I audited a food anthropology course a while back and we read a great paper on the role of fish husbandry in Japanese fish markets (“Hatchery Flounder Going Wild: Authenticity, Aesthetics, and Fetishism of Fish in Japan” by Satsuki Takahashi). There was a great line about the elision of labor:
“As food critics and celebrity chefs will attest, a “wild” thing appeals because
of the richness of its flavor. Preferring wild berries, wild mushrooms, or wild
mint, for example, to “regular” ones, many consumers consider wildly grown
foodstuffs to be appetizing and of higher value. Such a perception on wild
food commodities is a form of fetish, which I call “wilderness fetishism.”
I refer here to “fetishism” in the manner used by James Carrier, who—by
extending Karl Marx’s original notion of commodity fetishism—calls attention
to “the ignoring or denial of the background of objects.” In analyzing
the commodity fetishism involved with ecotourism and fair trade, Carrier
differs from Marx’s emphasis on a nearly complete disregard for context.
He instead points to a certain selectiveness among consumers: For example,
while consumers of fair-trade coffee recognize the growers, they tend to elide
human labor involved between growers and purchasers, including those by
the roasters, shippers, and merchants. In the case of wild fish, consumers
particularly remember “nonhuman labor”—such as the work of waves, reefs,
and other inhabitants—involved in nurturing the ocean’s blessings, and also
recognize “human labor” involved in capturing them at sea, whereas they
tend to ignore other aspects of human labor performed, for example, by
conservation scientists, fisheries agents, wholesalers, and fishmongers. In
enhancing the value of the fish, this “wilderness fetishism” ignores particular
human relationships involved in the process of producing them.”
I think a lot of modern science reporting emphasizes a similar fetishism - in this case, a fetishism of personality and invention rather than process and regulation - that makes it seem like science is done by individuals rather than communities. Part of education to me should include discussions of science infrastructure and democratization instead of, say, “this old dude was a genius who made this discovery.” I’m conflicted over building narratives around scientists for this reason as well, since focusing on the humanity of the researcher rather than the humanity of those using the results downstream of their discoveries feels like a form of celebritization - which I’d argue is another type of harmful fetishism surrounding science and technology. There is so so so much more to science and tech than what we report on, and I wish we did more as a community to be transparent and open about it all.
