Die Sprechstunde im Wintersemester 19/20 findet dienstags von 12 – 14 Uhr in der Boltzmannstraße 1 (U-Bahn Freie Universität - Thielplatz) statt. Um einen Termin zu vereinbaren, wenden Sie sich bitte an Nicolas Goez (email@example.com). Bitte erwähnen Sie auch ihr Anliegen und fügen Sie die notwendigen Dokumente hinzu.
Hinweise für Studierende
Anfragen für die Betreuung von B.A.- oder M.A.-Arbeiten, Dissertationsprojekten (auch als Zweitgutachter) sowie die Erstellung von Empfehlungsschreiben für Bewerbungen um ein Stipendium oder Ähnliches können nicht per E-Mail gestellt werden.
Hierfür ist die Vereinbarung eines Sprechstundentermins obligatorisch, ebenso das Einreichen entsprechender Unterlagen an Nicolas Goez (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Spätestens eine Woche vor dem Besuch der Sprechstunde muss ein Exposé (1-2 Seiten) inkl. aktueller Kontaktdaten eingereicht werden.
Voraussetzung für ein erfolgversprechendes Gutachten ist, dass der/die Bewerber/in aus mindestens einer Lehrveranstaltung bekannt ist. Andernfalls kann leider kein Gutachten verfasst werden.
Außerdem müssen spätestens 4 Wochen vor Ende der Bewerbungsfrist folgende Unterlagen (falls vorhanden) inkl. aktueller Kontaktdaten eingereicht werden:
Transcript of Records, aktueller Lebenslauf, Arbeits- und Praktikumszeugnisse, Bescheinigung von Arbeitstätigkeiten, etc.
Spätestens eine Woche vor dem Besuch der Sprechstunde müssen folgende Unterlagen inkl. aktueller Kontaktdaten eingereicht werden:
Lebenslauf, Kopie Abschlusszeugnis, Kopie Abschlussarbeit sowie ein Exposé zum Dissertationsvorhaben.
Renata Motta is Adjunct Professor in Sociology at the Institute for Latin American Studies from the Freie Universität Berlin and Associated Researcher at desiguALdades.net. She holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the Freie Universität Berlin. Her teaching and research interests include political sociology, political economy, environmental sociology, social inequalities and gender. She has authored articles in these areas for Journal of Agrarian Change, Social Movement Studies, Sociology Compass, Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais. Her newest publication is the book "Social Mobilization, Global Capitalism and Struggles over Food: A Comparative Study of Social Movements" (Routledge, 2016).
Since 07/2018: Junior Professor (Assistant Professor) in Sociology, Institute for Latin American Studies, Freie Universität Berlin
2015-2018: Adjunct Professor in Sociology (Postdoc Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin), Institute for Latin American Studies, Freie Universität Berlin
33603 Kolloquium Forschungskolloquium Soziologie Lateinamerikas (mit Sergio Costa)
33820 Seminar Women in Movement in Latin America: Critical materialism, environmentalism and technofeminism (mit Marcela Suárez)
33951 Studienprojekt Monitorando a democracia e os direitos humanos no Brasil (mit Sergio Costa)
15353 Seminar Global and Regional Transformations: Contexts, Concepts, Interdependencies (mit Philipp Lepenies)
33870 Vorlesung Lateinamerika als Labor der Moderne (mit Bert Hoffmann)
33231 Seminar Global Sociologies: Decentring Sociological Theory (mit Sergio Costa)
33603 Kolloquium Forschungscolloquium Soziologie Lateinamerikas (mit Sergio Costa)
30214 Hauptseminar Machtwechsel und Umverteilungskonflikte in Brasilien (mit Sergio Costa)
33603 Kolloquium Forschungskolloquium Soziologie
33862 Hauptseminar Del ecofeminismo hacia las políticas del cuerpo: debates teóricos y estudios de caso (mit Martha Zapata Galindo)
30208 Hauptseminar Global Sociologies Environment, Gender and Southern Theory
33950 E-Learning Wissenschaftspraxis I (mit Barbara Fritz, Robert Lüdtke, Antonio Carbone)
On maternity leave
Global and Regional Transformations: Theories, Trends, Interdependencies (mit Sergio Costa)
Soziale Ungleichheiten und die Weltregionen: Theorien und Diagnosen ( mit Sergio Costa/Barbara Fritz)
Neue Perspektiven auf soziale Bewegungen in Lateinamerika (mit Marius Haberland)
Political Sociology, Political Economy, Environmental Sociology, Rural Sociology, Social Inequalities, Social Theory, Social Movements, Latin American Studies, Brazilian Studies, Gender Studies, Comparative Sociology, Food and Commodity Studies.
The junior research group Food for Justice examines normative questions of inequalities and justice, rights and democracy that arise in disputes surrounding the question “how are we going to feed the world?” There is a growing politicisation of the production, distribution and consumption of food, because food relations are structured by economic, social, political, cultural and environmental inequalities. Increasingly, citizens perceive the global food system as part of the historical causes of the ecological crisis and the persisting hunger in the world. Although reasons for that are long known (the use of food for profit, the gap between production and consumption, conflicts over land and water, exploitative labour relations, the energy matrix and waste generation), research on food security and bioeconomy tend to rely on the same, searching for technological fixes to a profit-oriented model exploiting living matter.
What is needed to deepen the debate is more knowledge about which food system citizens desire, which solutions are already there that address social concerns and how to redirect public policies towards a fair and sustainable food system. Combining theoretical perspectives on global inequalities with social movement research on food justice, Food for Justice will look at challenges and solutions both in Europe (with focus on Germany) and in Latin America (focusing on Brazil). On the one hand, major normative challenges will be identified in case studies of social mobilisation and critical consumption over food. On the other hand, the research will map and analyse social and political innovations such as agroecology and alternative food networks, as devised by civil society groups and public policies to achieve food security. In short, Food for Justice is about achieving global food security in a fair and ecological way. It looks into social mobilization targeted at injustices in the food system and into social and political innovations that address inequalities undermining food security such as class, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality.
Bridging Environments: United by Food?
Support by: Margherita-von-Brentano-Zentrum, FU Berlin
Under which conditions does ‘bridging’ occur between the countryside and the urban centers in conflicts over socio-environmental inequalities related to food production relations? What prevents it from happening? There is a significant gap in the literature in political sociology on processes of ‘bridging’ and ‘brokerage’ across sites where problems arise and are addressed, from the local to global scales. When these processes are addressed in the literature, an intersectional analysis is missing. Often, women are attributed a leading role in grassroots mobilization whereas global agents and brokers are mostly associated with dominant masculinities. I address three aspects of the research problem. The first is the different categories of actors along lines of social class, gender and ethnicity who participate in interconnected struggles. The second is the multiple scales in which linkages between rural and urban sites take place, in the context of global food chains, ranging from processes at the local level, to those that reach the national political agenda and cross national borders. The third is the influence of different themes that make bridging either possible or unlikely to happen, including how the different materialities of nature intersect with social mobilizations.
Following from the theoretical understanding that bridging conflicts depends on concrete actions from social actors while being challenged by disconnections that exclude places and actors from global chains, I will conduct extended case studies of successful wide coalition-builiding, namely, Wir haben es satt (Germany) and Marcha das Margaridas (Brazil).
Brazil and Argentina are the second and the third largest producers respectively of genetically modified (GM) crops. The ten-year lag between the conversion of the majority of soy fields to GM soy in Argentina (1999) and Brazil (2009) relates to differences in social mobilization. By examining explanations for these different paths, the research addresses the conditions in which challengers from social movements changed the official pro-GMO policy and the conditions that prevented it happening. This situates the research in a wider problematic of the conditions for social participation in the trajectory of agrarian change. The research enquires not only into the role of national political contexts but also contextualizes these in relation to global agrarian capitalism. The theoretical framework establishes a dialogue between political economy and political sociology, mediated by a focus on social movements’ theory. It includes structural and actor-centred explanations, material and cultural dimensions, and a dialogue between social movement research and peasant studies. The analytical factors were placed in relation to one another in order to explain paths of social disputes over GMOs, classified in two ideal types of outcomes: a situation of hegemony or of controversy.
The study draws on methods of macro-analytical qualitative comparisons, adopting a research design of “most similar, different outcomes” while adding a time dimension to explain changes in the trajectories. The main data consists of 28 in-depth interviews with key activists during the years 2012 and 2013. The core of the empirical work is the reconstruction of almost two decades of social mobilization over GM crops. Based on that, the research provides key explanations for each outcome by identifying three main analytical factors: organizational bases and networks, contentious meanings, and structure of political opportunities. These are articulated in an explanatory model: early social mobilization – with mobilizing structures and contentious meanings – is a necessary condition to participate in the shaping of policy; but it is not sufficient as it depends on a third condition, namely, a favourable structure of political opportunities. The latter is influenced, in turn, by the national political economy and the structural location of these countries in global commodity chains (GCCs). Activists in producer nodes face harder challenges as commodities are important sources of private and state revenues. The agrarian poor bear the global socio-environmental burden of GCCs, resulting in their social mobilization if mobilizing structures and meanings are given. Finally, the perception that the locus of decision-making lies in national politics facilitates mobilization, while the perception that politics is manly determined by global market dynamics is demobilizing.
The thesis argues that the transformation of Argentina and Brazil into top world producers of GM crops cannot be explained by biotechnology performance but by political struggles, in which social movements and the rural poor were silenced, ignored, or demobilized by a network of actors in favour of GMOs. The argument highlights the relevance of studying political struggles over GMOs at least for two reasons, one empirical and one theoretical. Firstly, unravelling the complex history of the domination of GMOs in two countries that are propagated as breadbaskets of the world is informative to the wider global debate on agrarian futures and food security. Secondly, the issue of GMOs is also illustrative of contemporary challenges of how social mobilization and rights claims can counter systemic imperatives of global capitalism and political interests.