This article was downloaded by: [Charles Levkoe]On: 14 August 2013, At: 10:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Environmental PoliticsPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fenp20

Understanding contemporarynetworks of environmentaland social change: complexassemblages within Canada’s‘food movement’Charles Z. Levkoea & Sarah Wakefielda

a Department of Geography and Programme inPlanning, University of Toronto, Ontario, CanadaPublished online: 13 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: Environmental Politics (2013): Understanding contemporarynetworks of environmental and social change: complex assemblages within Canada’s‘food movement’, Environmental Politics, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2013.818302

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.818302

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

Understanding contemporary networks of environmental andsocial change: complex assemblages within Canada’s ‘foodmovement’

Charles Z. Levkoe* and Sarah Wakefield

Department of Geography and Programme in Planning, University of Toronto, Ontario,Canada

Emerging forms of social mobilisation are explored, using food initiatives inCanada as an example. Food networks are particularly interesting as a casestudy: they have holistic goals that include both environmental and socialconcerns, the number and scope of food initiatives have rapidly increased,and there has recently been a high level of public engagement around foodissues. Networks among alternative food initiatives (AFIs) are investigatedusing a survey and in-depth interviews. Food movement networks exhibitsome elements of collective identity, but network members have diversegoals, projects, and tactics that do not always align into a coherent politicalprogram. Social network theory and the analytic of complex assemblages areemployed to help understand these results. Understanding how these foodnetworks function provides insight not just into food networks, but also moregenerally into the study and practice of social mobilisation around environ-mental issues.

Keywords: complex assemblages; alternative food initiatives; social movementnetworks; food movement

Introduction

We explore recent forms of mobilisation among social movement organisationsusing food initiatives in Canada as a case study, emphasising the dynamic andcomplex forms of network building, along with the theoretical and politicalimplications of these efforts for movement organising. Food networks are parti-cularly interesting for the study of social movement networking because, inrecent years, there has been a high level of public engagement in food issues,and a rapid increase in both number and scope of alternative food initiatives(AFIs; Elton 2010, Winne 2010). AFIs address a wide range of environmental(and social) issues, including justice, sustainability, health, and governance (e.g.Levkoe 2011). Most existing research considers individual AFIs as operating

*Corresponding author. Email: charles.levkoe@utoronto.ca

Environmental Politics, 2013http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.818302

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

independently on specific projects (e.g. community gardens, farmers markets,organic and/or fair trade collectives, and the like); even scholars who makereference to an elusive ‘food movement’ rarely explain what it is, what unitesit, or its significance for a broader environmental politics. There has been littleconsideration of broad collaborations among AFIs, or of the networks being builtacross sectors and scales by AFI actors, and what these might mean for the foodmovement.

We attempt to fill this gap by gathering information about relationships andnetworks in the food movement through a study of food-related organisations inCanada, exploring the role that food networks (rather than individual initiatives)play in developing resistance to the corporate, industrial food system. Weprovide a general overview of the kinds of structures and relations developingwithin the networks, and draw on social network and complexity theory tounderstand regional food networks as a complex assemblage of diverse actors.

We begin by reviewing the literature on social movement networks andthen turn to complexity theory and the concept of complex assemblages,which have been used by some theorists to describe relationships within theglobal justice movement. Next, the methods used to study these networks –namely, a survey of AFIs and follow-up interviews with a subset of surveyrespondents – and data from the research are presented in order to illuminatethe characteristics of these burgeoning food networks. In the final section, theexplanatory power of various conceptions of social movement networks isdiscussed in relation to the case example. We argue that assemblage theory –and in particular, the idea of a social movement as a complex assemblage –opens up new opportunities for environmental movement building. We con-clude by suggesting some possible implications for the study and practice ofsocial mobilisation for environmental change.

Networks matter: perspectives on social movement networks

Social movement theory as an academic field rose to prominence in the 1960s,when activists and analysts wrestled with psychological accounts of collectivebehaviour that described social mobilisation as irrational and emerging sponta-neously from immediate needs and rapidly changing economies within thecapitalist state (Della Porta and Diani 2006). These early social movementperspectives were criticised for lacking analysis of the relationships betweensocial and political structures, for taking the grievances of actors for granted, andfor not considering adequately the role of human agency (Laclau 1985). In the1980s, culture and identity began to play a more central role in movementanalyses, through the integration of feminist, postmodernist, and post-structuralapproaches. In addition, new social movements (NSMs) had emerged, promotingbroad goals such as protecting the environment, and focusing on identity-basedpolitics such as promoting equal rights for women and ethnic and sexualminorities (Staggenborg 2011).

2 C.Z. Levkoe and S. Wakefield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

From these developments, a body of scholarship has emerged that analyseshuman action and social change efforts as embedded in social relations, andcollective action as organised through networks (Granovetter 1985, Rosenthalet al. 1985, Diani 2011). In the broadest sense, networks can be described asspatial arrangements consisting of a collection of linked actors (Gregory et al.2009, p. 498). Instead of viewing actors in isolation, a network perspectiveunderstands social movements as a web of relationships and attempts to under-stand the patterns among these interactions. It begins from the assumption thatrelationships between interacting units, and not just the specific attributes of eachindividual unit, are important (Borgatti et al. 2009). Building on this assumption,a network perspective focuses on how actors develop specific characteristicsfrom their interactions with others. Today, there is a growing consensus in theliterature that networks are central to social mobilisation (Diani 1992a, 2011,Keck and Sikkink 1998, Diani 2011) and that much can be learned aboutenvironmental politics by studying network relations.

