FOLIA GEOGRAPHICA

Menu

Folia Geographica 2025, 67/2, pp. ...

THE FUTURE OF PEASANTS: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY REVIEW OF CULTURE, SYSTEMS, AND MOVEMENTS

Marcos Sebastián KARLINA*

Received: May 22, 2025 | Revised: July 9, 2025 | Accepted: July 14, 2025
Paper No. 25-67/2-758

 
A National University of Córdoba, Department of Natural Resources, Argentina
https://orcid.org/000-0002-8642-4677
    mkarlin@agro.unc.edu.ar (corresponding author)

 

ONLINE FIRST

 

Abstract
Globalisation, climate change, and agricultural industrialisation, as part of a broader polycrisis, are increasingly influencing the future of the peasantry. Currently, de-peasantisation and rural ageing are realities in most countries. However, these social processes are not linear and, under specific contexts, re-peasantisation also occurs, modifying the peasant culture, systems and movements. This review aims to analyse these three dimensions of the peasant world, reflecting on the possible futures of the peasantry in a globalised world, subject to constant changes and pressures on the rural environment. Understanding peasant culture, systems, and movements provides critical insights into sustainable agriculture, resource sovereignty, and the resilience of rural livelihoods. This study explores how peasants actively forge their futures by looking into how they adopt diverse social reproduction strategies. Traditional narratives of the de-peasantisation process are analysed, identifying pathways to empowerment, resilience, and sustainable livelihoods, to understand the adaptation of peasants’ life systems as expressions of a metamodern sensitivity. The future of the peasantry lies in a delicate balance between tradition and innovation. The first plays a crucial role in protecting local knowledge gained through decades of trial and error; the second is essential to cope with the growing climate and economic uncertainties. Peasant systems can become important frameworks for adapting agricultural and pastoralist processes into a present and future fast-changing world. This review provides a multidisciplinary overview of social-environmental impacts on peasant socio-ecosystems by analysing territorial de-peasantisation, re-peasantisation, and rural ageing, exploring social, ecological, and ethical dimensions of peasant systems. Traditional ecological knowledge, coupled with agroecology and circular economy, may play a crucial role in the future, enhancing food sovereignty, rural sustainability, affecting agrarian change, and improving peasants’ systems of life.

 

Key words
Agroecology, circular economy, globalisation, metamodernism, polycrisis, social reproduction, traditional ecological knowledge.

 

