sustainability Article DealingArticle with Undeniable Differences in Dealing with Undeniable Differences in Thessaloniki’s Solidarity Economy of Food Thessaloniki’s Solidarity Economy of Food Christabel Buchanan Christabel Buchanan Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR), Coventry University, Coventry CV8 3LG, UK; [email protected] for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR), Coventry University, Coventry CV8 3LG, UK; [email protected] Received:Received: 22 22 February February 2019; 2019; Accepted: Accepted:4 04 April April 2019; 2019; Published: Published: 24date April 2019 Abstract:Abstract:In In the the context context of of capitalist capitalist crisis,crisis, aa re-emergencere-emergence of of reciprocal reciprocal economic economic relationships relationships has has beenbeen praised praised by by postcapitalist postcapitalist researchers. researchers. Self-organisedSelf-organised solidarity solidarity food food economies economies have have indeed indeed broughtbrought promise promise of of democratic democratic change. change. However, th thisis article article draws draws on on two two years years of offieldwork fieldwork in in ThessalonikiThessaloniki to to develop develop Iris Iris Young’s Young’sPolitics Politics ofof DiDifferencefference inin order order to to challenge challenge the the view view of ofsolidarity solidarity economyeconomy as as wholly wholly a a process process of of collaboration. collaboration. Th Thus,us, the the article article overturns overturns prevalent prevalent myths myths regarding regarding thethe cultural cultural ineptitude ineptitude of of Greek Greek actors. actors. InIn doingdoing so so,, it it highlights highlights the the need need for for food food movements movements to to acknowledgeacknowledge the the inevitable inevitable tensions tensions thatthat arisearise fromfrom structural inequalities. inequalities. The The article article argues argues that that overcomingovercoming these these tensions tensions requires requires challengingchallenging didifference-blindnessfference-blindness in in grassroots grassroots democracy. democracy. It It concludesconcludes that that an an acknowledgement acknowledgement of of shiftingshifting structuralstructural inequalities, inequalities, exaggerated exaggerated by by the the economic economic crisis,crisis, must must be be incorporated incorporated into into anan initiative’sinitiative’s democratic processes processes alongside alongside mechanisms mechanisms for for dealingdealing with with disharmony. disharmony. Keywords:Keywords:self-organisation; self-organisation; solidarity solidarity economy;economy; conflict;conflict; difference; difference; economic economic crisis crisis Angelos: The truth is that we established [our small farm] … but we saw how difficult it was, just the two of us who agreed with the basic rules and carried them forward. Interviewer: Why was it difficult? What were the fundamental difficulties that you encountered? Maria: We didn’t find many young people who wanted to join us. Angelos: And generally speaking our DNA doesn’t contain collaboration, it is lacking that characteristic. Interviewer: Is it our DNA though? Angelos: Definitely. Maria: Collaboration is a mentality, but we don’t acknowledge it. Excerpt 1. A quote exemplifying the allegory that Greek people are innately unable to collaborate. 1. Introduction 1. Introduction ExperimentsExperiments in in autonomous autonomous food food initiativesinitiatives have emerged emerged in in response response to to the the economic economic failures failures of theof the conventional conventional food food system. system. TheseThese reflectreflect what is is more more generally generally referred referred toto as as the the ‘solidarity ‘solidarity economy’,economy’, which which aims aims to to build build cooperation cooperation and and collective collective actionaction throughthrough closer,direct and direct reciprocal and more reciprocaleconomic economic relationships relationships [1]. The solidarity [1]. The economy solidarity has economy been welcomed has been by members welcomed of Greek by members society, of Greektheir society, government their [2], government and intellectuals [2], and [3], intellectuals as a solution [3 ],to asthe a capitalist solution crisis to the [4,5]. capitalist However, crisis it [is4, 5]. However,now ten ityears is now since ten the years crisis since began, the crisisand the began, proce andss of the building process solidarity of building is not solidarity all hopeful is not[6]. all hopefulDuring [6 ].the During years 2016–2018, the years 2016–2018,which informed which the informed research the reported research in this reported article, in several this article, initiatives several