Assimilation of the subjective ‘others’ knowledge by ‘actualising’ it into our own objective knowledge; health and eating
“healthy eating is good for the ecology. The building blocks of a healthy diet are pesticide-free foods raised on mineral-rich soil, and healthy animals that live free to manure the paddocks of thousands of farms, rather than suffer in factories, confined to misery and disease. The road to health starts with a willingness to pay a good price for such food, thus rewarding the farmer who preserves the land through wise farming practices, rather than the agribusiness that mines the soil for quick profits.”
“Modern technology allows the appearance of health but not the substance….Technology propels us headlong into the future, but there will be no future unless that technology is tamed to the service of wise ancestral foodways.”
http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional-diets/nasty-brutish-short by Sally Farron Morell
“We have been stripping phytonutrients from our diet since we stopped foraging for wild plants some 10,000 years ago and became farmers.These insights have been made possible by new technology that has allowed researchers to compare the phytonutrient content of wild plants with the produce in our supermarkets.”
A common theme here is that until the positive leverage for human potential of a biological entity has been actualised and assimilated into ‘our’ way of thinking, then that biological entities ‘positive leverage for human potential’ characteristics do not exist in some sense. e.g. now we know about ‘phytonutrients’ we can use this reductive category to partially assimilate other knowledge systems into the ‘scientific’ discourse and thus partially actualise the ‘positive leverage for human potential’ of these biological entities.
This still leaves the question of hegemony and political-economy, the inherent limitation of a reductive framework within the discourse, and finally the ‘bullish’ nature of the medical-scientific culture to only accept an outcome from a cross-cultural negotiation on its own terms. As Latour might put it there isn’t mutual negotiation but arbitrated negotiation where the arbitrator is ‘Nature’ and what Nature is, is decided by one side of the negotiation as they hold the ‘objective keys’ – medical science.
Unfortunately the development of technologies around such a discourse means their characteristics reflect its ‘commodifying’ outlook which is symptomatic, appearance directed, and excels in treating the categorical commodity that it aims for ‘dying people’.
A nice image comparing some fruit and veg phytonutrient content 🙂