REFERENCES

  1. ALTIERI, M.A., FUNES-MONZOTE, F.R., PETERSEN, P. (2012). Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32 (1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0065-6.
  2. ALTIERI, M.A., NICHOLLS, C.I. (2020). Agroecology and the emergence of post COVID-19 agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values, 37, 525-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10043-7.
  3. BARKIN, D. (2022). Shaping a communitarian ethos in an era of ecological crisis. Frontiers in Sustainability, 3, 944252. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.944252.
  4. BERNAL, D., GIRALDO, O.F., ROSSET, P.M., LÓPEZ-CORONA, O., PEREZ-CASSARINO, J. (2023). Campesino a Campesino (peasant to peasant) processes versus conventional extension: a comparative model to examine agroecological scaling. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 47(4), 520-547. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2023.2164882.
  5. BERGLUND, B.E., KITAGAWA, J., LAGERÅS, P., NAKAMURA K., SASAKI, N., YOSHINORI, Y. (2014). Traditional farming landscapes for sustainable living in Scandinavia and Japan: Global revival through the Satoyama Initiative. Ambio, 43, 559-578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0499-6.
  6. BORRAS JR., S. (2007). Pro-poor land reform: a critique. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
  7. CAMACHO, R.S., SOBREIRO FILHO, J., SOBREIRO, V.A., MARIANO, E.B. (2016). Evaluation of the relationship between education and sustainability in peasant movements: the experience of the national education program in agrarian reform. Evaluation and Program Planning, 54, 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.009.
  8. CHEN, N. (2023). Geographical articulations of rurality at the rural‐urban interface. Geography Compass, 17(9), e12721. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12721.
  9. CUNHA DE ARAUJO, G. (2020). Education and lifelong learning for young and adult peasants. European Journal of Training and Development, 45(6/7), 512-525. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-02-2020-0038.
  10. EDELMAN, M. (2022). From ‘populist moment’ to authoritarian era: challenges, dangers, possibilities. In Scoones, I., Edelman, M., Borras Jr., M., Forero, L.F., Hall, R., Wolford, W., White, B. (eds.). Authoritarian populism and the rural world. London, UK: Routledge, 465-491.
  11. ESBJÖRN-HARGENS, S., ZIMMERMAN, M. E. (2009). Integral ecology: Uniting multiple perspectives on the natural world. Boulder: Shambhala Publications.
  12. ESTEVA, G. (2010). From the bottom-up: new institutional arrangements in Latin America. Development, 53(1), 64-69. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2009.80.
  13. FERNÁNDEZ VELASCO, P. (2023). Entropy, prediction and the cultural ecosystem of human cognition: A challenge to the union of distributed cognition and predictive processing. Synthese, 201(3), 94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04089-3.
  14. FOERSTER, R.G., VERGARA, J.I. (2000). Los mapuches y la lucha por el reconocimiento en la sociedad chilena. In XII Congreso Internacional. Derecho consuetudinario y pluralismo legal: desafíos en el tercer milenio. Chillán, Chile: Centro de Estudios Miguel Enriquez, 191-206.
  15. FONTANA, L.B. (2014). Indigenous peoples vs. peasant unions: land conflicts and rural movements in plurinational Bolivia. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(3), 297-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.906404.
  16. GABORA, L. (2016). A possible role for entropy in creative cognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Electronic Conference on Entropy and its Applications, Sciforum Electronic Conference Series, 3: E001. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecea-3-E001.
  17. GASCÓN, J. (2023). Understanding agritourism: a Chayanovian analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 103: 103674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2023.103674.
  18. GRAIN. (2014). Hungry for land: Small farmers feed the world with less than a quarter of all farmland. Barcelona: GRAIN.org.
  19. GRAIN. (2015). Los proyectos REDD+ y cómo debilitan a la agricultura campesina y a las soluciones reales para enfrentar el cambio climático. Barcelona: GRAIN.org.
  20. GRANBERG, L., KOVÁCH, I., TOVEY, H. (2017). Europe’s Green Ring. New York: Taylor & Francis.
  21. HEIDE-OTTOSEN, S. (2015). The ageing of rural populations: evidence on older farmers in low and middle-income countries. London: HelpAge International.
  22. JANSEN, L., SUTHERLAND, R. (2022). The Khoikhoi community’s biocultural rights journey with Rooibos. In Girard, F., Hall, I., Frison, C. (Eds.) Biocultural rights, indigenous peoples and local communities. London: Routledge, pp. 221-240.
  23. JIMÉNEZ, M., PÉREZ-BELMONT, P., SCHEWENIUS, M., LERNER, A.M, MAZARI-HIRIART, M. (2020). Assessing the historical adaptive cycles of an urban social-ecological system and its potential future resilience: the case of Xochimilco, Mexico City. Regional Environmental Change, 20, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01587-9.
  24. KARLIN, M.S., RUIZ POSSE, E., CONTRERAS, A.M., COIRINI, R.O. (2014). Diversificación económica y diversidad ecológica en sistemas de uso múltiple de Salinas Grandes, Catamarca (Argentina). Multequina, 23(1): 5-15. http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/multeq/v23n1/v23n1a01.pdf.
  25. KARLIN, M.S. (2016). Ethnoecology, ecosemiosis and integral ecology in Salinas Grandes (Argentina). Etnobiología, 14(1), 23-38. https://revistaetnobiologia.mx/index.php/etno/article/view/150/149.
  26. KARLIN, M.S. (2024). Campesinos. Córdoba, Argentina: Ecoval Ediciones.
  27. KOVACS, E.K. (2019). Seeing subsidies like a farmer: emerging subsidy cultures in Hungary. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 48(2), 387-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2019.1657842.
  28. KREMEN, C., ILES, A., BACON, C. (2012). Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269193.
  29. KÜHNE, O. (2016). Urban/rural hybrids: The urbanisation of former suburbs (URFSURBS). Quaestiones Geographicae, 35(4), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1515/quageo-2016-0032.
