AGROECOLOGICAL FAIR AS A DIFFERENTIAL SPACE: AN EXPRESSION OF RESISTANCE

Objective: From the perspective of agroecology, this study analyzes the arts of making as constituents of the fractures through which the agroecological fair emerges as a differential space. Theoretical Framework: It is argued that such a fair emerges in the abstract space due to the fracture caused in it by the incorporation of differences about the agroecological way of life, as a form of resistance to the logic of accumulation. The ways of being and existing others, materialized in the space of the agroecological fair, allow us to recognize it as an expression of dialectical resistance to the forces of homogenization. Method: This research was developed through an ethnography, in the period from 2022 to 2023, from the experience in 4 agroecological fairs, in which the corpus was built through narrative interviews carried out with 25 actors. And the data were organized according to the assumptions of Riessman (1993, 2008), using thematic narrative analysis. Results and Discussion: The findings reveal that the arts of making that mark the existence of the fair resist the logic of hegemonic production and consumption, opening fissures in the urban way of life, in front of which it emerges as a differential space. By resisting, the actors use their arts of making to establish their relational networks and thus produce spaces for valuing and rescuing individual and/or collective trajectories. Research Implications, Originality and Value: The contribution to the field of Organizational Studies lies in the theoretical debate elaborated in the periphery of academic studies, in which the arts of doing are formed by the knowledge of workers often ignored by the narratives of Administration.


INTRODUCTION
In the daily life of the city, capitalism's capacity to produce increasingly homogeneous, fragmented and hierarchical spaces (Lefebvre, 2002), awakens the emergence of forms of resistance constructed by social movements, as alternatives to the organization by and for consumption (Naves & Reis, 2017).By entering the field of the arts of doing, of the popular, of the invisible things of the people that, in some way, resist the system of the globalized world (De Certeau, 2014), we seek to analyze the arts of doing as constituents of the fractures through which the agroecological fair emerges as a differentiating space.
Constituting itself as a space of resistance to the logic of restriction that dominates city spaces and their subjectivities, the agroecological fair incorporates differences into the discussion about the agroecological way of life, as an expression of resistance to the logic of accumulation.The act of resisting is understood, here, as a way of being in the world, which deviates as it encounters forces that are greater than them; bend, but not allow yourself to be completely subdued; bending in such a way that the lines of force do not impose themselves, moving to create lines of flight, occupying other places (Deleuze & Guattari, 1995).
Conceiving the agroecological fair as a space of difference can represent an alternative vision to that of the majority markets, evoking knowledge constituted, updated and consolidated in everyday life, the agroecological logic.Under the understanding of arts of doing, the fair features practices recognized by the collective that represent resistance against a hegemonic model of social relations based on its own ethos of production and consumption that combines conceptions of the world based on values of good food, universality , genuine knowledge passed down from generation to generation and artisanal character (Beraldo, Sunica & Melo, 2018).
When entering this area of discussion, the theorization of the aforementioned everyday life enters the literature of Lefebvre and De Certeau, authors who explore the theme in the face of the transformations of modernity.While Lefebvre focuses on the study of everyday life in spaces that also limit it, De Certeau focuses on the discursive practices that determine the parameters of everyday life, proposing to recover it in the face of everyday activities that constitute the making of life.agroecological fair, given its tactical nature.For both De Certeau (1984) and Lefebvre (1996), a rethinking of the city is necessary to subvert the totalizing vision of scientific city planning.
In this work, the fair is understood in the context of agroecological movements as a catalyst for democratic relations between the consumer experience and the dynamics of food production and marketing.It is an enactment of alternative ways of being and existing that meet, clash and struggle with the highly asymmetrical dynamics of commercial, social and personal interaction in the business world, which Lefebvre (1991) identifies as a continuum between work , leisure and social alienation.
