Following up on 'following' and mixing

Dear Ian et al.,

Thank you for the kind invitation to contribute to this discussion forum - it is my first attempt at blogging and certainly a novel way to develop interesting dialogues on geographies of food. Having now digested the two review papers, following and mixing respectively, and briefly followed the trail of discussions on the blog I offer up the following few (after-) thoughts. I hope they are in someway useful and constructive; most comments in the post below relate to the two papers and a few wider issues at the end.

I enjoyed reading both papers - they contain a raft of useful references and ideas on some exciting aspects of food geography, as well as drawing links to other areas of work within and beyond human geography. For me, the second paper, on mixing, covered a good deal of ground that was pretty new to me. Some of the examples in the review were fascinating and will be excellent for teaching purposes. The use and deeper analysis/review of bell hooks (1992) 'eating the other' argument at the start of the paper was also interesting (a point which I see already noted in earlier postings).

My first main point is to reflect briefly on my seeming lack of knowledge on these consumption-orientated issues! Sure I've read bits of bell hooks' work and some of the other papers cited, but some are also quite new to me. Why is this and does it matter? I must, of course, accept some personal responsibility for my ignorance to some of the issues the mixing review raises (I need to read more!?). However, I think it also says something about where I sit in this '(un)disciplined food geography' (Cook et al., 2006). I tend to do stuff that is often anchored at the food production / agricultural end of the mix and much less (well, hardly anything at all really) on consumption and certainly nothing on the mixing together of food, ethnicity, (anti)colonialism and memory. In recent years a good chunk of my own work has involved work on 'alternative food networks' and food chains, some of it empirically-based and other bits more review/editorial-type stuff (see Maye et al., 2007, for example). To be honest, I find it difficult enough to stay on top of this burgeoning sub-field of agri-food studies.

Pushing this personal self-reflection aside, a wider secondary issue the papers raise for me then (not necessarily in themselves) is about the broad ranging nature and scope of (agri-) food geographies. In fact, I would argue that two progress reports, although broad in coverage, reflect fairly specific areas of food research akin to Ian's own sub-specialisms (if I can put it that way). This is a point which Ian himself picks up in his reference to the earlier reviews on 'reconnection' by Mike Winter in 2003a/b and 2004. As an after-thought then, I wonder if this really matters? Do we need to galvanise and build a more clearly defined food geography? Does one already exist? Is this just another pointless empire building exercise or would it help to further develop progressive food-related research efforts? Do I need to calm down, relax and not get so worked up about such things? Probably.

I now want to deal explicitly with the following paper, which deals with areas of food work where I feel a little more familiar. I remember first reading the following review paper when it appeared in 2006. My initial reactions, at the time, were somewhat mixed (pun intended!). I think much of this was a reaction to the writing style, particularly in the opening pages. It all seemed interesting enough, but it seemed a bit odd for a progress report. I wondered if it was trying to be a bit too clever, like the pun above! I was asking myself things like: "what's this "here...there...[and] everywhere" stuff all about?" This is a progress review - I wanted to see the big ideas, the concepts...whether he had cited any of my stuff!... One of the points of the review, of course, which emerges later in the paper, is to think about the possibility of writing and discussing things in ways that cross-disciplinary borders and present materials in ways that leave interpretations open to the reader/audience. The 2006 following review paper even ends with a suggestion "to shut down academic journals like this one [Progress in Human Geog.] and force academic geographers to write for more public audiences..." (p.662). This is an interesting proposal, but I'm not sure it is likely or possible. That said, I completely agree with the point about doing food research that is less paper writing centric and less complete.

This picks up another, slightly wider point about 'critical food geographies' which I'd like to raise in response to the papers - in terms of the way we do food research, why we do it and how we disseminate it. I take my lead from two slightly contrasting sources. The first is a commentary published a couple of years ago by David Harvey (2006) in Transactions where he provided a pretty scathing critique of so-called 'critical human geography' in the UK. He was particularly critical of the RAE process (no surprise there then!), the type of research it produced and for whom. He called for what he referred to as more 'substantive pieces', empirically grounded but also theoretically strong. He basically wants us (if you call yourself a 'critical geographer') to do more of the stuff (in a methodological sense) he and similar folks did in Baltimore and other places (usually cities) in the 1970s and 1980s. The tone of some of the arguments are a little hard to take in places, but his wider point about the need for substantive work I think is an important message for those of us also operating in the sub-fields of food geography. In fact I would argue that some of the examples cited in the following and mixing progress reviews are testament to the fact that some of this work is in fact still very much alive and kicking, albeit in a different conceptual guise and writing style. A second recently published paper by Bill Friedland (2008) in the US makes an equally interesting point about the idea of research and the role of the researcher in developing sustainable agri-food systems, discussing in this case the nature of activism and activist work alongside academic paper writing commitments. The broad message seems to be to think much more seriously about the actual latent impacts that our research has on the ground over and above writing responsibilities and to re-dress what he sees as a current "chasm" between the two. In a much less politically motivated tone, the current Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme is a case where certainly researchers are being encouraged to cross disciplinary boundaries and engage stakeholders and 'publics' in the research process, rather than merely as end users, or the "missing 'consumer'" (Cook et al., 2006: 662).

