Download pdf - Pedagogies of doing good: Problematisations, … · Pedagogies of doing good: Problematisations, authorities, technologies and teleologies in food activism Rick Flowers and Elaine

Australian Journal of Adult Learning Volume 52, Number 3, November 2012

Pedagogies of doing good: Problematisations, authorities, technologies and teleologies in food

activism

Rick Flowers and Elaine SwanUniversity of Technology, Sydney

In this paper, we apply a framework from Nikolas Rose to analyse the politics of ‘doing good’ in food activist education, what we call food pedagogies. We argue that a detailed exploration of food pedagogies has been neglected in adult education and in the growing field of food studies, in spite of the rapidly proliferating forms and site of food education, advice and learning in Australia and other countries. In contrast to other frameworks in adult education which focus on classifying approaches as behaviourist, humanist, progressive and radical, we deploy problematisations, technologies, authorities and teleologies. These latter ‘pathways’ move away from an abstract idea of ‘power as property’ and as coercive (Gore 1993) to an examination of ‘power as technique’ and as productive. Drawing on qualitative data with three different types of food activist educators – a biodynamic educator, a health promotion managers and two farmer-activists, we show Rose’s framework

Rick Flowers and Elaine Swan 533

opens up our ideas about what can be seen as pedagogical to include the non-human and how adult educators authorise their claims to be doing good. We conclude by arguing that the differences in how each of these activists see food and health should not simply be seen as a difference in opinion but a difference in what Annemarie Mol (1999) calls ontological politics. In so doing, the paper contributes new findings and theorising on pedagogies to food studies, and a new analytic framework for analysing adult education approaches and in particular their claims to be ‘doing good.’

The politics of knowledge and relations between teachers and learners are foundational concerns of adult education scholars (Foley2000;Cervero&Wilson2000;Alfred2001;Vella1994).Incriticalfoodreform,theracialised,classedandgenderedmoralitiesoffoodknowledgearefoundationalconcerns(Guthman2004,2008;Slocum2011;Kimura2011;Ken2010;Lupton1998).Inthispaper,weanalysehowtheseintersectinfoodactivistpedagogies,itselfanunder-researchedtopicinadultlearningandfoodstudiesaswehavearguedelsewhere(FlowersandSwan2011;seealsoCook2009).DrawingonaFoucauldianframeworkculledfromBritishsociologistNikolasRose(1996),weanalysetheaccountsofthreetypesoffoodactivists:abio-dynamicagriculturaleducator,ahealtheducator,andtwofarmer-activists,takenfromafull-dayroundtableweconvenedforfoodactivistsinvolvedineducationalworkforethicalandsustainable food.

Wehavetwomainaims:first,toofferananalysisoftheprojectof‘doinggood’infoodpedagogiesthroughusingRose’sframework.Bydoinggood,wemeanthewaysinwhicheducators–andinthiscasefoodactivisteducators–authorisewhattheydoasaformofethics;andsecondly,tocomparetheframeworktotypologiesofadult education which describe politics of knowledge and relations betweenteachersandlearners(Merriam,Cafferella&Baumgartner

534 Pedagogies of doing good

2007;Newman1993,2006;Fenwick2006;Boud&Griffin1987).Infocusingon‘doinggood’,weintendtoexaminethewaysinwhichfoodeducatorslegitimatetheirinterventions,andthepoliticsoftheseclaims(seeGuthman2008onhowwhiteundergraduatestudentstrytodogoodby‘bringinggoodfoodtoothers’).Thisisanimportanttopicforfoodstudies’authorswhoquestionthemoralityinfoodadvicebutupuntilnowhavefocusedlessonpedagogiesperse(Mol2010;Jackson2009;Coveney,thisissue;PikeandLeahy,thisissue).InthepaperwearguethatRose’sframeworkisafruitfulformofanalysisforeducatorsasitopensupthevistaofwhatcanbeunderstoodaspedagogical;expandsourunderstandingofthetypesofknowledgethatadulteducatorsmobiliseintheirwork;andfinally,offersawaytoexaminethepoliticsof‘doinggood.’

Ofcourse,theworkofMichelFoucaulthasbeenusedextensivelyinanalysingadulteducationinthepasttwentyyears(Fejes&Nicholl2007;Fejes2008;Garrick&Solomon2001;Reich2008;Chappell,Rhodes,Solomon,Tennant&Yates2003;McLean2012;Tennant1998;English2006;Swan2009,2008;Gore1993).Asadulteducationtheorist,ScottMcLean(2012)writes,NikolasRose’sresearchislessrecognisedanddeployedinadulteducation,inspiteofhavinginfluencedanumberofrelatedfields.BothFoucaultandRoseofferadulteducatorsaconceptualisationoftheoperationofpower,quitedistinctfromGramsciandMarxandothertheoriesofpowerusedinsomeformsofadulteducationliterature.Itisdistinctonanumberofcounts.First,implicitinsometypologiesofadulteducation(seetable1)isaconstructionofpowerasapossession,asee-sawmodelinwhichteachershaveitorlearnershaveit.Thisleadsadulteducatorstoemphasisehowpowershouldbedistributedtolearners,aconceptof‘power-as-property’(Gore1993:73;Chappelletal.2003).ButforFoucaultandRose,powerisexercisedratherthanowned.Thismeans:


‘thatpowerisnotthepossessionofsomepeoplewhowielditoverothersdominatingandconstrainingthembutthatitisrelationalandproductive.Withoutpower,nothingisachieved.Butifpowerisnottobefoundinsomebody’shands,orinthisorthatsocialactor’spossession,thenwhatisitandhowdoesitmanifestitself(Fox2000:860)?’

Powerisexercisedthrougheverydaymundaneactivitiesandprocesses:whatFoucaultcalls‘technologies’:hybridassemblagesofdiverseformsofknowledgesuchasadvice,techniques,judgments,experts,texts,andsanctions.Technologiesarehighlyconcrete,specificformsknowledge-in-practicenotgeneralisedapproaches.Throughthesemundane,micro,even‘minorandpetty’formsofexpertise,authoritiessuchasthestateattempttogovernthroughcapacitating,notconstrainingus.Thisworksinquiteunsystematic,dispersed,contradictoryandlocalisedwaysacrossinnumerableandunexpectedsites(Miller&Rose1996:12;Miller&Rose2008;McNay1992).

Thisreformulationofpowerisimportantfortheorisingadulteducation.Adulteducationisoftenconceivedbyscholarsandactivistsasasiteforenablinglearnerstoliberatethemselvesthroughgainingnewknowledgeorbecomingconsciousofexistingbutundervaluedformsofknowledge.ButanotherpointofdistinctionisthatforFoucault,therecanbenoseparationofpowerandknowledge,thusheusesthetermpower/knowledge.Powerworksthroughallformsofknowledge:forexample,bottom-upandtop-down,scientificandlay,andparticularlyforFoucault,self-knowledge(McHoul&Grace1993).There is no point of origin such as an institution like the state or an elitecabal.Andthereisnowaytobeoutsideofpoweroroutsideofknowledge,evensocalledliberatoryknowledgesuchasconsciousnessraisingorself-reflection.

Thirdly,poweris,inaddition,notseensimplyasacoerciveforce.Itisalsoproductiveinthesensethatwecandoandbethingsasa


resultoftheoperationofpower.Partofitsproductivenessisthewayitoperatesthroughnotionsofseduction,freedomanddesireratherthanprohibition,coercionandpunishment.Rosearguesthat,althoughtheselatterformsofpowerarestillinoperationtheyaresecondarytotheideaofourbeinggovernedbytheideaoffreedom.Thus,hewritesthat‘instrivingtoliveourautonomouslives,todiscoverwhowereallyare,torealizeourpotentialsandshapeourlifestyles,webecome…boundinnewwaysintothepedagogiesofexpertise(1999citedinMcLean2012).Animportantpartoftheoperationofpowerthenisthatweimaginewearedoinggoodtoourselves:gettingthegoodlifeofhealth,wealthorhappiness.Wheneducatorsworkwithsuch‘pedagogiesofexpertise,’theytooconstructthemselvesasdoinggoodinhelpingpeoplegetthegoodlife.

Inthisspecialissue,JohnCoveney,JoPikeandDeannaLeahyprovideusefulFoucauldiananalysesofnutritionandschoollunches,respectively.Ourworkdiffersinthreekeyways:first,wearekeentoofferaframeworkwhichcouldbeusedtointerrogate‘doinggood’acrossothersitesofadulteducation;secondly,ifweacceptthatpedagogiesworkthroughhybridassemblagesweareinterestedtoexaminewaysinwhichfoodactivistsmobilisediverseformsofadvice,techniques,judgments,experts,texts,andsanctionsandwhatthismaymeanpolitically.Wehavearguedelsewherethatactivistsinfoodsocialmovementsdrawonapanoplyofknowledges:codifiedandinformal;theoreticalandexperiential;layandexpert;embodiedandcognitive;gendered,racialisedandclassed(Flowers&Swan2011;seealsoAllenetal.2003forresearchontheplacebasednatureoffoodactivismknowledges).Muchofwhatisgoingoninfoodsocialmovementsis:

‘strugglesoverknowledgesystems…Themostcursorylookattoday’sfoodadvertisementsshowsthatallfoodisembeddedinacontesteddiscourseofknowledgeclaims’(Goodman&DuPuis2002:18).


Asweemphasiseelsewherethepoliticsofknowing-whatisknown,whoproducesitand‘whoisintheknow’-arecriticaltofoodpedagogies(FlowersandSwan2011).Thistypeofpoliticslinkstoourthirdaimwhichistoexaminetheauthorisationof‘doinggood’andtheirrelationstogender,raceandclass.Strugglesoverknowledgearealsostrugglesaboutthelegitimacyforauthority.Rose’sframeworkencouragesustoanalysethepoliticsof‘doinggood’asaformoflegitimacy.Contrarytosomeadulteducationtheorists,thismeanswecastacriticalgazeattheclaimsto‘doinggood’madebyactivistsaswemightattheclaimsmadebyinstitutionalexpertstoofferusnewwaystothinkaboutadulteducationandfoodactivism.Todothiswebeginwithasummaryofa‘typical’adulteducationapproachesframework,followedbyanintroductiontotheworkofNikolasRose;weintroduceRose’sframeworkofproblematisations,technologies,authoritiesandteleologiesinsomedetailsothatthiscouldbeappliedtofutureadulteducationinitiatives.Afterintroducingthethreetypesoffoodactivisteducator,werelateeachoftheelementsofRose’sframeworktoillustratequotesandthemesfromtheactivistsandweconcludebyaskingwhatthismeansforunderstandingtheethicsandpolitics of doing good.

