Happy April, everyone! Here is a uh kinda ridiculously lengthy post for you all… Note that I’m only asking you to read an additional two-page-long article, though, so it all evens out. :)
The main purpose of the Thursday discussion will be to get us grounded (ha), or rooted (haha), in who we are and where we’re coming from, in a few really specific ways, and in relation to larger systems of power. This post should provide an interesting framework for that. First, we’ll have a discussion about discussions, and about knowledge. Second, we have all probably heard about some of the many systemic injustices that pervade conventional agriculture and food production/consumption. Rather than focus on that, then, there is a brief article to read that offers a very broad overview of racism and capitalism in the contemporary food movement (towards the bottom of the post).
Why discuss discussion? Granted, our conversation last class was the first one of the quarter, but it’s interesting how disjointed it felt to me, jumping, for instance, from indigenous creation stories about corn to explanations of GMOs, without much of a bridge between the two–that is, without a common language accessable to all of us at once–without even a common starting point, for example a collectively-understood definition of GMO. While I hope we will have some common starting points in future discussions, the challenge of the conversation speaks to larger phenomena at play that I’d like to unpack.
Looking through the seed catalogs, I couldn’t find a reliable definition of GMO there either–it’s not just us, it’s that meanings of words are slippery, change over time, and change depending on context. Ask yourself: what field of study is the expert in who you trust to give you the correct definition? Ask someone else, and you may get a different answer. Different experts in different fields prioritize different questions, have different goals, and as a result, will get dramatically different answers. While there are definitely places and times to act on one’s intellectual and emotional knowledge, and to act with passion and conviction, there is no single “truth” we can ever really settle into. This is important. At the same time, I think there is a cultural romanticization of science, data, knowledge that purports to be exceptionally and undeniably factual. The scientific method should work such that research resulting in evidence-based theories doesn’t get treated like invulnerable Truth; culturally though, it frequently seems to. Then when scientific research is funded by corporate conglomerates, that makes the results all the more determined by the goals of the company (usually profit) rather than in pursuit of knowledge for humanitarian or other reasons. Anyway, all that is to say it’s not just a matter of two equally-valued different sorts of knowledge, but rather that some sorts are much more highly valued than others, on a societal level. Last class, I remember John stressing the need for exactly the sorts of open conversations that can be so difficult to engage in, given that we come to this interdisciplinary class from such different entrypoints. If we are willing to actively listen to ideas/knowledge that we may not understand and that may even make us uncomfortable, if we ask questions rather than just thinking of how to respond, I think our diversity of experience and knowledge can be a real strength.
Now I would like to offer some context for our differences in academic knowledge. My own learning experience has been firmly situated in the humanities–specifically in English–with AnSo, Poli Sci, and other courses here and there. I took one physics class, first year, and quickly realized it was not for me. At K, as in the world at large, it can be easy to get anchored in one discipline or body of knowledge, and to trust that as the most accurate, nuanced, or well-articulated worldview. It can feel good to be anchored. How I see the world is very much shaped by specific literary and cultural theories that deeply resonated with me when I learned about them in class. But there are limitations to any knowledge base.
What I find really fascinating here is that the very separation of the disciplines is a product– of history, politics, culture… Science and philosophy, math and religion, literature and visual art– none of these are intrinsically or naturally separate from each other. The categories we use to differentiate types of knowledge are themselves culturally constructed. This rings true at K: we can see its breakdown in certain cross-disciplinary SIPs, in the combination of Anthropology and Sociology into one (AnSo) department, in the interdisciplinary course requirements for many of the Concentrations offered, in the cross-listing of certain classes in the course catalog.
A number of scholars have pointed out that the apparent separateness of the academic disciplines is part of the phenomenon of Eurocentrism: the valuing of (Western) European ideas, cultural norms, etc. and its corrollary, the devaluing of ideas, cultural norms, etc. emerging from other peoples in other parts of the world (and too, I would guess, from marginalized communities in Europe). There is also the trend of taking the ideas, etc. that are valued in the Eurocentric model, from non-European peoples, and repackaging them to be presented as European. This is all, of course, set against the background of European imperialism and colonialism.
