A Superação do Desenvolvimento pelo Dinamismo do Envolvimento Rural
Discussions about countryside, urban-industrial or national State development, contains an ideological function incorporated tacitly aimed at sustaining the hegemonic domination of the central countries and the diffusion of their lifestyle to peripheral countries. The process of agricultural moderni...
Enregistré dans:
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Langue: | PT |
| Publié: |
Universidade Regional do Noroeste do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul
2013
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | https://doaj.org/article/c2cd628636c74d1b9920b3eab857288a |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| Résumé: | Discussions about countryside, urban-industrial or national State development, contains an ideological function incorporated tacitly aimed at sustaining the hegemonic domination of the central countries and the diffusion of their lifestyle to peripheral countries. The process of agricultural modernization, built in Brazil since the decade of 1960, resulted in the partial disarticulation of the household ways to do agriculture and all of their sociability, moral economy, cultural tradition and relationship with nature. Therefore, it was partially successful in (un)involve the countryside, disaggregating part of the peasant and household ways of life in exchange for the production of fewer goods made by business farmers. Researchers, who have followed this process and interpreted it, gave it the name of agricultural development. But after they find in 90 years that this model didn ́t brought advances and did regression to the countryside and the cities, they began to theorize from new approaches and on other actors, thus forming what is called rural development. However, even with the fresh look for recognition of the role of household and peasant forms to make agriculture and by the appreciation of the rural diversity, the myth of development still permeates the debates. In this sense, this paper seeks to show that it is more appropriate to analyze the new rurality with the concept “rural involvement” instead of maintaining the inappropriate term “development”. |
|---|