Frameworks

Inthissection,wecompareaninfluentialtypologyfromGriffFoley’sedited book Understanding adult education and training(2000)toanalternativeframeworkfromNikolasRose’swork.AdulteducationscholarssuchasSharranMerriam,RosemaryCafferella&LisaBaumgartner(2007),DavidBoud(1987),TaraFenwick(2006),MiriamZukasandJaniceMalcolm(2002),andGriffFoley(2000)havecreatedalltypologiesofdifferenttraditions,orientations,identities and philosophies in adult education theory and practices. Theseauthorsdescribesuchclassificationattemptsaslimitedandsimplifyingbutarguethattheyhaveheuristicutilityinenablingadulteducatorstounderstanddifferenttheoreticalandvaluepositions


withinparticulartraditions(Foley2000).Underpinningmostoftheseisaclassicdistinctionbetweentraditionslabelledliberal,behaviourist,humanistandradical.Foley’stypology,abridgedbelowinTable1isausefulexampleforthispaperasitiswidelyused;hasalonglineage(Scott1985whichinturnisadaptedfromDarkenwaldandMerriam1982);andistaughtonundergraduateandpostgraduate courses.

Table 1

School of thought

Aims of adult education

Role of teacher and learner

Teaching methods

Cultivationoftheintellect(traditionalschool)

Fill learners with worthwhile knowledge

Teacher is in control and learner is passive

Mainlylecture

Individualself-actualisation (humanist)

Self-directionandself-fulfilment

Teacher facilitates and students decide what to learn

Experientialmethods

Progressives(reformist)

Activeindividualcitizenshipto strengthen democracy

Teacher and student learnfromeachother

Problemsolvingand negotiated learning

Social transformation(revolutionary)

Createnewsocial and political order

Co-creationofcurriculum

Participatory action research and dialogical learning

Organisationaleffectiveness

Developskillsand attitudes to enable achievementofprescribed goals

Trainerstransmitinformationanddeliverprescribedcurriculum

Outcomesare assessed intermsofobjectivesachieved

Source:adaptedfromFoley2000,inturnadaptedfromScott1985andDarkenwald&Merriam1982:14-15.


Wecouldattempttocategorisevariousfood-activistsaccordingto these schools of thought. But for us this forecloses analysis. For example,implicitinmanyoftheseframeworks,includingFoley’s,isafoundationalcontinuumofbehaviourismbad;humanistso-soandprogressivegood.Fromthisstemsanumberofeffectswhichinourviewlimitexaminationsofadulteducation:first,somefairlycrudeassumptionsaboutthepoweroftheteacherandstudent.Second,afailuretoexaminetheclaimsto‘doinggood’acrossallschoolsofthoughtespeciallytheso-calledradicalorprogressive.Thirdly,thiskindoftablealreadyassumesthatthekindsofideaswhichareinformingpracticearefromashalloweducationalpoolofbehaviourism,humanismandcriticaltheoryratherthanthedeeperandswirlingeddiesofknowledgesusedbyfoodactivists.Itdelineateseducation as if pedagogies and their supposed schools of thought arehermeticallysealedandnotinformedbyotherculturalideas.Fourthly,inassumingwhatalreadyconstitutestheeducative,itislessusefulforidentifyingandexaminingmore‘concealed’pedagogies.

Incontrast,Rose’sframeworkenablesustoextendournetmorewidely.TheprosandconsofFoucauldianapproacheshavebeenmuchdebatedacrossanumberoffields,andinparticularbyfeminists(LukeandGore1992;McNay1992;Gore1993).Forproponents-includingStephenBrookfield(2005)inhisbookaboutcriticaltheoryandadulteducation-Foucault’smodelofpowerasproductiveisparticularlyuseful.Thus,therelationsbetweenpeopleandsocialinstitutionsarenotsimplycoercive,buttakeonmanyaims,‘notjusttocontrol,subdue,discipline,normalise,orreform’butalsotomakeus‘moreintelligent,wise,happy,virtuous,healthy,productive,docile,enterprising,fulfilled,self-esteeming,empowered’(Rose1996:12).ThismeansforRosethatwearenot‘incessantlydominated,repressed,orcolonisedbypower(although,ofcourse,dominationandrepressionplaytheirpartinparticularpracticesandsectors)butsubjectified,educatedandsolicited’(1996:79).How


thenmightweexaminetechniquesofsubjectification,educationandsolicitation in food pedagogies?

Rose’sframeworkprovidesuswitha‘shorthand’forsuchanapproachtoanalysingpowerandpedagogy.FirstreferencedbrieflyinapaperinoneofthekeyjournalsforFoucauldianscholars,Economy and Society(1993),andtheninamoreextendeddiscussionpublishedinthebook,Inventing our selves: Psychology, power and personhood (1996),Rosepositionstheframeworkasasetof‘pathways’forinvestigatingthehistoryofhowwerelatetoourselves(1996:25).Thesetofpathwayscompriseswhathereferstoas‘problematizations’, ‘authorities’, ‘technologies’ and ‘teleologies’. We can contrast these to thecategoriesinFoley’stabletoanalyseadulteducationapproachesandwecomparethesemoreextensivelylaterinthepaper.

Table 2

Usefullyforadulteducation,Roseiskeentomaptheconcretevocabularies,techniquesandpracticesprofessionalsandlaypeopleuse.Rose,himself,usestheframeworktoofferacapacioussetofquestionstoexamine‘psy’pedagogies(coaching,facilitation,self-help)butwesuggestinthispaperthatitcanusedforanalysingothereducationalprojectssuchasfoodpedagogies.Wenowdefine,elaborateandapplyeach‘pathway’inturntotheaccountsofthreetypesoffoodactivists.

Traditional categories from Foley

Pathways derived from Rose

school of thought problematisation

teachingmethods technologies

role of teacher and learner authorities

aims teleologies


Problematisations

Westartwiththeideaof‘problematisations’becausethisconceptisfundamentaltoFoucauldiantheorising.ThecomparisonpointinadulteducationliteraturesuchasFoleywouldbe‘schoolsofthought’:behaviourism,humanist,progressiveandradical.Throughapplyingtheconceptofproblematisationstothreetypesoffoodactivisteducators,wewanttoidentifyhowwemightthinkdifferentlyabout‘schoolsofthought’.AlthoughourpaperismainlyfocusedonRoseandFoucault,weaugmenttheirdefinitionofproblematisationwithCaroleBacchiasshehasdevelopedabodyofworkextendingthenotionofproblematisationtopolicymaking(2012,2010).

Firstthen,Foucaultdefinesproblematisationas‘howandwhycertainthings(behaviour,phenomena,processes)becomeaproblem(1985:115).Thesignificanceofthisconceptisinitsfocusontheprocessual:

‘askinghowthisrenderingofthingsproblematicoccurred.Thetermproblematizing[is]ausefulwayofdesignatingthisasaprocess,foritremove[s]theself-evidenceoftheterm‘problems.’Itsuggest[s]that‘problems’arenotpre-given,lyingtherewaitingtoberevealed.Theyhavetobeconstructedandmadevisible,andthisconstructionofafieldofproblemsisacomplexandslowprocess’(Miller&Rose2008:14).

Forexample,aproblemforsomeactivistsisthatpeoplearenoteatingenoughorganicfood.Butaproblematisationismorethanjustseeingaproblem:itisabouthowaparticulargroupofactivists,inthiscase,makesuppositionsandpresumptionsaboutwhatfoodis‘good’and‘bad,’basedoncertainkindsofknowledges,andhowthesegettranslatedintoadvice,prescriptions,tips,techniquesandinterventions.Problematisationisaboutanalysingtheconditionsofknowledgeproduction:‘Where,howandbywhomareaspectsofthehumanbeingrenderedproblematicaccordingtowhatsystemsofjudgementandinrelationtowhatconcerns’(Rose1996:25)?Thismeansanalysing‘howproblemsaregivenashapethroughtheways


theyarespokenaboutandthroughthe‘knowledges’thatareassumedintheirshaping’(Bacchi2010:2).Forexample,ofthe‘problem’ofmadness,Foucaultasks‘howandwhywereverydifferentthingsintheworldgatheredtogether,characterized,analyzed,andtreatedasforexample‘mentalillness’?’Theanswertothisquestionprovidesthe“elements”deemedrelevant“foragiven‘problematisation’”(Foucault,1985citedBacchi2012:2).Whatisemphasisedhereisthatproblematisationinvolvesagatheringtogetherofknowledgesandsoinrelationtofoodactivismwecanaskwhatisgatheredbywhomforwhat ends?

Asecondpartofproblematisationisdesignatingcertainpeopleandbehavioursasunsoundandthentryingtochangethem.Inrelationtofood,certaintypesofeatingareconstructedvariouslyasunhealthy;environmentallydamaging;crueltoanimals;unsustainableforfoodproducers;andhavingunfairlabourconditionsforworkers.Groupsofpeopleareseentobeinneedofchanging,dependingonwhichoftheseproblemsisthetargetofreform:women,mothers,children,workingclasses,middleclasses,youngmen,raciallyminoritisedgroups,migrantsetc.Expertsareneededtoidentifytheproblemandtoprovidethesolutionsincludingchangingpeople’sbehaviours:forexample,adulteducators.Peoplewhoneedchanging‘havetobeknowntobegoverned’(Bacchi2012:5).Thus,theeatingof,growingof,wastingof,shoppingforandcookingfoodconstitutesaconstellationofproblematisationsforarangeofexpertsandprofessionalsthatincludeagriculturaleconomists,statisticians,nutritionists,developmentplanners,adulteducatorsandhealthpromotionworkers.Problematisationsproduceproblematicpeople,habitsandobjectsandpeoplewhoknow,peoplewhodon’t(Flowers&Swan2011).