The aim is to provide theoretical contributions when discussing the arts of doing present in everyday city life, covering the activities carried out by ordinary men by expanding the formulations of the actors who participate in them.This study meets the proposals of Alcadipani et al. (2012), Oliveira and Cavedon (2013), Barros and Carrieri (2015), Naves and Reis (2017), Carrieri et al. (2018), Teixeira and Silva (2020), Santos andDos Santos (2021), Lunardon (2023) and Martins, Corrêa and Carrieri (2023), promoting discussions that go beyond the functional-rationalist perspective.In the following lines, Lefebvre's theoretical basis on the production of differential spaces is presented; following from De Certeau's arts of making; description of the methodological path; Next, analyzes are made about the agroecological fair as a differentiating space; and finally, the conclusions of the study will be presented.

THEORETICAL REFERENCE
2.1 THE PRODUCTION OF DIFFERENTIAL SPACE Lefebvre (1991) appropriates Marx's epistemological assumptions to connect the field of physical (nature and cosmos), mental (logic and formal abstraction) and social space, in order to overcome the distance that separates the ideal space (of mental, logical-mathematical categories) of real space (of social practice).As a historical product, space is specific to each society, it is the place where production relations are reproduced, based on a set of social relationsalways dynamicthat are established in a materiality (Lefebvre, 1991).
By shedding light on the micro spaces constructed by "ordinary men" in their daily lives, in their relationships with other beings, Lefebvre (1991) develops the concepts of abstract space and differential space.Abstract space is the space typical of capitalism, whose characteristics reflect and allow the reproduction of production relations typical of capitalism, whose most important characteristic is that of being the space of State power, which is based on authority over space (Lefebvre , 1991).Abstraction proposes that space be regulated by laws, codes, norms and written rules, making actors, users, ordinary men, have to adapt.Thus, what is experienced is suppressed, giving way to what is conceived.
However, the differences repressed by the abstract space and all its neglect of social issues and needs end up generating contradictions consolidated in the abstract space throughout history, especially those that were established through the capitalist mode of production (Lefebvre, 1991).Such externalities engender a new space where what is denied emerges, generated by the contradictions of abstract space, called by Lefebvre (1991) differential space.
Differences fracture the abstract space, creating differential spaces reflected in the urban that comes alive in a city, as the urban is nothing more than "a difference or above all a set of differences" (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 78), it is about whether from the "freedom to produce differences" (Lefebvre, 2002, p. 158).Thus, abstract space contains differential space within it, since the contradictions of the first generate the second.Differential space is, then, a space produced by differences, but mainly, for differences, it is the reductions, manipulations, functionalisms, pressures that raise and resurrect their opposite, that is, it is the abstract space that engenders the differential space (Lefebvre , 1991).

THE ARTS OF MAKING
The result of a configuration of daily practices, which are organized in the arts of doing (De Certeau, 2014), the differential spaces are recognized for hosting practices capable of generating connections between places, people and materials, setting up references of ethically reflective ways of life and guiding the micro-political actions of daily life (Mansano, 2018).
The arts of doing are recognized from the possibility of combining or evoking from their practitioners knowledge constituted, updated and consolidated in daily life (De Certeau, 2014).
They thus refer to what De Certeau (2014) calls a fundamental scheme that operates out of a discourse: it is a know-how that precedes enlightened science.
By conceiving the absolute of operativity in its purity, the arts of doing reveal themselves in the disparity between the treatment given to practices, which deals with doing, and the treatment given to speech, which is responsible for decoding the lies of saying (De Certeau, 2014).Every art has its speculation -"inoperative knowledge of the rules of art" -and its practice -"habitual and non-reflective use of the same rules" (De Certeau, 2014, p. 129).
