STS 5424
Food in an STS perspective: beyond the paradoxes of food production and
consumption systems
Summer 2011, Semesters 1 & 2 continuous
Instructor: Dr. Polly C.A. Maclaine Pont
Phone: 240 – 478 - 0093
Email: pmaclaine@gmail.com
Time: Wednesday 7:00pm – 9:45pm
Room: TBD
Course description:
This course analyzes what Science and Technology Studies can add to the debates about
food consumption and production. In academic circles and popular media alike, there is a
belief that heavily subsidized, industrial agriculture and food processing that helped to
expand wealth and combat hunger, is at the same time responsible for many of the
environmental, safety, health and nutritional issues we cope with today. Popular works
like “Food Inc.” and “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” illustrate how conflicts of interest and
power disparities create inequalities that promote corporate-industrial modes over
local/indigenous and sustainable modes. Yet they do not always offer realistic approaches
to the pressing realities of hunger, overpopulation, ecological deterioration and economic
and social disparity. Also, most protest movements seem to deny that they themselves are
deeply rooted in the globalized world.
The approach to these subjects in this course has two overarching goals. First, to
teach some of the major developments in the field of science and technology studies since
the mid 1980’s, with a focus on the social construction of technology, the idea of
analytical symmetry, the politics of knowledge, the concepts of risk and uncertainty, and
the practice of governance and democratization. Second, to provide students with a
deeper knowledge of the issues that surround our current food system, and particularly,
an understanding of their complexity.
The concrete tools that I want students to take home from this course are: to learn to
put to practice the theoretical concepts, even when they seem highly abstract; and, on a
broader level, to see how these theories help us to examine more critically the debates
and controversies that confront us daily – whether food related or not.
1
Course Requirements:
The course consists of readings, discussions, lectures, writing assignments, a presentation
and an exam. Your final grade will be based upon a combination of class attendance and
participation, including the weekly writings; your assigned class presentation; and the
final exam.
There will be a short writing assignment due every week. It should be between
500 and 750 words (a maximum of 2 pages, using double space). Please email me your
writing assignment every Tuesday by 7pm (that is, the evening before class) so I can
prepare class accordingly. The assignments ask you to reflect on a common theme in the
next session’s material. You should demonstrate your own comprehension of them, by
using your own words, no lengthy quotes.
Also, each week one student will hold a 20-minute presentation, based on close
reading of that week’s literature as well as some additional reading and/or research, in
which you reflect on an assigned problem. Presentations are held halfway the class, right
after our short break. After a maximum of 20 minutes, there is room for questions and we
will continue the classroom discussion, now in light of the new theme. In the
presentation, I expect you to discuss the problem, rather than to summarize the readings.
We will already have had a general discussion in the first half of class about the weekly
texts. The additional reading will serve you to highlight your theme. I am interested in
your interpretation of the assigned problem, and encourage you to use additional
materials you may come across, for example from the news or other media.
In general, I expect everyone in class to come prepared for the discussion by way
of notes and questions about the literature, and comparisons to earlier themes and
theories. I also ask everyone to contribute to the class discussion at every class, but that
no one monopolize the discussion or go off on tangents not directly related to the reading
and its theoretical, historical, conceptual and analytical content—“shooting from the hip”
opinions are not appropriate for class discussion. Written assignments are not graded, but
you will receive feedback on them halfway the course. Class attendance is mandatory
unless you notify me in advance of a problem or are ill. Not attending regularly and
participating in discussions could adversely affect your grade.
2
For the final exam I expect you to write a topic-appropriate paper using the
theories and discussions presented throughout the course as well as some additional
research on your chosen topic.
Course structure:
In the first class, everyone chooses a book and/or literature package (of additional
readings) to review in a class presentation during the corresponding session.