Social movements are engaged in a distinct type of networking that doesmore than enhance social connectedness. Networks can contribute to increasedmovement success by building alliances (Knoke 1990), facilitating the diffusionof ideas and practices (Gerlach 1971), contributing to a more sustained level ofactivity (Staggenborg 1998), and establishing a more desirable, legitimate, anddemocratic form of political organisation (Hadenius 2001). Social movementnetworks are seen as locations where ideas, identities, and frames are shared andexchanged, contributing to the development of a broader discourse and practice(Diani 2003, Mische 2003). Diani contends that there is no singular body ofscholarship on social movement networks. In an attempt to identify commonthreads that exist within this diverse intellectual tradition, Diani (Diani and Bison2004, Diani 2011) distinguishes three processes. First, he suggests that socialmovement networks coalesce around conflictual orientations by clearly identify-ing political or social opponents. Collective action against these targets typicallyaims to ‘address collective problems, redress injustices, achieve public goods,tackle sources of grievances, or express support to some moral values orprinciples’ (Diani and Bison 2004, p. 283). The conflictual nature of socialmovement network processes is predicated on the idea that collective claimsconflict with someone else’s interests (Tilly and Wood 2009, p. 3).

Second, Diani argues that social movement networks consist of exchangesbetween autonomous actors engaged in collective projects (see also Diani1992a). Others have argued that this collaboration must be strong and sustainedover time (Tilly and Wood 2009, Tarrow 2011, p. 16). For example, Saunders(2007) writes, ‘[actors] must share in at least some actions and events rather thanjust sit on information’ (p. 238); collaborative interaction between network actorsshould be more than just cursory, and actors must participate in ongoing actionsand events as opposed to only exchanging information. To capture the structureof relations within a network empirically, centrality measures are used todescribe the ‘location’ of actors in terms of how close they are to the centre of

Environmental Politics 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

the action. It is generally accepted that actors who have more connections aremore likely to be powerful because they can exert their influence and are bettersituated to access knowledge (Bodin and Crona 2009). Information and valuesare typically seen as easier to translate in centralised networks (Newig et al.2010), while decentralised networks are typically better suited for complex taskssuch as negotiation, since there are fewer power imbalances among actors (Cronaand Bodin 2006).

Third, Diani notes that social movement networks exhibit a long-term senseof collective identity or solidarity among a plurality of individuals, groups,and/or organisations, which in turn translates into sustained networks withcommon goals. This involves sharing specific values or orientations andpursuing specific, well-defined objectives. Shared beliefs and a sense ofbelongingness are central to determining the boundaries of a social movement;in other words, ‘only those actors, sharing the same beliefs and sense ofbelongingness, can be considered to be part of the movement’ (Diani 1992a,p. 9). The distribution of knowledge and flow of ideas is thought to occurmore quickly among similar – more homophilous – actors (Rogers 1995, Crosset al. 2001). However, they may also have a tendency to be less open to newideas and information from outside the network (Krackhardt and Stern 1988).Still, Diani stresses that identity links do not necessarily imply that networksare homogenous, since collective identity is always contested and negotiated.

Social movement theory is a collection of overlapping – and sometimescontradictory – ideas about the ways social movements form, function, andsucceed or fail. Diani and Bison seek to summarise what is most generallyagreed upon by theorists: namely, the importance of an oppositional orientationand clear demands, strong and increasingly hierarchical networks (as the move-ment moves from conducting isolated, sporadic activities to developing a moreunified and wide-reaching voice), and a sense of collective identity and sharedbeliefs to drive the movement. This being said, there is not complete agreementon any of these points within the literature. In addition, there has been somesuggestion that these principles do not fully capture the activities of some‘movements’, e.g. democratic media activism (Carroll and Hackett 2006) andsocial movements in Latin America (Escobar 1992, 2008). Similarly, work on theOccupy movement (Hayduk et al. 2012, Juris 2012) documents patterns oforganisation that similarly fail to correspond with expected practices of networkformation. Some theorists (e.g. Escobar 1992, 2008, Escobar and Osterweil2010) have suggested that existing social movement theory is too rigid andnormative in its conceptualisation of social networks, and that it needs to bemore sensitive to historical embeddedness, context, and the ‘irreducible socialcomplexity of the world’ (Escobar and Osterweil 2010, p. 191).

In response, an emerging group of scholars has attempted to understandsocial movement networks using the lens of complex assemblages. Since the1990s, a number of social theorists have turned to complexity theory in anattempt to explain social dynamics better (Urry 2005). Complexity theory

4 C.Z. Levkoe and S. Wakefield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

offers an interdisciplinary framework that asserts ‘the primacy of processesover events, of relationships over entities, and of development over structure’(Ingold 1990, p. 224). Complex assemblages are heterogeneous networksconstituted by the non-hierarchical self-organisation of autonomous entities.They are seen as having dynamic properties that cannot be explained solelyby the aggregation of their individual parts. In addition, complex assemblagesare difficult to bound because each component of the system is connected inmyriad ways to other components ad infinitum; boundaries therefore becomedelineations of convenience rather than absolute, fixed borders between ‘in’and ‘out’ (Proctor and Larson 2005, Urry 2006, Homer-Dixon 2011).Building on the principles of complexity theory and conceptualising networksas assemblages of actors, discourses, alliances, interests, and knowledge(Deleuze and Guattari 1987, De Landa 2006), scholars have begun to describewhat they see as a new politics of resistance occurring within networkmobilisation (Escobar 2008, McFarlane 2009, Rankin and Delaney 2011).For example, Kumar (2010), in discussing the cross-boundary assemblageof groups in opposition to mining in Niyamgiri, writes of the way that‘diverse processes driven by different logics and drivers can interact witheach other in an assemblage, without being subservient to the larger logic of a‘whole’, though they may be contingently affected by the emergent capacitiesof the individuated assemblage’ (p. 5).