  30. LA VÍA CAMPESINA. (2018). La Via Campesina in action for climate justice. Berlin: Henrich Böll Stiftung Volume 44.6. Publication Series Ecology.
  31. LAGERLÖF, S. (1908). Nils Holgerssons underbara resa genom Sverige. Stockholm: Albert Boniers Förlag.
  32. LIAROS, S. (2021). Circular food futures: what will they look like? Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(4), 1193-1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00082-5.
  33. LOWDER, S., SÁNCHEZ, M., BERTINI, R. (2021). Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated? World Development, 142, 105455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455.
  34. LUDWIG, D., POLISELI, L. (2018). Relating traditional and academic ecological knowledge: mechanistic and holistic epistemologies across cultures. Biology & Philosophy, 33, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-018-9655-x.
  35. MARAN, T. (2021). The ecosemiosphere is a grounded semiosphere. A Lotmanian conceptualization of cultural-ecological systems. Biosemiotics, 14(2), 519-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09428-w.
  36. MARCHETTI, L., CATTIVELLI, V., COCOZZA, C., SALBITANO, F., MARCHETTI, M. (2020). Beyond sustainability in food systems: Perspectives from agroecology and social innovation. Sustainability, 12(18), 7524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187524.
  37. MATLOVIČ, R., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. (2024). Polycrisis in the Anthropocene as a key research agenda for geography: ontological delineation and the shift to a postdisciplinary approach. Folia Geographica, 66(1), 5-33. https://www.foliageographica.sk/unipo/journals/2024-66-1/700/.
  38. MATLOVIČ, R., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. (2025). The metamodern shift in geographical thought: Oscillatory ontology and epistemology, post-disciplinary and post-paradigmatic perspectives. Folia Geographica, 67(1), 22-69. https://www.foliageographica.sk/unipo/journals/2025-67-1/737/.
  39. MCGEOCH, G.G. (2018). Marxismo, mística e o MST: qual é o segredo do MST na luta pela reforma agrária no Brasil? Debates do NER, 1(33), 174-196. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8136.88044.
  40. MCMICHAEL, P. (1997). Rethinking globalization: the agrarian question revisited. Review of International PoliticaI Economy, 4(4), 30-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672299708565786.
  41. MCMICHAEL, P. (2008). Peasants make their own history, but not just as they please… Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(2‐3), 205-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2008.00168.x.
  42. NATURAL JUSTICE, BERNE DECLARATION. (2010). Dirty Business for Clean Skin: Nestlé’s Rooibos Robbery in South Africa. Briefing paper. Retrieved from: https://www.cbd.int/abs/side-events/resumed-abs-9/id2114-berne-policy-brief.pdf. Accessed 23 February 2024.
  43. QUIST, D., CHAPELA, I. (2001). Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature, 414 (6863), 541-543. https://doi.org/10.1038/35107068.
  44. RICCIARDI, V., RAMANKUTTY, N., MEHRABI, Z., JARVIS, L., CHOOKOLINGO, B. (2018). How much of the world’s food do smallholders produce? Global Food Security, 17, 64-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002.
  45. RIGG, J., PHONGSIRI, M., PROMPHAKPING, B., SALAMANCA, A., SRIPUN, M. (2019). Who will tend the farm? Interrogating the ageing Asian farmer. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(2), 306-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2019.1572605.
  46. RITCHIE, H. (2021). Smallholders produce one-third of the world’s food, less than half of what many headlines claim. Oxford: Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/smallholder-food-production. Accessed 4 April 2025.
  47. ROTZ, S., FRASER, E.D. (2015). Resilience and the industrial food system: analyzing the impacts of agricultural industrialization on food system vulnerability. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5, 459-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0277-1.
  48. SANTIAGO-VERA, T., ROSSET, P.M., SALDIVAR, A., FERGUSON, B.G., MÉNDEZ, V.E. (2021). Re-conceptualizing and decolonizing resilience from a peasant perspective. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 45(10), 1422-1440. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2021.1952362.
  49. SCOONES, I. (2021). Pastoralists and peasants: perspectives on agrarian change. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 48(1), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1802249.
  50. SEGATO, R. (2005). Cambio religioso y desetnificación: la expansión evangélica en los Andes Centrales de Argentina. In Guerrero Jiménez, B. (Ed.). De indio a hermano. Pentecostalismo indígena en América Latina. Iquique: Editorial Campus, 171-229.
  51. SENKOWSKI, R. (2006). Concepto de metabolismo cultural para evitar la monocultura en el tren del monoglobalismo. Cuicuilco, 13(38), 225-245. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/351/35103812.pdf.
  52. SOPER, R. (2016). Local is not fair: indigenous peasant farmer preference for export markets.  Agriculture and Human Values, 33, 537-548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9620-0.
  53. SOPER, R. (2020). From protecting peasant livelihoods to essentializing peasant agriculture: problematic trends in food sovereignty discourse. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(2), 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2018.1543274.
  54. VAN DER PLOEG, J.D. (2021). The political economy of agroecology. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 48(2), 274-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1725489.
  55. WOOD, S.A., TIRFESSA, D., BAUDRON, F. (2018). Soil organic matter underlies crop nutritional quality and productivity in smallholder agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 266, 100-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.07.025.
  56. WORLD BANK GROUP. n.d. World Bank Open Data. [dataset]. World Bank. https://data.worldbank.org/. Accessed 7 June 2024.
  57. WHYTE, K.P. (2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: a philosophical study. Ecological Processes, 2, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-2-7.