Considering the Diverse Views of Ecologisation in the Agrifood Transition: An Analysis Based on Human Relationships with Nature

IF 2.2 2区 哲学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environmental Values Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.3197/096327121X16387842836940
D. Magda, C. Lamine, J. Billaud
{"title":"Considering the Diverse Views of Ecologisation in the Agrifood Transition: An Analysis Based on Human Relationships with Nature","authors":"D. Magda, C. Lamine, J. Billaud","doi":"10.3197/096327121X16387842836940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to characterise the visions of ecologisation found within scientific approaches embraced by different epistemic communities, and which have inspired empirical work and public action on agrifood system transitions. Based on comparative readings of works anchored in our two disciplinary fields (ecology and sociology), we identified six large ensembles of epistemic communities as well as their points of convergence and divergence. We identify six ideotypical visions of ecologisation based on the types of ‘relationships to nature’ embedded in these large sets of epistemic communities: protectionism, functionalism, structuralism, post-structuralism, relational and pragmatist-experience-based. We suggest that pragmatist-experience-based approaches allow us to transcend two classical oppositions: between realism and constructivism, and between a conception of nature as passive and external as opposed to active and relational. Without claiming to offer a detailed analysis of these approaches, we hope that our work can be used as a tool to support reflection among scientists and other actors involved in agrifood system transitions.","PeriodicalId":47200,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Values","volume":"31 1","pages":"657 - 679"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Values","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3197/096327121X16387842836940","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This article aims to characterise the visions of ecologisation found within scientific approaches embraced by different epistemic communities, and which have inspired empirical work and public action on agrifood system transitions. Based on comparative readings of works anchored in our two disciplinary fields (ecology and sociology), we identified six large ensembles of epistemic communities as well as their points of convergence and divergence. We identify six ideotypical visions of ecologisation based on the types of ‘relationships to nature’ embedded in these large sets of epistemic communities: protectionism, functionalism, structuralism, post-structuralism, relational and pragmatist-experience-based. We suggest that pragmatist-experience-based approaches allow us to transcend two classical oppositions: between realism and constructivism, and between a conception of nature as passive and external as opposed to active and relational. Without claiming to offer a detailed analysis of these approaches, we hope that our work can be used as a tool to support reflection among scientists and other actors involved in agrifood system transitions.
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
从人与自然关系的角度看农业粮食转型中的生态化问题
本文旨在描述不同认知社区所采用的科学方法中发现的生态化愿景,这些方法激发了农业食品系统转型的实证工作和公共行动。基于对我们两个学科领域(生态学和社会学)的作品的比较阅读,我们确定了六个认知社区的大集合,以及它们的趋同点和分歧点。我们根据嵌入在这些大型认知社区中的“与自然的关系”类型确定了六种典型的生态愿景:保护主义、功能主义、结构主义、后结构主义、关系主义和实用主义-基于经验的。我们认为实用主义-基于经验的方法使我们能够超越两个经典的对立:现实主义和建构主义之间的对立,以及被动和外部的自然概念与主动和关系之间的对立。虽然没有对这些方法进行详细的分析,但我们希望我们的工作可以作为一种工具,支持科学家和其他参与农业食品系统转型的参与者进行反思。
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
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
36.40%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Environmental Values is an international peer-reviewed journal that brings together contributions from philosophy, economics, politics, sociology, geography, anthropology, ecology and other disciplines, which relate to the present and future environment of human beings and other species. In doing so we aim to clarify the relationship between practical policy issues and more fundamental underlying principles or assumptions.
期刊最新文献
Every tree fixed with a purpose: Contesting value in Olmsted's parks On degrowth strategy: The Simpler Way perspective A social and ethical game-changer? An empirical ethics study of CRISPR in the salmon farming industry Who owns NATURE? Conceptual appropriation in discourses on climate and biotechnologies Book Review: Strange Natures. Conservation in the Era of Synthetic Biology by Kent H. Redford and William M. Adams
×
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