One manifestation of Eurocentrism in our own education is that–even given the examples of interdisciplinarity at K that I just mentioned–we generally take for granted this particular division of disciplines. We have come to see as “natural” or “universal” divisions of knowledge that actually have specific geographical, political, cultural roots in Europe. For late philosopher Georg Lukacs, “modern intellectual life is based on the analysis of the world into separate categories, and the discourse that develop around them cannot be reintegrated into a conception of a whole” (Hostettler, Nick, Eurocentrism: A Marxian Critical Realist Critique, 10). Some argue that even “the basic categories of modern discourse are contradictory;” so when we try to have a discussion from two standpoints, say, one based in theories of science and one in theories of art, that each side is coming to the table with such vastly different questions, language, and purposes, that their differences may be irreconcilable (Hostettler 10). Then there’s the concept of modernity. Closely tied to Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution Era emphasis on reason, science, quick economic and technological progress, the idea of the modern immediately (dis)places some communities back in time, relegating them in the (Eurocentric/mainstream) imaginary to a space of pre-history that does not offer useful knowledge in the present day, or to “humankind” at large.
Communities whose traditional knowledge/culture doesn’t fit neatly in (and hasn’t been totally subsumed into) the Eurocentric system of categorization, particularly communities of color, grapple with the effects of this and many other manifestations of white supremacy daily. One commonality among various groups of color though, seems to be the consistant devaluing (by those in positions of political, social, cultural power, and by the dominant culture as a whole,) of the knowledge within these communities, and a rejection of that knowledge (along with the people) as viable, valuable, useful, beautiful, good, or worth listening to.
I see what I’ve just laid out as a pretty key component of the backdrop for this class. The history of Eurocentrism does not go away but reverberates and haunts, even where it is not obvious, such as in the organization of disciplines and the ways we are implicitly taught to value knowledge. This is just one example of the ways in which systemic issues touch each of our lives at K College, to shape the way we think and feel and categorize the world. As much as I believe my time at K has taught me how to think critically, I can’t divorce that from the larger context. We are always implicated–in different, yet overlapping iterations–in the workings of complex systems of power as they move through time, space, bodies, institutions, discourse. I think we must be aware of this context in order to begin to think about the specific issues we’ll be getting into in this class: food justice, food sovereignty, local food, sustainable or regenerative growing practices, etc. etc.
In the following article, Eric Holt-Giménez glosses the global (and U.S.-focused) connections between capitalism, racism, food, and agriculture, placing emphasis on alternative food movements. He argues that “understanding why, where, and how racism manifests itself in the food system, recognizing it within our movement and our organizations and within ourselves, is not extra work for transforming our food system; it is the work” (Holt-Giménez 24). So please read the article, and keep in mind, just for yourself, where you might place yourself and the communities you are part of in the context of some of the systems/structures that Holt-Giménez brings up:
What might be called the mainstream alternative food/agriculture movement in the United States has been critiqued from many angles, though largely for being elitist: mostly white, upper middle class, and college educated. This critique is valid, though it is limited in its own ways. To give us some inter“generational” dialogue... Kacey, who took this class a year ago, pointed out in her comments on “Week 3 Discussion Hannah's Post” (posted to the class blog on April 8, 2015) something that resonates with Holt-Giménez. She wrote: “it is interesting that we focus on one conception of the food movement, the white one, because there have been historically, and are still today, so many powerful movements around issues of food access and food sovereignty within communities of color. I think the question is not why is the food movement white, but why are we only focusing on the white food movement?”
I think that in order to work through hard discussions, to answer Kacey’s question, and to work towards building just food systems, we must look inward, to our own experiences related not just to food but to larger systems of power, and we must look outward, to historical trends and cultural norms that play a part in shaping how we engage in the world.
Guiding Questions for Reflection (feel free to address any of these):
- What has your academic experience at K been like? What sort of knowledge is comfortable to you and what do you struggle to understand or connect with?
- Is it possible to build common knowledge and communicate with each other across disciplines, across experiences, across cultural differences, across histories? How might we (in our lil class) do this?
- Besides the separation of academic disciplines, where else can you find traces (or way more than traces) of systemic racism (connected to all the other isms, of course) in your day-to-day life–at or outside of K College–and how might those impact the way that you interact with food systems, and with different types of knowledge?