Faced with a vanguard value, given by experimental and manual subtlety, the arts of doing reveal themselves in what is pure practice without theory, a reserve of knowledge, such as a logos hidden in the crafts (Certeau, 2014).This system of ways of doing "are the product of a traditional experience communicated by education, or of the personal experience of the individual" (De Certeau, 2014, p. 130), revealing itself in stigmatized doings, considered amateurish, unprofessional, impromptu and uncredible (Barros & Carrieri, 2015).Designing the arts of doing in the fair space requires a look from the wide network of actors, things and imaginaries of nature that are plotted in this experience (Cardoni, 2017).It is in this field that the fair, then, "finds a sense for its recurrence and effectiveness, in the practices of the ordinary subjects who invade it daily" (Silva, 2005, p. 69).2014), such consumer practices are the ways of operating or doing things that express the idea that using and consuming ordinary people are involved at the most basic level where life is lived in a doing that reveals itself in the ways of using the products imposed by a dominant economic order.It is a question of adapting strategies and tactics referring to the lexicon of practices that make up everyday life -walking, cooking, talking and so on -to recover autonomy from the ubiquitous forces of economy, politics and culture in general (De Certeau, 2014).
As in management, every strategic rationalization seeks first and foremost to distinguish the place from its own power and will.De Certeau's strategy (2014) deals with the establishment of a rupture between one appropriate place as its own and the other is accompanied by important effects.Tactics, on the other hand, are the art of the weak.The more power grows, the less it can enable part of its resources to be mobilized in the service of deceit: it is dangerous to mobilize great forces for the sake of appearances.Power is limited by its own visibility.The way in which a tactic, which is actually a form of sleight of hand, receives an order of surprise.
In short, strategy is a place technique and tactics is a space technique.
For Fiske (1989a, p. 32) "the powerful build 'places' where they can exercise their power -cities, shopping malls, schools, workplaces and homes -while the weak build their own spaces within those places, making them temporarily their own as they move through them, occupying them for as long as they need or have to".Tactics are the characteristic of everyday practice, so that by insinuating oneself in the place of the other in a silent way it becomes almost invisible (De Certeau, 1984).By not having a place to be, the tactic depends on the other, on time, watching opportunities and manipulating events (De Certeau, 1984).
Tactics, "like the arts of the weak" (De Certeau, 1984), are opportunistic and spontaneous, employed when an individual "lacks strong resources for endurance or autonomy".Strategies, on the other hand, are determined with the presence of a place of its own intended to serve as a "basis for the exercise of power and domination" (De Certeau, 1984).Buchanan (2000) emphasizes that the strategy works to limit the large number of variables that affect us, creating some kind of protected zone, a place in which the environment can become predictable if it is not adequately domesticated, while tactics are the approach one takes to everyday life when one is unable to take action against its variables.In other words, the tactic, referring to practices that the strategy has failed to tame, becomes visible in the lack of authority.According to Fiske (1989b), daily life contemplates the ability to uncover the

AGROECOLOGY
Agroecology is not limited to organic production systems, it involves, above all, another worldview, which presents different characteristics from the hegemonic production model.
Agroecology is directly linked to social movements, the peasant way of being and producing and resistance to the capitalist production model.
The assumptions of agroecology involve the availability of food from diversified ecological production, which values social, cultural, political and economic issues, in which natural cycles and the balance of agroecosystems with biodiversity are reproduced (Araújo, Amorim, & Santos, 2021 ;Mendonça, 2015).According to Leff (2004, p. 42), it is a set of knowledge, techniques and knowledge that incorporate ecological principles and cultural values into agricultural practices that, over time, were de-ecologized and deculturalized by the capitalization and technification of agriculture.Agroecology calls for a dialogue of knowledge and exchange of experiences; a hybridization of sciences and techniques, to enhance farmers' capabilities; to an interdisciplinarity, to articulate ecological and anthropological, economic and technological knowledge, which converge in the dynamics of agroecosystems.(Leff, 2004, p. 42) It is a means of redesigning agri-food systems, based on a set of configurations that seek to build man-nature relationships, taking the focus away from the industrialization of agriculture (Fao, 2015(Fao, , 2018)), criticizing intensive production, but also unsustainable and inadequate consumption patterns (Lamine & Dawson, 2018;Willett et al., 2019).This alternative mode of agriculture seeks to overcome the complications arising from environmental deterioration, social exclusion of family farmers and dependence on agricultural technologies introduced by the Green Revolution (Holt-Gimenez & Altieri, 2013;Norgaard, 1984;Rosset, Machin Sosa, Roque Jaime et al., 2011;Zagata, Uhnak, & Hrabák, 2021).That said, agroecological trade takes into account the off-season, production seasonality and local or regional variety, favoring local and cultural knowledge, especially for small producers (Wuerdes, 2007).