The global justice movement has also been described as complex assem-blages of actors, knowledge, and nature (Escobar 2008, see also Kavada 2003,Chesters and Welsh 2005). Global justice networks have been described in thiswork as emergent, diverse, and comprised of self-organised actors throughdemocratic, bottom-up processes. They are constituted by multiple and diverseconnections, as well as by numerous entry and exit points, where any actorwithin a network can be connected to any other in a variety of ways (McFarlane2009). In these studies, network processes are described as constituting a pre-figurative politics, where the mode of organising reflects the desired socialrelations. That is, structures and activities within the network are intended toserve as models for how society as a whole might operate. For example, instudying the environmental justice movement, Schlosberg (1999) writes that‘networks are not simply a means to an end – and a defensive end at that.They are an example of an attempt at an alternative political structure’ (p. 142).Similarly, David Graeber (2004) suggests that:

When protesters in Seattle chanted ‘this is what democracy looks like’, theymeant to be taken literally … they not only confronted a certain form of power… they did it in a way which demonstrated why the kind of social relations onwhich it is based were unnecessary. This is why all the condescending remarksabout the movement being dominated by a bunch of dumb kids with nocoherent ideology completely missed the mark. The diversity was a functionof the decentralized form of organization, and this organization was the move-ment’s ideology. (p. 84)

Environmental Politics 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

However, both the novelty and effectiveness of these new network forms remainan open question, as little scholarship has yet examined them.

These observations are particularly relevant to the collective efforts amongAFIs that have emerged in response to increasing concerns about the ecological,sociopolitical, and economic implications of the industrial food system (Holt-Giménez and Patel 2009, Elton 2010, Winne 2010, Wittman et al. 2011). AFIscan be described as self-governed collectives of individuals or groups thatoriginate primarily from within civil society (Allen et al. 2003). AFIs areconcerned with a wide array of issues, including sustainable agro-ecologicalproduction (Gliessman 2007); reconnecting farmers and consumers (Fieldhouse1996, Friedmann 2007); social justice for food system actors (Gottlieb and Joshi2010, Alkon and Agyeman 2011); equitable food access and healthy foodconsumption (Levkoe and Wakefield 2012); and citizen engagement in foodsystem policy (Koc et al. 2008, Schiff 2008). Their objectives range fromsmall reforms within the existing (food) system to fundamental transformationsthat (re)imagine and (re)construct the system from the ground up (Holt-Giménezand Shattuck 2011).

The rise of AFIs has been meteoric, with studies identifying a growing andincreasingly powerful ‘food movement’ (see, e.g., Allen 2004, Starr 2010, Holt-Giménez and Shattuck 2011). However, AFIs have been criticised for adoptinglocalised self-provisioning models that tend to focus on individual and commu-nity-level solutions (Winter 2003, Allen 2008), potentially ignoring the inter-connected nature of problems within the food system and idealising the localscale (Dupuis and Goodman 2005). These critiques have provided an importantcaution against the potential complicity of AFIs in a neoliberal governancestrategy that produces isolated, individuated, and unreflexive subjects andspaces. However, despite the suggestion that AFIs may be part of a broadersocial movement, few researchers have considered collaborations between AFIs,or the structure of the networks AFIs are building across sectors and scales – anomission that this work seeks to address.

Methods

This study explores networks of AFIs in four Canadian provinces: BritishColumbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. These four provinces werechosen to represent a range of geographies and degrees of food network maturity.Information was gathered about the relationships among organisational actorswithin each network, and about the kinds of work happening collaboratively, inorder to understand the general structures and relations within the networks.While recognising that individuals participate in food networks, the focus herewas on organisations attempting to somehow transform the food system. Thiswas an attempt to target groups of individuals who are actively involved incollaborative efforts as opposed to individualised lifestyle-based decisions (e.g.buying organic produce for personal health reasons). Thus, the sample

6 C.Z. Levkoe and S. Wakefield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

population was not intended to be representative of all individuals involved infood-related efforts, but attempted to capture a wide representation of collabora-tive initiatives (e.g. groups of people working together through organisationalstructures).

Details about the networks were gathered using a survey completed by 207food-related organisations (from the public, private, and non-profit sectors) in thefour provinces (British Columbia, n = 62; Manitoba, n = 22; Ontario, n = 92; andNova Scotia, n = 31). The survey was circulated during the fall of 2010 onprovincial food-related listservs, which are public and contain a wide range ofsubscribers from multiple sectors. In some instances, the survey was resent toother provincial and national listservs by recipients. One senior-level representa-tive from any organisation or group working on food-related issues in the studyprovinces was invited to respond. We also conducted semi-structured, in-depthinterviews with a purposively selected subset of survey respondents to providefurther explanatory detail.

We used a realist strategy for boundary identification, allowing respondents toself-define whether their organisation was part of the network. This is different fromnominalist approaches, where the network is defined by the researcher’s perceptionsand constructed with regard to specific theoretical interests (Knoke and Kuklinski1982, pp. 22–25). Because there is no consensus about how food movement net-works should be defined and bounded, this approach was deemed to be the mostaccurate way to capture a comprehensive sample of the networks actors.

Quantitative survey responses were analysed using SPSS. Summary statisticswere produced and are presented below. In the survey, respondents were asked tolist the organisations or groups they were involved with most frequently and thatthey believed were most valuable to their organisation for helping address foodissues. Results were coded, and UCINET was used to complete an ego networkanalysis to generate values of centrality and identify central actors in the net-works. NetDraw was used to generate sociograms (or network diagrams) toillustrate the in-degree relations within each provincial network. Open-endedsurvey question responses and interview responses were organised into emergentcategories; quotes from the interviews are used to provide greater insight into keythemes.

Results

This section highlights some of the main structures and relationships among thefour regional food network case studies. These findings are then drawn out toilluminate the structure of these networks.

