Cargando…
Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models
Bioeconomy as a new promissory discourse neither challenges the paradigm of economic growth, nor questions its embeddedness in capitalist (neo-)colonial patriarchal power relations. However, the calls for a ‘genuine’ socio-ecological transformation and for alternative bioeconomy visions imply exactl...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Japan
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9890435/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36743453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01292-6 |
_version_ | 1784880946344886272 |
---|---|
author | Pungas, Lilian |
author_facet | Pungas, Lilian |
author_sort | Pungas, Lilian |
collection | PubMed |
description | Bioeconomy as a new promissory discourse neither challenges the paradigm of economic growth, nor questions its embeddedness in capitalist (neo-)colonial patriarchal power relations. However, the calls for a ‘genuine’ socio-ecological transformation and for alternative bioeconomy visions imply exactly a destabilization of these power relations. Drawing on the Bielefeld subsistence approach and on its colonialism–capitalism–patriarchy nexus, I argue that the latest bioeconomy strategy and policy papers of both the EU and Estonia each disregard certain spheres of the bioeconomy due to the three-dimensional power relations. As a seemingly neutral political discourse, the bioeconomy is shaped by cultural assumptions and narratives that determine and perpetuate what is deemed worthy of protection and what is pushed aside as merely ‘natural’. As such, the current bioeconomy papers promote a ‘biomass-based model of capital accumulation’ that is essentially built on the prerequisite of the subordination, devaluation, appropriation and/or exploitation of (1) different geographical regions, (2) ecological foundations, and (3) prevalent bioeconomy practices. As a widespread agricultural practice in Eastern Europe, Food Self-Provisioning (FSP) serves as a good example of how predominant bioeconomy models (1) simply operate as new forms of postcolonial development discourse, instead of embracing the plurality of decolonial ‘alternatives to development’; (2) deepen the human–nature dichotomy by regarding nature as a mere resource to be extracted more efficiently instead of cultivating mutually nourishing partnership-like relation(ship)s with nature; and (3) maintain the separation between monetized and maintenance economies, rather than fostering ethics of care to overcome the structural separation between the latter. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9890435 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer Japan |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98904352023-02-01 Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models Pungas, Lilian Sustain Sci Special Feature: Original Article Bioeconomy as a new promissory discourse neither challenges the paradigm of economic growth, nor questions its embeddedness in capitalist (neo-)colonial patriarchal power relations. However, the calls for a ‘genuine’ socio-ecological transformation and for alternative bioeconomy visions imply exactly a destabilization of these power relations. Drawing on the Bielefeld subsistence approach and on its colonialism–capitalism–patriarchy nexus, I argue that the latest bioeconomy strategy and policy papers of both the EU and Estonia each disregard certain spheres of the bioeconomy due to the three-dimensional power relations. As a seemingly neutral political discourse, the bioeconomy is shaped by cultural assumptions and narratives that determine and perpetuate what is deemed worthy of protection and what is pushed aside as merely ‘natural’. As such, the current bioeconomy papers promote a ‘biomass-based model of capital accumulation’ that is essentially built on the prerequisite of the subordination, devaluation, appropriation and/or exploitation of (1) different geographical regions, (2) ecological foundations, and (3) prevalent bioeconomy practices. As a widespread agricultural practice in Eastern Europe, Food Self-Provisioning (FSP) serves as a good example of how predominant bioeconomy models (1) simply operate as new forms of postcolonial development discourse, instead of embracing the plurality of decolonial ‘alternatives to development’; (2) deepen the human–nature dichotomy by regarding nature as a mere resource to be extracted more efficiently instead of cultivating mutually nourishing partnership-like relation(ship)s with nature; and (3) maintain the separation between monetized and maintenance economies, rather than fostering ethics of care to overcome the structural separation between the latter. Springer Japan 2023-02-01 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9890435/ /pubmed/36743453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01292-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Special Feature: Original Article Pungas, Lilian Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models |
title | Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models |
title_full | Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models |
title_fullStr | Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models |
title_full_unstemmed | Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models |
title_short | Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models |
title_sort | invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of dominant bioeconomy models |
topic | Special Feature: Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9890435/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36743453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01292-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pungaslilian invisiblebioeconomiesaframeworktoassesstheblindspotsofdominantbioeconomymodels |