8
In this scope, the understanding of sustainability gains important dimensions within agroecology.It is about bringing to the concept the environmental knowledge that seeks to break with the reconstruction of "unitary logic, absolute truth, one-dimensional thinking, objective science, growth without limits, the technological domain of naturalization and the rational management of the environment" (Leff, 2004, p. 126).
By weaving a knowledge that is not closed in dogmas, that seeks totality and enables an understanding and new vision of the world, the notion of sustainability in agroecology constitutes: "a project of revision and reconstruction of the world through conceptual and political strategies that It comes from principles and foundations of environmental rationality that have been exiled and marginalized by the dominant paradigms of science (Leff, 1994, p. 19).
The agroecological movement is, therefore, in its essence, a resistance by proposing a paradigm that seeks the empowerment of social subjects to confront and break with the hegemonic model of production in the field of business, as it seeks to value the arts of make represented by a harmonious relationship with nature, produce and live in/from the countryside with purpose seeking self-consumption and social reproduction (Wizniewsky, 2006).
According to Cunha (2018, p. 56), "it is important to emphasize that the formation of agribusiness met the logic of submitting rural space to the needs of urban industrialism, indelibly transforming the relations between countryside and city".

METHODOLOGY
The research was developed through ethnography, from January 2022 to June 2023, based on experience at 4 fairs: Feira Ana Primavesi (Santa Maria-RS), Feira Menino Deus, Feira dos Agricultores Ecologistas and Bom-Fim (Porto Alegre-RS).The research corpus was constructed through narrative interviews carried out with 25 actors, including farmers who participate in agroecological fairs, members of CSAs (Communities that Sustain Agriculture), representatives of entities that maintained relations with the fair and leaders of agroecological movements, totaling 50 hours.Data collection also includes participant observation, involving 12 visits to producer properties, monitoring 50 fair days, 10 meetings and 4 events related to the fair and the theme of agroecology and involvement in CSAs.The data were organized following the assumptions defined by Riessman (1993Riessman ( , 2008)), using thematic analysis of narratives.

ARTS OF MAKING IN EVERYDAY ECOLOGICAL PRACTICE
Ecological practice is constituted by the relationship between ordinary men, here understood as farmer marketers, who appear in the space of the agroecological fair, who interact with other people and objects, in order to build a network of knowledge and practices that guide sustainable action.As an alternative to the mode of production based on the accumulation of capital, and which reverberates in the different dimensions of human life, the actors who perform the agroecological fair seek to create social, mental and natural environments that are capable of building an awareness in individuals about the ecology of the Social.It is about understanding the fair as a tactic of a place that belongs to the other, being, therefore, the characteristic of the daily practice of the agroecological fair.
