representation: An analysis of guerrilla gardens using the works of Lefebvre as a theoretical framework
GILLIAN WALES

Abstract
Public space in Glasgow is under increasing pressure to produce monetary value. This research analyses the role of guerrilla gardens within the politics of urban space. Using Lefebvre as an analytical tool, I examine gardens as sites of spontaneity and utopian praxis, alternative spaces where citizens have democratic involvement in shaping the landscape. Content analysis of interview data finds that whilst participant motivations vary; individuals are bound by a sense of legitimacy for involvement. I argue that these diverse and somewhat disordered spaces enable unhurried reconnection of Lefebvre’s trilectic spaces; the physical, mental and social. Gardens are found to be sites of skills exchange and of knowledge production. Understanding how these autonomous spaces interact with state apparatus forms a substantial component of this qualitative research. The effort deployed by urban governance to regulate gardens is found to be variable, and often contradictory. Close examination of a local site of contestation, North Kelvin Meadow, makes visible a clash between the societal benefit derived from this non-profit garden, and an entrepreneurial ethos that dominates state-funded local authorities. Gardens are often at the mercy of the whims of private enterprise and public sector partners. However, the gardens refuse to yield, their roots ground them to place and they continue to demonstrate how powerful agency can be created merely by living.
http://urban-geography.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DISSERTATION-GILLIAN-WALES1.pdf

Feeding Ourselves: Organic Urban Gardens in Caracas, Venezuela
By APRIL M. HOWARD - TOWARD FREEDOM, August 10th 2006


Urban Gardens & Self Revolution
By MATTHEW HIGGINS, April 6th 2010

The Food Sovereignty Movement in Venezuela, Part 1
By ANNA ISAACS, BASIL WEINER, GRACE BELL, COURTNEY FRANTZ AND KATIE BOWEN, November 26th 2009

The Food Sovereignty Movement in Venezuela, Part 2
By ANNA ISAACS, BASIL WEINER, GRACE BELL, COURTNEY FRANTZ AND KATIE BOWEN, November 26th 2009






[1] Sara Rasouli, Kent Topraklarının Tarımsal Amaçlı Kullanımı: Kentsel Tarım, 2012
[3] Bethaney Turner and Joanna Henryks, A Study of the Demand for Community Gardens and their Benefits for the ACT Community, Report Prepared for The Environment and Sustainable Development, 2012

[4] Evaluation of Community Gardens, Report produced by Jill Florence Lackey & Associates, 1998

[5] Annie Crane, Intervening with agriculture: a participatory action case study of guerrilla gardening in Kingston, Ontario,  2011

[6] Margarita Fernandez, Cultivating Community, Food, and Empowerment: Urban Gardens in New York City, 2003

[7] Claire Nettle, Community Gardening as Social Action, Ashgate, 2014

[8] Nettle, ib.
[9] Crane, ib.
[10] http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/book-review-community-gardening-as-social-action-by-claire-nettle/