Shellabarger, Rachel M. (author), Voss, Rachel C. (author), Egerer, Monika (author), Chiang, Shun-Nan (author), and University of California, Santa Cruz
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018-10-17
Published:
United States: Springer Netherlands
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 8 Document Number: D10316
13 pages., Via online journal., The idea of a profound urban–rural divide has shaped analysis of the 2016 U.S. presidential election results. Here, through examples from agri-food systems, we consider the limitations of the urban–rural divide framework in light of the assumptions and intentions that underpin it. We explore the ideas and imaginaries that shape urban and rural categories, consider how material realities are and are not translated into U.S. rural development, farm, and nutrition policies, and examine the blending of rural and urban identities through processes of rural deagrarianization and urban reagrarianization. We do not argue that an urban–rural divide does not exist, as studies and public opinion polls illustrate both measured and perceived differences in many aspects of the lived experiences that shape our individual and collective actions. Ultimately, we suggest that the urban–rural divide concept obscures the diversity and dynamism of experiences each category encompasses. Additionally, it ignores the connections and commonalities that demand integrative solutions to challenges in agri-food systems, and draw attention to the power relations that shape resource access and use within and across urban and rural spaces.
14 pages., via online journal., ‘In the mid-1990s, a mismatch was addressed between European genetically modified food policy, which focused primarily on risks and economic prospects, and public anxieties, which also included other concerns, and there was a development in European food policy toward the inclusion of what were referred to as “ethical aspects.” Using parliamentary debates in Denmark in 2002 and 2015 as a case, this article examines how three storylines of concern that were visible in public discourse at the time were represented by the decision makers in parliament. It shows that core public concerns raising fundamental questions about genetically modified foods, and in particular their perceived unnaturalness, were not considered in the parliamentary debates. It is suggested that the failure of the parliament to represent the public may undermine the legitimacy of politicians and lead to disillusionment with parliamentary government.
14 pages., Food ecologies and economies are vital to the survival of communities, non-human species, and our planet. While environmental communication scholars have legitimated food as a topic of inquiry, the entangled ecological, cultural, economic, racial, colonial, and alimentary relations that sustain food systems demand greater attention. In this essay, we review literature within and beyond environmental communication, charting the landscape of critical food work in our field. We then illustrate how environmental justice commitments can invigorate interdisciplinary food systems-focused communication scholarship articulating issues of, and critical responses to, injustice and inequity across the food chain. We stake an agenda for food systems communication by mapping three orientations—food system reform, justice, and sovereignty—that can assist in our critical engagements with and interventions into the food system. Ultimately, we entreat environmental communication scholars to attend to the bends, textures, and confluences of these orientations so that we may deepen our future food-related inquiries.
Limit your search
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)✖[remove]4
