Advertisement

Genetically Modified Organisms as Politicizing Products?

  • Guido Ruivenkamp
Chapter
Part of the LITES - Legal Issues in Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies book series (LITES, volume 2)

Abstract

The development of biotechnology and agrobiodiversity and food diversity influence each other mutually. In this contribution the development of (agro-industrial) biotechnology is analyzed as being shaped and shaping the social conflict on the emergence of agro-industrial food chains. It is argued that biotechnology is related to a spatial transformation of agro/food production, strengthening three historical processes of separation and establishing new techniques of governing human and particularly scientific workers (immaterial labor). It is argued that biotechnological products—seeds, enzymes, biocatalysts and microbiological produced food components—are politicizing products creating new social relations in global food systems and establishing a new biopower system, shifting politics from policy-makers to the domain of science and technology.

However, it is also argued that the emergence of this new system of biopower through the politicization of biotechnological products embedded in the spatial reorganization of food production is challenged, it is suggested, by the development of a space to maneuver with multiple practices of resistance, transforming the politicizing products of biopower into catalysts for multiple, location-specific developments. The contribution concludes by reflecting on these practices of resistance and rewriting the embodied political content of agro-industrial biotechnology and to transform it into tailor-made biotechnologies related to the perspectives of agrobiodiversity and food diversity. Conversely, the contribution focuses on the question whether and in which ways a critical-reconstructive approach can be applied to agro/food biotechnology.

Keywords

Biotechnology Biopower Biopolitics Space Agrobiodiversity and food diversity 

References

  1. Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S (1994) Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Benkler Y (2006) The wealth of networks how social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Delfanti A (2013) Biohackers. The politics of open science. Pluto Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Feenberg A (1999) Questioning technology. Routledge, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Galimberti U (2003) Psiche e techne. L’uomo nell’eta della tecnica. Giangiacomo Feltrinelli Editore, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  6. Golinelli S, Ruivenkamp G (2015) Do-it-yourself biology: action research within the life sciences? Action Research, 05/06/2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hardt M, Negri A (2004) Multitude: war and democracy in the age of empire. The Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Hobsbawm E (1995) The age of extremes: the short twentieth century, 1914–1991. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Jongerden J (2008) First the peasant? Some reflections on modernity, technology and reconstruction. In: Ruivenkamp G, Hisano S, Jongerden J (eds) Reconstructing biotechnologies: critical social analyses. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 119–142Google Scholar
  10. Kloppenburg JR (1988) First the seed: the political economy of plant biotechnology, 1492–2000. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Magnaghi A (2000) Il Progetto Local. Bollati Boringhieri, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  13. Öztürk M, Jongerden J, Hilton A (2014) Commodification and the social commons: Smallholder autonomy and urban relations in Turkey. Agrar South J Polit Econ 3:337–367Google Scholar
  14. Patnaik A (2016) Seeds as biosocial commons. An analysis of various practices in India. PhD thesis, Wageningen UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. Rana BS (2000) Annual Report National Research Centre for Sorghum. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, HyderabadGoogle Scholar
  16. Ruivenkamp G (1986) The impact of biotechnology on international development: competition between sugars and sweeteners. Vierteljahresberichte des Forschungsinstituts der Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 103 (Special issue on ‘New technologies and Third World Development’)Google Scholar
  17. Ruivenkamp G (1989) De Invoering van Biotechnologie in de Agro-Industriele Productieketen. De overgang naar een nieuwe arbeidsorganisatie. Jan van Arkel Uitgeverij, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. Ruivenkamp G (1997) Biotechnology as a socio-technical ensemble – closings remarks and reflections. In: Wirtz J, Lammerts van Bueren ET (eds) The future of DNA. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ruivenkamp G (2003) Biotechnology: the production of new identities. In: Koot W, Leisink P, Verweel P (eds) Organizational relationships in the networking age. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 265–290Google Scholar
  20. Ruivenkamp G (2005) Tailor-made biotechnologies: between biopower and subpolitics. Tail Biotechnol 1:11–33Google Scholar
  21. Ruivenkamp G (2008) Biotechnology in development. Experiences from the South. Wageningen Academic Publishers, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  22. Van der Ploeg JD (2008) The new peasantries, struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Virno P (2004) A grammar of the multitude. An analysis of contemporary forms of life. Semiotext, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Vroom W (2009) Reflexive biotechnology development. Studying plant breeding technologies and genomics for agriculture in the developing world. Wageningen Academic Press, WageningenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Winner L (1985) Do artifacts have politics? In: MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (eds) The social shaping of technology. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, pp 26–38Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Ruivenkamp
    • 1
  1. 1.SADE, University of WegeningenWegeningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations