Inflammatory agriculture: Political ecologies of health and fertilizers in India

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Carly E. Nichols
{"title":"Inflammatory agriculture: Political ecologies of health and fertilizers in India","authors":"Carly E. Nichols","doi":"10.1177/25148486221113557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Across India, many farmers contend that synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers do more than impact soils, but also lead to tasteless food crops and weakened bodies more susceptible to aches, pains, and diseases. Although these complaints, long-documented across South Asia, have been theorized as embodied critiques of development or as reflecting hybrid epistemologies, there has been strikingly little focus on the potential biophysical currents that may underpin these perceptions of fertilizer harm. This paper works to fill this gap, analyzing qualitative data collected from farmers in two remote eastern Indian districts using an “integrated” political ecology of health (PEH) framework that utilizes two main approaches to examine bodily materiality and health. In particular, the framework looks at the multi-scalar political economies, cultural forms of meaning-making, as well as the visceral, affective ways that respondents come to see synthetic fertilizers as the cause of barren lands, tasteless foods, and weakened bodies. The article then deploys a critical reading of bioscientific literature to interpret respondent narratives and zoom in onto potential bio-social mechanisms that may help illuminate claims of fertilizer harm in new ways. In particular, I present evidence around how phytochemicals—literally chemicals produced by plants—may shift due to chemical fertilizer use in ways that may matter for hunger and health. Yet, not losing sight of the affective ways crops are grown, consumed, and discussed, I also highlight research examining how beliefs and perceptions measurably modify physiological responses to food in positive or adverse ways through the still ill-understood placebo/nocebo effect. The goal of such analysis is not to present a tidy conclusion to questions of fertilizer–health connections but demonstrate how a PEH that remains attentive to power, discourse, and materiality can bring disparate streams of thought together to forge pathways for transdisciplinary research and practice.","PeriodicalId":11723,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning. E, Nature and Space","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486221113557","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Across India, many farmers contend that synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers do more than impact soils, but also lead to tasteless food crops and weakened bodies more susceptible to aches, pains, and diseases. Although these complaints, long-documented across South Asia, have been theorized as embodied critiques of development or as reflecting hybrid epistemologies, there has been strikingly little focus on the potential biophysical currents that may underpin these perceptions of fertilizer harm. This paper works to fill this gap, analyzing qualitative data collected from farmers in two remote eastern Indian districts using an “integrated” political ecology of health (PEH) framework that utilizes two main approaches to examine bodily materiality and health. In particular, the framework looks at the multi-scalar political economies, cultural forms of meaning-making, as well as the visceral, affective ways that respondents come to see synthetic fertilizers as the cause of barren lands, tasteless foods, and weakened bodies. The article then deploys a critical reading of bioscientific literature to interpret respondent narratives and zoom in onto potential bio-social mechanisms that may help illuminate claims of fertilizer harm in new ways. In particular, I present evidence around how phytochemicals—literally chemicals produced by plants—may shift due to chemical fertilizer use in ways that may matter for hunger and health. Yet, not losing sight of the affective ways crops are grown, consumed, and discussed, I also highlight research examining how beliefs and perceptions measurably modify physiological responses to food in positive or adverse ways through the still ill-understood placebo/nocebo effect. The goal of such analysis is not to present a tidy conclusion to questions of fertilizer–health connections but demonstrate how a PEH that remains attentive to power, discourse, and materiality can bring disparate streams of thought together to forge pathways for transdisciplinary research and practice.
煽动性农业:印度健康和肥料的政治生态
在印度各地,许多农民认为,合成氮肥不仅会影响土壤,还会导致粮食作物无味,身体更容易受到疼痛和疾病的影响。尽管这些在南亚长期记录的抱怨被理论化为对发展的具体批评或反映了混合认识论,但对可能支持这些肥料危害观念的潜在生物物理潮流的关注却少得惊人。本文试图填补这一空白,使用“综合”健康政治生态(PEH)框架分析从印度东部两个偏远地区的农民收集的定性数据,该框架利用两种主要方法来检查身体物质和健康。特别是,该框架着眼于多尺度的政治经济,意义创造的文化形式,以及受访者将合成肥料视为贫瘠土地,无味食物和虚弱身体的原因的本能,情感方式。然后,本文对生物科学文献进行了批判性阅读,以解释受访者的叙述,并聚焦于潜在的生物社会机制,这些机制可能有助于以新的方式阐明肥料危害的主张。特别是,我提出了关于植物化学物质(字面上是由植物产生的化学物质)如何因化肥的使用而发生变化的证据,这可能与饥饿和健康有关。然而,我并没有忽视作物种植、消费和讨论的有效方式,我也强调了一些研究,这些研究考察了信仰和感知如何通过仍未被理解的安慰剂/反安慰剂效应,以积极或消极的方式显著改变对食物的生理反应。这种分析的目的并不是要对肥料与健康之间的联系给出一个简洁的结论,而是要展示一个关注权力、话语和物质性的PEH如何将不同的思想流结合在一起,为跨学科的研究和实践开辟道路。
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
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
13.80%
发文量
101
×
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