Introduction

Climate change impacts more frequently on extreme events of temperature and rainfall that translate into more frequent droughts and floods and, at the same time, affect directly the food system, reducing the availability of foods and increasing the inequality in access for disadvantaged sectors of the population; if we add to this socioeconomic variables of risk management in access ways and facilities, we would obtain an effect that is more related to the economic strata and native groups (^{The global food and security programme, 2015}).

Risks in face of climate change happen because of the interaction of three factors: threat, vulnerability and exposure of people or ecosystems; the threat includes a range, from brief processes such as intense storms to slow trends such as prolonged droughts or an increase of the sea level, while vulnerability and exposure are sensitive to a broad range of social and economic processes that may have increases or decreases, depending on the way of access to development (^{IPCC, 2014}).

From agroecology, the concept of resilience was associated to climate change. First, from agroecosystems, as an attribute that is in function of the level of diversity and organic matter in the soil. Currently, it is a broader vision; resilience is the ability of the system to absorb disturbances or the promptness to recover from climate disturbances, and when applying the term, social resilience is created as an ability of the communities to maintain the social structure in face of external shocks (^{Altieri et al., 2014}).

^{Norris et al. (2008)} state that there are two important properties of the definition of resilience in the literature: 1. Resilience is best conceptualized as an ability or processes rather than as a product; 2. Resilience is best conceptualized as adaptation rather than as stability.

Resilience has at least three forms of expression recognized by several authors; first, as the capacity to react efficiently to a given event. Second, it is also accepted as the ability to recover quickly from the event; and in a third sense, resilience is assumed when the vital or structural functions are maintained despite facing an event (^{Morecroft et al., 2012}).

The recent actions in Latin America of adaptation to climate change include agreements of conservation and community management of natural areas, in addition to having resilient crop varieties, climate predictions, and water management (^{IPCC, 2014}).

However, attention should be given to the study of resilience at the level of national and international organizations, especially to the economic and political context (^{Blesh & Wittman, 2015}).

During the search for publications on resilience that are available to social organizations and field technicians, it was found that the concept as such has been revised widely from different angles and levels of depth, as shown, for example, by ^{Matzenberger (2013)}, ^{Rutter (2006)} and ^{Folke et al. (2010)}. Other recent works are the compilations made by institutions or people interested in communicating research results or positions regarding themes related to individual, family or collective resilience.

Therefore, the cause for this review was to advance in how to participate and modify our epistemological position in the development of alternatives to improve the resilience of the agricultural, peasant and indigenous sector in a horizontal and collective way, assuming that systems are complex and diverse.

The purpose of this article is to analyze different approaches of the concept of resilience in publications that review cases and experiences, to explore what effect the proposals may have and what is the role of peasant and indigenous organizations.

During this time when a de facto effort is needed to reach the commitments agreed upon in the measures to mitigate climate change (^{UNEP, 2015}), it is relevant to draw attention to the level of proposal of social organizations in this regard, as well as to compare them with institutional publications in an attempt to group them.

Method

A total of twelve studies on resilience were selected that are related to extreme events caused by climate change, of which four are a compilation, two opinion, two revision, one debate and three conceptual.

Next, a small description is presented of the texts selected. The compilation by ^{Cárdenas (2010)}, despite not considering the term resilience, was selected because it presents studies performed in Mexico and provides data in many aspects of climate change and opinions from the viewpoint of the duty of institutions related with the theme. The compilation by ^{Altieri and Nicholls (2013)} has studies by authors recognized in academia in the area of agroecology. In ^{Andrade et al. (2010)}, there are works about the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of a strategy of adaptation to the effects of climate change. ^{Del Villar et al. (2011)} are devoted to the theme of Mexico’s legal preparation in matters of climate change. Among those of opinion, the one by ^{Grain (2011)} is a criticism of agroindustry. ^{Smith and Vivekananda (2009)} are devoted to understanding and proposing how the Third World is adapted to climate change, with themes like migration and governance. ^{Claeys and Delgado (2015)} analyze the trajectory of social movements from 2007 to 2015 concerning the process of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); for example, the criticism to initiatives of the mechanism “Reduction of Emissions from Forest Deforestation and Degradation” (Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación de los Bosques, REDD+) explores the challenges in relation to the global climate policies of the future. Biodiversity, sustenance and cultures et al. (2010) propose an analysis of the 15^th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP15), where the peasant way and the ecological action seeds group participate, among others.

The form of analysis was through categories (approach of the text, social component, hegemonic discourse and role of peasant and indigenous organizations).

The relevance of the subject, of the direction towards which knowledge is moving, and how we can approach the way social transformation should take place to reduce the damaging effects of climate change from epistemology, are highlighted in the discussion of results.

Results and Discussion

The results found show that all publications include a social component; in the case of the compilations it applies for some of the authors. Regarding the hegemonic discourse, we have that four can be considered within it; two conceptual studies are positioned in such a way that they may be used in both discourses and for this reason they were considered as not applicable (NA) (Table 1).

