Agricultural Futures - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 853

Beyondtheconceptualdiscussionofprinciples,discussionofwhata“relexiveinsti-
tution”actuallylookslikeisotenvague,andcertainlyitissoatagloballevel.Inmany
respectstheIAASTDisseenbyitsproponentsasanattempttocreatearelexiveinsti-
tution, although they do not use this language. Many of the key design principles are
there—inclusivity,openness,pluralityofknowledge,andacommitmenttodemocratic
processes. But there have been notable limitations. These center on two issues. The first
involves the challenges of confronting uncertainty and controversy and the expecta-
tion that these will be resolved by rational, objective, scientific debate among expert
peers.hesecond—andrelated—istheobscuringofveryrealstrugglesoverknowledge,
politics, and values in an attempt to construct the “view from everywhere” by seeing
this primarily in terms of representation of different interest groups. These two gaps,
I wouldargue,haveattimescreatedalackofrelexivityintheprocess—alackofabil-
itytorelectonpositions,framings,andpolitics,whichsometimeshasresultedinan
inability to deal with the really tough issues and choices confronting the future of sci-
ence and technology.
Conclusion
The key lessons from this case study are that the politics of knowledge must be made
more explicit and that negotiations around politics and values must be put center stage.
Inaddition,wemustavoidblack-boxingissuesofuncertaintyormorefundamental
clashes over interpretation and meaning. And, finally, we must seek ways by which pro-
cesses of participation and engagement can become more meaningful, democratic, and
accountable.
These are, of course, major challenges at the center of debates about democratic
theory, and they constitute the core of the concerns of this topic. As Chantal Moufe
(2005)arguesinacritiqueoftherecentargumentsfordeliberativeformsofdemocratic
practice,aneedexiststo“bringpoliticsbackin.”Inawitheringattackonthosewho
believe“partisanconlictsareathingofthepastandconsensuscannowbeobtained
throughdialogue”andtheassumptionthat“thankstoglobalizationandtheuniversal-
izationofliberaldemocracy,wecanexpectacosmopolitanfuture,”Moufechallenges
this “post-political” position:
Such an approach is profoundly mistaken and that, instead of contributing to the
“democratizationofdemocracy,”itisattheoriginofmanyoftheproblemsthat
democratic institutions are currently facing. Notions such as “partisan-free democ-
racy,” “good governance,” “global civil society,” “cosmopolitan sovereignty,” “absolute
democracy,”—toquoteonlyafewofthecurrentlyfashionablenotions—allpartake
of a common anti-political vision which refuses to acknowledge the antagonistic
dimension constitutive of “the political.” Their aim is the establishment of a world
“beyond let and right,” “beyond hegemony,” “beyond sovereignty,” and “beyond
antagonism.” Such a longing reveals a complete lack of understanding of what is at