initiativesexperienced experienced internal organisational internal organisational dynamics or dynamics financial or strains financial that strainshave pushed that have the initiatives pushed the initiativesthemselves themselves into crisis. into As crisis.will be Aselaborated will be elaboratedin this article, in the this experience article, the of experience conflict and of tension conflict has and tensionled to hasa narrative led to a that narrative the potential that the of the potential solidari ofty the economy solidarity is limited economy by the is nature limited of bypeople. the nature There of people.Sustainability There 2019 is, a 11 reified, x; doi: FOR cultural PEER REVIEW myth, held and perpetuated by Greekwww. participantsmdpi.com/journal of/sustainability the solidarity Sustainability 2019, 11, 2426; doi:10.3390/su11082426 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, 2426 2 of 23 economy, that as a society they are unable to collaborate and are prone to antagonistic relations, as exemplified in the quote in Excerpt 1. This attitude is mirrored by depictions of a devastated social fabric. During the period after the dictatorship (metapolitefsi), considered the first period of stable liberal democracy, there was said to have emerged “an all-pervasive individualistic culture (accompanied by hyperconsumerism), which led to grave impairment of the sense of collectivity and taking care of one another, as well as of community, solidarity and shared responsibility within Greek society” [7] (p.5). Other scholarly work contends that a long-term corrupt and unaccountable culture of the political class has resulted in lack of interpersonal trust, purportedly demonstrated by European statistics on social trust in which Greece repeatedly comes last [8]. Evoking the term “civic pathology” to refer to the endemic distrust in Greek society, which existed before the recent crisis, Theocharis and van Deth [8] explicitly play down the effect of economic and financial crisis on solidarity relations, instead underlining cultural and political factors linked to political corruption and social distrust. Similarly, in international commentary on the Greek crisis, the portrayal of Greek people has been overwhelmingly negative, with stereotypes of a “corrupt” and “irresponsible” society, whose immoral citizens are unarguably responsible for their own hardship [9,10]. Moreover, the anger of some Greek people at dissenting responses to draconian austerity measures is discussed as a possible attempt to evade their own responsibility and make sense of socioeconomic transformations perceived to be out of their control [11], facilitating the neoliberal myth of individualised responsibility for economic success or failure. This stereotype of Greek people has also been used to justify the structural adjustments forced on the Greek people by the Troika [12,13]. Based on 24 months of ethnographic fieldwork in Thessaloniki, this article challenges the common allegory of a fundamental cultural (or even ethnic) ineptitude to collaborate, indicated by the reference to collaboration “not being in our DNA” as expressed by Angelos in the above excerpt. Using ideas from Iris Young’s [14] The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference, I develop the argument that structurally rooted conflicts are amplified by the capitalist crisis [13]. Additionally, I argue that the romanticisation of solidarity, in the internal and external promotion of economic alternatives, alongside the lack of a political sensibility to recognise and mediate structural difference, allows for the glossing over of differences that are the cause of tension and divisions. Despite, and in fact possibly as a result of, efforts to create horizontal decision-making spaces, the denial of difference allows informal hierarchies to develop and power to accumulate with few individuals. The eventual consequence can be fragmentation based on exclusionary politics—a dynamic that does not sit comfortably with the concept of solidarity and therefore reinforces the problem. 2. Literature Review 2.1. The Meaning of Solidarity (Economy) Solidarity is not a static or uniform term; it has been the subject of debate amongst scholars and activists in Greece over these years of crisis [15–19]. Viewed as a moral act, it must be enacted outside of the family, without the intent of personal gain or profit, nor with the embedding of exclusionary practices such as soup kitchens run exclusively for Greeks [4,16]. Arampatzi [15] differentiates between the building of mutual and reciprocal relations for long-term social empowerment and collective political struggle, with one-sided humanitarian or philanthropic transactions, which reproduce vertical forms of social hierarchies. In crisis