Multiple types of work and diverse types of relationships

Survey respondents were asked to identify the kinds of work their organisation ismost frequently involved in by ranking a list of issue areas (including spaces to

Environmental Politics 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

identify other issues not part of the original list). There was a great deal ofdiversity in the issues that respondents identified (see Table 1). The most highlyranked issues included community development, community health, farming/agricultural issues, and food literacy/education. There were also other issuesthat were highly ranked by multiple respondents, including civic engagementand policy. Responses across provinces were fairly similar overall. However, theextensive list of issues identified within the regional networks makes it difficultto conclude that there is any one central issue or approach favoured within thenetworks.

The immense diversity of issues addressed among network actors was alsoreflected in the follow-up interviews. Describing a general shift from singleorganisations attempting to tackle too many issues, a non-profit director inOntario explained:

We are part of a new generation of food sector organisations that each focus on onepiece of the puzzle. We are going to do what we do well and work with others in acomplementary fashion.

In a similar vein, a volunteer coordinating a sustainable agriculture initiative inManitoba explained:

We are one little piece of this food movement. The work that we are doing iscomplemented by the work of everyone else. As we begin to understand what thistransformation looks like, we can understand how all the pieces fit together.

Table 1. Ranking of issues that most organisations identified with across the fournetworks.1

Highest ranked Middle ranked Lowest ranked Additional work

Communitydevelopment,community health,distribution andmarketing,environmental,farming/agricultural, foodliteracy/education,food security, foodsovereignty

Academic/research, anti-hunger, anti-poverty,consumerchoice, foodsafety

Agritourism, charity,fishing, farmworkers’ rights,labelling andcertification,regional/globaltrade

Civic engagement,climate change,hunting/gamemeat, preservingheritage/culture,policy, schoolfood, sustainableinfrastructure,traditional/wildfoods andindigenous rights

Note: 1The ranking system was based on the overall responses from the survey question. The chart’scategories represent the clustering of respondents that identified an issue as very strong or strong. Therange of percentages in each category is: ‘highest ranked’ 75.2–92.7%; ‘middle ranked’ 55–69%; and,‘lowest ranked’ 33.3–45.9%. Issues listed in the ‘additional work’ category are those identified bymore than one survey respondent.

8 C.Z. Levkoe and S. Wakefield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

Overall, these results reveal that organisations within the provincial networks areaddressing a wide variety of issues as opposed to focusing on a few particularissue areas. In addition, the issues of greatest importance vary slightly by net-work (Table 1), suggesting that either the network’s context, or its history, orboth, has an influence on issue identification.

In the survey, respondents were asked to describe the nature of their relationswith other organisations in the province. The responses were summarised into sixemergent categories, which represent the percentage of responses in each cate-gory. The most identified type of relationship was structural/organisationalsupport (31% of respondents). Responses in this category included the overlapof individuals through joint membership and/or sitting on the executive boardsand steering committees of each other’s organisations, and existing organisationsproviding guidance and support in the establishment of other organisations. As anetwork actor in Nova Scotia explained, ‘At one point, I was sitting on fivedifferent steering committees. It was an interesting moment of seeing how mywork has had some impact across organizations’.

The second most common type of relationship identified by respondentswas information exchange (29% of respondents), which included regularverbal/face-to-face contact, providing education and training, attending con-ferences or events, subscribing to listservs, and using an organisation’s web-site on a regular basis. Relationships that were identified less frequently byrespondents included funding (14%), which involved both monetary and in-kind contributions (e.g. sponsorship, use of space); joint events (10%),including projects, programs, or campaigns; and shared resources (10%),including sharing volunteers, material goods (e.g. food) and specific servicesor programs. The least identified types relationships were in the category ofjoint promotions (6%), which included collectively promoting awareness of aparticular issue and joint advocacy. Overall, these results reveal that there is abroad range of relationships being developed within the networks. However,contrary to what might be expected from the literature, provincial food net-works do few joint promotions.

Survey respondents were also asked which institutional sector they had beenin contact with most regularly in the past year: non-profit (i.e. other organisa-tions); private (i.e. business or media); and federal, provincial, and municipalgovernments. The survey revealed that respondents were most regularly incontact with the non-profit and private sectors. Contact was weakest with thefederal government and stronger with provincial and municipal governments.Overall, these results reveal that, within the provincial networks, there is sus-tained contact with many institutional sectors. Multiple interviewees reinforcedthis finding by identifying important and sustained relationships across sectors,including with funders, other non-profits and community groups, small busi-nesses, government departments, producer associations, and academicinstitutions.

Environmental Politics 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

Scale and (de)centralisation

The survey also asked at what scale the work of each organisation was focused.Respondents were given five options and invited to choose all that apply.Averaging responses across provinces, focus was highest at the municipal(62%), neighbourhood (52%), and provincial (45%) levels, with decreasingfocus at the national (22%) and global (11%) levels. Thus, within each provincialnetwork, there is work occurring at multiple scales, with some emphasis on local-level activity. During interviews, respondents found it extremely difficult tomake concrete distinctions between relationships by scale. For example, associa-tions with provincial and federal level government offices and organisations wereoften described as local-level partnerships due to geographical proximity.Further, it was difficult for some respondents to identify their focus as takingplace at a particular scale. While many food initiatives are place based, they havedeveloped strategies that simultaneously work at multiple scales. These findingschallenge traditional notions of scale as fixed or pre-given, instead suggestingthat scale is contingent and relational (see also Brenner 2001).

Centrality was calculated from survey responses that identified other groupsthat each respondent was involved with most frequently and that they believedwere most valuable to their organisation for addressing food issues. The datawere used to generate values of centrality, to create sociograms that illustrate thein-degree relations within each provincial network, and to identify which orga-nisations were most central in each network.

