Strange Bedfellows: Contentious Coalitions and the Politics of GM Wheat *

By Magnan, Andre | The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, August 2007 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Strange Bedfellows: Contentious Coalitions and the Politics of GM Wheat *


Magnan, Andre, The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology


IN MAY 2004, BIOTECH FIRM MONSANTO suffered a major defeat in the public relations battle over genetically modified (GM) crops in Canada. Under pressure from a coalition of diverse farmer and social movement organizations, the biotech giant withdrew its plans to introduce GM wheat to the Canadian prairies. How was this coalition, described by friends and foes alike as a case of 'strange bedfellows', able to mount a coherent opposition to GM wheat? In part it depended on the coalition's successful "framing" of the controversy. While framing--the strategic meaning-making dimension of oppositional politics--has become a core concept in the sociology of social movements (Benford and Snow, 2000), processes of coalition framing are complex and as yet only poorly understood (Croteau and Hicks, 2003).

In this article, I examine the coalition opposing GM wheat as an instance of contentious coalition politics. The coalition opposing GM wheat forged an unlikely alliance between environmental and civic organizations, farm and rural lobby groups and the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), cutting across social divides including urban/rural, social movement/mainstream, and environmentalist/farmer. Nevertheless, coalition participants claimed strength in their unity and diversity. This example therefore offers analytically rich terrain for understanding under what conditions diverse social actors can construct a common political project. In coalitions, successfully assembling collective frames involves a two-level process of aligning organizational frames with coalition frames, and aligning organizational frames with core constituencies (Croteau and Hicks, 2003). In this coalition, the challenge was to reconcile sharply differing ways in which individual organizations approach contentious issues of biotechnology, the environment and farm politics. Individual organizations, in turn, had to mediate between the benefits of coalition work, namely the added legitimacy of working in concert with diverse allies, and the risk of alienating members.

Understanding the processes of cooperation and conflict through which diverse coalitions assemble common frames helps address two theoretical issues. First, it provides new insights about the conditions under which coalition politics succeeds in achieving its immediate goals. Second, it helps suggest under which circumstances coalition work can prefigure more durable political alliances, a process linked to the potential for coalition work to transform participants in ways that mediate political differences. From a neo-Gramscian problematic that acknowledges structural and discursive, as well as strategic and transformative dimensions of oppositional politics (Carroll and Ratner, 1994; Carroll, 1997), cooperation and conflict between groups speak to the possibility for a counter-hegemonic politics of agrofood relations.

On the substantive level, this coalition's success in challenging Monsanto raises important questions about the future of political struggles over biotechnology in Canada. The involvement of wide-ranging civic organizations, farmers' groups and environmental movements could signal a renewed democratic and popular impulse to controversies over new biotechnologies. By documenting the shifting landscape of agrofood politics, this case therefore contributes to studies of Canadian political economy and social movements, including environmental and agrarian movements.

Theory

A Gramscian Approach to Contemporary Social Movements

Carroll (1997) has argued that, among competing theories meant to account for the origins and dynamics of today's social movements, a neo-Gramscian approach is best able to bridge several theoretical, analytical and political divides. In particular, it retains a concern for the enabling and constraining effects of political-economic context, while also paying attention to issues of discourse and strategy among social movement actors.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Strange Bedfellows: Contentious Coalitions and the Politics of GM Wheat *
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?