These ideas about how we do research, how we write and how we disseminate findings are significant after-thoughts in the context of developing robust and also meaningful food geographies. I'm not for a minute saying we don't do these things and that we now really need to, but offer them up as ideas to consider, discuss and possibly critique. Are they realistic, for example, in the current university/research environment? In this critical vein, I'd suggest that the very notion of what we mean by 'critical' also needs to be handled with a good deal of care. I'll use an example from the local food literature to serve this point. Agri-food studies has been dominated in the past 10 years or so by a plethora of works examining local food networks, as noted in Ian's review (Cook et al., 2006). Much of this work is critical in terms of questioning the ontological status and validity of terms such as 'local' and 'alternative', often positioned as standing against but simultaneously symbolising and even working for the neo-liberal political project. This work has thus raised important moral and social justice questions about particular food systems. This is important work. However, I would argue that care needs to be taken not to undermine (without substantive evidence, if I can put it that way) some of the progressive steps (albeit perhaps not made in an ideal capacity) to transform and develop more sustainable food systems. In other words, the job of a critical food geographer is to constructively critique and develop rather than to impose political logics or ideologies without 'real' grounded evidence to support their broader academic viewpoints.

That's how I see it anyway and in the current climate I think it is especially important. In the current 'food security'/'food crisis', for instance, we are witnessing a clear retrenchment (at least in UK quarters) to productivist / intensive logics. One need only pick up a copy of Farmers Weekly or your daily newspaper to see clear evidence of this. It will be critical moving forward to actively work and publicly engage consumers and other publics to not forget past mistakes when it comes to food production and consumption. Sure we need more food as populations increase, notably in China and India, but how that food is produced must surely not simply concern producing more of the same. These new pressures will thus require a continued building of substantive works to tackle food and water shortage issues, and to combat disease and other hazards in ways that are sustainable and also equitable. Some sense of this current way of thinking and potential tension seems an important after-thought in the forthcoming review.

I'd like to end what has already become far too long a ramble with a few closing comments on the 'following' concept. It is something which I find interesting and useful from a teaching and research capacity, although i still don't think I've ever seen anyone attempt to define exactly what it is (accepting it may be more than one thing or process). Ian's 2006 review sets out a fairly robust review of its value in both teaching and research capacities in response to critiques about the 'defunctness' of commodity fetishism. In my own teaching capacity, I have used Ian's (2004) earlier following papaya paper in seminars on globalisation, with students adopting the roles of different 'actors' in the chain and collectively 'stitching' the food story together on a whiteboard. This always worked very well. What was interesting was the way the descriptive nature of the paper initially throws students (a bit like my response to the following review), who were more used to reading conventional papers (if at all!); also important was the spaces for discussion the seminar offered up. In a research capacity, I have used the following metaphor as part of a process to draw and then 'follow' connections for local food and drink products. This usually stopped at the point of retail, be it a shop, a pub, a post office, or a supermarket. I could say more about all this, but I want to end by raising a few questions about 'following' as a process and exercise. They come out from reading that first review paper:

* must following [and food geographies] always be politically charged?

* must following always be about the theory of commodity fetishism?

* must following always be global in scale?

* must following always be ethnographic and about relations between producers and consumers?

I have my own views, but will hold them back for now.

OK - I look forward to potential discussions on any of the above. Apologies this post is a little later than some of the others and a little longer than it probably needs to be. Thanks also to Ian for badgering and encouraging me to get involved.

Cheers,

Damian Maye

Countryside and Community Research Institute

University of Gloucestershire

Key references:

Harvey, D. (2006) Editorial: The geographies of critical geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 409-412.

Friedland, W. H. (2008) Chasms in agrifood systems: rethinking how we can contribute. Agriculture and Human Values, 1, 197-201.

Maye, D., Holloway, L. and Kneafsey, M. (2007) (eds.) Alternative food geographies: representation and practice. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 358.