How to feed the world in ‘Indonesia Inc., a company in the form of a state’ Elske Hageraats i How to feed the world in Indonesia Inc., a company in the form of a state’ by Elske Hageraats Student name: Elske Hageraats Student registration number: 88 04 09 29 80 80 Study Program: Msc. Development and Rural Innovation Credits: 30 ECTS Course Number: SDC-80430 Course Name: Msc Thesis Sociology of Development and Change Supervised by: Dr. ir. Pieter de Vries, SDC group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands Examination: Dr. ir. Pieter de Vries, SDC group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands Dr. Stephen Sherwood, KTI group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands Date: February, 2015 Picture at front from the documentary film ‘the Act of Killing’ by Joshua Oppenheimer, 2013 ii Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you only see its manifestations (Tao Te Ching) This thesis is dedicated to the millions of people tortured and killed during the ‘Shock Doctrine’ in Indonesia. iii Abstract As a biologist and sociologist, I wanted to dive into the current debate how to feed the world, from a historical and political philosophical perspective. First, this study describes how the exact same question was posed in 1946 by the U.S.A., where it turned out to be the first step of a control method, instead of an actual question. It paved the way for the shock doctrine in Indonesia in 1965 where 2 million people were tortured and killed, followed by a control over Indonesia’s 1) government, 2) economy and 3) people by controlling food production - the latter being achieved by the push through of the Green Revolution. Second, the impact of the Green Revolution on the life of farmers is examined, with special emphasis on food security. Farmers, activists and university teachers in Bali, Indonesia, were interviewed. Third, I pose the question how to move on, after knowing this history and the impact on Bali. A literature study is presented on self-enhancing, self-reproducing, dynamic assemblages in the network, Human Nature, Becoming Prince and governing the process of transition via transformation of a structure, a new assemblage in the network that corresponds more to our ‘human nature’ and that will grow organically via happiness and creativity. A case study was conducted at the Taman Petanu Eco Neighbourhood in Bali, which could be a potential step forward. Keywords: Bali, Indonesia, Shock Therapy, coup d’état 1965, Green Revolution, Food Sovereignty, Food as a Weapon, Eco-Village, Permaculture, Human Nature, Assemblages. iv Preface The world is beautiful. And not only that, I believe that this ‘beauty will save the world’i. As Hardt and Negri describe in their book Commonwealth, we are living in ‘a world that, for better or worse, we all share, a world that has no ‘outside’ii. Stepping outside our life-world is possible, but very selfish and certainly no solution. Continuing to live inside our current life world however, is often inevitably causing the destruction of life on this earth and moreover a sad, empty loneliness for ourselves – at least, that is how I think about it. But all is not hopeless. In fact, we are capable of great things. Like climbing a mountain for example. They can be quite high, the road steep and slippery. You can continue your way only when you stop fearing the path and instead focus on every step – which then transforms into a harmony between your self and the mightiness of nature. It is only in this unique rhythm that you can make it to heights you would imagine impossible. Knowing your goal and actually walking towards it is all that has to be done right now. It is as simple as that. Simple in theory, a challenge in practice, but certainly not impossible within our capabilities. The first part – knowing you goal – can be reached by sharing information about how the world works, raising awareness, reading philosophy, making documentaries and writing books. The second part however – actually walking towards it - is a whole other thing. During a mail-conversation about the current world and the struggles it cries for, one of my sociology teachers, Alberto Arce, wrote the following: ‘My experience is that some consumers are quite happy to continue doing what they are doing and they do not want to change. My issue is then how we reach these people to generate a process of change and not just again to explain (again and again) their social actions in a very intellectual form (probably we need to discuss this further)’iii I think this is a very important question that we all need to ask ourselves. Whether we like it or not, we must fight for this process of change and that is the reason why I turn this question into the main aim of the thesis: How to reach people to generate a process of change and not just again (and again and again) explain their social actions in a very intellectual form? History has taught us it is not as simple as walking up to a farmer and tell him to stop using pesticides, fertilizers and GMOs that will destroy the soil life and make the farmer himself more dependent on the free market economy. Nor can we visit a random consumer and tell him or her to stop buying this very same rice, stop buying clothes made in sweatshops, or gormandizing a ‘plofkip’ (which can freely be translated from Dutch into ‘explosion chicken’). Should we then jump towards reckless rebellion against the destructive free market consumer society? Maybe, but I think this is not a very effective way. The society, ruled by corporations and governments, has its own ways of dealing with rebellion.iv The system might replace its actors, but is still functioning in the same way, and by the created ‘state of shock’ you might even have enforced the system itself – which is the very source of the problem.v Trying to change the rules, laws or regulations often has the same effect. There is no freedom, no creativity and no joy in an overregulated life. More regulations only restrict the people, not the corporations or governments who either find ways to deal with itvi or simply find ways to evade the law. Trying to change a powerful system by using its own rules is not the way to go. For sure, you might be able to change something, after long fights at the court, but the corporations will grow much faster, destruction of our livelihoods and Quality of Life will go much faster, rates of deforestation, pollution, loss of local knowledge and practices will be v so much higher. To sum it up: ‘You can never solve a problem on the level on which is was created’(Einstein). ‘But we don’t even know how to begin to fight the mess we’re in now. Whom are we fighting? What kind of war is it?’viiInstead of focussing on the results of society, we might want to first ask ourselves exactly how the world can evolve into something where we – humans – are not only destroying the planet, but also our own Quality of Life. Why this greed, which in the end does not make us happy at all? Why all these laws and regulations that only seem to restrain us from our freedom? Why – with all our technological innovations – does it look like we are only getting more and more stuck inside some kind of system? I think it is very important to understand the way our society works, how it evolves. It seems that people – actors – are part of a dynamic network, interconnecting with actors, actants and relations between these. If we would like to work towards change, we can not ignore this dynamic network. As said before, working towards change can only be done when the dynamic network is taken into account. Fighting against it is certainly possible, but very challenging and – as said before – the gains will be going so much slower than all the losses. In this thesis I therefore want to try to grasp this network, try to understand how it works and use this knowledge to work towards change. This however, does not mean that we should have endless debates and discussions, creating more concepts, scientific jargon, and fights over who’s right. Life in all its forms can never be captured in a theory, a schedule, or framework. Everything is interconnected with everything; it is a dynamic interrelating network so complex that you will have to end up with the conclusion ‘all is one’. Assuming that you can fully know someone’s life world is an illusion which might create certain realities that will enhance dualism and get you even further away from any kind of progress. Not-knowing is true knowledge Presuming to know is a disease First realize that you are sick Then you can move toward health (Tao) Although it is not possible to fully know someone’s lifeworld, since it too complex and moreover constantly dynamic, it is possible to visualise certain patterns in this network. Patterns of evolving institutions, that interrelate with actors, actants and one another. In my thesis, I will try to understand these dominant patterns and the interrelation with the actors by emphasizing on ‘self-reproductive, self-enhancive Ideas’, its influence on the thoughts and practices of actors and how the change from created desires towards inner desires can serve as a motor generating a process of change. I want to emphasise on these larger patterns (the Foucaultian prison and evolving institutions) interacting in the dynamic network with actors (AOA).