I think the first thing I would like to say is that I agree we are all coming into this class with very different backgrounds and I think that came out in last week’s discussion. I may know a bit about indigenous creation stories and others may know about GMOs, but I personally felt like those different ideas and frameworks of thought made for an interesting conversation. I think we could maybe have a more specific starting point of discussion in the future but I felt the way the conversation flowed to different topics was helpful, at least to my learning. Perhaps we just need to be more mindful of this and give a bit more background info in the future.
ReplyDeleteMy experience is similar to Maddie’s. I am an English and French double major so must of my knowledge comes from literature. I know very little about the science behind farming-very little about farming in general-and I am excited to be surrounded by people from other disciplines that can bring what they know to help my understanding. I have found when I am surrounded by people who are too like minded it is very difficult for great conversations to be fostered. I think groups like these where we are all approaching a topic that effects all of us-food-in very different ways is the format through which the greatest learning can be done. We just need to be mindful that others may not know as much about certain things as we do or that we do not know much about what others are saying so we can make sure everyone feels included in the conversation.
• What has your academic experience at K been like? What sort of knowledge is comfortable to you and what do you struggle to understand or connect with?
ReplyDeleteI am an individual with a broad interest. I major in biology (main interests: ecology and evolutionary biology and cell & molecular biology) and psychology (neuroscience) here, but also enjoy creative writing, learning about East Asian history, and drawing during my free time. Among all the disciplines, I have the deepest understanding in evolutionary biology and ecology. Because of my educational background and multicultural personality, I am open to various ideas and knowledge and put my effort in understanding the perspectives of people from very different backgrounds with me. If anything, however, I think I have difficulty understanding “religion.” I have nothing against being religious, and am willing to learn more about various religions. I just grew up in a non-religious family, and didn’t have much opportunity to think about religions.
• Is it possible to build common knowledge and communicate with each other across disciplines, across experiences, across cultural differences, across histories? How might we (in our lil class) do this?
I definitely think it’s possible to build a common knowledge and communicate with each other across different intellectual and cultural backgrounds. In order to do this, however, we should be open to new ideas and shouldn’t push the opinions against each other.
• Besides the separation of academic disciplines, where else can you find traces (or way more than traces) of systemic racism (connected to all the other isms, of course) in your day-to-day life–at or outside of K College–and how might those impact the way that you interact with food systems, and with different types of knowledge?
As I said in the class before, I came to the United States when I was ten. Before I came to Kalamazoo at the beginning of high school, I lived in Novi, Michigan. The schools in Novi were very culturally non-diverse environment. I remember feeling embarrassed for bringing Japanese traditional food for my lunch, since my non-Japanese friends always asked me what I was eating, why I was eating such “disgusting food,” etc.
I is extremely difficult for me to eat authentic Japanese food in this country. At most Japanese restaurants, foods are “Americanized” so that customers are not intimidated by unfamiliar food. I wouldn’t criticize people for re-arranging foreign food, but I truly think that the food providers should give credits to authentic style foods that they are using as models for. They are teaching wrong things to the customers by providing the arranged forms as if they are authentic ones. I also believe that Americanization of food causes loss of food diversity.
ReplyDeleteAs an English major I really do not know much about the scientific or economic aspects of our food system. What I can talk about is the differences in food systems I saw while in Thailand. Unfortunately, I feel this is truly my only clear access point to understanding the rooted fault in our food system (in America). While at my host family, who were well off and lived in a wealth area, I still saw the continued connection to food. The rice they bought was from the local market and they grew some themselves from the little rice patty they had by their house. Also they owned a few fruit trees. Although, they were of an affluent class they still were entirely connected to their food system, and the growing process. Of course, they too bought some food at the 7/11, which was packaged and processed, but this was not the bulk of their consumption. As we continued out into the fields, we saw how many hill tribe communities don’t have access to food stores and therefore grow all their own food. My main take away from this was what a luxury and a cure it is that we don’t think of where our food comes from. I think that it is what is hurting the next generation as we become farther and farther removed from learning about of act of consumption.
After being in Thailand I spoke to a farmer at the Indiana State fair who works for a big company growing corn and soybeans. He explained that it is nearly impossible to become a profitable farmer nowadays without the help from big corporations and millions in farming equipment. For me, my best education on the food system has been through conversations and lived experience on the topic. I am grateful for the opportunities I have had speaking to those more knowledgeable then me, and look to different backgrounds and experiences to feed my education.
Although my major is in chemistry, I’ll cringe if I am called a ‘science person’. Though my academic career has been well stocked with required classes in chemistry, physics, and math, I’ve made an effort to surround myself with people outside of my major. That’s one of the reasons I took this class instead of a senior seminar within the chemistry department—I crave interdisciplinary learning. I see all academia as, ultimately, a search for different avenues of truth. However, I’ll admit to have viewed certain types of knowledge as better suited for different issues. Thank you, Maddie, for forcing me to realize that to some extent, I do prioritize the scientific method. Two of your points about ‘doing science’ are especially salient, especially for some of the topics we’ve discussed so far in class. Does Monsanto fund a significant amount of the agricultural research in the United States today? Yes, so we have to do whatever we can to reconcile this bias. And do scientific experiments ‘prove’ anything? No, we simply create models and theories to fit the data we observe. In no way are these equivalent to inarguable truths! I hope we can cultivate effective communication in our class—we should acknowledge our own biases while not attacking the individuals with whom we’re trying to connect!
ReplyDeleteI think my view of the food system is directly related to my upbringing. As a white woman raised in a well-enough-off town, I never thought about where my food came from. My parents’ biggest hurdle in feeding their family was getting my younger brother to eat the variety of foods we’d eat for dinner. My food has been easier to access, both in abundance and in pricing. I haven’t explicitly studied racism in our food system, but I have no doubt it exists.
My academic experience at Kalamazoo has been almost entirely science-based. This is in part due to my previous desire to become a physician, but I feel as though I would have studied the sciences regardless of my intended career path. I would say that I attended college to study humans, but not through the lens of sociology or anthropology, rather, I wanted to know how humans could come from atoms. In a broader sense, I wanted to learn about the science of life with psychology to help me understand our behavior. I figured that as long as I’m on earth, I’ll probably have to deal with humans and being alive (really insightful I know), so a fundamental understanding of both might imbue some meaning to my life.
ReplyDeleteAs a scientist, I know how important it is to communicate your ideas effectively across a number of disciplines and intellects. Collaboration is a fundamental component of science, as is specialization, no one is capable of everything but everyone is capable of anything. That said, effective communication is not easy, it requires patience and willingness to participate openly in discussion. Humans are not computers that can transfer data to one another seamlessly, we are emotional, prideful, attached to our opinions and beliefs, and prone to resist information that contradicts us. Even our common tool, language, is imperfect. Many discussions can become littered with arguments over semantics, obfuscation, jargon, and etc. It is important to respect that everyone possess knowledge and experiences that you do not, and that your knowledge and experiences no matter how different are no more important; it is your responsibility as an educated individual to ensure that you are taking care to express your knowledge with this in mind.
This is why I love teaching K students—you all don’t mess around with surface-level problems, but dive right into the messy heart of things. It’s also why I think it’s really important to have people like you working at all levels within the “food movement” (whatever that means)—because surface-level changes can’t address the problems we face. We have to question our basic cultural premises and that can be difficult, scary work. One reason I am very grateful to be able to teach this class is that it gives me an opportunity to have conversations that I’m not able to have with many of my local community members (even others in the agricultural community), hard conversations that don’t lead to easy or comfortable answers. But conversations which might actually lead us in the direction of REAL positive change. So thanks, Maddie, taking us there right off the bat.
ReplyDeleteTo your third question: This past week, an acquaintance of mine on Facebook posted a link to a 2014 article criticizing Indian activist Vandana Shiva’s stance on genetically modified organisms. Here’s the article if anyone is interested: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt. My acquaintance was using this article to justify her opinion that folks who oppose GMOs are standing in the way of scientific progress. Now, I haven’t followed Shiva’s work enough in the past few years to be able to say whether or not some of the personal criticism directed at her is warranted. But the argument this article is making about GMOs leaves out some big pieces. As I read it, I puzzled over why I find so many GMO proponents justifying the cultivation of these crops in the name of “science” and “progress” without addressing the real devastation in ecological and human health that’s being perpetuated by the system under which these crops are grown. Then I came to this quote from British pro-GMO activist Mark Lynas: “ . . . on a fundamental level [Shiva] is a demagogue who opposes the universal values of the Enlightenment.”