Network centralisation scores reflect the number of direct links connecting anactor to others in the network and indicate the extent to which that actor is centralto that network (Wasserman and Faust 1994). The higher the centrality index(a descriptive statistic expressed as a percentage), the more specific actors‘dominate or overshadow’ the network (Wasserman and Faust 1994; seeFigure 1a and b for an illustration). Using UCINET, a network centrality indexwas generated for each provincial food network.

Table 2 shows the centrality index for each of the provincial food networks.The values for each network are extremely low in comparison to centralisation

Circle GraphStar Graph

a) b)

Figure 1. Understanding centrality. (a) Demonstrates a network with the highest cen-tralisation level possible, where the central node has ties to all other actors in the network,but they do not have ties to each other (resulting in a centrality index of 100%). Incontrast, the circle graph in (b) illustrates a network where no actor is more central thanany other (this would have a centrality index of 0%).

10 C.Z. Levkoe and S. Wakefield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

scores in other studies (Wasserman and Faust 1994, Sandström and Rova 2010).This means that within all four provincial food networks, there is extremely lowcentrality.

The data were also used to create sociograms that illustrate the in-degreerelations within each provincial network (see Figure 2a–d), and to identify whichorganisations were most central in each network.

These sociograms illustrate the low centrality and high level of interconnec-tivity in each provincial network. Despite the overarching decentralisation, asmall number of organisations have higher in-degree scores (representing thenumber of times they were named by other organisations), including the pro-vincial networking organisations (PNOs) in each province. PNOs – alliance-based groups that operate at the provincial level with a mandate to support localinitiatives and foster collaboration by strengthening network activity – are there-fore somewhat more central to the provincial networks. Overall, all four

Figure 2. Food network sociograms. Sociograms illustrate the connections among orga-nizations. (a) British Columbia food network sociogram. (b) Manitoba food networksociogram. (c) Ontario food network sociogram. (d) Nova Scotia food network sociogram.

Table 2. Network centralisation index.

Network Centralisation index

British Columbia 0.53%Manitoba 3.16%Ontario 0.92%Nova Scotia 1.90%

Environmental Politics 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

provincial networks have a high level of interconnectivity but are extremelydecentralised, with no actors dominating the network. Despite the low centrality,a few key organisations are more central position in each provincial network, andsome of those (besides the PNOs) are government bodies, blurring the linesbetween ‘social movement’ and ‘governance’.

Shared identity

Social movements are said to exhibit a collective identity that constitutes the coreof the movement networks. While identity links do not imply homogeneity, theyestablish a sense of belongingness and bound the network. According to thenetwork survey, an overwhelming majority (97%) of respondents identified aspart of a ‘food movement’ despite the decentralisation of the networks anddiversity of aims. This sentiment was also reflected in interviews:

We are part of a food movement, that’s my sense and that’s what we hear from thecommunity. They feel change. To me, that is part of a movement. (Ontario)

There is a food movement that is increasing awareness of where our food comesfrom, what’s in it, and whether it is healthy or produced under good labour andenvironmental standards …. That food movement is real and it has longevitybecause it is founded on the fundamental needs and desires of people to talkabout environmental sustainability. (British Columbia)

This suggests that despite having features different from typical social movementnetworks, as identified in previous studies, respondents still self-identify as beingpart of a collective movement. A volunteer coordinating a rural agriculturalinitiative in Manitoba suggested, ‘The movement is a loose collection of projectsand issues. The commonality is that participants are critically examining the waythey are thinking and acting’.

Discussion

This analysis of organisational relationships in provincial food networks revealsa dynamic set of relations that cross both sectors and scales. Within the provin-cial networks, different types of work are done, diverse types of relationships areestablished, contact occurs between multiple sectors, and work is focused atmultiple scales. In addition, the provincial networks were extremely decentra-lised, even though the majority of survey respondents identified as being con-nected to a collective food movement. Reflecting on these features of provincialfood networks in relation to the literature on social movement networks andcomplex assemblages can help us to understand these networks better and whattheir organisational structures might or could mean for their future success.

Returning to the three common features of networks described by Diani,social movement networks are generally: in conflict with a clearly identified

12 C.Z. Levkoe and S. Wakefield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

social or political opponent; engaged in sustained collective projects as part of aformal, centralised network; and exhibit a long-term sense of collective identity,common goals, and shared beliefs (Saunders 2007, Tilly and Wood 2009, Diani2011, 1992a, Tarrow 2011). However, the AFI networks described here did notseem to share a common target or single objective, and included alliances acrosspublic and private sectors and with different branches of government.Interestingly, the range of goals and lack of clearly articulated ‘demands’ seenhere are similar to findings from studies of other recent social mobilisations suchas the Occupy and global justice movements (Graeber 2004, Escobar 2008, Juris2012). The organisations within each provincial network described here werealso linked in many different ways, not always around projects. Many of thetypes of relations most identified in the four provincial networks are what Diani(1992a, 1992b) and Saunders (2007) call ‘informal’ or ‘weak’ relations. Whilethe majority of respondents identified as part of a food movement, there was nooverarching agreement on particular goals and beliefs. In fact, the results high-light the variety of work done, the diversity of relationships, the contactsoccurring with multiple institutions and sectors, and the decentralised nature ofthe network, all of which is somewhat inconsistent with the sense of collectiveidentity reported in previous studies.

