Diagramas de Flujo

Castells (1997, p. 7) states that “the social construction of identity always takes place in a context marked by power relations.” Similarly, it is proposed that the construction of quality food is negotiated between actors who possess differing levels of resources, interests and ideologies. The food quality discourse is an arena in which actors compete for their meanings to become the preferred meanings of food quality. Discourse refers to any semiotic activity (e.g. spoken/written language, visual images and non-verbal communication) that presents a “representat[ion] of [a] given social practice from a particular point of view” (Fairclough, 2000, p. 310). Discourse relates to knowledge construction and is both shaped by society and shapes society (Fairclough, 2000, p. 310). Thus, food quality is a discourse that is differentially constructed according to the actor’s interests, ideologies and knowledge. As a result, there is much contestation over meanings in the food quality discourse.

A discourse is not a level playing field where meanings are equally weighted; rather, those that possess the most material resources are the ones that can afford to promote a higher concentration of symbolic resources. That is, larger agrifood industries (such as the multinational retailers) possess significant levels of material and symbolic resources to promote food safety as the preferred meaning of food quality. In this manner, the small-scale industries that promote alternative meanings of food quality and possess fewer material resources are disadvantaged within the food quality discourse. The smaller industries are required to find ways to connect with consumers who value these alternative meanings of food quality. This phenomenon is succinctly expressed by Berger and Luckmann’s (1967, p. 108-109) reference to definitions of reality:

specifically, the success of particular conceptual machineries is related to the power possessed by those who operate them. The confrontation of alternative symbolic universes implies a problem of power – which of the conflicting definitions of realty will be ‘made to stick’ in the society. Two societies confronting each other with conflicting universes will both develop conceptual machineries designed to maintain their respective universes. From the point of intrinsic plausibility the two forms of conceptualisation may seem to the outside observer to offer little choice. Which of the two will win, however, will depend more on the power than on the theoretical ingenuity of the respective legitimators … The historical outcome of each clash of gods was determined by those who wielded the better weapons rather than those who had the better arguments … He who has the bigger stick has the better chance of imposing his definitions of reality.

environmental ills associated with intensive agrifood production, processing and distribution. As Marsden et al. (2001, p. 78) suggests, the “growth of a profound regulatory burden as a response to the crisis in the industrial mode of agro-food” has only served “to strengthen the economic and political power of agro-industrial interests.” The result is, arguably, an arena of distorted communication where actors with alternative meanings and fewer resources are marginalised. This distortion is further promoted by government. Essentially, government legislation and research and development dollars into food safety has legitimated the push towards the dominant food quality meaning favouring those industries that are located within the industrial system.

A democratising of the food quality arena is required. It is not suggested that by simply making the process more democratic (i.e. levelling the inequalities) the better argument will win (i.e. food quality meanings that are associated with agrifood production, processing and distribution that is less socially and environmentally destructive) as offered in Habermas’ notion of ‘communicative rationality’ (Habermas, 1984). Rather, it is suggested that the Habermasian concept of ‘communicative rationality’ is useful because it “involves respect for the reflectively-held positions of others, and is

defensible to the extent that it is taken as a procedural standard … and does not dictate any substantive way of life” (Dryzek, 1992, p. 30-31). The goal is to at least create an arena in which alternative meanings (to the industrial system) have access to the food quality discourse and, essentially, are not marginalised. In this manner, alignment with Habermas’ ‘ideal speech situation’ occurs, where the notion of a “committed

participant” is akin to the food consumer, and where:

Every committed participant has the ability to distinguish between a genuine and a manipulative agreement, where the genuine agreement is only based on the ‘force of the better argument’. In such a transparent situation there is communicative equality in beginning and continuing a discussion, and equal opportunities to present arguments and choose between them. This means that all suggestions must be considered by the committed participants. The exclusion of any assertions is not permitted and all assertions must be able to be criticised (Skollerhorn, 1998, p. 558).

In this respect, the question is, what means does the artisanal food industry in Tasmanian agriculture have available to/or could make available to them to promote alternative meanings of food quality and encourage a more democratic food quality discourse?

The final section in this review surrounding quality is to examine the Conventions Theory approach to defining quality. This extends the notion that as a social construct, food quality is a negotiated process between actors in the food chain rather than simply an attribute of the food item. This approach is particularly relevant for two reasons: (1) it is recognised that the economic is embedded within a socio-cultural context which needs to be incorporated into the analysis of a food product; and (2) that these types of enterprises offer positive benefits, which cannot be incorporated into, or are simply omitted from, the neo-classical economic model of accounting.