Typical class structure:
-
7:00pm Introduction to session theme by Maclaine (30 minutes)
-
7:30pm Questions and Discussion texts (30 minutes)
-
8:00pm Coffee Break (15 minutes)
-
8:15pm Student presentation (20 minutes)
-
8:35pm Questions to presenter (15 minutes)
-
8:50pm Guided discussion about the connections between the presentation, the
texts and previous themes/theories (45 minutes)
-
9:35pm Bridge to next session (synthesis of next theme, explanation of writing
assignment: 10 min)
-
9:45pm end of class
Ethics, Courtesy, and Honor Code:
There have been some problems in the past with plagiarism and other Honor Code
violations. All students are required to visit the Honor Code website and carefully read
the section at: http://ghs.grads.vt.edu/student/avoiding.html. Note that anytime you use
someone’s actual text or ideas, you need to cite your source. Rearranging someone else’s
words and not citing constitutes plagiarism as does using their ideas without giving
credit. Many problems in the past have stemmed from student’s “liberal” use of webbased material. Please avoid this.
Out of courtesy to the instructor and the other members of the class I ask that you
respect class time and not work on your email, text, or web-surf. Also, please turn your
cell phones off in the classroom.
3
Grading:
30% Attendance, participation, and weekly writing assignments
20% Class presentation
50% Final exam
Required Books (used immediately, so please purchase right away)
Pollan, M. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma: a natural history of four meals. New York:
the Penguin Press.
 I ask of you to read Pollan’s “Omnivore’s Dilemma” before the start of class.
Sismondo, S. (2003). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. WileyBlackwell Publishers.
4
Weekly Readings
(all will be made available in PDF form, except for the 2 books already mentioned)
1. The modern food system and its discontents
Please make sure you have read before the start of the course:
a. Pollan, M. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma: a natural history of four meals.
New York: the Penguin Press.
In class we will watch excerpts from the following documentary, though I encourage you
to see it beforehand:
b. Food Inc. (2008). A documentary by Robert Kenner. Instantly downloadable
on Netflix.
Additional reading: Levenstein, H. (2003). Paradox of Plenty, A Social History of Eating
in Modern America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Epilogue, pp 256 – 268.
2. Pollan’s meals and the Social Construction of Technology
This class puts Pollan’s work in the light of an important STS theory: social
constructivism.
a. Sismondo, S. (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies.
Wiley-Blackwell Publishers:
i. Chapter 6, The social construction of scientific and technical realities,
pp. 57 – 71
ii. Chapter 9, Two questions concerning technology, pp. 93 – 105.
b. Pinch, T., Bijker, W. (1987). The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts.
In: Bijker, Hughes, Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological
Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology.
Cambridge,
Massachusetts:
The
MIT
Press,
pp.
17
-
50.
http://www.arq.utfsm.cl/talleres/2011-01-taller-2/wp-
5
content/blogs.dir/47/files_mf/1303227141BijkerPinchSocialConstructionofFa
ctsandArtifacts.pdf
c. Bijker, W. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of
Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press. Chapter 5: Conclusion:
the politics of sociotechnical change, pp. 269 - 290.
d. Hughes, (1987). The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijker,
Hughes, Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New
Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge,
Massachusetts:
The
MIT
Press,
pp.
51
–
82.
http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/cirus/lehre/fruehere_veranstaltungen/hs08/do
wnloads_ewv/hughes_1987.pdf
e. Schwartz Cowan, R. (1987). The consumption junction: a proposal for
research strategies in the sociology of technology. In: Bijker, Hughes, Pinch,
The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the
Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
Press, pp. 261 – 280.
http://faculty.ncf.edu/brain/courses/sustain/library/cowan.pdf
3. (Fast) Food as a system: sociological approaches
In this class we discuss different approaches within the social sciences to the
development of the modern (American) food system.
a. Beardsworth, A., Keil, T. (1997). Sociology on the menu, an invitation to the
study of food and society. Chapter 2: The making of the modern food system,
and Chapter 3: Sociological perspectives on Food and Eating, pp. 32 – 71.
b. Schlosser, E. (2001). Fast Food Nation: the dark side of the all-American
meal. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Introduction and Chapter 1 “The
founding Fathers”, pp. 1 – 28.
c. Levenstein, H. (2003). Paradox of Plenty, A Social History of Eating in
Modern America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chapter 15, pp.
227 – 236
6
d. Ritzer, G. (2010). The McDonaldization of Society 6, University of Maryland
Press, Introduction, pp. 1 – 22
e. Goodman, D., Redclift, M.R. (1991). Refashioning nature: food, ecology, and
culture. Chapter 3: the origins of the modern agri-food system, pp. 87 – 132.
f. Mintz, R. (1987). Sweetness and power. Chapter 1: Food, Sociality and sugar,
pp. 3 - 18
4. Power and symmetry: food production and consumption
a. Mintz, R. (1987). Sweetness and power. Chapter 4, Power, pp. 151 – 186.
b. Sismondo, S. (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies.