Based on these points, these ‘food movement’ networks would likely beconsidered ‘nascent’ according to most social network theory. That is, while acollective identity has clearly been developed, other elements of the networkswould not be considered fully formed – in particular, they have not yet coalescedaround a common target or a shared project. Indeed, these elements of AFInetworks could be interpreted by some as a failure to structure and/or institutio-nalise the movement effectively (Saunders 2007). But is this really the case? Arewe waiting for something to happen in these food networks to drive them tomaturity, or is their structure already suited not only to their function but also toeffectively achieving their (admittedly amorphous) goals? In many ways, it is tooearly to tell; the food movement, like other recent social movements (such asOccupy), is still relatively new, and so its long-term ability to create meaningfuland lasting social change is yet unproven. At the same time, evidence of agrowing and increasingly powerful food movement (Allen 2004, Wekerle2004, Starr 2010, Holt-Giménez and Shattuck 2011, Wittman et al. 2011)suggests that something is already working to enhance the movement’s reach.Therefore, it is important not to assume that the movement is embryonic basedon particular normative assumptions about network processes, but rather toaccept the possibility of more diverse, dynamic network forms that are groundedin the particular cultural and political context from which they emerge (seeEscobar 2008; Escobar and Osterweil 2011).

Our data suggest that the provincial AFI networks are more consistent withrepresentations of complex assemblages. That is, the networks described here canbe characterised as interminable, self-organised networks of diverse actors con-stituted through non-hierarchical, bottom-up processes and multiple and

Environmental Politics 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

overlapping points of contact (Chesters and Welsh 2005, McFarlane 2009).Within the networks, membership in a particular group was not mutually exclu-sive, and organisations embraced a range of approaches in their work, andcollaborated with many different organisations and sectors. Through the net-works, organisations came into contact with others who might influence theirstrategic direction (as in Kumar 2010), but complete consensus was not seen oreven expected. Importantly, the literature on complex assemblages suggests thatnetworks with this structure are not necessarily ‘emerging’ or somehow incom-plete, while the networks themselves are dynamic (and so are likely to undergoongoing processes of (re)organisation), the complexity perspective argues thatcomplex systems (like those found in the natural world) are likely to functionwell (and perhaps better) even in the absence of clear leaders. What looks likeconfusion and chaos to some observers may actually be a functioning, albeitcomplex, system.

So what are the implications of our findings in relation to social mobilisationfor environmental and social change? First, taking these results seriouslydemands a more fluid and organic understanding of the kinds of activities takingplace within social movement networks. On a practical level, seeing AFI net-works as complex assemblages would imply that groups holding more centra-lised roles do not necessarily need to consolidate actors into more internallyconsistent and hierarchical organisational forms, and possibly may do more harmthan good in the attempt. Rather than seeking to create a stronger collectivemission, these organisations could continue to create bridges between organisa-tions and encourage collaborative projects and innovative ideas and approaches.Diverse network relations could support wider information diffusion, since abroad array of links affords actors a variety of information sources (Hartman andJohnson 1989). At the same time, we need to explore more thoroughly thetensions between embracing complexity and building solid foundations andinstitutions to ‘scale up’ (Johnston and Baker 2005) social change work. Theway that these provincial network organisations work in future to support andmaintain the assemblage without reverting to centralised structures also requiresfurther examination.

Second, these findings require that we wrestle more substantively with theways that diverse interests come together through everyday practice, withoutideological coherence as a necessary precondition. This diversity can posesignificant challenges for building stronger networks. However, it also widenstraditional notions of what constitutes membership in a social movement (i.e.beyond civil society), thereby creating new political opportunities. For example,the data show that food networks have built close ties with the state and privatesector as key allies. This also suggests a more sophisticated understanding ofsocial movements beyond a binary oppositional–assimilationist perspective(Jakobsen 1998, Goodman et al. 2012). In fact, in recent reflections on AFInetworks, Goodman et al. (2012) suggest that networks that ‘focus on forgingcommunities of shared values are intrinsically inegalitarian, because they are

14 C.Z. Levkoe and S. Wakefield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

based on a single world view’ (p. 156). They go on to assert that ‘[p]ractitionersof reflexive food politics work to change the world via … civic modes thatembrace different perspectives and worldviews without imposing a frame of“shared values” on others’ (p. 157). This implies that open, relativelyunbounded, and heterogeneous networks are important in what could be calleda ‘transformative food politics’ (Levkoe 2011) that seeks to restructure funda-mentally not just how we eat but also how we structure social relations.

Finally, conceptualising food networks as dynamic, evolving, and unpredict-able also means that we cannot fully control them. However, actors are notpowerless. Holding complex assemblages together takes considerable effort(McFarlane 2009), and by better understanding network processes, actors cangain key insights about ways to push towards systemic transformation. Othershave highlighted the importance of prefigurative politics in networks, suggestingthat the structure of the network can act as a training ground for establishingtransformative relationship forms (Schlosberg 1999). While we did not collectdata on how organisations see their network participation (e.g. as prefigurativepolitics), others have suggested AFI activities are often attempts to develop andillustrate progressive forms of social organisation (Wilson 2012), and also thatfood networks’ openness and diversity is an important political device (Goodmanet al. 2012). The outcome of social mobilisation in creating environmental orsocial change, while important, is not the only measure of a social movement’ssuccess.

Conclusion

In summarising the results of a study of AFI networks in four Canadian pro-vinces, we have raised questions about how well conventional social movementnetwork analysis can explain certain facets of recent network organisation. Whilethere are no easy – or immediate – answers to the questions raised by this study,we have posited that the analytic of complex assemblages may help to enhanceexisting social movement network theory and practice.

Contemporary forms of mobilisation have real and direct impacts for AFIs,and results can plausibly be extended to other forms of organising for environ-mental and social goals. As we have demonstrated, actors will need to maketactical and strategic decisions based on heterogeneous and emergent qualities ofnetwork organisation and structure. We also assert (following Escobar 2008) thatnetwork analyses of new social movements need to develop greater sensitivity tohow network structure and function might change as a result of broader (and/orlocalised) dynamics in the sociopolitical contexts from which specific move-ments emerge. We acknowledge that our cases may not be representative of allfood network activity, but they provide a place to begin unpacking the illusiveconcept of the ‘food movement’, which future research will undoubtedlyadvance.