The universal values of the Enlightenment? Really? There it is, I thought, the fundamental level upon which I disagree with the author of this article. I could go through his piece section by section and point out all of the places where I think he’s not being quite truthful, accurate, or complete in his claims, but fundamentally our different perspectives come down to this—he seems to accept that the values of the Enlightenment are so unquestionably superior that they must be universal and I don’t. What have these “enlightened” values wrought in our world? I’m thinking about Winona LaDuke’s story about her father telling her he didn’t want to hear about all of her philosophizing if she couldn’t “grow corn.” Well, our current “reason” and “science” based culture grows corn alright, but the way we grow and eat that corn is polluting our water, changing our climate, and giving us diabetes. If that’s the result of the philosophies of the Enlightment, I think we can do better. One way to begin is to stretch our abilities to perceive, relate, and know through connecting with other cultures and disciplines.
One of my role models in doing this sort of work is Robin Wall Kimmerer. She’s a member of the Citizen Pottowatomi and a professor of environmental biology. Her book “Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants” was a game-changer for me. In it, Kimmerer tells of how her cultural stories and perspectives were challenged and dismissed as she entered the academic world of science, but also of how she has now reconciled these different ways of knowing within her own life. I'm running out of character space in this comment field, so I'll post a quote from her in my next comment.
Here’s a couple of paragraphs from Kimmerer's book:
ReplyDelete“Native scholar Greg Cajete has written that in indigenous ways of knowing, we understand a thing only when we understand it with all four aspects of our being: mind, body, emotion, and spirit. I came to understand quite sharply when I began my training as a scientist that science privileges only one, possibly two, of those ways of knowing: mind and body. As a young person wanting to know everything about plants, I did not question this. But it is a whole human being who finds the beautiful path.
There was a time when I teetered precariously with an awkward foot in each of the two worlds—the scientific and the indigenous. But then I learned to fly. Or at least try. It was the bees that showed me how to move between different flowers—to drink the nectar and gather pollen from both. It is this dance of cross-pollination that can produce a new species of knowledge, a new way of being in the world. After all, there aren’t two worlds, there is just this one good green earth.”
My education at K has been bound to the Business and department. I dabbled in physics just for fun, and have done my best to fill each quarter with at least one "easy class" - most of these were in lower-level psychology classes, which I find simply fascinating (particularly developmental psychology) and with some toying in other departments. Both my freshman and sophomore seminars were lead by professors active in Arcus and centered on civil rights development and leadership. While I learned a great deal, I think I found these to be some of my most difficult classes because of a pressure to be more "PC" than I really knew how to be. In an effort to circumvent confrontation, I often felt silenced or unequipped to discuss certain subjects because of my membership in dominating groups. Though I try to make myself open to new developments in social justice movements across campus, I am ashamed admit that I have remained put off by the unapproachability of some, and I find it difficult navigating your own opinions and your likability in an environment where where social media bereavements are paradigm. In sum, I find the "shaming into my point of view" approach highly ineffective, and am thrilled that our modes of discussion have been brought up early in the quarter to steer us away from those dynamics.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of food accessibility and food desserts, I have learned a good deal through working with Pretty Lake camp and the Health Psych (one of those worthwhile "easy A's" class on campus. The class also addresses ivtersectionalities between race, income, food access, health, health insurance and care accessibility, and life expectancy. Dismayed by the existence of such issues in a nation with agricultural surpluses, I'm none the less inspired by how positively communities respond to urban agriculture movements. I also have exposed myself to an increasing trove of ancient practices and intentionally exposed myself to non-European knowledge through practicing yoga and Ayurveda. I've found these to be incredibly effective, which has helped open me up to other types of traditional wisdom about food and health (though, of course, I am exposed to them through an intermediary who isn't always directly tied to the culture from which the practices come). Anyhow, I'm working on it.
