“…Current food research will benefit from building on and integrating a critical political ecology in order to challenge simplistic separations of science and politics, adopting a more politically aware understanding of the contexts and geographies within which explanations or solutions emerge (Forsyth, 2003;Sheppard, 2015); for example, and especially since the crisis of 2007-8, by assessing the political constructions of the current food security statements and framings. A revised critical food scholarship could build on political ecology's ambitions to "open up the category of the environment itself and explore its multiform representations" such as examining "knowledge of the environment and why and how particular forms of knowledge predominate" (Watts, 2003cited in Walker, 2005.As Guthman 2012 As the ongoing global food crisis unfolds, it is particularly pertinent to acknowledge the diversity of tensions and interests arising around science between food markets, state and society; with particular scientific knowledges being an increasing "source of information and a claim to power and influence" (Zimmerer and Bassett, 2003:281).…”
Section: C) Co-production Of Knowledge … and Change?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This future builds upon economic alternatives that "should no longer be regarded as residual practices, (…). They are valuable and diverse experimental ecosystems of norms, practices and trajectories -the seed banks, if you will, of alternatives to globalizing capitalism" (Sheppard, 2015(Sheppard, :1129. Building these ecosystems requires a critical food scholarship which attempts to "politicize, empower and identify alternatives" (Tornaghi, 2014:14).…”
In times of austerity and global environmental change, recent crises related to food (in)securities and (un)sustainabilities urge us to reposition agri-food research. We argue that there is an opportunity to develop a more critical food scholarship by explicitly integrating political ecology approaches. For this purpose, the paper outlines major elements in the extensive political ecology scholarship to guide a critical review of some central trends in food research, as well as considering the contribution to date of food studies to political ecology perspectives. This exercise allows us to identify key avenues of convergence between food studies and political ecology frameworks that constitute three conceptual building blocks of a revised critical food scholarship: understanding place-based socio-natures; addressing the politics of scale and inequality; and coproducing knowledge and change. These coordinates are used to analyse two emergent potential spaces of possibility, embodied in the emergence of cities as food policy actors and the rise of the Food Sovereignty movement. We conclude by exploring how a critical food scholarship could inform an inclusive reframing to produce the grounds of possibility for a more socially and ecologically diverse food system.
“…Current food research will benefit from building on and integrating a critical political ecology in order to challenge simplistic separations of science and politics, adopting a more politically aware understanding of the contexts and geographies within which explanations or solutions emerge (Forsyth, 2003;Sheppard, 2015); for example, and especially since the crisis of 2007-8, by assessing the political constructions of the current food security statements and framings. A revised critical food scholarship could build on political ecology's ambitions to "open up the category of the environment itself and explore its multiform representations" such as examining "knowledge of the environment and why and how particular forms of knowledge predominate" (Watts, 2003cited in Walker, 2005.As Guthman 2012 As the ongoing global food crisis unfolds, it is particularly pertinent to acknowledge the diversity of tensions and interests arising around science between food markets, state and society; with particular scientific knowledges being an increasing "source of information and a claim to power and influence" (Zimmerer and Bassett, 2003:281).…”
Section: C) Co-production Of Knowledge … and Change?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This future builds upon economic alternatives that "should no longer be regarded as residual practices, (…). They are valuable and diverse experimental ecosystems of norms, practices and trajectories -the seed banks, if you will, of alternatives to globalizing capitalism" (Sheppard, 2015(Sheppard, :1129. Building these ecosystems requires a critical food scholarship which attempts to "politicize, empower and identify alternatives" (Tornaghi, 2014:14).…”
In times of austerity and global environmental change, recent crises related to food (in)securities and (un)sustainabilities urge us to reposition agri-food research. We argue that there is an opportunity to develop a more critical food scholarship by explicitly integrating political ecology approaches. For this purpose, the paper outlines major elements in the extensive political ecology scholarship to guide a critical review of some central trends in food research, as well as considering the contribution to date of food studies to political ecology perspectives. This exercise allows us to identify key avenues of convergence between food studies and political ecology frameworks that constitute three conceptual building blocks of a revised critical food scholarship: understanding place-based socio-natures; addressing the politics of scale and inequality; and coproducing knowledge and change. These coordinates are used to analyse two emergent potential spaces of possibility, embodied in the emergence of cities as food policy actors and the rise of the Food Sovereignty movement. We conclude by exploring how a critical food scholarship could inform an inclusive reframing to produce the grounds of possibility for a more socially and ecologically diverse food system.
“…Oftentimes, we tend to think of geography as some grand project aimed at solving humanity's big problems (e.g. Sheppard ), but this stance might obliterate the more modest, yet more palpable, achievements that this discipline could produce for the happiness of the specific individuals who hide below the grandiosity of the label ‘humanity’ (Simandan ; Olson ). Consider this old African story:One day the animals called a contest to measure their strength.…”
Demonic geography is an approach to practising human geography that operates from the premise that there are no such immaterial entities as ‘souls’, ‘spirits’, ‘minds’, integrated stable ‘selves’ or conscious ‘free will’. This paper elaborates the theoretical framework of demonic geography by spelling out how it is different from non‐representational theory and by articulating it within recent developments in experimental psychology, neuroscience and the philosophy of mind. Counterintuitively, the paper shows that the deflationary, materialistic ontology of human nature espoused by demonic geography need not lead to meaninglessness, unhappiness or the collapse of moral behaviour. Instead, subscribing to demonic geography opens up new ways to find meaning, to pursue happiness and to live the good life.
“…Or viewed dynamically, how do we maintain coherent disciplinary dialogues while simultaneously keeping an open mind to include unexpected contributions, as suggested by the practice of engaged pluralism? (Sheppard, ). Such a practice needs to unscrew itself from the Anglo‐American primacy that has dominated the discipline in the last decades, yet retain communication between past and present (Hassink et al ., 2018a; Van Meeteren, ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Geography: History and Concepts unapologetically advocates a holistic geography that includes the physical‐ and human‐geographical families. Thinking geographically (Sheppard, ), fosters the ‘homo geographicus’ (Sack, ), and the geographical discipline is habitus for that remarkable viewpoint. Taking climate change as the overarching example why geographers need to stick together more than ever gives the book a remarkably fresh yet familiar flavour in an age of disciplinary subspecialism fragmentation.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
