食物乌托邦的本体论框架

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
A. Borghini, N. Piras, B. Serini
{"title":"食物乌托邦的本体论框架","authors":"A. Borghini, N. Piras, B. Serini","doi":"10.4000/ESTETICA.7375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"World food production is facing exorbitant challenges like climate change, use of resources, population growth, and dietary changes. These, in turn, raise major ethical and political questions, such as how to uphold the right to adequate nutrition, or the right to enact a gastronomic culture and to preserve the conditions to do so. Proposals for utopic solutions vary from vertical farming and lab meat to diets filled with the most fanciful insects and seaweeds. Common to all proposals is a polarized understanding of food and diets, famously captured by Warren Belasco in the contraposition between technological fixes and anthropological fixes. According to the first, technology will deliver clean, just, pleasurable, affordable food; future generations will not need to adjust much of their dietary cultures. According to the second, future generations should dramatically change their dietary habits (what they eat and how they eat it) to achieve a sustainable diet. The two fixes found remarkably distinct perspectives over dietary politics and the ethics of food production and consumption. In this paper we argue that such polarized thinking rests on a misrepresentation of the ontological status of food, which in turn affects the underlying ethical and political issues. Food is a socially constructed object that draws in specific ways on habits, norms, traditions, geographical, and climatic conditions. Although this thesis seems somewhat obvious, its consequences on the ethical and political perspectives on the future of food have not been derived properly. After introducing the issue at stake (§ 1), we point out the polarities that characterize food utopias (§ 2) and their ontological faults (§ 3). We hence suggest that a socio-ontological analysis of food can better deliver the principles for a foundation of food utopias (§ 4).","PeriodicalId":53954,"journal":{"name":"Rivista di Estetica","volume":"1 1","pages":"120-142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ontological Frameworks for Food Utopias\",\"authors\":\"A. Borghini, N. Piras, B. Serini\",\"doi\":\"10.4000/ESTETICA.7375\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"World food production is facing exorbitant challenges like climate change, use of resources, population growth, and dietary changes. These, in turn, raise major ethical and political questions, such as how to uphold the right to adequate nutrition, or the right to enact a gastronomic culture and to preserve the conditions to do so. Proposals for utopic solutions vary from vertical farming and lab meat to diets filled with the most fanciful insects and seaweeds. Common to all proposals is a polarized understanding of food and diets, famously captured by Warren Belasco in the contraposition between technological fixes and anthropological fixes. According to the first, technology will deliver clean, just, pleasurable, affordable food; future generations will not need to adjust much of their dietary cultures. According to the second, future generations should dramatically change their dietary habits (what they eat and how they eat it) to achieve a sustainable diet. The two fixes found remarkably distinct perspectives over dietary politics and the ethics of food production and consumption. In this paper we argue that such polarized thinking rests on a misrepresentation of the ontological status of food, which in turn affects the underlying ethical and political issues. Food is a socially constructed object that draws in specific ways on habits, norms, traditions, geographical, and climatic conditions. Although this thesis seems somewhat obvious, its consequences on the ethical and political perspectives on the future of food have not been derived properly. After introducing the issue at stake (§ 1), we point out the polarities that characterize food utopias (§ 2) and their ontological faults (§ 3). We hence suggest that a socio-ontological analysis of food can better deliver the principles for a foundation of food utopias (§ 4).\",\"PeriodicalId\":53954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rivista di Estetica\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"120-142\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rivista di Estetica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4000/ESTETICA.7375\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rivista di Estetica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/ESTETICA.7375","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

世界粮食生产正面临气候变化、资源使用、人口增长和饮食变化等严峻挑战。这些反过来又提出了重大的伦理和政治问题,比如如何维护获得充足营养的权利,或者制定美食文化并保持这样做的条件的权利。乌托邦解决方案的建议各不相同,从垂直农业和实验室肉类到充满最奇特昆虫和海藻的饮食。所有提案的共同点是对食物和饮食的两极分化的理解,沃伦·贝拉斯科在技术修复和人类学修复之间的对立关系中捕捉到了这一点。根据第一种说法,技术将提供清洁、公正、愉快、负担得起的食物;后代将不需要调整他们的饮食文化。第二种观点认为,后代应该极大地改变他们的饮食习惯(他们吃什么和如何吃),以实现可持续的饮食。这两个修正案在饮食政治和食品生产和消费伦理方面发现了截然不同的观点。在本文中,我们认为这种两极分化的思维建立在对食物本体论地位的歪曲之上,这反过来又影响了潜在的伦理和政治问题。食物是一种社会建构的对象,它以特定的方式借鉴了习惯、规范、传统、地理和气候条件。尽管这篇论文看起来有些明显,但它对食品未来的伦理和政治观点的影响并没有得到正确的推导。在介绍了相关问题(§1)后,我们指出了食物乌托邦的极性(§2)及其本体论缺陷(§3)。因此,我们认为,对食物的社会本体论分析可以更好地提供食物乌托邦基础的原则(§4)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ontological Frameworks for Food Utopias
World food production is facing exorbitant challenges like climate change, use of resources, population growth, and dietary changes. These, in turn, raise major ethical and political questions, such as how to uphold the right to adequate nutrition, or the right to enact a gastronomic culture and to preserve the conditions to do so. Proposals for utopic solutions vary from vertical farming and lab meat to diets filled with the most fanciful insects and seaweeds. Common to all proposals is a polarized understanding of food and diets, famously captured by Warren Belasco in the contraposition between technological fixes and anthropological fixes. According to the first, technology will deliver clean, just, pleasurable, affordable food; future generations will not need to adjust much of their dietary cultures. According to the second, future generations should dramatically change their dietary habits (what they eat and how they eat it) to achieve a sustainable diet. The two fixes found remarkably distinct perspectives over dietary politics and the ethics of food production and consumption. In this paper we argue that such polarized thinking rests on a misrepresentation of the ontological status of food, which in turn affects the underlying ethical and political issues. Food is a socially constructed object that draws in specific ways on habits, norms, traditions, geographical, and climatic conditions. Although this thesis seems somewhat obvious, its consequences on the ethical and political perspectives on the future of food have not been derived properly. After introducing the issue at stake (§ 1), we point out the polarities that characterize food utopias (§ 2) and their ontological faults (§ 3). We hence suggest that a socio-ontological analysis of food can better deliver the principles for a foundation of food utopias (§ 4).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Rivista di Estetica
Rivista di Estetica PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
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