Could the Environment Acquire its Own Discourse?

To understand the changing patterns within agriculture, it is important to look not only at social relations and organisational configurations. Also salient to such an analysis is an examination of how those formations give shape to nonhumans. Much attention has been placed recently on the political economy of agriculture when speaking of these emergent patterns. Yet in doing this, the natural environment is all too often relegated to the backdrop; where the agroeconomy is viewed as something that manoeuvres within the environment but never through it. The conceptual groundwork for this paper draws from two often unconnected scholars: Michel Foucault and Fernand Braudel. In Foucault, we find a framework, with a little conceptual development, through which to talk about how the economy (of both discipline and capital) enters into nature. Specifically, the argument is made that through the embodiment of discipline, nature too becomes disciplined. Yet in Foucault we find a discursive conception of socio-economic history; where capitalism is discussed, but always as an effect of the discursive structures of power/knowledge. Enter the work of Braudel, to provide us with a materialist counterweight to Foucaultʼs theorising. In Braudel, we find a detailed analysis on the emergence of capitalism, out of which then comes his distinction between markets and anti-markets. In short, when both accounts of history are overlaid, interesting connections between the emergence of Braudelian anti-markets and Foucaultian discipline are revealed. Two brief case studies are then examined to add further depth to the discussion: the first focusing on corn; the second centring on the cow. The paper then concludes speaking on the issue of resistance.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Disciplining Nature: The Homogenising and Constraining Forces of Anti-Markets on the Food System

Carolan¹

2005

“…That is, what cannot be properly referred to with suitable language may not be identified as an issue, or may misguide the course of actions. Extended work by others points at the relevance of discourse in the building of a perspective (Ayers 2005, Burke 1968, 1973cited in Herndl and Brown 1996, Teymur 1982, Herndl and Brown 1996, Myerson and Rydin 1996, Darier 1999, Harré et al 1999, Brulle 1996, Podeschi 2002, Kaldis 2003, Williams et al 2005. Many authors have reflected on environmental discourse (e.g., Teymur 1982, Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1996, Herndl and Brown 1996, Myerson and Rydin 1996, Darier 1999, Harré Environmental Values 16.3 et al1999, Brulle 1996, Podeschi 2002, Kaldis 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Extended work by others points at the relevance of discourse in the building of a perspective (Ayers 2005, Burke 1968, 1973cited in Herndl and Brown 1996, Teymur 1982, Herndl and Brown 1996, Myerson and Rydin 1996, Darier 1999, Harré et al 1999, Brulle 1996, Podeschi 2002, Kaldis 2003, Williams et al 2005. Many authors have reflected on environmental discourse (e.g., Teymur 1982, Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1996, Herndl and Brown 1996, Myerson and Rydin 1996, Darier 1999, Harré Environmental Values 16.3 et al1999, Brulle 1996, Podeschi 2002, Kaldis 2003). Among them, Kaldis (2003) points at a ʻcrisis of discoursesʼ, for which disciplinary concept schemes exert hegemonic control over the signification and values of environmental issues; language that serves other spheres of thought (e.g., scientism, managerial-utilitarian) restricts the way practitioners view and understand environmental issues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many authors have reflected on environmental discourse (e.g., Teymur 1982, Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1996, Herndl and Brown 1996, Myerson and Rydin 1996, Darier 1999, Harré Environmental Values 16.3 et al1999, Brulle 1996, Podeschi 2002, Kaldis 2003). Among them, Kaldis (2003) points at a ʻcrisis of discoursesʼ, for which disciplinary concept schemes exert hegemonic control over the signification and values of environmental issues; language that serves other spheres of thought (e.g., scientism, managerial-utilitarian) restricts the way practitioners view and understand environmental issues. Kaldis concludes that present perspectives on the environment remain derivative of an archetypal humanistic bias, with low chances of developing an autonomous structure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparative Analysis of the Vision and Mission Statements of International Environmental Organisations

Campagna¹,

Fernandez²

2007

?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

“…Over the years, the works of Michel Foucault have been used to examine critically a whole host of social phenomena, from sexuality to insanity, prisons, medicine, education and the body -in short, those instances of embodied bodies of discipline. 1 Only recently, however, have his ideas been applied to the natural environment (Baldwin 2003;Carolan 2005a;Carolan and Bell 2003;Coppin 2003;Darier 1999;Kaldis 2003;Rutherford 2000). This ʻgreeningʼ of Foucault has opened the door to a critical re-examination of societal-nature relations, particularly in the context of domination, control, and power.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disciplining Nature: The Homogenising and Constraining Forces of Anti-Markets on the Food System

Carolan

2005

To understand the changing patterns within agriculture, it is important to look not only at social relations and organisational configurations. Also salient to such an analysis is an examination of how those formations give shape to non-humans. Much attention has been placed recently on the political economy of agriculture when speaking of these emergent patterns. Yet in doing this, the natural environment is all too often relegated to the backdrop; where the agro-economy is viewed as something that manoeuvres within the environment but never through it. The conceptual groundwork for this paper draws from two often unconnected scholars: Michel Foucault and Fernand Braudel. In Foucault, we find a framework, with a little conceptual development, through which to talk about how the economy (of both discipline and capital) enters into nature. Specifically, the argument is made that through the embodiment of discipline, nature too becomes disciplined. Yet in Foucault we find a discursive conception of socio-economic history; where capitalism is discussed, but always as an effect of the discursive structures of power/knowledge. Enter the work of Braudel, to provide us with a materialist counterweight to Foucault's theorising. In Braudel, we find a detailed analysis on the emergence of capitalism, out of which then comes his distinction between markets and anti-markets. In short, when both accounts of history are overlaid, interesting connections between the emergence of Braudelian anti-markets and Foucaultian discipline are revealed. Two brief case studies are then examined to add further depth to the discussion: the first focusing on corn; the second centring on the cow. The paper then concludes speaking on the issue of resistance.