The author cautions against theories of value that look to define what ‘it’
is, noting how such an approach closes off imaginaries
based on alterity and difference thus unintentionally reproducing the very
status quo being criticizing. A call is made for experimentation, disciplinary
transgressions, and cosmopolitical critiques. Can we think about theories of
value that are critical and hopeful?
CarolanM (2016a) Adventurous food futures:
knowing about alternatives is not enough, we need to feel
them. Agriculture and Human Values33(1):
141–152.
2.
CarolanM (2016b) Agro-digital governance and
life itself: food politics at the intersection of code and
affect. Sociologia Ruralis. DOI:
10.1111/soru.12153
3.
CarolanM (2018) Fare Share: Food in the
Collaborative Economy. Washington,
DC: Island
Press.
4.
HarawayD (2003) The Companion Species Manifesto:
Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness.
Chicago: Paradigm
Press.
5.
KayKKenney-LazarM (2017) Value in capitalist natures:
an emerging framework. Dialogues in Human
Geography7(3):
295–309.
6.
LatourB (2004) How to talk about the
body?The normative dimension of science studies. Body and
Society10(2-3):
205–229.
7.
NegriA (1999) Value and
affect. Boundary2(26):
77–88.
8.
TillischKLabusJKilpatrickL. (2013) Consumption of fermented
milk product with probiotic modulates brain activity.
Gastroenterology144(7):
1394–1401.
9.
WilliamsR (1985) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture
and Society. Oxford University
Press,
Oxford.
