Page 204 [204]
OCR
202 DOROTTYA MENDLY — MELINDA MIHÁLY introduction of social behavior which achieves the goals of bioregionalism: bringing about decentralized and sovereignty-based forms of a social establishment and a culture based on biological integrity and public consensus and promoting the communitys spiritual development — through the enrichment of the given place, the restoration of its life-support systems, and the creation of socially and ecologically sustainable modes of existence (Dodge 1981: 10). Discussion — systemic alternatives in Central and Eastern Europe The systemic alternatives presented above were initiated in countries of the Global South (e.g. food sovereignty, agroecology) or the Global North (bioregionalism, permaculture). As a result, they hardly reflect the everyday experiences of people living in the formerly state socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). In these countries, the household practices of localized food production (e.g. food self-provisioning through backyard farming) were far more extensive than in Western Europe (Jehliéka et al. 2020; 2021). Western theories of civil society are not suitable for grasping the everyday practices of community self-organization connected to the livelihood characteristic of CEE (Jacobsson 2015; Foa — Ekiert 2017). Below, a few typical Central and Eastern European features are discussed, which have decisive importance in realizing food sovereignty. In the region, diverse economic practices related to food provisioning were less integrated into the social movements fighting for sustainable food systems. In terms of food provisioning, the informal economy is still of great importance in Central and Eastern Europe. Several practices have survived (e.g., food selfprovisioning through backyard farming, small-scale farming and local markets) that can be better interpreted outside a formal economic framework, through a diverse economic lens. The diverse economic framework has evolved from the feminist critique of economic geography (Gibson-Graham 2008; Gibson-Graham — Cameron — Healy 2013). It relies on the assumption that if we can begin to see non-capitalist activities as prevalent and viable, we may be encouraged here and now to actively build upon them to transform our local economies (Gibson-Graham 2008: 662). Instead of “waiting for the revolution” to re-create a global economy and governance system at the global scale, we can engage with others to transform local economies here and now in an everyday ethical and political practice of constructing “community economies” in the face of globalization (ibid.). While the urban projects connected to alternative food systems (e.g. community gardens, CSAs, food box systems) are often interpreted as progressive in foodrelated movements, urban food production methods surviving from the period prior to the regime change in CEE (1989/90) (e.g., dacha gardens in the Baltic states and Schrebergarten in Germany; see Pungas et al. 2022) and the surviving practices of backyard farming typical in rural areas are often stigmatized as backward or outdated. The question may arise as to how to redefine the food self-provisioning practices typical of CEE — and which survived the regime change — in such a way that those who practice them consider themselves as actors of the food sovereignty movement. Without this, the household practices of food self-provisioning which