The types of knowledge I am most comfortable with are interdisciplinary: anthropology, sociology, and gender studies. In terms of food systems, I am most comfortable analyzing them from a systemic, "big picture" perspective as opposed to the cellular level. I am specifically interested in questions of how economic and political power function and manifest within these systems. If I am being completely honest, this class is the most "science-based" course I have taken at K and I am so excited to learn from folks who I don't typically get to take classes with. I agree with Emma in that this type of interdisciplinary learning space can benefit all of us if we listen to one another with open minds. A key part of communication involves active listening, something I personally want to make a priority in this course as there a swaths of biological knowledge I know little about. I agree with Kacey's comment that the food justice movement often becomes white washed in the media (as many things do in the media...) and the work done by communities of color and native peoples often remains at the margins and does not receive credit. As I haven't taken any hard science classes here at K, I can't speak to how explicitly white supremacy and heteropatriarchy are acknowledged in the creation of these types of knowledges. I can however say that these forces are discussed at length and are often the springboard for analysis in the social science courses I have taken. I am very interested in looking at our current food systems from these lenses and discussing solutions that are more socially just. I expect and hope that with the wide array of perspectives and experiences in our course, we will continue to engage in these important points Maddie has brought up in this post.
ReplyDeleteThe discipline I am rooted in is History. History is something that I have a passion for and genuinely love writing and learning about. That being said academic history in the United States has historically been eurocentric, whitewashed, and been utilized by those in power to preserve and reinforce capitalist, racist, patriarchal, heteronormative, etc. systems of oppression. Master narratives which often decenter oppressed people permeate throughout the history that is taught to people. I have tried my best to acknowledge and identify the ways systems of oppression manifest in the work I produce, the classes I take, and the books I read. I have tried the best I can to center the stories pushed to the side or wiped away, while also realizing the ways I have in the past and continue to be complicit in the production of problematic histories and narratives. I see knowledge of the past and the production of false narratives as central to discussions about societal issues. Thus, I have most difficulty in discussions where historical context and ramifications are not being considered. Science is something I am also not as comfortable with because the way it is presented as fact goes against my brain’s desire to never see something as simply true, but instead as just one version of the truth. I personally am very excited to be in an interdisciplinary classroom. I feel like there is so much to learn from each other. However, because we come from different places I truly believe active listening, not talking in patronizing manners, being humble, and being willing to ask questions is critical in order for all voices to be heard and for people to feel comfortable bringing their different thoughts to the table.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhat a post! There is a lot that I could approach with my answer but I will try and stick to one.
Aya mentioned in her post about how difficult it is to find authentic Japanese food in the U.S. and I think that the topic of food from “other” origins than the U.S. is worth discussing. In the United States we see different foods from other cultures and countries being adapted into “American” food or their own restaurants. What is worth noting is that of these foods some have made it into top tier restaurants while others have not. Why is that Italian food has become up scale and a type of food that flourishes in fancy and expensive restaurants? When we see Chinese food and Mexican food fitting more into the fast food category. This does not speak to all restaurants but there is definitely a divide.
I do not intend to dig into the topic of cultural appropriation because sharing food and recipes from our culture is how many of us engage with people who are different from us, and learn to appreciate our peer’s and friend’s background. What I do intend to point out is that even different ethnic foods have become a way for certain individuals to interact with food systems, both just and unjust.
This may have been a little bit off topic but I wanted to share my thoughts on the issue of creating food that is not our own, and how it can be a space of sharing.
What a poignant reflection, Maddie. Thanks for sharing. I thought I’d explore your last question (a bit). Hear me out, it will relate to food after some wandering. At K I’ve been quite involved in the “interfaith movement,” which might be briefly described as creating spaces and places where people from different religious and spiritual traditions can engage questions of identity in relation to those who share and don’t share their values/beliefs/practices/etc. (What part(s) of our identities are “religious” or “spiritual” is also mired in slippery language). The intention of the movement is to expand what forms of knowledge or ways of “viewing the world” are considered valuable. Yet, those spaces and places created to facilitate such “identity discussion” are largely attended (and curated) by white and Christian people. The language used in these discussions often reflects these dominant groups’ frames of reference. Thus, in this way (and in many others), limits are placed on this objective of valuing “all knowledge” when access and comfortability is restricted to groups and identities with power. Perhaps this objective isn’t being met at all in this exclusion. Though we haven’t explored this much in our class—and I haven’t myself either—, I wonder how privileged religious traditions might be received differently in addressing issues of food justice (of course these privileged traditions many times intersect with racial/class etc. privileges). I can imagine, like in interfaith discussions, that white Christianity’s theological or traditional justifications for, say, opposing GMOs would be accepted as “more legitimate” than native creation stories or other marginalized peoples’ knowledge. I think we could dig a lot deeper into ways in which dominant cultural frames are influenced by European Christian thought, but for now this is just something (incomplete) to start chewing on—pun intended—in our context of food systems.