Finally,problematisationsentailparticularsolutions.Environmentalissuesaboutfood,forsomeactivists,mightmeanbuyinglocalfood.Oritmightmeanbuyingorganicfoodthatisn’tlocal.Solutionsaregroundedincertainpresuppositionstoo.Sobuying‘local’foodgrown


ina100-mileradiusisbasedonanassumptionthatreducingthedistancefoodtravelspreventscertainenvironmentalproblems.

Solutionscanbeprovidedintheformofadvice,rules,opinions,policies,andprescriptivetexts(Bacchi2012).Wecanseethisclearlyinrelationtofoodpedagogieswithmagazinecolumns,caloriecounting,nutritionallabels,recipecards,healthyeatingmnemonicsetc.Throughtheprocessofproblematisation,expertsandsolutionscreatesubjectpositions,certainidentities-waysofbeingandacting-andasaresult,moralitiesandethicsabout‘good’and‘bad’people,behavioursandobjects.

Havingelaboratedonthepathwayof‘problematisation’,weanalysetheaccountsofthreetypesoffoodeducatorsfromourresearch.Weprovideabriefsummaryoftheirkeyconcernsaboutfoodpedagogiesdrawnfromourcodingofcorethemesintheiraccounts.Beforedoingthat,weprovideashortintroductiontotheactivists.

The food activist educators

Thedataaredrawnfromafull-dayroundtablediscussionweorganisedforanumberoffoodactivisteducators.Forthepurposesofourpaper,wefocusonIan,Susan,JoanandPaulbecausetheyprovideuswithsufficientdepthandheterogeneityinordertoexemplifyRose’sframework.

Ianisaself-employedbio-dynamicsagriculturaleducatorwhorunsworkshopsinAustraliaandinternationallyongrowingfoods.Bio-dynamicsisbasedonthephilosophyofRudolphSteiner,whichincludesabeliefthatthevisible,physicalworldispenetratedbyaworldoflife-forces(Purdue2000).

Susanismanagerofahealthpromotionprojectaimedatencouraging‘disadvantagedpeople’toeataccordingtotheprinciplesoftheAustralian Guide to Healthy Eating which were produced by the CommonwealthofAustralia(Kellet,Smith&Schmerlaib1998).The


initiativeisbasedonapeereducationmodelinwhichlocalpeoplearetrainedtoteachcooking,healthyeatingandbudgeting.

JoanandPaularefarmersandadvocatesinafarmer’sassociation.Theyhaveaparticularinterestinpromotingprovenance.Alloftheeducatorshaveaclearideaofthestrategiestheythinkwillmakea‘difference.’Inthenextsection,weusequotesfromourfive-houraudiorecordeddiscussionsillustrativelytoenableustoelucidateRose’sframeworkandtosignpostfurtherpotentialanalysis.Ouraimistonotderideordismisstheworkoftheactivistsbutattendtotheideas and techniques they drew upon and to ask questions about their likely effects.

Summary of problematisation for each educator

TheproblematisationforIan,thebiodynamicfarmer-educatoristhatfoodsarenotbeinggrownwiththelife-forceofthecosmosinmind(Pfeiffer1938;Purdue2000).Thismeansthatpeopleareeatingfoodsthatcanmakethemsickphysicallyandspiritually.Thusthelandandthesoilareseenassitesofaction.Small-scale,commercialandnot-for-profitvegetablegrowersandfarmersarethetargetlearnerswhoneedtochange.Thesystemofjudgmentisbiodynamicphilosophy.Thesolutionistoshowpeoplewhomightgrowfoodasfarmersandgardenershowtousebiodynamicprinciples.

TheproblematisationforSusanthehealtheducator,isthatpoor,workingclassandmigrantmothersarenotcookingfoodaccordingtothe‘healthyeatingmessages’promulgatedbygovernmentauthorities(Kellet,Smith&Schmerlaib1998). In thisproblematisation,thehealthworkerimaginesthisgroupdoesnot know what healthy food is or how to cook it on a tight budget. Shesays:‘peoplehaveverylittlemoneytobuytheirfoodbecause


TheproblematisationforJoanandPaul,thefarmer-activistsisthatconsumersarenotpurchasingenough‘local’foodfromsmall-scalefarmersandthismeanstheyarebuyingthewrongkindoffoodwhich,inturnaffectsfarmers’livelihoodsandpeople’shealth.Itisbelievedthatconsumersdon’tknowwherefoodcomesfromandiftheydid,theycouldmakerationaldecisionstobuymorelocalfoodthatwouldhavebetternutritionalproperties.Thesiteofinterventionissupermarketaisles.Thesolutionistoensurefoodislabelledwithinformationaboutprovenance,nutritionaland‘freshness’qualities.Thesystemofjudgementisamixofsocialmarketing,environmentalideasaboutlocavorismandagainnutritionalscience.Joansays: ‘In supermarkets, information on the origin, freshness, or mode of generation is scarcely available. That’s particularly evident in the food aisles in the fish market aisles because even though you might be buying Australian fish, you cannot differentiate between farm fish and free ranging fish in which your omega threes are substantially different. In farmed fish, the omega six is much more relevant and the omega threes are down, yet it’s the omega threes that we are looking for in our diet. There have attempts to increase the disclosure by the supermarkets. But the supermarkets, their accumulators and merchants have actively opposed any attempts at transparency in the area of production, mode, origin, or date of harvest.’

Acrossalltheseproblematisationsareassumptionsaboutwhatmakesfor‘goodhealth’andindividual’sresponsibilityforgrowing,shopping,cookingandeatinginwayswhichareimaginedtobe

theyareallprobablyongovernmentbenefitsorhaveverysmallincomes.’Thesystemofjudgementrelatestonutritionalscienceandgovernmentpolicyonwhatconstituteshealthbutalsopopularideasaboutgoodmothering.Therearealsojudgmentsmadeabouthowthisgroupbestlearns,namelyfromtheirpeers.Thesolutionistoteachmothershowtocookandshopaccordingtothe‘healthyeatingmessages’agenda.Shesays:‘Sooneofthethingsthatwearetrying to teach these participants and peer educators is how to cook ahealthymealwithamodestbudget.’


‘healthful.’AlthoughRose’sworktypicallylacksattentiontoclass,raceandgender,wecanseeclassedexpertiseinoperationhereandassumptionsabouttheclassandgenderofthosepeoplewhocanandshouldlearndifferenthabits.Growingfoodrequiresland.Makingdecisionsbasedonfoodprovenancerequiresacertainlevelofdisposableincomeandclassedattitudesabouthealth.

There are clear distinctions in who is seen as responsible for producinghealth,andwhatthesolutionsandthesitesofinterventionare.Forexample,inthecaseofthehealtheducators,migrantandworkingclasswomenarebeingresponsibilisedfortheirchildren’shealth:theyarebeingtaughthowto‘motherhealth.’Foodisseenasakindofmedicine(Gaynor1998).Buttherearedifferentassumptionsbeingmadeaboutwhatconstitutes‘good-for-you-food’andwhatit‘contains’whichcanfacilitatehealth.Forthebiodynamicagriculturaleducator,foodisaconduitforalifeforcefromthecosmos.Forthefarmers,itisfreshnessandlocalitywhichintheirviewguaranteesthevitalitygivingpropertiesoffood.

Underpinning these pedagogies are different ontologies of food and of physicalhealth.Buttheassumptionthatfoodisonlyimportantforitsroleinpromotingphysicalhealthis,ofcourse,highlycontested.Forexample,LaurenBerlant(2010)arguesthattheemphasisonphysicalhealthinrelationtofoodneglectshowimportantcertainkindsoffoodareformentalandemotionalhealth.

Toturnnowtoreflectonadulteducationtypologies:theuseofproblematisationcanbecomparedtoschoolsofthought.Schoolsofthoughtseemlikestaticandpredictableinfluencesonhowadulteducatorsthinkandact.Thebenefitofusingproblematisationistomake‘thinkingaspractice’morevisibleandtoshowthatthereisnothinginevitableaboutit(Bacchi2012).Itgetsattheprocessesandconditionsofknowledge-makingandforcesustoexaminetaken-for-grantedassumptionsaboutwhatareimaginedtobe‘problem’actions,behavioursandpeopleinawaythatschoolsofthoughtdo


not.Foodactivistsandadulteducatorsdrawonaspectrumofideasfromthepredictabletotheunpredictableinquiteparticular‘blends’whichcan’tfitsimplyintothecookiecutterofbehaviouralism,humanism,progressiveandradical(Csurgo,Kovach&Kucerova2008;Swan2009).Problematisationcanhelpustraceblends,andtheireffects.Toputitpithily,schoolsofthoughtfocusonproductandhomogeneity,andproblematisationonprocessandhybridity.

Technologies

TechnologyintheFoucauldiansensereferstovariousmeans‘inventedtogovernthehumanbeing,toshapeorfashionconductindesireddirections’(Rose1996:26).InFoley’sadulteducationtable,technologiescanbecomparedtoteachingmethodssuchaslectures,groupdiscussions,andpeereducation.Implicitintheclassifyingofteachingmethodsareassumptionsthatsomearemore‘empowering’thanothers.TechnologiesasdefinedbyFoucauldiansaremuchbroaderinscopethanteachingmethods.Technologiesareassemblagesofknowledges,instruments,statistics,notations,systemsofjudgment,buildingsandpersonsandcantakenumerical,classificatory,spatial,visual,bodilyanddiscursiveforms(IlcanandPhillips2003).Extendingwhatwemightseeaspedagogical,theemphasisisonthemundane,technicalandmaterial(Dean1999).

Adistinctiveelementtotechnologiescomparedtoteachingmethodsisthattheybringtoviewmoreindirectandeverydaywaysthroughwhichpeopleinterveneintheirownwaysofacting,beingandlivingandwhichconnectbackuptopoliticalstrategies.Asassemblagesofsituated,technicalandcorporealprocedures,practicesandtactics,theyarehowgovernmentworksatadistance(Miller&Rose2008:16).Importantly,thesetechnologiesworkthroughthenotionoffreeingratherthancoercingordominatingus.Thisfreeingconstitutesanewformofcontrolwhichvaluesself-responsibility,self-careandself-disciplineasethicalandcivic.


