Email this article 
(Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia)(2) Bambang Wahyu Nugroho
(Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia)(3) Rasya Raditya Hariana
(Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia)*corresponding author
AbstractThis article analyzes agroecological education in the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) as a political-ecological knowledge system that plays a role in the production of collective identity, ecological capacity, and the articulation of agrarian demands. Based on a literature review and analysis of secondary documents, this study uses a political ecology perspective to examine how the movement's education integrates three dimensions: (1) a critical curriculum that challenges narratives of agribusiness and technocratic modernization, (2) a praxis-based pedagogy grounded in fieldwork that combines empirical validation and intergenerational knowledge transmission, and (3) the formation of political-ecological subjects through rituals, cadre courses, and the internalization of collective values. The results show that the integration of these three dimensions enables MST schools to function not only as technical educational institutions, but also as arenas of political and ecological reproduction that strengthen the movement's position in contemporary agrarian conflicts. These findings support the argument that agroecology in the context of social movements is moving towards structural transformation, transcending technocratic co-optation, and contributing to the expansion of the discourse on food sovereignty and policy recognition. This research enriches the literature on political ecology and agrarian movements by positioning education as a strategic instrument in the production of counter-knowledge systems and collective organizing. Further implications include the relevance of education. KeywordsAgroecology; Agrarian Reform; Food Sovereignty; Knowledge Systems; Movement Education; Political Ecology
|
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.31604/jim.v10i4.2026.2409-2423 |
Article metrics10.31604/jim.v10i4.2026.2409-2423 Abstract views : 0 | PDF views : 0 |
Cite |
Full Text Download
|
References
Bakker, T., Dugué, P., & de Tourdonnet, S. (2021). Assessing the effects of Farmer Field Schools on farmers’ trajectories of change in practices. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 41(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00667-2
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Engelmann, S. (2023). Massification of Agroecology Becomes a Priority for the MST in the Coming Period. MST. https://www.mstbrazil.org/content/massification-agroecology-becomes-priority-mst-coming-period
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368
FAO TECA. (2022). Farmer Field Schools and agroecology: Tools for sustainable food and agricultural systems. FAO TECA. https://teca.apps.fao.org/en/technologies/10090/
Fiore, V., Borrello, M., Carlucci, D., Giannoccaro, G., Russo, S., Stempfle, S., & Roselli, L. (2024). The socio-economic issues of agroecology: a scoping review. Agricultural and Food Economics, 12(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-024-00311-z
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (11th ed.). Herder and Herder.
Giovanni, I. (2024). Education for Peace and Depeasantization. In Communication and Education (pp. 103–113). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119985280.ch7
Giraldo, O. F. (2025). The agroecological movement. A panoramic view. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 52(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2024.2318463
Giraldo, O. F., & Rosset, P. M. (2018). Agroecology as a territory in dispute: between institutionality and social movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(3), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1353496
Goris, M. B., Silva Lopes, I., Verschoor, G., Behagel, J., & Botelho, M. I. V. (2021). Popular education, youth and peasant agroecology in Brazil. Journal of Rural Studies, 87, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.08.003
Henderson, J. A., & Zarger, R. K. (2017). Toward political ecologies of environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(4), 285–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1336978
Holt-Giménez, E. (2009). From Food Crisis to Food Sovereignty: The Challenge of Social Movements. Monthly Review, 61(3), 142. https://doi.org/10.14452/MR-061-03-2009-07_11
Holt-Giménez, E. (2022, January 7). From Food Crisis to Food Sovereignty: The Challenge of Social Movements. Food First.
Mann, A. (2019). Education for food sovereignty as transformative ethical practice. Policy Futures in Education, 17(7), 862–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210318816251
Mdiya, L., Aliber, M., Mdoda, L., Van Niekerk, J., Swanepoel, J., & Ngarava, S. (2024). Empowering Resilience: The Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Smallholder Livestock Farmers’ Climate Change Perceptions in Raymond Local Municipality. Sustainability, 16(20), 8784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208784
Meek, D. (2015). Taking research with its roots: restructuring schools in the Brazilian landless workers’ movement upon the principles of a political ecology of education. Journal of Political Ecology, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.2458/v22i1.21116
Meek, D., Fernandes, B. M., & Coca, E. (2024). Agroecological education on contested ground: Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement and the politics of knowledge. Elem Sci Anth, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2024.00019
Melito, L., & Fernández, L. (2025). Brazil: Popular agrarian reform and the massification of agroecology are central proposals of the MST to the G20. La Via Campesina. https://viacampesina.org/en/2024/11/brazil-popular-agrarian-reform-and-the-massification-of-agroecology-are-central-proposals-of-the-mst-to-the-g20/
Minoia, P., Tapia, A., & Kaukonen Lindholm, R. E. (2024). Epistemic territories of kawsak sacha (living forest): cosmopolitics and cosmoeducation. Globalizations, 21(2), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2024.2308332
Naves, F., & Fontoura, Y. (2022). Critical consciousness and resistance: Freirean reflections on the agroecology movement formation in Araponga, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 20(2), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395120210081x
Occelli, M., Sellare, J., Sousa, K. De, Dell’Acqua, M., Mercado, L., Paredes, S., Robalino, J., Rosas, J. C., & van Etten, J. (2024). Group?based and citizen science on?farm variety selection approaches for bean growers in Central America. Agricultural Economics, 55(2), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12819
Osborne, T. (2017). Public Political Ecology: a community of praxis for Earth Stewardship. Journal of Political Ecology, 24, 844–860.
Rietveld, A. M., Guettou-Djurfeldt, N., Shijagurumayum, M., Gupta, S., Tristán, M., Chimonyo, V. G. P., Nehring, R., Murugani, V. G., Idoudi, Z., & Singh, S. (2025). Youth in relation to agroecology: practices, promises, and perceptions in five countries. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2025.2573791
Right Livelihood. (2025). Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais sem Terra (MST). Right Livelihood. https://rightlivelihood.org/the-change-makers/find-a-laureate/movimento-dos-trabalhadores-rurais-sem-terra-mst/
Sauer, S. (2018). Soy expansion into the agricultural frontiers of the Brazilian Amazon: The agribusiness economy and its social and environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy, 79, 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.030
Vittori, F. (2023). Agroecology and ecopedagogy: Pedagogical Contributions of the Landless Rural Workers’ Movement. Formazione & Insegnamento: European Journal of Research on Education and Teaching, 21(3), 115–124.
Walker, T. S. (2006). Participatory varietal selection, participatory plant breeding, and varietal change. World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/829781468778811451
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.