Re: Finishing up (from Julie)

About a year ago, Jessica Hayes-Conroy and I were discussing the politics of the school garden project in Berkeley where she did her recent field research. We were talking about the race politics of such programs, specifically the effect of what I have dubbed as whites wanting to teach others, especially African Americans in the case of at that program, how to eat. While I was thinking about the lack of resonance, she had found a complex mix of rejection, curiosity, joy, humor, and transformation among the African American youth she had observed, spoke with, and gardened with. At the time she was thinking that an interesting approach to writing up her findings would be to take the same findings and write them through multiple lenses. The comment has stuck with me ever since and certainly came to the forefront again in reading and contributing to this blog. Because whereas I like to argue, quite strenuously it seems, about the limits of alternative food politics in terms of political economic transformation or even transformations of individual political subjectivity, when I read others interpretations of the similar phenomenon I often find myself in agreement with them, as well. I was particular sensitive, of course, to Damian's comment about those of us who put alternative food through a neoliberal framework. This is a long way of saying that I am largely in agreement with Jessica and Allison that there's no one conclusion here, because what might be more useful is to hold as similarly valid these multiple interpretations of the same problem/object.

My comments about the collaborative writing follow from this. Although I'm not much of the blogging type (and, frankly, the Sarah Palin phenomenon is sucking up enough of my time), I was struck by the effect of it producing a "real time" conversation with those with whom I do not always agree in our scholarly debates (although I agree with those who would rather have this conversation in the hotel bar . .). It produced an extra degree of civility, care, and engagement. In terms of the real work yet to be done in bringing this conversation into publishable form, I am a fan of the chef model. Pardon the need for ordered rationality (I just can't help myself), but I would organize it around several themes, note where they cross-cut other themes, and then note the leftovers. Rather than refer to them as debates, though, it might be useful to think of them as multiple interpretations that all hold validity.

Note to Mike: Did I accuse you of shouting? If I recall you wrote that ethical commodities "shout" in your workshop paper. As you know, in the person I'm the shouter.