Theideaoftechnologieshasbeentakenupwithsomealacritybyarangeofadulteducationtheorists,butfewhavedeployedRose’sotherpathwaysofproblematisation,authoritiesandteleologies.Foucaultdefineddifferenttypesoftechnologieswhichworktogether:technologiesofproduction,signsystems,powerandtheself.Eachofthesetechnologiesembodiesdistinct‘presuppositionsandobjectivesabouthumanbeings’(Rose1996:26)anddistinctformsofdominationthatinvolveschangingortrainingtheself(Burkitt2002;Besley2005).Adulteducatorshavefocusedmostontechnologies of the self (seeforexample,Fejes2008;Reich2008;Chappell,Rhodes,Solomon,Tenannt&Yates2003).Inessence,thesearemechanismsforself-discipline:procedureswhich‘permitindividualstoeffectbytheirownmeansorwiththehelpofothersacertainnumberofoperationsontheirownbodiesandsouls,thoughts,conduct,andwayofbeing,soastotransformthemselvesinordertoattainacertainstateofhappiness,purity,wisdom,perfection,orimmortality’(Foucault1988:18).Comprisedofspecialisedformsofknowledgewhichteachushow‘toestimate,tocalculate,toevaluate,todisciplineandtojudgeourselves’(Cruikshank1993:329),technologies of the self are contrasted with technologies of power: the latter being exercisedbyinstitutionssuchasprisonsandschoolsandwhichattempttodominatethroughexamining,normalisingandclassifying.

Examplesofadulteducationscholarshipontechnologies of the self includeCliveChappelletal.’sanalysisofself-helpbooks,work-basedlearning,trainingincorporateculture,andHIV/AIDSeducation(2003);AndreasFejeson‘theconfession’ineducationalguidance(2008);AnnReich’sanalysisofAustralianvocationaleducationandtraining(2008);andinrelationtofoodpedagogy,PeterKellyandLynHarrison’sanalysis(2009)ofJamieOliver’sFifteen apprenticeship project.


WefocusontwocentraltechnologiesforIan,thebiodynamicseducator:oneisasoilactivatormadefromamixtureofchickenmanure,basaltsaltandotheringredients.Inbiodynamiccircles,itisimaginedtocarrycosmologicalproperties.Inhisteaching,hehandsthisoutforpeopletotry.Ithasmaterialpropertiesintermsofitsbiologicalcapacitiestoaffectsoilandoperatessymbolicallyas‘dirt’operatesintheorganicfoodmovementasasignifierofpurityandnature.Togetheritworksasa‘graspableethics’i.e.thatyoucantouchandsmell(Clarke,Cloke,Barnet&Malpass2008).

Thesecondisthetechnologyofhands-onlearning:learnershavetohaveago,beitgrowingcropsorbakingbread.Hesays:‘Inotherwords,Iteachpeopleaboutthepreparationsbutbythetimetheygohomethey’vestirredthemandsprayedthemsothey’vehadthephysicalexperience.Sotheycangohomeandinitiatechange.’‘

Havingago’worksonthebodyratherthantheintellect,andactsasakindofwitnessingto‘littlemiracles’whichthenworktoconvert

Technologies of the selfhavealsobeendiscussedextensivelyinrelationtoresearchonfood.Forexample,CressidaHeyes(2007)discusseshoworganiseddietprogrammesandweigh-insarepresented as technologies of the self inWeightwatchers.Inthisissue,PikeandLeahywriteaboutthetechnologyoftheschoollunchboxandhowitoperatestoproduceamoralityaboutgoodmothering.Therehasbeenin-depthworkontechnologies of the selfincommunitydevelopmentbyBarbaraCruikshank(1993).Shearguesthatempowermentandself-esteemcanbeunderstoodastechnologies.Anytechnology,sheremindsus,operatesatimprovingtheindividualandsociety.ImportantlyforFoucaultbothtechnologiesofpowerand technologies of the self produce effects that constitute the self. Feministsandcriticalracetheoristshavegoneontoarguethatthesealsoconstitutegender,raceandclass.

Summary of technology for each educator


InthecaseofSusan,thehealthpromotionmanager,peereducationis the core technology: ‘We decided that we would train ten peer educators to start off as a pilot in nutrition concepts. Very basic nutritionconcepts.’Peereducation–inwhichitisclaimedthatif‘peers’teachandmentoritwillbemoreeffectiveandprogressivethanifonereliesonprofessionalexperts-hasbecomeawidelyusedinterventioninhealthpromotionsincethe1980s(Turner&Shepherd1998).Commonassumptionsarethatpeersareacrediblesourceofinformation,actasrolemodelsandequalisepower relations. Peerness then is used as a gloss for participatory democracy.

Thepeereducatorsinthisexample,however,areinstitutionallyeducatedin‘nutritionbasics’,‘healthyeatingmessages’andpresentationskillsandaregivenmentorsinnutritionfromalocaluniversity.Theirroleistorun‘healthyeatingactivities’inthecommunity:todocookingdemonstrations;toshareideasaboutnutritionalvaluesoffood,andcostingmenus,largelyaimedatpoorermigrantwomen.Thepeereducatorsthenaretrainedinnutritionalknowledgethattheir‘peers’donothave.Thenatureoftheirpeernessthenistheircomingfromthesameneighbourhood.

learners.Thiscantakeseveralyears.Hisisapedagogyofconversionratherthandidactism.

‘It’samazinghowthesethingshappenbutI’vegotlittlesamples[ofsoilactivator]youcanalltakehometotryit.…Igave[anairportsecurityofficer]oneoftheselittlepacksthatyoucantakehomeandIsaidlook,westiritforanhour…justmakesureyoudissolveitinyourwateringcan,flickitout,weaimforadroppersquarefoot,andIgotontheaeroplaneandleft…12monthslaterIwentthroughandhewasonduty.Herushedoverandsaid;Idon’twantyoutothinkthatIdidn’tbelieveyou,buthesaidthatstuffisjustwaybetterthanwhatyoutoldmeitwas.Sotheissueishowwegetpeopletostart.Becausewithfarming,oncepeoplehavetheexperience,it’snotmeteachingthem,it’sactuallytheirexperiencethatactuallydrivesit.’


Using the concept of technologies enables us to broaden our understanding of what can be understood as pedagogical. The food educatorsareusingarangeofhumanandnon-humantechnologies,suchasBodyMassIndex,healthyeatingpyramid,andpeereducators.Therearesomesimilaritieswiththeconceptofhiddencurriculumwhichalsoexpandstheanalyticalfocusofwhatcouldbeconsideredpedagogical.Buthiddencurriculumisbasedonaparticular understanding of ideology. In the words of Steph Lawler:

LabellingonfoodisthetechnologyforJoanandPaul,thefarmer-activists.Intheirview,thelabelshouldprovideconsumerswithinformationaboutprovenance,dateofpicking,placeofproduction,ingredients,andecologicalfootprint.They,likemanyotherAustralianfoodactivists,refertothisas‘truthinlabelling.’AsPaulputs it:

‘Consumersneedtobetaughttoreadthelabelandrequirethattheproducttheyarebuyinghascomprehensiveinformation…Nowthisiswhatmostpeopledon’trealise.Whenyoubuyapacketofeggs,thatcouldhavebeeninacoolroomforsixmonthspriortobeingpacked.Samewithyourvegetables.WhenyougotoWoolworthsorColes,you’llseeadatewhenitwaspacked.Butthatcouldbeaweekold.’

Labellingworksasatechnologyoftheselfasitassumespeoplecanbeagenticbybeinginformed(Yngfalk2012).Itisameansthroughwhichconsumerscanprotectthemselvesandtheirbodiesfromharmthroughtheireverydayshoppingdecisions.CarlYngfalk(2012)observesthatlabellingattemptstotrainpeopletotrusttheircognitivedecision-makingand‘factual’informationandtoover-ridetheir‘greedybodies’(Mol2010)andsenseofsmell,touchandtaste.Eventhoughlabel-knowledgewillnecessarilybeincompleteandfoodinformationhighlycontested,forthefarmersthelabelswilloperate as truthful authorities.


…theconceptofideologyalmostalwayspresupposesa‘real’whichisbothbeyondideologyandobscuredbyit(Barrett1991).To speak of ideology is to speak of the lies that obscurethetruth,buttospeakofdiscourses…istospeakoftheknowledgesthatproducethetruth…[Foucault]replacesaconcernwithhowwecometobegovernedbyliesanduntruth(aswithideology)withaconcernwithhowwecometobegovernedbytruthswhicharemadetrue.…Itissimplynotpossible,inmanycases,tospeakoreventothink“outsidethetrue”(Lawler2008:59).

Tofocusontechnologies,meansthentobelessconcernedaboutwhatisdeemedtobetrueornot,buthowwhatisdeemedtobetruecomesabout,andatatechnicalormateriallevel.Thustherearenoteachingmethodsortechnologiesthatareoutsidepower/knowledge,eventhatoflearnerorcommunityempowerment(Cruickshank1993;Gore1993).So,asthefeministeducationalscholarJenniferGoreobservesof the often used circle chair technique in which interactional controlisimaginedtomovefromtheteacheraslearnerssittogethernot behind desks in rows with eyes to the front: ‘there is nothing intrinsicallyliberatingaboutthispractice(1993:58).Adulteducatorswhomightbecategorisedinpolarisedwaysasradicalorbehaviouristintheliterature,usesimilartechnologiesoftheselfsuchasdiariesandgroupdiscussionandinsodoingexercisepowerandknowledge.Ofcourse,theiraimsandcontentmaybedifferentbutaparticularrelation to oneself and others is produced for the learners and the educators through deploying technologies of the self.

Buttheconceptalsoasksustoreflectonthewiderrelaysandlinksoftechnologiestowidergovernmentalityaims.Ofcoursebehaviourism,humanismandprogressiveeducationhaveallbeenusedintheserviceofinstitutionalandgovernmentalgoalsbutthisisrarelydiscussedinadulteducationmodelssuchasFoley’s.Inaddition,weneedtoaskquestionsaboutwhocanmobilisewhatkindsoftechnologies.Itshouldnotbeassumedthattheyareavailableuniversallynortheireffectsevenandundifferentiatedbygender,raceandclass(McNay1992).


Authorities

Thethirddimensionintheconventionaladulteducationtypologyistherolesofteachersandlearnersandhowthesemaybedefinedinrelationtotheirrelativeskills,power,andexpertise.Herewewillconsiderasapointofcomparison,Rose’sconceptofauthorities.Roseasksustostudythenatureoftheauthorityofthoseinvolvedindefining,makingandsolvingproblematisations:forexample,foodactivisteducators.Analysingauthoritymeanstothinkabout:‘Whoisaccordedorclaimsthecapacitytospeaktruthfullyabouthumans,theirnature,theirproblems?’(Rose1996:27).Oftherecentriseinfoodexperts,JaneDixon(2003)askswhattheyclaimastheirrighttoact.Thisinvolvesusexamininghowauthorityisauthorised–forexamplebythelaw,themedia,culture,science,artandsport.Thenatureofauthorityvariesandcanbepersonal,alliedtoscience,spirituality,claimstotruth,orformalqualifications.Forexampleinrelationtofood,JohnCoveney(thisissue;2006),JoPikeandDeanaLeahy(thisissue),andDeborahLupton(1996)writeabouttheway‘nutritionalscience’providesauthorityforarangeofexpertssuchashealthworkers,personaltrainers,andteachers.

Forexample,wecanaskhowhasitcomeaboutthatAustralianfoodwriter,StephanieAlexanderorBritishTVchef,JamieOliverareseenasauthoritiesonwhatweeatandcookathome.Roseshowsushowauthoritytakesdifferentforms:expert,codifiedandlayknowledge,butalsoimportantlyforthepurposesofthispaper,includeswisdom,virtue,experienceandpracticaljudgment.SoAlexanderandOlivercalluponnutritional-scienceauthoritybutalsoinvoketheirexperienceascooksandloversoffood.AdulteducationtheoristshavelongrecognisedexperientialknowledgebutRose’sframeworkpushes us to dig deeper and interrogate who and what has authorised it.Acriticaldimensiontoauthoritiesincludesclassifyingpeople‘behavingbadly.’Inthefieldoffoodpedagogiesthereareenergeticpronouncementsbyfoodeducatorsabout‘bad’eating,cookingand


shoppingbehavioursmotivatedbyabelieftheyare‘doinggood.’Rose’sunderstandingofauthorityisthattheideaof‘doinggood’-beingethicalandwantingtohelp-iscentraltothelegitimacyofcontemporarypedagogiesandeducators.

ForRose,anotherdimensionistherelationbetweenauthoritiesandthosewhoaresubjecttothem.Onecommonplacerelationisthepastoralrelationlikethatofapriestandamemberofhisorherflock,inwhichtechniquessuchasconfession,self-disclosure,discipleshipandexemplarity(rolemodelling)areused.Othertypesofrelationswhichwemightseeinadulteducationandfoodpedagogies,whichareunder-theorised,includesolicitation,seduction,captivationandinparticular,conversion(Rose1996).AsMillerandRoseputit:

Itseemsthatthereareonlysomanywaysinwhichthefewcanchangethemany…youcanregulateothers,enmeshtheminawedofcodesandstandards,couplingthesewithsanctionsfortransgressionand/orrewardsforobedience.Youcancaptivateothers,seducethemwithyourcharmsandpowers,bindthemtoyourvaluesthroughthecharismaticforceofyourpersona.Youcaneducateothers,‘changetheirminds’asthesayinggoes,train,convinceorpersuadethemtoadoptparticularwaysofunderstanding,explaining,reasoning,evaluating,deciding,suchthattheywillrecastwhattheywishtoachievethroughreckoninginyourterms.Oryoucanconvertothers,transformtheirpersonhood,theirwaysofexperiencingthemselvesandtheirworldsothattheyunderstandandexplainthemeaningandnatureoflife-conductinfundamentallynewways(2008:147).

Itisthelattertheysuggestwhichismostpotent.ItiswhatFoucaultcallssubjectification:turningusintoactivesubjectswhoarealsosubjectatthesametime:‘wehavebeenfreedfromthearbitraryprescriptionsofreligiousandpoliticalauthorities…butwehavebeenboundintorelationshipswithnewauthorities,whicharemoreprofoundlysubjectifyingbecausetheyemanatefromourindividualdesires(Rose1996:17).


ForSusan,theauthorityrelationisoneofthebenevolent,caringprofessional.Shesaid‘wedidn’twanttocomeinandinterveneasexperts.’Thelegitimationofauthorityiscomingfromaclaimtobedoinggood;first,inimaginingpeereducationtobemoredemocraticthandidacticism,andsecondlyinimprovingpeople’slives.WehavediscussedhowRoseproblematizesthefirstclaim,andnowrefertohowCoveney(2006)andLupton(1996)problematizethesecondclaim.Coveney(2006)andLupton(1996)pointout,therearecontestingviewsamonghealthscientistsandsocialscientistsabout

Ian,thebio-dynamicagriculturaleducatorconceiveshimselfasafacilitator.Hesays:‘SoIdon’tevergoandtrytosolicitpeople.I’mnottheretryingtosellitsomuchasmakeitavailableforthepeoplewhocanseeit.’Heclaimsthatpeoplechangethemselvesthroughaslow-burnmodelofconversion.Thisisthequintessentialmodeloffacilitationwheretheeducatortakesabackseatandimaginestherelationsbetweenteacherandlearnertobeanti-authoritarianandanti-didactic.

‘Theyhadanillnessinthemselvesortheirfamily,theygottothestagewheretheirdoctorssaidhere’syourpill,gohome,don’tcomeback,Ican’tdoanythingmoreforyou.They’recalledheart-sinkpatients.Whenyouturnupthedoctor’s;his(sic)heartsinksbecausehecan’tdoanythingwithyou.Thesepeoplegohomeandtheysitontheirbuttforfiveminutes,fivedays,fiveyears,fivedecades,andonedaytheywakeupandsayI’mgoingtodosomething.Theysetoffonapathofinvestigation.Itcantakethemtoyoga,orthis,orthat,ortheother,buttheyactuallyoutoftheirownpassionaffectchange.Thesearethepeoplewhogodownthealternativepathways.’

Wenowturntoseehowwemightapplythisanalyticconceptofauthorityrelationstotheaccountsofourfoodactivistsandwhatthisenables us to scrutinise.

Summary of authorities for each educator


Inattendingtoauthoritiesinsteadofteacher-learnerroles,wecansee that there are other relations between teachers and learners thanthosebasedonacontinuumofcontrolorcodifiedknowledge.The concept enriches our understanding of the nature of teaching andlearningbybringingexpandednotionsofauthoritytoinclude,

howfoodis‘good’foryou,andaboutwhetherfoodistobeconceivedprimarilyasmedicine,fuel,orpleasure.Theideaof‘doinggood’-inotherwordstheauthoritythatisinvoked-comesfromthepremisethat‘nutritional-science’viewsabouthealthoverrideanyothers.

JoanandPaul,thefarmer-activistsalsodrawon‘nutritionalscience’knowledgebutalsoemphasisetheirfirst-handexperienceofgrowing.Theypresentthemselvesasmodernandscientificbutalsobeing close to the land and as rural stewards. They talk about the importanceofknowingaboutthesoilandland.

‘…youlookatabokchoyoravegetable,youlook-whenyougoandbuyit,youlookatthebottom.Iftheendisbrown,youknowit’snotfresh.Igrowcorianderandwehadthreefarms.IwouldtakeituptomyChineseneighbourswhoalsogrowitandtheycouldtellmewhichfarmitcamefromjustbythetaste.Nowthisisalltodowiththenutrientsandthesoil.’

Insodoingtheyareinvokingwhatwehavecalledelsewhere‘farmingnature’(FlowersandSwan2011):Farmingimproves,tamesandcultivatesnature,‘throughgenerationsofembodiedexperience’andknowledgethroughthesenses(Franklin2002,inJacobsen2004:64).Farmingnatureinvokesaclosenesstoland,animalsandsoil,asimplerrurallife,andstraightforwardpeople.Thisisincontrast to industrialised and polluted city life with its corrupted bodilyknowledge(Vileisis2004).Becausefarmingnatureisaboutimprovingnature,authorityforthesefarmer-activistscomesfromtheirbodilyknowledgeaugmentedwithscientificknowledge.‘Doinggood’isaboutconnectingshoppersto‘farmingnature.


forexample,theoperationofwisdom,benevolenceandsenses,allofwhichcanbeshapedintoadvicewhichaffectsourlives.ForFoucauldians,contemporarygovernmentalitytakestheformofadvice(Phillip2009).Thekeyissueisthroughwhatclaimsandtechniquescansomeonelegitimatelyexciseauthorityovertheintimatedetailsofsomeoneelse’slife(MillerandRose2008:149)?Inourpaperthiswouldincludewhatpeoplecook,eat,dowiththeirbodies,dointheirdomesticspheres,spendtheirmoneyonandmore.

Afocusonauthoritiesencouragesustoquestiontheethicsof‘doinggood.’Anne-MarieMol(2010)arguesthatinmanydiscoursesoneatinghealthily,foodchoicesareseenasdifficultwiththebodyimaginedastoo‘greedy’toeattoomuchofthe‘wrong’foods.Thereissomeofthisinthefarmers’discoursesbuttheirmainconcernishowpeopleaccessfoodswhichareseenas‘bodilyhealthy’.Wecanseehowclassed,genderedandracialisednotionsof‘healthism’andclaimstobeimproving‘health’enablearangeofexpertstoclaim‘anewethicalregimeforauthorityitself’(MillerandRose2008:144).JulieGuthman(2008)hasshownhowthesetypesof‘bringinggoodfoodtoothers’initiativesintheUSreinforcewhiteness,andsheandJessicaPaddock(2008)havearguedagainsttheirmiddleclassassumptionsabouthealth.AsMol(2010)andBerlant(2008)argueweneedtointerrogatetheethicsofhealthbeingpromulgated:whataboutpleasure,satisfaction,andotherkindsofhealth?

