{"title":"Weed-fed Pigs: Food Sovereignty in the Blind Spot","authors":"Xu Wu","doi":"10.1177/02780771231176505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Implicit everyday forms of food sovereignty can be explored to reveal the diversity of the movement. For example, the ways in which elderly villagers raise pigs on weeds in central China share some features with the “quiet food sovereignty” of Russia. Small-scale pig rearing is largely invisible to outsiders, so identifying it relies heavily on weeds as indicators. Bounded by age in rural southwest Hubei, the small space of raising weed-fed pigs emerged in a blind spot between discourses on modern technological agriculture and concerns for food safety. In the 1990s, elderly villagers continued feeding pigs on local plants instead of using industrial fodder in order to retain the authentic taste of pork, which continues to have social value. The practice took on added significance as a form of self-protection from food-safety issues in the 2000s. It provides a moral buffer for elderly villagers sandwiched between the conflicting values of modern scientific and technological farming supported by the state policy of “Increasing Agricultural Prosperity with Modern Sci-tech” and emerging organic or green food movements motivated by urban people's desire for safe foods and state agenda on developing rural tourism. Despite the ecological, material, health, and social benefits of operating in this small space, their implicit food sovereignty goes unnoticed. Because raising weed-fed pigs functions invisibly, it remains in the blind spot of mass food discourses in China.","PeriodicalId":54838,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnobiology","volume":"43 1","pages":"115 - 124"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnobiology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02780771231176505","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Implicit everyday forms of food sovereignty can be explored to reveal the diversity of the movement. For example, the ways in which elderly villagers raise pigs on weeds in central China share some features with the “quiet food sovereignty” of Russia. Small-scale pig rearing is largely invisible to outsiders, so identifying it relies heavily on weeds as indicators. Bounded by age in rural southwest Hubei, the small space of raising weed-fed pigs emerged in a blind spot between discourses on modern technological agriculture and concerns for food safety. In the 1990s, elderly villagers continued feeding pigs on local plants instead of using industrial fodder in order to retain the authentic taste of pork, which continues to have social value. The practice took on added significance as a form of self-protection from food-safety issues in the 2000s. It provides a moral buffer for elderly villagers sandwiched between the conflicting values of modern scientific and technological farming supported by the state policy of “Increasing Agricultural Prosperity with Modern Sci-tech” and emerging organic or green food movements motivated by urban people's desire for safe foods and state agenda on developing rural tourism. Despite the ecological, material, health, and social benefits of operating in this small space, their implicit food sovereignty goes unnoticed. Because raising weed-fed pigs functions invisibly, it remains in the blind spot of mass food discourses in China.
期刊介绍:
JoE’s readership is as wide and diverse as ethnobiology itself, with readers spanning from both the natural and social sciences. Not surprisingly, a glance at the papers published in the Journal reveals the depth and breadth of topics, extending from studies in archaeology and the origins of agriculture, to folk classification systems, to food composition, plants, birds, mammals, fungi and everything in between.
Research areas published in JoE include but are not limited to neo- and paleo-ethnobiology, zooarchaeology, ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnopharmacology, ethnoecology, linguistic ethnobiology, human paleoecology, and many other related fields of study within anthropology and biology, such as taxonomy, conservation biology, ethnography, political ecology, and cognitive and cultural anthropology.
JoE does not limit itself to a single perspective, approach or discipline, but seeks to represent the full spectrum and wide diversity of the field of ethnobiology, including cognitive, symbolic, linguistic, ecological, and economic aspects of human interactions with our living world. Articles that significantly advance ethnobiological theory and/or methodology are particularly welcome, as well as studies bridging across disciplines and knowledge systems. JoE does not publish uncontextualized data such as species lists; appropriate submissions must elaborate on the ethnobiological context of findings.