Opening up for participation in agro-biodiversity conservation: The expert-lay interplay in a Brazilian social movement [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (6):559-577 (2008)
In science and environmental studies, there is a general concern for the democratization of the expert-lay interplay. However, the democratization of expertise does not necessarily lead to more sustainable decisions. If citizens do not take the sustainable choice, what should experts and decision makers do? Should the expert-lay interplay be dissolved? In thinking about how to shape the expert-lay interplay in a better way in agro-biodiversity conservation, I take the case of the MST (Movimento Sem Terra/Landless People’s Movement), possibly the largest rural movement in Latin America. The MST is in a process of turning towards environmentalism. It has adopted agroecology, a democratically oriented knowledge field. However, not all of the farmers were willing to adopt new environmentalist ideas and practices. Through ethnographic research, I analyze how expertise was recognized and redistributed within the MST, attending particularly to the role of MST coordinators and technicians. I explore how participation was framed and put into action. The adoption of agroecology brought to the MST a new and more inclusive map of expertise, but it also influenced new social distinctions within the communities. In part, farmers’ knowledge was labeled as ignorance. This may close down possibilities for dialogue as well as for sustainability. The paper suggests that experts’ power for discriminating among lay knowledges should come together with a responsibility for opening spaces for dialogue and action. One way of doing so could be by adding “interactional reflexivity” to experts’ expertise.
|Keywords||Agro-biodiversity Brazil Expert-lay interplay Framing Participation Redistribution of expertise Reflexivity Social movement|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Johannes M. M. Engels, Hannes Dempewolf & Victoria Henson-Apollonio (2011). Ethical Considerations in Agro-Biodiversity Research, Collecting, and Use. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (2):107-126.
Geert Munnichs (2004). Whom to Trust? Public Concerns, Late Modern Risks, and Expert Trustworthiness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):113-130.
Axel Gelfert (2011). Expertise, Argumentation, and the End of Inquiry. Argumentation 25 (3):297-312.
Michael Cholbi (2007). Moral Expertise and the Credentials Problem. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (4):323-334.
Evan M. Selinger (2003). Expertise and Public Ignorance. Critical Review 15 (3-4):375-386.
Jason Borenstein (2002). Authenticating Expertise. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (1):85-102.
Jennifer Mnookin, Idealizing Science and Demonizing Experts: An Intellectual History of Expert Evidence.
Robert Pierson (1994). The Epistemic Authority of Expertise. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:398 - 405.
Harry Collins & Martin Weinel (2011). Transmuted Expertise: How Technical Non-Experts Can Assess Experts and Expertise. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (3):401-413.
Robert M. Veatch (1991). Consensus of Expertise: The Role of Consensus of Experts in Formulating Public Policy and Estimating Facts. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4):427-445.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #82,873 of 1,102,929 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #24,648 of 1,102,929 )
How can I increase my downloads?