Wiley-Blackwell Publishers. Chapter 8, Actor Network Theory, pp. 81 – 92.
c. Callon, M. (1986). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation:
Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen. In: J. Law (ed), Power,
action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? London: Routledge, pp.
196 - 223
d. Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (ed), A
Sociology of monsters, London: Routledge, pp. 615 – 625.
e. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law
(ed), A Sociology of monsters, London: Routledge, pp. 132-155.
http://www.unc.edu/~jbecks/comps/pdf/callon.pdf
f. Murdoch, J. (2001). Ecologising Sociology: Actor-Network Theory, Coconstruction and the Problem of Human Exemptionalism. Sociology Vol. 35,
No. 1, pp. 111–133
g. Goodman, D., DuPuis, M.E. (2002). Knowing food and growing food:
Beyond the production–consumption debate in the sociology of agriculture.
Sociologia Ruralis,Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 5–22
7
5. Symmetry: Where is the local? What is natural?
a. Sismondo, S. (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies.
Wiley-Blackwell Publishers. Chapter 14, The unnaturalness of science and
technology, pp. 157 – 167.
b. Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: a search for limits in an age of
high technology. University of Chicago Press. Chapter 7: The state of nature
revisited, pp. 121 – 137.
c. Sagoff, M. (2001). Genetic Engineering and the concept of nature. Philosophy
and Public Policy Quarterly, Vol. 21 (2/3), pp. 2 - 10.
d. Schwartz Cowan, R. (1996). A social history of American technology,
Chapter 2: Husbandry and Huswifery in the colonies, pp 28 – 45.
e. McWilliams, J.E. (2010). Just Food: where locavores get it wrong and how
we can truly eat responsibly. Chapter 1 and 2, pp. 17 - 80.
f. Hinrichs, C. (2003). The practice and politics of food system localization.
Journal of Rural studies, 19 (1) p 33 – 45.
6. The politics of science, science as politics.
a. Beardsworth, A., Keil, T. (1997). Sociology on the menu, an invitation to the
study of food and society. Chapter 5: Changing conceptions of diet and health,
pp 125 – 149.
b. Nestle, M. (2007). Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition,
and Health. 2nd, revised edition, Part 1: pp. 29 – 92.
c. Sismondo, S. (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies.
Wiley-Blackwell Publishers.
i. Chapter 7, Feminist epistemologies of science, pp. 72 - 80.
ii. Chapter 12: Objectivity and standardization, pp. 136 – 147.
d. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in
Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, Vol. 14,
No. 3. (Autumn, 1988), pp. 575 – 599.
8
e. Jasanoff, S. (2006). Biotechnology and empire: The global power of seeds and
science, OSIRIS Vol 21, pp. 273 – 292.
7. Hunger versus empire: the biotechnology debate
a. Sismondo, S (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies.
Wiley-Blackwell Publishers.
i. Chapter 11: Controversies, pp. 120 – 135.
ii. Chapter 13: Rhetoric and discourse, pp. 148 – 156.
b. Ruse, M., Castle Amherst, D. (2002). Genetically Modified Foods: Debating
Biotechnology. NY: Prometheus Books. Prologue: The debate between Prince
Charles & Richard Dawkins, pp. 11 – 20.
c. Borlaug, N.E. (1970). The green revolution, peace and humanity. Lecture
given in acceptance of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize, Stockholm. 3 pp.
d. Shiva, V. (2000). Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply.
Chapter 6, Genetic Engineering and Food Security, pp. 95 – 116.
e. Borlaug, N. (2000). Ending World Hunger. The Promise of Biotechnology
and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry. Plant Physiol, October 2000, Vol. 124,
pp. 487-490
f. Kleinman, D.L. (2005). Science and technology in society: from
biotechnology to the Internet. Blackwell Publishing. Chapter 2: Ceding
debate: biotechnology and agriculture. pp. 15 – 33.
g. McWilliams, J.E. (2010). Just Food: where locavores get it wrong and how
we can truly eat responsibly. Chapter 3: Frankenfood? A case for Genetically
Modified Crops, pp. 81 – 116.
h. McMichael, P., Schneider, M. (2011). Food security politics and the
Millennium Development Goals. Third World Quarterly, 32 (1) 119 – 139.
