A discursive analysis of oppositional interpretations of the agro-food system: A case study of Latvia

This article critically reflects on the literature that addresses the complexity of food systems, which is often caught in application of simplistic binary oppositions of local vs. global, short vs. long, sustainable vs. intensive, etc. It then goes on to show, through a case study analysis of food-system discourses in Latvia how the binary oppositions surrounding with food systems, are actually mobilised in a specific national context.Agro-food systems are often explained through binary opposing knowledge systems that, depending on the theoretical affiliation of the author, might be called frames, narratives or discourses. These powerful instruments are used to explain, and often prescribe, the overall direction of agro-food systems. However, such narratives have difficulties in explaining the diversity that underlies these knowledge systems.This article analyses two agro-food discourses in Latvia - the intensification discourse and the alternative discourse. The intensification discourse supports greater intensification of the agro-food system whilst the alternative discourse has consolidated groups of actors under the claims of greater sustainability, the need to shorten food chains and support local producers. This article suggests that the explanatory power of these discourses evaporates when the individual actors' practices are analysed: the micro level reveals that the two discourses often overlap and that they are intertextually connected.We discuss three ways in which the discourses can overlap: (1) partial affiliation, (2) multi-lingual communication, (3) replacement of underdeveloped aspects. These three forms of overlapping illustrate how middle grounds are created between the discourses. The analysis of intertextuality demonstrates how macro knowledge structures are reinterpreted when transformed into micro practices.