Concerning the role of peasant and indigenous organizations, five categories were identified. Only in the case of ^{Smith and Vivekananda (2009)}, a role is not identified; instead, the authors are careful not to specify in their approach a clear role for the organizations mentioned. The first role in Table 1 is: receptors; in this case the studies by ^{Cárdenas (2010)} and ^{Del Villar Arias et al. (2011)}, where the inclusion of the social component from a hegemonic discourse makes peasant and indigenous organizations become the ones where knowledge and instruction are deposited, which flow from legality, public policies, scientific knowledge, and originate from the ruling institutions in Mexico in charge of these cases.

A second role found is: subjects. Here, ^{Altieri and Nicholls (2013)} and ^{GRAIN (2011)} are found, where organizations are the ones that carry out activities, share knowledge and exercise a will to act and decide. In the review by ^{Claeys and Delgado (2015)}, the role of indigenous and peasant organizations goes further; they are main actors because there is talk of their contribution in the debate about climate change, in contrast with the compilation by ^{Andrade Pérez et al. (2010)}, because although they include some social aspects, the peasant and indigenous organizations are not made visible. Finally, in the role of leaders, in the work of Biodiversity, Sustenance and Cultures, the organizations are authors; they make the analysis, criticism and proposals for treatment that is currently given to climate change.

According to this, the publications that reach for dialogue and those that consider they are the owners of knowledge to share or apply can be made visible. In an attempt to generalize in this search for literature which was performed, they remain as follows: five authors seek for analysis, horizontal dialogue, being actors and authors, while the other five attempt to instruct and follow scientificism and vertical discourse of possession of knowledge. This result can be seen as a conquest of 50 % of the communication spaces from peasant and indigenous organizations. However, it is still true that half of the publications end up at the service of hegemonic thinking, in the sense that the verticality of the ruling world economic structure does not facilitate dialogue, given that it fosters social distancing (^{Freire, 2001}).

Therefore, the source of knowledge is clear, but: Where is it going to? What knowledge is directed towards transformation? In which search for resilience is the source that promotes safety and protection included in the model of individualism and consumerism of the dominating discourse?

Recovering the thinking subject from all its faculties is the challenge. The process of change in Latin American societies has immediate repercussions and implications in the longer term. The trend of peasants in some countries, by differentiating and organizing as a specific sector of social interests, is manifested in the emergence of strong political-social movements, since they have exerted influence on their respective societies (^{Quijano, 2010}). The same could be said of indigenous and peasant organizations in the continent with their re-emergence as subjects, as can be seen in ^{Esteva (1997)} with the Zapatista ¡Ya basta!, and in ^{Rivera Cusicanqui (2010)} with a historical recount of Qhechwa and Aymara peasant struggles.

The effect of the possibility of being actors and authors in publications against climate change potentiates their ability to express themselves, for example, in the criticism to concepts such as adaptation to climate change and vulnerability.

The most important epistemic function of historical awareness is to denounce the trend to ontologize the dominating discourses (^{Zemelman, 2002}). Therefore, we must ask ourselves if the concepts that are available are at the level or not of our current challenges, if they continue being adequate instruments for our reality, or if on the contrary they have not become stagnant mental contents that prevent us from developing critical and creative thought (^{Fornet-Betancourt, 1994}). The disciplinary objects cannot account for the complex and dynamic relation where that relationship made up by the necessity to be subject-need in the world, necessity of the world-need to be subject, is expressed (^{Zemelman, 2002}).

When the peasants and indigenous people, historical subjects, subjects situated in time that have a vision of totality and an organization of their own (^{Houtart, 2006}), create spaces that exceed the imposed and self-imposed limits, it means that they are confronting the indefinite, giving place to questions about how it is possible to organize the intelligible. The construction of knowledge takes into account approaching the organization of thought from what has not been captured conceptually (^{Zemelman, 2002}).

A good start would be to reformulate deeply the language of science. A transformation that seeks, as ^{Zemelman (2002:112)} says: “turning knowledge into awareness and awareness into the need for knowledge”. Thus, the space won over in the diffusion of peasant and indigenous organizations as actors and, better yet, as authors, is an important step to influence in the raising of awareness, with a position that comes from the will to understand. We need to place objectivity in a parenthesis to point to the observer (^{Matzenbeger, 2013}). The one observing and the place from which he is observing are important.

When there is not a way of knowledge that dominates another, it can be built collectively from historical experiences, understandings and diverse worldviews (^{McCune et al., 2017}). An open dialogue, critical spirit and deep dialogue (^{Najmanovich, 2008}) are mechanisms that approach, move and are moved, which have a greater possibility of raising awareness to transform socially; not just resisting or recovering from the battering from climate change.

Conclusions

The local, ancestral and proactive knowledge must be highlighted at this point when it is urgent to comply with the reductions of carbon dioxide emissions to alleviate the effects of global warming on the planet; with the participation of peasant and indigenous organizations in the social dynamics of the construction of knowledge for a non-hegemonic paradigm; through the recovery of the historical subject, as in this case, where positions as actor and author are taken up again that foster the raising of awareness through publications in the subject of resilience.

We are at a stage of making visible the postures that come from indigenous and peasant organizations, as subjects. The importance of this historical moment is the possibility of taking real actions for mitigation of climate change by these subjects, who are heard and as a whole take spaces that were previously denied.