“The Edibility Approach”: Using Edibility to Explore Relationships, Plant Agency and the Porosity of Species’ Boundaries

L. Attala
{"title":"“The Edibility Approach”: Using Edibility to Explore Relationships, Plant Agency and the Porosity of Species’ Boundaries","authors":"L. Attala","doi":"10.4236/AA.2017.73009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In light of correspondence between interdisciplinary representations of plant abilities, this paper raises questions about plant/human-animal relationships and in so doing problematizes the category/species boundaries that both establish and characterize the differences between plant and animal. Using a more than human (Cf. Whatmore 2002; Head et al., 2012) multi-species (Kirksey and Helmreich 2010) framework that rejects reductionist methods in favour of a relational, materialities approach; an alternative method to consider plant/human-animal relationships that focuses on edibility and the consequences of ingestion is proposed. Termed the Edibility Approach, this method foregrounds the ways that plants influence human bodies as a result of their edibility and considers the corollary processes that occur during ingestion and after digestion. Interrogation of the social effects of eating plants and the part plants play in inciting behaviours as if from “the inside” of bodies adds a nuanced direction to the study of plant/human-animal relationships. This phyto-centric framing offers a new botanical ontology and conceptual tool. By focusing on the dependencies between species, it proposes that there is a multi-vocal embodied dialogue occurring between species through digestion.","PeriodicalId":149660,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Anthropology","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/AA.2017.73009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

In light of correspondence between interdisciplinary representations of plant abilities, this paper raises questions about plant/human-animal relationships and in so doing problematizes the category/species boundaries that both establish and characterize the differences between plant and animal. Using a more than human (Cf. Whatmore 2002; Head et al., 2012) multi-species (Kirksey and Helmreich 2010) framework that rejects reductionist methods in favour of a relational, materialities approach; an alternative method to consider plant/human-animal relationships that focuses on edibility and the consequences of ingestion is proposed. Termed the Edibility Approach, this method foregrounds the ways that plants influence human bodies as a result of their edibility and considers the corollary processes that occur during ingestion and after digestion. Interrogation of the social effects of eating plants and the part plants play in inciting behaviours as if from “the inside” of bodies adds a nuanced direction to the study of plant/human-animal relationships. This phyto-centric framing offers a new botanical ontology and conceptual tool. By focusing on the dependencies between species, it proposes that there is a multi-vocal embodied dialogue occurring between species through digestion.
“可食性方法”:利用可食性来探索物种边界的关系、植物代理和孔隙度
鉴于植物能力的跨学科表征之间的对应关系,本文提出了关于植物/人类-动物关系的问题,从而提出了建立和表征植物和动物之间差异的类别/物种边界的问题。使用一个比人类更多的人(参见Whatmore 2002;Head等人,2012)多物种(Kirksey和Helmreich 2010)框架,拒绝简化方法,支持关系,材料方法;提出了一种考虑植物/人类-动物关系的替代方法,该方法侧重于可食性和摄入的后果。这种方法被称为可食性方法,它强调了植物因其可食性而影响人体的方式,并考虑了在摄入和消化后发生的必然过程。对食用植物的社会影响以及植物在激发行为方面所起的作用的质疑,仿佛是从身体“内部”开始的,为植物/人类-动物关系的研究增添了一个微妙的方向。这种以植物为中心的框架提供了一种新的植物本体和概念工具。通过关注物种之间的依赖关系,它提出了物种之间通过消化发生的多声音具体化对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信