排序方式： 共有4条查询结果，搜索用时 93 毫秒
1
1.
《Geoforum》2015
Through a case study of Egypt’s agri-food industry this paper examines biosecurity as a set of technologies, institutions, and practices that attempt to govern national agri-food industries and global agri-food trade by marrying a political economy perspective and an analysis of ‘nature–society relations’. Consistent with other agri-food industries in the global South, Egypt’s agri-food industry has undergone waves of corporate consolidation during the neoliberal period. By detailing the growth of the poultry industry and the endemic spread of HPAI H5N1 (avian flu), this paper presents an argument that the industry grew and consolidated through emergent and recurrent zoonotic and plant diseases, the management of which has been governed in part by biosecurity measures. 相似文献
2.
Nick Bingham 《Geoforum》2008,39(1):111-122
This paper stages an encounter between one strand of the controversy around genetically modified food crops and some conceptual resources from the field of science and technology studies, with the aim of illuminating the relationship between science and politics. Contrary to some suggestions, it is argued that the spatial, temporal and material imagination encapsulated in the figure of Progress remains central to their contemporary articulation. Best described as an ‘anti-political’ strategy, Progress does not leave room for anything else but one story of the world. Through following the attempts of both scientists in the field and protestors on the streets to make public some of the trajectories which this story leaves out, what emerges is the possibility of an alternative to Progress that is not based simply on its rejection. Instead, such efforts offer resources for inventing another way of collectively going forward which chime with some more theoretical attempts to elaborate how things might be productively ‘slowed down’. An example of how government was forced to construct a way of dealing with things that is more adequate and appropriate to life in a full world is compared with Bruno Latour’s model of due process for nonhumans, before some conclusions are drawn about whether we should be depressed or hopeful about our ability to move on in the lights of such attempts. 相似文献
3.
Jessica Dempsey 《Geoforum》2011,42(2):211-221
Environmental politics, argues French philosopher Bruno Latour, have been a ‘disappointment’. Rather than trying to bring environmental concerns into a political world split into two - between Nature/Science and politics/society - Latour argues that environmental movements ought to focus on destroying this two-house collective, and develop ‘an understanding of ecological crises that no longer uses nature to account for the tasks to be accomplished’. In this paper I put my research on the politics and science of the Great Bear Rainforest (GBR), a large tract of temperate rainforest on the central and north coast of British Columbia, into direct conversation with Latour’s arguments about science, epistemology and environmental politics. The GBR was a site of intense political struggle focused predominantly on the scale and scope of industrial forestry, a struggle which ‘ended’ in 2006 with what some call a historic compromise between some high-profile environmental groups, First Nations, the Provincial government, and the forest industry. This paper focuses on two interlinked questions: do the environmental organizations at the centre of the struggle demonstrate the maladies identified by Latour; are they too preoccupied with representing Nature through Science? And second, do these maladies help us explain or understand the politics over the GBR? Were the politics of the GBR limited by environmentalist invocations of a singular Nature through Science, what Latour calls ‘Naturpolitik’? The encounter between theory and practice leads to a more cautious and critical assessment of the environmental politics in the GBR, but also tempers Latour’s arguments. Environmentalists in the GBR do exhibit Latour’s maladies, but in tracing the Politics of Nature there, it seems that Naturpolitik is not as powerful as Latour argues. 相似文献
4.
《Geoforum》2015
In this article, I ethnographically examine “the biggest experiment in tropical conservation history,” an environmental management approach designed in Brazilian Amazonia. I focus on research conducted by scientists who support this approach using the results of their work at an open-air experiment. Drawing on this ethnographic study I critically revisit Bruno Latour’s deservedly influential ethnography of an open-air laboratory in Brazilian Amazonia. I also engage with his claim that open-air experiments constitute spaces in which scientists can avoid seeing the world as “Nature”—a gigantic collection of inert objects that experts sense they have to bring into order on their own. Latour shows that while working in their Amazonian open-air laboratory scientists perceived the forest as a network comprising human and non-human entities bearing creative capacities. He suggests that such experimentation enables humans to envision environmental management strategies based on human/non-human collaborations. In the open air, experts could thereby transcend the pervasive fatalism that plagues environmental policy circles and rekindle a more optimistic and enthusiastic stance toward environmental management. I argue that Latour’s is a visionary ethnography that anticipates contemporary trends in environmental management approaches. However, I also argue that his celebratory conclusions regarding open-air experimentation are misguided. I show that, while working in the open air, the scientists situated their work within capitalist experiments wherein humans and non-humans creatively collaborate in the construction of new, less inhabitable worlds. 相似文献
1