The Fruit of Contradiction: Reading Durian through a Cultural Phytosemiotic Lens

IF 0.6 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Philosophies Pub Date : 2024-06-18 DOI:10.3390/philosophies9030087
John Charles Ryan
{"title":"The Fruit of Contradiction: Reading Durian through a Cultural Phytosemiotic Lens","authors":"John Charles Ryan","doi":"10.3390/philosophies9030087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Distinctive for its pungent and oftentimes rotten odor, the thorny fruit of durian (Durio spp.) is considered a delicacy throughout Asia. Despite its burgeoning global recognition, durian remains a fruit of contradiction—desirable to some yet repulsive to others. Although regarded commonly as immobile, mute, and insentient, plants such as durian communicate within their own bodies, between the same and different species, and between themselves and other life forms. As individuals and collectives, plants develop modes of language—or phytodialects—that are specific to certain contexts. Focused on vegetal semiosis or sign processes, a phytosemiotic lens views plants as dynamic and expressive subjects positioned within lifeworlds. Absent from phytosemiotic theory, however, are the cultural sign processes that take place within and between plants—what I call cultural phytosemiotics. The framework I propose calls attention to the interlinked biological, ecological, and cultural dimensions of signification between plants and non-plants. From a phytosemiotic standpoint, this article examines historical, cinematographic, and literary narratives of durian. Reflecting the fruit’s divisive sensory effects, historical accounts of Durio by Niccolò de’ Conti, Jan Huyghen van Linschoten, Georg Eberhard Rumphius, and William Marsden alternate between praise and disdain. Moreover, films such as Fruit Chan’s Durian Durian (2000) and Anthony Chen’s Wet Season (2019) narrativize the polarities that similarly figure into historical depictions of the species. Literary narratives, including the poems “Durians” (2005) by Hsien Min Toh and “Hurling a Durian” (2013) by Sally Wen Mao, investigate the language of durian’s olfactory and gustatory sensations. Along a continuum between adoration to revulsion, durian embodies the otherness of vegetal being. In an era of rampant biodiversity loss, learning to embrace botanical difference should be a human imperative.","PeriodicalId":31446,"journal":{"name":"Philosophies","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9030087","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Distinctive for its pungent and oftentimes rotten odor, the thorny fruit of durian (Durio spp.) is considered a delicacy throughout Asia. Despite its burgeoning global recognition, durian remains a fruit of contradiction—desirable to some yet repulsive to others. Although regarded commonly as immobile, mute, and insentient, plants such as durian communicate within their own bodies, between the same and different species, and between themselves and other life forms. As individuals and collectives, plants develop modes of language—or phytodialects—that are specific to certain contexts. Focused on vegetal semiosis or sign processes, a phytosemiotic lens views plants as dynamic and expressive subjects positioned within lifeworlds. Absent from phytosemiotic theory, however, are the cultural sign processes that take place within and between plants—what I call cultural phytosemiotics. The framework I propose calls attention to the interlinked biological, ecological, and cultural dimensions of signification between plants and non-plants. From a phytosemiotic standpoint, this article examines historical, cinematographic, and literary narratives of durian. Reflecting the fruit’s divisive sensory effects, historical accounts of Durio by Niccolò de’ Conti, Jan Huyghen van Linschoten, Georg Eberhard Rumphius, and William Marsden alternate between praise and disdain. Moreover, films such as Fruit Chan’s Durian Durian (2000) and Anthony Chen’s Wet Season (2019) narrativize the polarities that similarly figure into historical depictions of the species. Literary narratives, including the poems “Durians” (2005) by Hsien Min Toh and “Hurling a Durian” (2013) by Sally Wen Mao, investigate the language of durian’s olfactory and gustatory sensations. Along a continuum between adoration to revulsion, durian embodies the otherness of vegetal being. In an era of rampant biodiversity loss, learning to embrace botanical difference should be a human imperative.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
矛盾之果:从植物文化的角度解读榴莲
榴莲(Durio spp.)的果实多刺,气味刺鼻,有时甚至腐烂,在整个亚洲都被视为美味佳肴。尽管榴莲在全球的知名度不断提高,但它仍然是一种矛盾的水果--有些人喜欢,有些人却厌恶。虽然榴莲等植物通常被认为是不动的、哑巴的和没有知觉的,但它们却能在自己体内、同种和不同种之间以及自身和其他生命形式之间进行交流。作为个体和集体,植物发展出特定环境下的语言模式或植物方言。以植物符号学或符号过程为重点,植物符号学视角将植物视为生命世界中充满活力和表现力的主体。然而,植物符号学理论并不包括发生在植物内部和植物之间的文化符号过程--我称之为文化植物符号学。我提出的框架呼吁人们关注植物与非植物之间相互关联的生物、生态和文化符号。从植物符号学的角度出发,本文研究了榴莲的历史、电影和文学叙事。尼科洛-德-孔蒂(Niccolò de' Conti)、扬-赫伊亨-范-林肖腾(Jan Huyghen van Linschoten)、格奥尔格-埃伯哈德-朗菲斯(Georg Eberhard Rumphius)和威廉-马斯登(William Marsden)对榴莲的历史描述在赞美与蔑视之间交替出现,反映了榴莲在感官上的分歧。此外,陈果的《榴莲榴莲》(2000年)和陈炳炎的《湿季》(2019年)等电影也叙述了历史上对这一物种的描述中类似的两极分化。文学叙事,包括杜贤明(Hsien Min Toh)的诗歌《榴莲》(2005年)和毛蒨文(Sally Wen Mao)的诗歌《掷榴莲》(2013年),研究了榴莲的嗅觉和味觉语言。在从崇拜到反感的过程中,榴莲体现了植物存在的另类性。在生物多样性肆意丧失的时代,学会拥抱植物的差异应该成为人类的当务之急。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Philosophies
Philosophies Multiple-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
122
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Horror as Film Philosophy Poetic Judgement in Everyday Speech Didier Eribon vs. ‘The People’—A Critique of Chantal Mouffe’s Left Populism Decolonial Philosophies and Complex Communication as Praxis Belarus’s Sound Body
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1