In this scope, the agroecological movement acts as a tactic that transforms the fair into a place of struggle, because as the daily activities of the actors who produce the fair reflect a social change, the fair is constituted through confrontation and resistance to dominant forces of capital dynamics, in line with what is defended by Fiske (1989b).Lua's speech expresses this relationship: There was also an agroecology group at the university (...), which is such a historically reference group, (...) but it had a lot of historical involvement and when I entered graduate school I came in with this idea, of working with agribusiness, of selling poison, "I'm going to be a worker, I'm going to have a Hilux one day".Because where I came from I needed to be someone better than my father and mother (...), but then I arrived at university and started to look and not agree and think like, "there has to be a way of valuing the people like my father and mother, like people", and then I started looking for people who worked with this because I wanted something that was closer to me.So then I fell in with these guys from the agroecology group, (...) I began to see, I began to understand that there are ways of looking at family farmers, agroecological farmers, also as human beings, so I went to work with agroecology and then I got involved more with social movements and the political movement (...).The understanding of agribusiness as a factor that leaves rural areas empty and that also deconstructs the figure of those in the countryside, right, or that constructs the figure of the settler as something bad.(Moon, 2023) Strategies deal with the resistance that the establishment of a place offers against the passage of time, while tactics focus on the use of time, opportunities and power games.By making visible the practice that constitutes the common, the production of the fair space brings to light the clash between capital and the production of healthy food, leading to the connection 10 of groups of people through a deliberate practice, here understood as the sustainability of the real .It is a reconnection with the origins and history of agriculture, using the memories of ordinary actions, which guide its social construction, as everyday strategies: I always talk about the kitchen table, (...), a lot of the things we ate were produced by my grandfather and grandmother.The corn, the potatoes (...) and the meat itself (...).I grew up knowing the name of the animal I ate, (...) so that also helped me a lot in construction (...) with a lot of respect, knowing what meat is being served.We didn't buy meat, that was (...) when I was fourteen or fifteen years old that this happened.I even remember a scene when I went to the market and my friend said she was going to buy milk (...), she took it from the shelf and then I said to her, "huh, what do you mean by the milk on the shelf".I didn't know milk in a box outside the refrigerator and then that had a big impact on me, milk outside the refrigerator.My father was a rice farmer and grew soybeans, towards the end of his work, and my mother, she also worked a lot with agriculture at home, she had her own vegetable garden, but her mother had the famous bolinho.So a lot of people also went there, so I grew up like that, selling beans from I don't know who, who took them there, my grandfather had a rice mill, so we knew rice, "this rice from that person" (...).I grew up with these things, it's also part of my history, my construction.(Antônia, 2023) While in traditional agriculture the guiding principle is the accumulation of income, transforming agricultural products from foodstuffs into merchandise, agroecological-based agriculture is based on the assumption that its social function is to feed society.The pressure exerted on the ordinary man who lives in and from the countryside can be perceived by modernization (implementation of machinery, chemical fertilizers and pesticides) that seeks homogeneity in the mode of production, imposing a context of submission to capitalist agriculture.
Ordinary men represent people who maintain a relationship with the land anchored by subjectivities and, above all, with a material base that enables social reproduction through sustainable production and cultivation.By interacting with the natural environment, the resistance of the agroecological fair forges its struggles in favor of healthy eating and the rupture with the hegemonic model that imposes that ordinary men who live in/in the countryside decide about their lives, their production and their consumption.By mitigating ways of producing and living in the countryside based on the agroecological movement.
To access the essence of the discourse, it is necessary to get rid of the redundant that is based on the greening and romanticization of agriculture, as for many it is a basic way of life.
The emergence of ecology as a social practice suggests a kind of "mental ecology" that Guattari speaks of (and which I will describe later) and which may have been proposed by the construction of the agroecological fair.
The idea of holding and experiencing the fair is based on a place of confronting the ideal of production and consumption, based on a sustainable way of being that understands social dynamics based on experiences of ecological resistance.These are spaces that resist the commodification of agriculture, that is, the replacement of use value with exchange value.
The ecological practice of the actors who produce the fair space involves multiple aspects of individuals, their communities and the surrounding environment, appearing as protagonists in the fight for the right to socially reproduce their territories.
When contemplating the arts of making, the actors who produce the fair space are concerned with rescuing knowledge, experiences and awareness of an ecological social practice that oppose the idealistic visions of the city, as such visions fail to take into account the daily lives of made invisible by the global dynamics of the business world and its experience.It starts from the premise of recovering and reconstructing the interaction between the lived reality and the city, seeking the relevance of one to the other.

AGROECOLOGICAL FAIR AS A SPACE FOR DIFFERENCE
Reading the space of the agroecological fair in the light of Lefebvrian theory consists of understanding that the greater these differences, the more the urban is alive in a city, as this is nothing more than "a difference or above all a set of differences" (Lefebvre , 1991, p. 78).The "freedom to produce differences (to differ and invent what differs)" (Lefebvre, 2002, p. 158) can be observed in the speech of Lucídio, a stallholder for over 20 years at one of the oldest agroecological fairs in Porto Alegre -LOL: All of this is an exchange, (...) we go, plant, harvest (...), we go there and sell it to them.In the same way they come and they buy from us.In the same way they work, they earn money to be able to buy from us (...).It's an exchange, but it's an exchange for capital, which is what society has imposed on us.(...) In the past, in my father's time (...), they didn't produce wheat, they exchanged it for flour.But how did this get lost, because if you put it to the tip of your pen today, 2% of the population produces for 90 or so percent.There is no way to have this exchange.Hence (...) how capitalism was implemented in this way, it was the way it developed.(Lucídio, 2023) Throughout this "tension" lies, at the same time, alienation and the possibility of social emancipation, highlighting how certain socio-spatial configurations are capable of producing tools that can be recreated and resinified by social groups that oppose this form of relationship.with production.It is within this scope that the agroecological fair emerges as a produced space, responding and corresponding to the needs of those who built and use it, which is why it can only be conceived as an appropriate space.It is a natural space modified to serve the needs and possibilities of a group (Lefebvre, 1991).
While the open-air fair is guided by a marketing structure, configuring itself as a commercial complex, the agroecological fair is organized around a way of life that values nature, based on the exchange of knowledge and lived experiences, differentiating itself from guided spaces for market satisfaction (Dalla Nora & Dutra, 2015).It is a space of sociability, housing webs of shared meanings, extremely fluid and dynamic characteristics, as Fernanda's statement indicates: A space of welcome, a space of safety, a space where the barriers that farmers often face of prejudice, of lack of appreciation, of that feeling of not being able to hold your head up, you know, of being less than others, in that space this doesn `t happen.(...) there is a space where anyone is equal to anyone else.There is no difference, (...) we will all be equal (...).There are few spaces where a farmer can feel like a farmer and feel like a person.Because normally it is as if the farmer were not a human being, were not something else.(Fernanda, 2023) The fair finds in spatial practices, in sociability relations and in the knowledge that is constructed and established as a social characteristic, its particular aesthetics and ambience, which configure this lived space.Furthermore, as it gives new meaning to traditional administrative practice, knowledge specific to doing business emerges in the space of the agroecological fair.The actors who produce this space are differentiated by the way they do and live everyday life, based on the ecology of knowledge and experiences of a common practice that is organized in modes or ways of doing, as portrayed by Fernanda: much more than a simple space for selling food, which would be a supermarket, for example, (...) there is a much broader space.There is an energy there, which connects people and makes people equal to each other (...).This energy that we can connect with people, we can talk, (...) with anyone, from any sphere, from any profession, (...) this is what makes fairs such a different environment (...).Those who go there are because they believe in what is being proposed, because they believe in this force, this energy, this space that goes far beyond looking for their own food, that goes far beyond simply being there to sell (...).This strength, this energy that makes us able to continue fighting.(Fernanda, 2023) This dynamic supports the construction of a spatiality created by actors who relate to each other through commercialization, consumption and way of life (Madeira & Veloso, 2007;Lucena & Germano, 2017).These actors correspond to ordinary men who chart their own path, For Cuervo, Hamann and Pizzinato (2019), the agroecological fair, as nodes of sociability, reveals meeting points in which it is possible to find a sense of permanence, identities and dissent that anchor the sharing of information, knowledge, values and identifications, such as of the materiality of actions themselves.The arts of making are represented by issues that involve the relationship with production under a logic of land appreciation, resulting in ecological agriculture practices, the production of natural and organic inputs respecting nature and using it in favor of production, as Jacira's speech portrays: I always thought that we had to fight and improve people's lives (...).But we also need to take care of everything.Taking care of the environment, taking care of the energy that surrounds us, everything, the ecosystem, fauna, flora (...) means producing a healthy life so that we can self-sustain, sustainable agriculture, without needing to use any type of of poison, without harming nature, without harming us, without harming the air or anything (...), is to produce life.Healthy living means producing health.It is to guarantee health for our lives.(Jacira, 2023) By projecting themselves into spaces dominated by the logic of modernity and capitalism, the relationships that are engendered in the fair space reflect symbolic peculiarities (discursive and gestural) that allow interaction between social actors based on the assumption that these interrelations constitute the contribution on which the agroecological fair acquires social and sociological importance.By expressing dynamics of resistance, the agroecological fair allows us to understand discursive and material aspects of the production, trade, preparation and consumption system guided by agroecological logic.In this way, it is understood that the spaces constituting the agroecological fair are anchored by a unique cultural dynamic of dealing with products and people, which, due to the socio-spatial dynamics generated in this marketing environment, transforms it into a space of experiences and sociability.