ReplyDeleteMy education for most of my life and especially at Kalamazoo College has been focused on science. It is what interests me must and what I find most important in most matters that, again, I find most important. I am admittedly more encountered to read a news article on science than culture. I must also admit that my knowledge is lacking in the culture area. It has not been a part of my life as much as I'd like it to be and I have been trying to improve this past of me but I find it much more difficult to do than improve my scientific knowledge. To answer the second, it is very difficult to communicate with people who you don't see eye to eye with. To me the best way to do this would be to establish a working relationship of respect between parties. I feel like we can do this within our class. We just need to establish this relationship to start with. For the final question I have not been exposed to this as much as some. My parents are gay and I've had to deal with that as my peers and their families didn't understand that our maybe didn't accept it but I never understood why. I never understood racism as a child, I had friends from all walks of life and never thought about it. I didn't think that there was anything different about people who looked different. This has actually caused a problem with my ability to see problems with the way people are treated differently because I don't understand, at a fundamental level why we have a problem.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAs an English major I really do not know much about the scientific or economic aspects of our food system. What I can talk about is the differences in food systems I saw while in Thailand. Unfortunately, I feel this is truly my only clear access point to understanding the rooted fault in our food system (in America). While at my host family, who were well off and lived in a wealth area, I still saw the continued connection to food. The rice they bought was from the local market and they grew some themselves from the little rice patty they had by their house. Also they owned a few fruit trees. Although, they were of an affluent class they still were entirely connected to their food system, and the growing process. Of course, they too bought some food at the 7/11, which was packaged and processed, but this was not the bulk of their consumption. As we continued out into the fields, we saw how many hill tribe communities don’t have access to food stores and therefore grow all their own food. My main take away from this was what a luxury and a cure it is that we don’t think of where our food comes from. I think that it is what is hurting the next generation as we become farther and farther removed from learning about of act of consumption.
After being in Thailand I spoke to a farmer at the Indiana State fair who works for a big company growing corn and soybeans. He explained that it is nearly impossible to become a profitable farmer nowadays without the help from big corporations and millions in farming equipment. For me, my best education on the food system has been through conversations and lived experience on the topic. I am grateful for the opportunities I have had speaking to those more knowledgeable then me, and look to different backgrounds and experiences to feed my education.
My academic experience at K has been torturous (only slightly hyperbolically). Almost nothing I have learned feels useful for the betterment of myself or anyone else. In many of my classes, it feels like I’m learning the inconsequential disguised as the vital, and instead of developing and honing the tools that will someday assist me in deconstructing and rebuilding the world’s evils, I’m being distracted by hurdles to clear or hoops to leap through. I am comfortable learning at my own pace with text and through lecture. I struggle when I have to share my thoughts on the spot or even in writing, sometimes, when I am not invested in the importance of a topic. This class has been everything that I needed before graduating from this institution because everything we’re talking about is real and important today and for the future. It has been a breath of fresh air, and I feel that I am finally being asked to craft my own tools.
ReplyDeleteIt is more than possible to build common knowledge and communicate with each other across all of our various differences, and I think farming and learning together proves that. Our discussions each week force connections that make solutions stronger, like a closely woven safety net – an invaluable system of support that we can draw from, if we choose, to help solve the injustices we see so frequently in our lives. By studying English at K, we share similar academic backgrounds, and I can’t speak for you, but I can personally say that the scientific information I have been offered this quarter has really helped me nail down ideas and capture perspectives in another light. (It also always helps to have “proof” when you need it in an argument.)