Environmental Politics 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

Theorising networks as complex assemblages helps to visualise and under-stand that initiatives with diverse goals and approaches can work together with-out ideological coherence. We can’t know exactly what a future food system willlook like, but recognising and validating a plurality of experiences and account-ing for the multi-scalar nature of network activity ‘can provide a strategic depthwhich totalising discourses of capital, power and total revolution often foreclose’(Kumar 2010, p. 21). Collaborative processes of experimentation that embracecontradictions and take reflexive action through networks are an important partof pushing the logics of system transformation for environmental and socialgoals. Thus, while the structure of networks as complex assemblages presentschallenges for social mobilisation, it also opens new opportunities for politicaltransformation.

Initial informant feedback has demonstrated that the results of this study andour analysis resonate deeply with AFIs. Ultimately, however, it will be the long-term impacts of this (and other) recent social mobilisation that will provide thebest evidence of how networks ‘work’ to make change.

AcknowledgementsThis research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge support from Marney Isaacand Evan Castel on the initial data analysis, the constructive criticism provided by JoséeJohnston on an earlier draft, and three anonymous reviewers who provided importantsuggestions.

ReferencesAlkon, A.H. and Agyeman, J., 2011. Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustain-

ability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Allen, P., et al., 2003. Alternative food initiatives in California: local efforts address

systemic issues. Paper Brief No. 4. University of California, Santa Cruz.Allen, P., 2004. Together at the table. Pennsylvania University Press.Allen, P., 2008. Mining for justice in the food system: perceptions, practices, and

possibilities. Agriculture and Human Values, 25 (2), 157–161.Bodin, Ö. and Crona, B.I., 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource govern-

ance: what relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change,19 (3), 366–374.

Borgatti, S., et al., 2009. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323 (5616),892–895.

Brenner, N., 2001. The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuriza-tion. Progress in Human Geography, 25 (4), 591–614.

Carroll, W.K. and Hackett, R.A., 2006. Democratic media activism through the lens ofsocial movement theory. Media Culture Society, 28 (1), 83–104.

Chesters, G. and Welsh, I., 2005. Complexity and social movement: process and emer-gence in planetary action systems. Theory, Culture and Society, 22 (5), 287–211.

Crona, B.I. and Bodin, Ö., 2006. What you know is who you know? Communicationpatterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology andSociety, 11 (2), 1–23.

16 C.Z. Levkoe and S. Wakefield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

Cross, R., Borgatti, S.P., and Parker, A., 2001. Beyond answers: dimensions of the advicenetwork. Social Networks, 23 (3), 215–235.

De Landa, M., 2006. A new philosophy of society: assemblage theory and social complex-ity. London: Continuum.

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., 1987. A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press.

Della Porta, D. and Diani, D., 2006. Social movements: an introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford:Blackwell.

Diani, M., 1992a. The concept of a social movement. The Sociological Review, 40 (1),1–25.

Diani, M., 1992b. Analyzing social movement networks. In: M. Diani and R. Eyerman,eds. Studying collective action. London: Sage, 107–135.

Diani, M., 2003. Networks and social movements: a research programme. In: M. Diani,and D. McAdam, eds. Social movements and networks: relational approaches tocollective action. New York: Oxford University Press, 298–319.

Diani, M., 2011. Social movements and collective action. In: P. Carrington and J. Scott,eds. The Sage handbook of social network analysis. London: Sage, 223–235.

Diani, M. and Bison, I., 2004. Organizations, coalitions and movements. Theory andSociety, 33 (3/4), 281–309.

DuPuis, E.M. and Goodman, D., 2005. Should we go “home” to eat? Toward a reflexivepolitics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 21 (3), 359–371.

Elton, S., 2010. Locavore: from farmers’ fields to rooftop gardens – how Canadians arechanging the way we eat. Toronto: Harper Collins.

Escobar, A., 1992. Imagining a post-development era? Critical thought, development andsocial movements. Social Text, 31/32, 20–56.

Escobar, A., 2008. Territories of difference: place, movements, life, redes. Durham, NC:Duke University Press.

Escobar, A. and Osterweil, M., 2010. Social movements and the politics of the virtual:deleuzian strategies. In: C.B. Jensen and K. Rodje, eds. Deleuzian intersections:science, technology, anthropology. New York: Berghahn, 187–217.

Fieldhouse, P., 1996. Community shared agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values, 13(3), 43–47.

Friedmann, H., 2007. Scaling up: bringing public institutions and food service corpora-tions into the project for a local, sustainable food system in Ontario. Agriculture andHuman Values, 24 (3), 389–398.

Gerlach, L., 1971. Movements of revolutionary change. Some structural characteristics.American Behavioral Scientist, 16 (6), 812–836.

Gliessman, S.R., 2007. Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. New York:Taylor and Francis.

Goodman, D., DuPuis, E.M., and Goodman, M., 2012. Alternative food networks: knowl-edge practice and politics. New York: Routledge.

Gottlieb, R. and Joshi, S., 2010. Food justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Graeber, D., 2004. Fragments of an anarchist anthropology. Chicago, IL: Prickly

Paradigm.Granovetter, M., 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embedded-

ness. American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3), 481–510.Gregory, D., et al., 2009. The dictionary of human geography. West Sussex: John Wiley.Hadenius, A., 2001. Institutions and democratic citizenship. Oxford University Press.Hartman, R. and Johnson, J., 1989. Social contagion and multiplexity: communication

networks as predictors of commitment and role ambiguity. Human CommunicationResearch, 15 (4), 523–548.

