An article appeared in The Atlantic today titled "How Many Gentrification Critics are Gentrifiers Themselves?" The article focuses on academics like urban sociologists; specifically those who study extensively the gentrification of low-income communities, but are guilty of the act themselves. The first thought that came to my mind was the "Locavore" movement and its oft-repeated mission of "healthy (local) (organic) food for all" without the realization that this mission is easier said than done, and calls for collective action and an understanding of the underlying causes of inaccessibility rather than individual discourse. Reflexivity is key when studying movements like gentrification and local food; if you're a health-food advocate and have a problem with rising obesity and disease in our country, well, I hate to tell you, but shopping at your farmers market and joining a CSA just won't cut it.
Because doing these things are great, and doing these things feel good, and yes, doing these things supports farmers and farmland and everything in between; but these are individualistic experiences and no matter how many Instagram photos you take of your roasted beet and carrot salad, there are still people all over this country who do not have the privilege like a farmers market, or transportation to a farmers market, or even care to be at those farmers markets because eating local isn't their main priority. As the gentrification-studiers are guilty of gentrification themselves, local food advocates are guilty of being (dare I say) greedy and overwhelmingly presumptuous. From academics to advocates, myself included, who study food systems and food access, we are guilty of partaking in what Badger's article questions as "unethical" activity.
Sociologist Jason Patch is cited as asking, "Is there any room for an ethical housing choice by the middle class?" And over here, I ask: Is there any room for ethical local food choices by the middle class, and college students included? All over the world reporters are covering activity at outsourced sweatshops and factories, advocates are exposing "big food" agribusiness, and like this article, always identifying the inequalities that continue to expand. What's going on here? Is everyone a hypocrite? Is it possible to live completely "ethical" if we know of all these problems that exist? What is there left to do?
Emily Badger writes, "The point is not that these sociologists should stop talking about and researching the process of gentrification, but rather that they could do so with a self-awareness that might lead to a more nuanced understanding of what the word really means." Cities and urban studies are not my specialty, but I write with confidence that we can take this article as a signifier that talking and studying can only go so far. Having a professional degree in food or urban studies and researching these systems is one step; the next is to follow through with these studies in a step toward (reversing) change.
Because doing these things are great, and doing these things feel good, and yes, doing these things supports farmers and farmland and everything in between; but these are individualistic experiences and no matter how many Instagram photos you take of your roasted beet and carrot salad, there are still people all over this country who do not have the privilege like a farmers market, or transportation to a farmers market, or even care to be at those farmers markets because eating local isn't their main priority. As the gentrification-studiers are guilty of gentrification themselves, local food advocates are guilty of being (dare I say) greedy and overwhelmingly presumptuous. From academics to advocates, myself included, who study food systems and food access, we are guilty of partaking in what Badger's article questions as "unethical" activity.
Sociologist Jason Patch is cited as asking, "Is there any room for an ethical housing choice by the middle class?" And over here, I ask: Is there any room for ethical local food choices by the middle class, and college students included? All over the world reporters are covering activity at outsourced sweatshops and factories, advocates are exposing "big food" agribusiness, and like this article, always identifying the inequalities that continue to expand. What's going on here? Is everyone a hypocrite? Is it possible to live completely "ethical" if we know of all these problems that exist? What is there left to do?
Emily Badger writes, "The point is not that these sociologists should stop talking about and researching the process of gentrification, but rather that they could do so with a self-awareness that might lead to a more nuanced understanding of what the word really means." Cities and urban studies are not my specialty, but I write with confidence that we can take this article as a signifier that talking and studying can only go so far. Having a professional degree in food or urban studies and researching these systems is one step; the next is to follow through with these studies in a step toward (reversing) change.