9
8. Risk and the problem of governance
a. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: towards a new modernity. Chapters 1 and 2 (p
19 – 84).
b. Wynne, B. (2007). Risky Delusions: Misunderstanding Science and
Misperforming Publics in the GE Crops Issue. In: Iain Taylor (ed.),
Genetically Engineered Crops: Interim Policies, Uncertain Legislation. New
York: Haworth Food and Agricultural Products Press, pp. 341 – 370.
c. Sismondo, S. (2010). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies.
Wiley-Blackwell Publishers, Chapter 16: Expertise and public participation,
pp. 180 – 188.
d. Schulz Barclay (2009). A hard pill to swallow: pp. 8 – 25.
e. Kleinman, D.L. (2005). Democracy and expertise: citizenship in a high-tech
age. Chapter 7 in: Science and technology in society: from biotechnology to
the Internet. Pp. 102 – 122.
f. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in
Governing Science. Minerva 41: pp. 223-244.
9. Ethics and Social justice
a. McWilliams, J.E. (2010). Just Food: where locavores get it wrong and how
we can truly eat responsibly. Chapter 6: Merging Ecology and Economy, pp.
185 – 212.
b. Gottlieb, R., Joshi, A. (2010). Food Justice.
i. Chapter 1: Growing and producing food, pp. 13 – 38
ii. Chapter 2: Accessing food, pp. 39 – 58
c. Korthals, M. (2004). Before dinner: philosophy and ethics of food, Dordrecht,
NL: Springer. Chapter 6: Living with ethical dilemmas, pp. 45 – 59.
d. Robinson, J. (1999). Ethics and transgenic crops: a review. Electronic Journal
of Biotechnology, 2 (2), pp. 71 – 81.
http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S071734581999000200003&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
10
e. Melanie DuPuis, E., Goodman, D. (2005). Should we go ‘‘home’’ to eat?
Toward a reflexive politics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies 21, 359 – 371
f. Raynolds, L. (2002). Consumer/Producer Links in Fair Trade Coffee
Networks. Sociologia Ruralis, 42 (4) pp. 404 – 424.
g. Trentmann F, 2007, "Before “fair trade”: empire, free trade, and the moral
economies of food in the modern world" Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space 25(6) 1079 – 1102
10. Problems and paradoxes: towards sustainability?
a. McWilliams, J.E. (2010). Just Food: where locavores get it wrong and how
we can truly eat responsibly. Conclusions, pp. 213 – 222.
b. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law
(ed), A Sociology of monsters, London: Routledge, pp. 132-161.
http://www.unc.edu/~jbecks/comps/pdf/callon.pdf
c. Miller, C.A. (2005). New Civic Epistemologies of Quantification: Making
Sense of Indicators of Local and Global Sustainability. Science, Technology
& Human Values, Vol. 30, pp. 403-432,
www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/igsd_creating_indicators.pdf
d. Kloppenburg, J. (2010). Seed Sovereignty: the promise of open source
biology. In: A. Desmarais, N. Wiebe, and H. Wittman (eds.), Food
Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature and Community. pp 152 – 167.
http://www.drs.wisc.edu/faculty/kloppenburg/index.php
e. Smith, A., Stirling, A. (2005). Social-ecological resilience and socio-technical
transitions: critical issues for sustainability governance. STEPS, www.stepscentre.org/PDFs/STEPS%20working%20Paper_transitions.pdf
f. Hassanein, N. (2000). Democratizing agricultural knowledge through
sustainable farming networks. In: D. Kleinman (ed), Science, Technology and
democracy. NY: SUNY pp. 49 – 66.
11
11. Topic presentations, discussion and meal
In the last class, each student will give a 3-minute presentation of the central paradox in
their paper, after which class will continue to discuss the arguments for another 5
minutes. If class agrees, I also suggest we all bring a food item that has some relationship
to your topic. We can then continue a general discussion while enjoying our pot-luck
meal. NB: I have yet to check regulations whether it is allowed to bring food into class.
12