Itistruethatsomeadulteducationapproachesexamineethics.Butoftenassumptionsaremadeinadvance.Thusa‘boo-hooray’binaryunderpinscharacterisationsofso-calledinstrumentaleducationversusprogressiveorradicaleducation,withinstrumentaleducationseentobeunethicalandradicaleducationthemostethical.Criticaltothefoodactivisteducatorsaccountsoftheirauthorityistheideathattheyarebeingethicalbecausetheydon’t‘impose’theirexpertiseonlearners.AsWendyHollway(1991)notesthisisacommon-placeideaaboutpowerandknowledgeamongstadulteducators,whoconstructthisformofteachingas‘democratic’and‘participative’asifpowerhas


beenwaived.WhathasbeenlessexaminedinFoucauldiananalysesistheclassed,racialisedandgendereddimensionsofauthorityrelations–whoorwhatisseentobeauthoritative.Whoseethicscount?Whocanclaimauthorityandwhoorwhatauthorisesit?

Teleologies

Finally,wecontrastRose’snotionofteleologieswiththemoretraditionalconceptofeducationalaims.Rosedefinesteleologiesasthegoals,plansandendpointsofprograms,andwhathecalls‘formsoflife’-subjectpositions-whichareidealwaystobeandtoact.Thesearemodesofbeingwehopetocreateinourselvesandinotherswhichhaveanethicalvalorisationtothem(Dean1996).Examplesincludethe‘responsibleprudentfather’;the‘workeracceptingher/hislot;’the‘goodwifefulfillingherdomesticdutieswithquietefficiencyandself-effacement.’Inthefieldoffood,examplesincludethe‘health-consciouscitizenwhoheedsdietaryguidelines’;‘ethicallyconsciousconsumerwhocaresaboutthesustainabilityoftheenvironment’;or‘creativeandcosmopolitanfoodadventurer.’InherstudyofNorwegianfooddiscourses,AnnechenBugge(2003)presentsthreecoresubjectpositions:The‘gourmet’whichvaluespleasure,the‘therapist’valueshealthconsciousness,andthe‘traditionalist’whichvaluesnationalsentimentandnostalgia.Subjectpositionsareformsofdesireablesubjectivityandclearlygendered,racialisedandclassed.Theyarenotaprioripreformedbutspecific,concrete,historicalshapings.Wecantakeupmultiple,partial,elidedandevencontradictorypositions(Fejes2008:655).

Asecondimportantelementisthattheteleologiesarearticulatedinrelationtospecificproblemsandsolutionsabouthumanconductandconnectedtowidergovernmentalobjectivessuchasnationalprosperity,virtue,harmony,productivity,socialorder(Rose1996).ForRose,healthisoneofthequintessentialteleologiesofgovernmentality.Teleologiesspecifyundesirableanddesirablebehavioursatthelevelofpopulations,workers,familiesandsociety.


Inrelationtofood,Jensenhasreferredto‘theemergingcitizenshipoffood’(Jensen2004)inwhichtraditionallythoughtofmundanedomestichabitsarenow‘ethicalised.’Thisishowindividualscanmake‘biggeracts’throughbeing‘responsibilized.’AsFionaAllonwritesofgreenhomeDIY,weareseeingthe‘micropoliticsofthehouseholdandtheminuateofeverydaybehaviours’connectedtocivicresponsibility(2011:205),reinventingcitizenshipandpatrioticduty(2011:207).Throughtheseordinaryeverydayhabits,onecanbecomean ethical subject.

Summary of teleology for each educator

Thedesiredsubject-positionofIanisthespiritualgrowerwhocaresforhisorherselfandthecosmos.Thisisnotsimplyanorganicgrower.Theybecomestewardsofthecosmosthroughgrowingfoodinspecialways–forexample,fertilisermixeswithbone,feathersandsoil-whichbringindividualandenvironmentalhealth.WenotethatvariouscommentatorswouldclassifybiodynamicagricultureasNewAgeandcritique‘NewAge’practicesforreproducinganeo-liberalagendaofself-responsibilisation.Thereareclearlysomeaspectsinthisaccountwhichcanbeseenasself-responsibilisation,buttherearecomplications:thebio-dynamicfarmer-educatordoesnotadvocatethemarketasasolutionandassertsthatchangeinfoodgrowingandconsumerpracticesmighttakeuptotwentyyears,andcanhappenasmuchthroughserendipityasplanning.Thereareparticularitiestothebiodynamicsphilosophyinitsconfigurationasa‘spiritualscience’ofbiodynamicstoowhichrendersitmorecomplex.Thusitpostulatesamorefluid,openbodythanoftendescribedinFoucauldiantheorising(Gaynor1998).Inthiswayitalsomovesoutsideoftraditionalnutritionalpedagogies.Itimagines‘linksbetweenthedynamismofsoils,plantsandpeople,thusmovingfromthe‘clinicalnutrition’apprehensionofthebodyasacomplexcollectionofmolecules,toanapproachwhichconsidersbodiesassitesofadynamicactivitywhichpersistthroughvariousspatial-temporalprocesses’(Gaynor1998:19).


InthecaseoftheSusanthereisamoreapparentlinktoneo-liberal‘self-care’governmentalityagendas.Thesubject-positionisthefrugal,obedientmigrantcookingwomanwhomustcareforherfamily’shealththroughmakingmealsaccordingtothe‘healthymessages’guidelines.Shemustcookaccordingtocalculatedbudgetsandscientificallydefinednutritionalvalues.Thisteleologyrepresentsthequintessentialneoliberalprojectofpersonalisingsocialproblems,andwemightadd,genderingandracialisingsocialproblems.ThisdoesnotmeanthattherearenotimportantbenefitsforthewomeninthefoodprojectSusanruns.NorarewesuggestingthatSusanisunawareofthelimitationsoftheapproach.Sheclearlywantedtoorganiseothermoremacroreformsbutdidnothavethepowerorfunding.Nevertheless,thesubjectpositionisofmotheringhealth,andwithhealthandfooddefinedinnarrowways.

ForJoanandPaul,thedesiredsubject-positionisthelabel-literateshopperwhomakesrationaldecisionsonthebasisoftheprovenanceoffood.Thenotionoflabel-literacyconnectswithawidernotionofconsumercitizenship.Shopping-activismismuchdebated.Somefoodtheoristshavecritiquedwhattheyseeastheneoliberalrationalitiesandsubjectivitieswhichundergirdconsumer-activism(Guthman2007).Thisisbecausethisteleologyconstructsthemarketastheplacewherepoliticsgetsdoneandprivilegesthe‘choosingsubject’(Guthman2007).Inthisway,‘citizenship[is]manifestedthroughthefreeexerciseofpersonalchoice…newrelations[havebeenformed]betweentheeconomichealthofthenationandthe‘private’choicesofindividuals…thecitizen[is]assignedavitaleconomicroleinhisorheractivityasaconsumer’(MillerandRose2008:48-49).Morerecentlyfoodtheoristshavearguedthatneo-liberalgovernmentalitydoesnotmopupallwaysofbeingandacting(Dowling2010).Forexample,RobynDowlingarguesthatitispossibleto‘gobeyondgovernmentality’toexceedthesesubjectpositionsorcreatealternatives.


Incontrasttotheideaofeducationalaims,thenotionofteleologyupsthestakeswithitsfocuson‘formsoflife’andtheirlinkstowidergovernmentalprojects.Inthecaseofthebio-dynamicfarmer-educator,healtheducatorandalternativefarmersdiscussedinthispaper,wecanseeanemphasisbeingplacedon‘formsoflife’whereindividualsmusttakeresponsibilityforthefoodtheygrow,eatandshop.Forouractivists,goodcitizenshipisbeingrefractedthroughalensofcare:forself,family,cosmos,farmerandland.Withthefocusonthegrowing,shoppingandcookingoffood,theseformsoflifeandtheirethicsarehighlyclassed,racialisedandgenderedthough.Class,genderandracearecentraltotheseformsoflifeasfeministfoodwritershaveargued.Importantlyforadulteducators,subjectpositionsasformsoflifearewaysthroughwhichsubjectsarebroughttolifethroughtechnologiesandknowledge,andespeciallyself-knowledge.Buttheyarealsoresistedandrefused(seeinthisissuePikeandLeahy).Inrelationtothefoodactivists,moreresearchwouldneedtobedoneontheirlearnersandhowtheselearnersmayreproduce,embrace,orperhapshalf-heartedlyorintermittentlyinhabittheseformsoflife,andrejecttheteleologiesbeingsetoutbeforethem.

Conclusion

Inthispaper,wehaveexaminedthewaysinwhichthreetypesoffoodactivist-educatorsconstructfood,health,learnersandpedagogiesusingRose’sframeworkofproblematisations, authorities, technologies and teleologies.Wehavearguedthatthisframeworkenablesustodotwothings:first,toopenupthepoliticsofadulteducationpedagogiesthroughadifferentmodelofpower;andsecondly,toexpandourunderstandingoffoodactivistpedagogies.Inshort,wecanseethatthethreetypesofactivistscannotbeeasilycategorisedinanyoneschoolofthought,beithumanist,behaviourist,radicalorprogressive.Evenheuristically,theseconcepts,unlikeproblematisation,flattenthecomplexityofhowfoodandhealth


becomeanalysedandtreatedinpedagogies.Lookingatauthority relations rather than the role of the teacher gets at the ways in which educatorslegitimatewhattheydointermsofdoinggood.Thefocuson technologiesbringsnewpedagoguestothefore;forexample,itwouldbequiteunusualtodiscusslabelsaspedagogicalwithinmoretraditionalmodels.Rose’sframeworkenablesustothinkaboutthewaysinwhichadulteducators,regardlessofso-called‘schoolofthought’arevehiclesofpowerinmobilisingtechnologiesofselfanddomination.Finally,byemphasisingteleologiesratherthanaims,wecangetatthewaysthesepedagogiesproducetypesofselvesandtypesof ethical habits.

Ofcoursewedonotknowhowthesepedagogiesarereceivedbythetargetlearnersandtheextenttowhichlearnersaccept,refuse,andtakeupsubjectpositionseitherapatheticallyorcompliantly.Moreover,researchisneededonfoodpedagogiestoidentifywhat‘substance’gets‘capacitated’:habits,skills,identities,emotions,senses,knowledge(Flowers&Swan2013).

