4.4 Article

The aesthetic politics of taste: Producing extra virgin olive oil in Jordan

期刊

GEOFORUM
卷 92, 期 -, 页码 36-44

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.03.004

关键词

Jordan; Agriculture; Olive oil; Aesthetics; Standardization; Quality

资金

  1. American Center for Oriental Research in Amman, Jordan
  2. Fulbright US Student Program in Jordan
  3. Society of Women Geographers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extra virginity as a standard is predicated on a chemical and sensory evaluation according to the parameters set by the International Olive Council. Though a rich literature examines how food and agricultural standards are implemented in local contexts, little work has assessed how certifications redefine the local aesthetic experience of the food. In order to fill this gap, I analyze the aesthetic politics, which redefine who can taste and how they can do it. I argue that incorporating aesthetic politics into analyses of quality and standards enables tracing how this standard becomes regarded as scientific and, return, effects a re-aestheticizing of what is considered a(n) (il) legitimate taste. This re-aestheticization redefines 'best practices' in olive oil production, according to the new aesthetic. This particular configuration of the sensorial experience of olive oil, through its dissemination and employment as part of international-funded capacity building efforts, has social and environmental consequences across Jordan. In sum, this paper-based on 15 months of qualitative fieldwork with farmers, NGOs, mill employees, mill owners, and government officials in the Jordanian olive oil industry-explores how basic taste standards for extra virgin olive oil are discursively instilled in sensory evaluations and physically produced in farm and mill management practices. By tracing these processes, this paper furthers our understanding of how seemingly apolitical, scientific standards travel across scales and affect the ways in which people experience taste.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据