By bringing together those who produce and those who consume, through short marketing circuits, the agroecological fair, as part of the agroecological movement, seeks to provide foodstuffs adapted to the environment in which it is located, the reality of local consumption, and eating habits (Costabeber & Moyano, 2000).

CONCLUSION
By presenting reflections that contribute to investigations that are interested in the construction of differentiating spaces, this study analyzes the arts of making as they constitute the fractures through which the agroecological fair emerges as a differentiating space.The agroecological fair emerges from sociability, establishing relationships of solidarity and cooperation that do not allow themselves to be dominated by the logic of capitalism, giving voice to an alternative hegemonic way of living and producing.
The path taken by the fair's actors is marked by a dynamic of daily practices, social relations constructed and reconstructed, so that the realization or construction of this space takes place through actions of exchange or negotiation between subjects in co-presence.From this perspective, the way of life that permeates the fair space is linked and oriented to life experiences, intertwined with local dynamics and broader discourses, supported by an imaginary of non-capitalist meanings in defense of the place and its cultures.
The city space of the fair, of ordinary men, here understood as organic and ecological farmers, describes the production of a contradictory space towards an attempt to resist modernity that governs space and life in accordance with the demands of capitalist industrialization.The arts of making sustain the resistance of the fair to a represented space, that is, a product of the institutional act of containing and ordering the daily experience and a representational space, which encompasses ideologies, practices and knowledge related to the ideal lived by these ordinary men.
When resisting, actors use their arts of doing to establish their relational networks and thus produce spaces for valuing and recovering individual and/or collective trajectories.The set of practical relationships modify the city space, creating a different space that, due to having been produced by the group's own needs, therefore turning the abstract space inside out.
Everyday and ordinary knowledge circulates between spatial practices at the agroecological fair, revealing themselves as arts of doing that constitute a social identity, fostering more stable or lasting relationships between distinct subjects, but with convergent social roles, with regard to the realization of their interests and/or trading and consumption needs.
The intention triggered here lies in broader issues, such as the possibility of transformation and resistance to capitalist logic in spaces where an alternative logic of organization can be established.It is about revealing the tactic of sustainable production as a practice produced and producing the agroecological fair, which goes beyond the conservation of natural resources, considering that this daily practice entangles several organizational 15 processes that occur concomitantly in nature and materialize in different time/space scales that lead them to resistance.
By conceiving the agroecological fair as a space of differences, it is believed that it is possible to broaden the understanding of issues that involve the very dynamics of organization of contemporary societies and processes of social resistance, in which actors articulate themselves to create their own conceptions, consolidating them or even reinventing them, as a fundamental part of understanding reality.It pays attention to the importance of investigating the daily lives of ordinary people, practitioners, recognizing the knowledge that is brought to life by practices that are not traditionally the subject of studies and research in the field of organizational studies.
___________________________________________________________________________ Rev. Gest.Soc.Ambient.| Miami | v.18.n.1 | p.1-18 | e07251 | 2024.6 De Certeau (2014) pays attention to the practices of ordinary people and the ways in which they use social representations and normative modes of social behavior.According to De Certeau ( ___________________________________________________________________________ Rev. Gest.Soc.Ambient.| Miami | v.18.n.1 | p.1-18 | e07251 | 2024.7 vestiges of the constant struggle between domination and subordination, leading to social change by the tactics of daily life that play a vital role in the construction of spaces of resistance.