Furthermore,Rose’sframeworkchallengestheclaimstoethicalisationinadulteducation.Thusitprovidesuswithameanstoexamineadulteducationapproachesandtheirtermsandconditionsof‘doinggood.’Rose’sframeworkdescribesprocesseswhichbringsubjects,identities,knowledges,andtruthsintobeing:theyarenotsimplypre-formed.Theyalsobringpoliticalandethicalsubjectsintobeing(King,S.2003).Wehaveseensomeoftheethicalworkthatthe‘learners’needtodoaccordingtoourfoodactivisteducators.Throughwhatknowledgesandtruthsdofoodactivisteducatorsmaketheirwork‘ethical’?Throughwhatknowledgesandtruthsdoweasadulteducatorsmakeourwork‘ethical’?Toproduceourselvesintopoliticalandethicalsubjectswhat‘substance’dowehavetoworkon?Whatistheprimematerialofourclaimstobeingdoinggood(King,L.2003;King,S.2003)?ForRose,thesequestionswouldneedto


beansweredinrelationtospecific,concretepracticesaspowerisnotgeneral and abstract but located and technical.

Acrosstheaccountsofthefoodactiviststhereisamultiplicityofeducationalsources,aimsandtargetsofintervention.OnewaytounderstandthisistodrawinspirationfromRose’snotionofthe‘psy-complex’whichisanumbrellatermthatreferstotheexpandingarchitectureofpsychologicalexpertiseandtechniquesincontemporaryculture.Thetermcomplexisusedtoindicateahybridassemblageofknowledgeswhichmaybecontradictorybuthaveafamilyresemblanceinhowtheyunderstandproblemsandsolutions.Inthesamevein,wecanseethecontoursofwhatwemightcall‘thefood-knowledgescomplex’acrossarangeoffoodpedagogies,includingfoodactivisteducators.Inthefood-knowledgescomplex,thereisacongeriesofideas,idealsandpractices.Whilstinvoked,psyknowledgesaremuchlessimportantthan‘health’knowledgesofwhich‘healthism’isthemostsalient.AswithRose’sideaofthe‘psycomplex,’eventhoughthereisadiversityofviewsaboutwhathealthis(ontology)andwhatconstitutesgoodhealth(knowledges),thereisadominantviewofhealththatgetspropagated,andthisisusedtoundergirdclaimstobedoinggood.Inthisideaofthe‘food-knowledgecomplex’wecanseehowproblematisations,authorities,technologiesandteleologiesaregendered,classandracialisedandconstitutegender,classandrace.Inthepsy-complexexpertsclaimtohelpuswithwhatRose(1996)calls‘problemsofliving’;inthefood-knowledgescomplex,expertsclaimtohelpuswith‘problemsofeating’.

Differentproblematizations,technologies,authoritiesandteleologiesconstitutefood,healthandbodiesinvariouswayswhilstatthesametimepromoting,inthiscase,healthism.Toarguethis,istosaymorethantherearevariousconstructionsbeinginvokedinfoodactivistpedagogies:itistosuggestthatfoodandhealthareactivatedbyactivistsinontologicallydistinctwaysacrosstheirpedagogies.Thisis


becausepedagogiesareperformativeandreproducewhatRosecalls‘formsoflife.’Thepedagogiesbringobjectsandkindsofhumanstolife.Insodoing,theycanalsobringtypesoflivestohumans.Acrossthefoodactivistpedagogies,foodbecomesseenasspiritual,amedicine,achoice,aresponsibilityandhealthexpandstocovertheenvironment,spiritualconnection,familyhealth,agriculturalhealth,farmer’seconomichealth.Fortheeducators,togetatthe‘healthinfood’requiresdifferentactivitiesandprocesses:foodneedstobegrown,cooked,andshoppedforinparticularways.Whatfoodandhealth,then,are‘reallylike’and‘shouldbelike’iscontested(Jacobsen2004).

TounderstandthiswedrawonMol’s(2002)notionofthe‘body-multiple’:aconceptsheusestoshowhowpatients’bodieshavequitedifferentontologicalrealitiesaccordingtowhichmedicalpracticetheyare participating in. This is to argue that the body is not singular but multiple,andenactedinvariedandevenincommensurable,situatedmedicalpractices.Objectsaremultiple;andrealityopen(Jacobsen,2004).Insimilarvein,JohnLawandMarianneLien(2012)examinehowsalmonbecomeaverydifferenttypeofontologicalobjectacrossdifferent‘salmon-reality’practicesfromthebiologistwritingatextbookonsalmontosalmonfarmersinNorwaycatchingsalmon.Thusinexaminingthe‘food-knowledgescomplex,’itmaybehelpfultoidentifyhowwhatwecouldcall‘food-multiple’and‘health-multiple’constitutenotonlyfoodandhealthasdifferentobjects,butalsohowtheymakerace,classandgender.Rose’sframeworkhelpsusunderstandthatwhatweseeasproblemsandsolutionsaseducatorsarenotself-evidentnorequallydistributedbyrace,genderandclass.Onewaytothinkabout‘doinggood’theninfoodpedagogiesisas‘ontologicalpolitics’(Mol1999):thewaysinwhichdebatesandstrugglesneedtobehadoverwhichfood,pedagogicalandhealthrealitiestoenact(Bacchi2012;Jensen2004).


ReferencesAlfred,M.V.(2001).Thepoliticsofknowledgeandtheoryconstruction

inadulteducation:AcriticalanalysisfromanAfricentricfeministperspective.Options: Journal of Research and Practice in Adult Education,vol.13,no.1:10-20.

Allen,P.,Fitzsimmons,M.,Goodman,M.andWarner,K.(2003).‘Shiftingplatesintheagrifoodlandscape:thetectonicsofalternativeagrifoodinitiativesinCalifornia’,Journal of Rural Studies,vol.19,no.1,January2003:61–75.

Allon,F.(2011).EthicalConsumptionBeginsatHome:GreenRenovations,Eco-homesandSustainableHomeImprovementinT.LewisandE.Potter(eds)Ethical Consumption: A Critical Introduction.London:Routledge.

Bacchi,C.(2010). Foucault, Policy and Rule: Challenging the Problem-Solving Paradigm,paperpresentedatFeministResearchCentreinAalberg,Denmark(June2010).

Bacchi,C.(2012).Whystudyproblematizations?Makingpoliticsvisible.Open Journal of Political Science.vol.2.no.1:1-8.

Barrett,M.(1991).The Politics of Truth: From Marx to Foucault.Cambridge:Polity Press.

Berlant,L.(2010).RiskyBigness:OnObesity,Eating,andtheAmbiguityof“Health,”inJ.Metzl&Kirkland,A.(eds)Against Health: How Health Became the New Morality (Biopolitics, Medicine, Technoscience, and Health in the 21st Century),NewYork:NewYorkUniversity.

Besley,T.(2005).Foucault,truthtellingandtechnologiesoftheselfinschools,Journal of Educational Enquiry,vol.6,no.1:76-89.

Boud,D.(1987).‘Afacilitator’sviewofadultlearning’,inD.Boud&V.Griffin,Appreciating Adults Learning: From the Learners’ Perspective, KoganPage,London.

Boud,D.andGriffin,V.(1987).(eds.). Appreciating Adults Learning : From the Learners’ Perspective, London:KoganPage.

Brookfield,S.(2005). The Power of Critical Theory for Adult Learning and Teaching,MiltonKeynes:OpenUniversityPress.

Bugge,A.(2003).Cooking as Identity Practice.Projectnoteno.6.Oslo:NationalInstituteforConsumerResearch.

Burkitt,I.(2002).TechnologiesoftheSelf:HabitusandCapacities,Journal for Theory of Social Behaviour,vol.32,no.2:219-237.


Cervero,R.andWilson,A.(2000). Power in Practice: Adult Education and the Struggle for Knowledge and Power in Society, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Chappell,C.,Rhodes,C.,Solomon,N.,Tenannt,M.&Yates,L.(2003).Reconstructing the Lifelong Learner: Pedagogy and identity in Individual, Organisational and Social Change, London:Routledge.

ClarkeN,ClokeP,BarnettC,&Malpass,A.(2008).‘Thespacesandethicsoforganicfood’,Journal of Rural Studies, vol.24,no.3:219-30

Cook,S.(2009). New Spaces and New Places: Adult Education and the Creation of Alternative Foodscapes,GraduateFoodDiscussionsPaperSeries,RyersonUniversity,Canada,vol.1,Fall:19-31.

Coveney,J.D.(2006).Food, morals and meaning: the pleasure and anxiety of eating,London,UK:Routledge.

Cruikshank,B.(1993).Revolutionswithin:self-governmentandself-esteem,Economy and Society,vol.22,no.3,327-344.

Csurgo,B.,Kovach,I.andKucerova,E.(2008).‘Knowledge,PowerandSustainabilityinContemporaryRuralEurope’,Sociologia Ruralis, vol48,No.3:292-312.

Darkenwald,G.&Merriam,S.(1982).Adult Education: Foundations of Practice.NewYork:Harper&Row

Dean,M.(1999).Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.

Dean,M.(1996).‘Foucault,GovernmentandtheEnfoldingofAuthority’,inA.Barry,T.OsborneandN.Rose(eds) Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government. London: UCLPress:209-32.

Dixon,J.(2003).‘Authority,powerandvalueincontemporaryindustrialfoodsystems’,International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food,vol.11,no.1:31-39.

Dowling,R.(2010).‘Geographiesofidentity:climatechange,governmentalityandactivism’,Progress in Human Geography, vol.34no.4:488-495.

English,L.(2006).AFoucauldianReadingofLearninginFeminist,NonprofitOrganizations,Adult Education Quarterly February,vol.56:85-101

Fejes,A,(2008).Tobeone’sownconfessor:educationalguidanceandgovernmentality, British Journal of Sociology of Education,vol.29,no.6:653-664


Fejes,A.&Nicholl,K.(2007)Foucault and Lifelong: Governing the Subject. London:Routledge

Fenwick,T.(2006)Theaudacityofhope:Towardspoorerpedagogies,Studies in Education of Adults,vol.38,no.1,Spring2006:9-24(16)

Flowers,R.&Swan.E.(2011).‘EatingatUs:RepresentationsofKnowledgeintheActivistDocumentaryFilmFoodInc.’Studies in Education of Adults,vol.43,no.2,Autumn:234–50.

Flowers,R,andSwan,E.(2012).‘EatingtheAsianother?PedagogiesofFoodMulticulturalisminAustralia’,Portal Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies.vol.9,no.2.

Foley,G.(2000).(ed.).Introduction,inG.Foley(Ed.)Understanding Adult Education and Training,2ndedition,Sydney:Allen&Unwin.

Foucault,M.(1985).Discourseandtruth:Theproblematizationofparrhesia.InJ.Pearson(Ed.)EvanstonIllinois,NorthwesternUniversity.

Foucault,M.(1988).The History of Sexuality,vol.3,TheCareoftheSelf.London: Penguin.

Fox,S.(2000).‘CommunitiesofPractice,FoucaultandActorNetworkTheory,’Journal of Management Studies,vol.37,no.6:853-867.

Franklin,A.(2002).Nature and Social Theory. Sage: London.Garrick,J.&Solomon,N.(2001).TechnologiesofLearningatWork,inV.

Sheared&P.Sissell(2001)Making Space: Merging Theory and Practice in Adult Education,Westport:Bergin&Garvey.

Gaynor,A.(1998).‘YouareWhatYouEat?AComparativeStudyoftheRelationshipsBetweentheUseofFoodasMedicineandConstructionsof‘theBody’inPre-ModernChinaandContemporaryAustralia,Limina,Vol4,11-23.

Goodman,D.andDuPuis,M.(2002).‘KnowingFoodandGrowingFood:BeyondtheProduction-ConsumptionDebateintheSociologyofAgriculture’,Sociologia Ruralis,vol.42.no.1:5-22

Gore,J.(1993). The Struggle for Pedagogies: Critical and Feminist Discourses as Regimes of Truth.NewYork:Routledge.

Guthman,J.(2008).‘Bringinggoodfoodtoothers:investigatingthesubjectsofalternativefoodpractices’,Cultural Geographies October2008vol.15,no.4:431-447

Guthman,J.(2007).ThePolanyianWay?VoluntaryFoodLabelsasNeoliberalGovernance.Antipode,39:456–478.


Guthman,J.(2004).AgrarianDreams:TheParadoxofOrganicFarminginCalifornia.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Heyes,C.(2007).‘FoucaultGoestoWeightWatchers’,Hypatia,vol.21,no.2:126-149.

Higgins,V.(2001).‘AssemblingRestructuringGovernmentality,EconomicRegulatonandtheHistoricalEmergenceofthe‘EnterprisingFarmer’inAustralianAgricultural Policy, Review of International Political Economy,vol.8,no.2:311-328.

Hollway,W.(1991).Work Psychology and Organizational Behaviour: Managing the Individual at Work. London: Sage.

Ilcan,S.andPhillips,L.(2003).MakingFoodCount:ExpertKnowledgeandGlobalTechnologiesofGovernment,Canadian Review of Sociology,vol.40,no.4:441-461

Jacobsen,E.(2004).‘TheRhetoricofFood:FoodasNature,CommodityandCulture’inM.ElisabethLienandB.Nerlich(eds) The Politics of Food. Oxford:Berg.

Jackson,P.(2009).(ed.).Changing Families, Changing Food. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacMillan.

Kelly,P.andHarrison,L.(2009). Working in Jamie’s Kitchen: Salvation, Passion and Young Workers,Basingstoke:PalgraveMacMillan.

Ken,I.(2010).Digesting Race, Class, and Gender: Sugar as a Metaphor,NewYork:PalgraveMacMillan.

Kellet,E.Smith,A.&Schmerlaib,Y.(1998).The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating,Canberra:CommonwealthofAustralia.

Kimura,A.(2011).‘Foodeducationasfoodliteracy:privatisedandgenderedfoodknowledgeincontemporaryJapan’,Agriculture and Human Values,vol,28:465-482.

King,S.(2003).DoingGoodbyRunningWell:BreastCancer,theRacefortheCureandNewTechnologiesofEthicalCitizenshipininJ.Bratich,J.PackerandC.McCarthy(eds)Foucault, Cultural Studies and Governmentality.NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

King,L(2003).‘SubjectivityasIdentity:GenderThroughtheLendsofFoucault’inJ.Bratich,J.PackerandC.McCarthy(eds)Foucault, Cultural Studies and Governmentality.NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Law,J.andLien,M.(2012).‘Slippery:FieldNotesonEmpiricalOntology’.Social Studies of Science.0(0)1-16.

Lawler,S.(2008). Identity: Sociological Perspectives.Cambridge:Polity.


Luke,C.andGore,J.(eds)(1992). Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy. London:Routledge.

Lupton,D.(1996). Food, the Body, and the Self. London: Sage. McHoul,A.andGrace,W.(1993).A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and

the Subject.London:UCLPress.McLean,S.(2012).EducationforFreedom?“LivingRoomLearning”andthe

LiberalArtsofGovernment, Adult Education Quarterly,vol.62,no.2:159-179

McNay,L.(1992). Foucault and Feminism.Cambridge:Polity.Merriam,S.,Cafferella,R.&Baumgartner,L.(2007).LearninginAdulthood:

AComprehensiveGuide,SanFrancisco:JohnWiley.Miller,P.andRose,N.(2008). Governing the Present.Cambridge:PolityMillerandRose(1996)inA.Barry,T.OsborneandN.Rose(eds)Foucault

and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government.London:UCLPress

Mol,A.(1999).Ontologicalpolitics:Awordandsomequestions.InJ.Law,&J.Hassard(Eds.),Actor network theory and after,Oxford&Malden,MA:BlackwellPublishers:74-89

Mol,A.(2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Mol,A.(2010).‘Moderationorsatisfaction?Foodethicsandfoodfacts’inVandamme,Sofie,vandeVathorst,Suzanne&deBeaufort,Inez(eds).Whose Weight Is It Anyway? Essays on Ethics and Eating,Leuven:AccoAcademicPublishers,p121-132.

Newman,M.(1999).Maeler’s Regard: Images of adult learning,Sydney:Stewart Victor Publishing.

Newman,M.(2006).Teaching Defiance: Stories and strategies for activist educators, San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.

Paddock,J.(2009).Economy,Ecology,Society:The Importance of Class for the Sustainable Development Agenda,WorkingPaper125,CardiffSchoolofSocialSciences,CardiffUniversity.

Paull,J.(2011).ThesecretsofKoberwitz:ThediffusionofRudolfSteiner’sAgricultureCourseandthefoundingofBiodynamicAgriculture,Journal of Social Research & Policy, vol.2,no.1:19–29

Pfeiffer,E.(2006)[1938].Soil Fertility, Renewal and Preservation: Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening. Delhi,India:AsiaticPublishingHouse

Philip,B.(2009).‘Analysingthepoliticsofself-helpbooksondepression,’Journal of Sociology vol.45,no.2:151-168.


Purdue,D.(2000).BackyardDiversity:SeedtribesinthewestofEngland,Science as Culture,vol.9,no.2:141-166.

Reich,A.(2008).Intersectingworkandlearning:assemblingadvancedliberalregimesofgoverningworkersinAustralia, Studies in Continuing Education,vol.30,no.3:199-213.

Rose,N.&MillerP.(1992).PoliticalPowerBeyondtheState:Problematicsofgovernment,BritishJournal of Sociology, vol.43,no.2:173-205.

Rose,N.(1996).Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power and Personhood. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Rose,N.(1993).Government,authorityandexpertiseinadvancedliberalism,Economy and Society,vol.22,no3:283-299.

Scott,G.(1985).Adult Teaching and Learning: A Resource Guide. Sydney: ITATE

Slocum,R.(2011).Raceinthestudyoffood,Progress in Human Geography vol.35,no.3:303-327

Swan,E.(2009).Worked up Selves: Personal Development Workers, Self-Work and Therapeutic Cultures,Houndsmills:PalgraveMacmillan.

Swan,E.(2008).‘YouMakeMeFeelLikeAWoman:TherapeuticCulturesandtheContagionofFemininity’, Gender, Work and Organization,vol.15,no.1:88-107.

Tennant,M.(1998).Adulteducationasatechnologyoftheself,International Journal of Lifelong Education,vol.17,no.6:364-376

Turner,G.&Shepherd,J.(1998).Amethodinsearchofatheory:peereducationandhealthpromotion,Health Education Research, vol.14,no.2:235-247

Vella,J.(1994).Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach: The Power of Dialogue in Educating Adults,SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass

Vileisis,(2004).Kitchen literacy: how we lost knowledge of where food comes from and why we need to get it back, Connecticut:IslandPress

Yngfalk,C.(2012).The Constitution of Consumption: Food Labeling and the Politics of Consumerism. PhDThesis:UniversityofStockholm.

ZukasM.&Malcolm,J.(2002).“Pedagogiesforlifelonglearning:buildingbridgesorbuildingwalls?”inR.Harrison,F.Reeve,A.Hanson&J.Clarke(eds.).Supporting lifelong learning: Volume 1 - Perspectives on learning.RoutledgeFalmer.


Acknowledgements

WewouldliketothankFacultyofArtsandSocialScienceandtheCosmopolitanCivilSocietiesResearchCentreattheUniversityofTechnology,SydneyforfundingthisresearchandStephenFox,QueenMaryCollegeLondonUniversityforhelpfulcommentsonourdraft work.

About the authors

Rick Flowers has been Head of Adult Education and Postgraduate Programs in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) since 2008. Rick was Director of the Centre for Popular Education at the University of Technology, Sydney from 1999 to 2007. The Centre for Popular Education undertook research in environmental education and advocacy, community cultural development, health education and community development, the pedagogy and politics of working with young people, union and community organising, and community leadership. Rick has been undertaking research with Elaine Swan about food pedagogies for just under two years. This has included papers about activist films, food practices in mixed-race families, and empirical research in southwestern Sydney about culinary ethnicism in a project led by a food social enterprise. They have an edited book with the title ‘Food Pedagogies’ coming out in 2013.

Elaine Swan is Head of Communication Studies in Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). Recent papers examines processes of whiteness: Swan (2010) looks at the active labour of ignorance, audit culture and white masculinity in UK universities; Swan (2009) focuses on the visual image of the mosaic, a well worn cliché of diversity management to explore the ideal of whiteness in race making; Swan (2011) examines whiteness and the figure of the career woman in relation


to dirty work in women’s magazines. She has published two books: Worked up Selves which looks at the interface between therapeutic pedagogies and the workplace, and Diversity in Management with Caroline Gatrell.

Contact details:

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology Sydney (UTS).

Email: [email protected] and [email protected]