Environmental Politics 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

Hayduk, R.,Katsiaficas, G., and Wallis, V., eds. 2012. The promise and challenge of theoccupy movement, special issue. Socialism and Democracy, 26 (2).

Holt-Giménez, E. and Patel, R., 2009. Food rebelions! Crisis and the hunger for justice.Oakland, CA: Food First Books.

Holt-Giménez, E. and Shattuck, A., 2011. Food crisis, food regimes and food movements:rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? Journal of Peasant Studies, 38 (1),109–144.

Homer-Dixon, T., 2011. Complexity science. Oxford Leadership Journal, 2 (1), 1–15.Ingold, T., 1990. An anthropologist looks at biology. Man, 25 (2), 208–229.Jakobsen, J.R., 1998. Working alliances and the politics of difference. Bloomington, IN:

Indiana University Press.Johnston, J. and Baker, L., 2005. Eating outside the box: FoodShare’s good food box and

the challenge of scale. Agriculture and Human Values, 22 (3), 313–325.Juris, J.S., 2012. Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: social media, public space, and

emerging logics of aggregation. American Ethnologist, 39 (2), 259–279.Kavada, A., 2003. Contemporary anti-war mobilisations: agonistic engagement within

social movement networks. Unpublished paper presented at Ionion Conference, 6–7November 2003. Corfu, Greece.

Keck, M. and Sikkink, S., 1998. Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in inter-national politics. New York: Cornell University Press.

Knoke, D., 1990. Organizing for collective action: the political economies of associations.New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Knoke, D. and Kuklinski, J., 1982. Network analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.Koc, M., et al., 2008. Getting civil about food: the interactions between civil society and

the state to advance sustainable food systems in Canada. Journal of Hunger andEnvironmental Nutrition, 3 (2/3), 122–144.

Krackhardt, D. and Stern, R.N., 1988. Informal networks and organizational crises—anexperimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51 (2), 123–140.

Kumar, K., 2010. The sacred mountain: confronting global capital at Niyamgiri.Unpublished paper presented at Global Environmental Justice – towards a NewAgenda, 2–3 July 2010. University of East Anglia, Norwich.

Laclau, E., 1985. New social movements and the plurality of the social. In: D. Slater, ed.New social movements and the state in Latin America. Amsterdam: Centro deEstudios y Documentacion Latinoamericanos, 27–42.

Levkoe, C., 2011. Towards a transformative food politics. Local Environment, 16 (7),687–705.

Levkoe, C. and Wakefield, S., 2012. The community food centre: creating space for a just,sustainable and healthy food system. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems andCommunity Development, 1 (2), 249–268.

McFarlane, C., 2009. Translocal assemblages: space, power and social movements.Geoforum, 40 (4), 561–567.

Mische, A., 2003. Cross talk in movements: reconceiving the culture-network link. In: M.Diani and D. McAdam, eds. Social movements and networks: relational approachesto collective action. Oxford University Press, 258–280.

Newig, J., Gunnther, D., and Pahl-Wostl, C., 2010. Synapses in the network: learning ingovernance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecology andSociety, 15 (4), 1–24.

Proctor, J. and Larson, B., 2005. Ecology, complexity, and metaphor. Bioscience, 55 (12),1065–1068.

Rankin, K.N. and Delaney, J., 2011. Community BIAs as practices of assemblage:contingent politics in the neoliberal city. Environment and Planning A, 43 (6),1363–1380.

18 C.Z. Levkoe and S. Wakefield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013

Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.Rosenthal, N., et al., 1985. Social movements and network analysis. American Journal of

Sociology, 90 (5), 1022–1054.Sandström, A. and Rova, C., 2010. Adaptive co-management networks: a comparative

analysis of two fishery conservation areas in Sweden. Ecology and Society, 15 (3),1–23.

Saunders, C., 2007. Using social network analysis to explore social movements: arelational approach. Social Movement Studies, 6 (3), 227–243.

Schiff, R., 2008. The role of food policy councils in developing sustainable food systems.Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 3 (2–3), 206–228.

Schlosberg, D., 1999. Networks and mobile arrangements: organizational innovation inthe US environmental movement. Environmental Politics, 8 (1), 122–148.

Staggenborg, S., 1998. Social movement communities and cycles of protest: the emer-gence and maintenance of a local women's movement. Social Problems, 45 (2),180–204.

Staggenborg, S., 2011. Social movements. 2nd ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Starr, A., 2010. Local food: a social movement? Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies,

10 (6), 479–490.Tarrow, S., 2011. Power in movements: social movements and contentious politics. 3rd ed.

New York: Cambridge University Press.Tilly, C. and Wood, L., 2009. Social movements, 1768–2008. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO:

Paradigm Publishers.Urry, J., 2005. The complexity turn. Theory, Culture & Society, 22 (5), 1–14.Urry, J., 2006. Complexity. Theory, Culture & Society, 23 (2–3), 111–115.Wasserman, S. and Faust, K., 1994. Social network analysis: methods and applications.

Cambridge University Press.Wekerle, G., 2004. Food justice movements. Journal of Planning Education and

Research, 23 (4), 378–386.Winne, M., 2010. Food rebels, guerilla gardeners, and smart cookin' mamas: fighting

back in an age of industrial agriculture. Boston, MA: Beacon.Wilson, A.D., 2012. Beyond alternative: exploring the potential for autonomous food

spaces. Antipode, Early View, 45 (3), 719–737.Winter, M., 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal

of Rural Studies, 19 (1), 23–32.Wittman, H., Desmarais, A., and Wiebe, N., eds, 2011. Food sovereignty in Canada:

creating just and sustainable food systems. Halifax: Fernwood.

Environmental Politics 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

Lev

koe]

at 1

0:04

14

Aug

ust 2

013