strange to and different from the majority of society, and its semantic charge
implies a relationship of rejection and discrimination.
Another point related to the above is what we call the dual character of the
State; in this regard, we have examined situations like those indicated by Casillas:
‘‘The procurement of high rates of return, in the short term, in some agricultural
activities, by means of modern technologies that are unsuitable for the local
potential of the resources, has led to the salinization, alkalinization, and compaction of the soils. This has resulted in the loss of the soils’ productive capacities
and in turn, in many cases, the abandonment of the agricultural activities that had
previously been carried out there. Rural poverty and food insecurity, which prevail
in hundreds of marginalized rural communities, are unavoidable consequences of
this situation’’ (Casillas 2006, p. 259).
Along with this perception, we have also noted how the Government represents
itself as a strategy to overcome poverty. This is reflected in the 2013–2018
National Development Plan: ‘‘The countryside is a strategic sector, due to its
potential for poverty reduction and impact on regional development. Facing the
twenty-first century, the agricultural sector presents many opportunities that must
be strengthened. It is necessary to promote a strategy for the construction of the
new face of the countryside and the agri-food sector, with a focus on productivity,
profitability, and competitiveness, that is also inclusive and incorporates the
sustainable use of natural resources’’ (PND 2013, p. 82).
However, to the disappointment of the first perception, the second seems to open
possibilities for interventions other than those already known and tried; we have
observed that the tendency of national rural sector policy will follow the trajectory
of the past 20 years; ‘‘restructuring agro industry’s control over agriculture
and preparing the conditions for the strengthening of national food production’’
(Rubio 1999, p. 58). Thus, we can see that the Mexican countryside is today
deprived of its ability to reverse or at least mitigate the effects of poverty, and faces
unfair competition from international markets, especially the United States. Neoliberal Government policies are directed toward the agro-industrialization of the
countryside and therefore toward the generation of a mass of agricultural wage
workers stripped of their knowledge and practices related to the local use and
management of nature.
16.4 Towards the Construction of a Model
of Glocal Intervention
A long time ago my grandfather used to tell this story, and it is said that it is very
old, like time, and that it comes from a time on Earth before there were men like
us; there were only animals and God, but the difference is that the animals had
word and thought; they could speak, sing, and even become angry. In that era
there was a mouse who stole the corn that was kept in the loft of a God; it was easy
16 When Modernity is Not Enough
467
implies a relationship of rejection and discrimination.
Another point related to the above is what we call the dual character of the
State; in this regard, we have examined situations like those indicated by Casillas:
‘‘The procurement of high rates of return, in the short term, in some agricultural
activities, by means of modern technologies that are unsuitable for the local
potential of the resources, has led to the salinization, alkalinization, and compaction of the soils. This has resulted in the loss of the soils’ productive capacities
and in turn, in many cases, the abandonment of the agricultural activities that had
previously been carried out there. Rural poverty and food insecurity, which prevail
in hundreds of marginalized rural communities, are unavoidable consequences of
this situation’’ (Casillas 2006, p. 259).
Along with this perception, we have also noted how the Government represents
itself as a strategy to overcome poverty. This is reflected in the 2013–2018
National Development Plan: ‘‘The countryside is a strategic sector, due to its
potential for poverty reduction and impact on regional development. Facing the
twenty-first century, the agricultural sector presents many opportunities that must
be strengthened. It is necessary to promote a strategy for the construction of the
new face of the countryside and the agri-food sector, with a focus on productivity,
profitability, and competitiveness, that is also inclusive and incorporates the
sustainable use of natural resources’’ (PND 2013, p. 82).
However, to the disappointment of the first perception, the second seems to open
possibilities for interventions other than those already known and tried; we have
observed that the tendency of national rural sector policy will follow the trajectory
of the past 20 years; ‘‘restructuring agro industry’s control over agriculture
and preparing the conditions for the strengthening of national food production’’
(Rubio 1999, p. 58). Thus, we can see that the Mexican countryside is today
deprived of its ability to reverse or at least mitigate the effects of poverty, and faces
unfair competition from international markets, especially the United States. Neoliberal Government policies are directed toward the agro-industrialization of the
countryside and therefore toward the generation of a mass of agricultural wage
workers stripped of their knowledge and practices related to the local use and
management of nature.
16.4 Towards the Construction of a Model
of Glocal Intervention
A long time ago my grandfather used to tell this story, and it is said that it is very
old, like time, and that it comes from a time on Earth before there were men like
us; there were only animals and God, but the difference is that the animals had
word and thought; they could speak, sing, and even become angry. In that era
there was a mouse who stole the corn that was kept in the loft of a God; it was easy
16 When Modernity is Not Enough
467