Reconsidering nutrition science: critical reflection with a cultural lens

Nutrition Journal

Craig A Hassel¹ 

[1] Department of Food Science & Nutrition, University of Minnesota, 1334 Eckles Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA

关键词: Cross-cultural engagement;    Epistemology;    Culture;    Hidden subjectivity;    Philosophy;    Nutrition science;   

Others  :  801475
DOI  :  10.1186/1475-2891-13-42

 received in 2014-01-06, accepted in 2014-04-28,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

European culture gave birth to modern science as a means to investigate and explain the natural world. The biomedical disciplines that have since emerged, including nutrition, presuppose a web of basic presuppositions, background assumptions and implicit cultural values that are often overlooked and escape peer review. These "hidden subjectivities" are widely taken-for-granted while exerting a powerful hold on the scope, direction and patterns of disciplinary thought. Nutrition science currently has no accepted means of collectively attending to hidden subjectivities embedded within its methods and practice. Here I propose that directing inquiry into these dimensions holds potential to advance our discipline.

Methods

This critically reflective approach emerged from critical theory and the practice of cross-cultural engagement (CCE). CCE deliberately seeks out and critically engages food and health understandings of non-European cultures. Its protocol includes cognitive frameshifting, a practice of temporarily stepping outside of habitual thought patterns and into a non-biomedical framework of background assumptions. A cultural lens metaphor derives from CCE practice and is forwarded here as a viable means for restoring critically reflective attention to hidden subjectivities while also inviting further CCE practice within the discipline.

Results

Critical reflection with a cultural lens allows cognitive attachments to materialism, reductionism, mechanistic thought, naïve realism, control over nature and pervasive subject-object dichotomies between mind and matter, scientist and nature, experience and reality, among many others to become more available for critical consideration. Culturally diverse food and health understandings otherwise dismissed as "unscientific" or held in abeyance gain value as alternative assumptive frameworks and cognitive models that can be temporarily inhabited for further intercultural reflection and insight.

Conclusion

Critical reflection with a cultural lens allows reconsideration of nutrition science in light of its culturally specific origin and foundation. This perspective can advance the discipline in two ways. First, it extends skeptical inquiry into hidden subjectivities that are otherwise implicit and seldom given over to critical consideration. Second, it can broaden scholarly inquiry through deliberate attempts to cross cognitive boundaries and empathically inhabit different cognitive worlds. This developmental practice holds potential to both deepen and broaden disciplinary inquiry.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Hassel; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]University of Giessen, International Union of Nutritional Sciences & World Health Policy Forum: The Giessen Declaration. Public Health Nutr 2005, 8(6A):783-786.
• [2]Glasauer P, Hoffmann I, Keller M, Krawinkel M, Lang T, Leitzmann C, Lo¨tsch B, Margetts BM, McMichael AJ, Meyer-Abich K, Oltersdorf U, Pettoello-Mantovani M, Sabate´ J, Shetty P, So´ria M, Spiekermann U, Tudge C, Vorster HH, Wahlqvist M, Zerilli-Marimo M: The principles, definition and dimensions of the new nutrition science. Pub Health Nutr 2005, 8(6A):695-698.
• [3]Collingwood RG: An essay on metaphysics. London: Oxford University Press; 1940.
• [4]Kuhn T: The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd edition. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press; 1962; 1996.
• [5]Code L: Taking subjectivity into account. In Rhetorical spaces: Essays on gendered locations. New York: Routledge; 1995:23-57.
• [6]Longino H: Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific inquiry. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press; 1990.
• [7]Bacon F: The new organon. True directions concerning the interpretation of nature. http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm webcite
• [8]Orange AD: The beginnings of the British Association, 1831–1851. In The Parliament of Science. Edited by MacLeod R, Collins P. Northwood, Midx., UK: Science Reviews; 1981:43-64.
• [9]MacLeod R, Collins P (Eds): The Parliament of Science. Northwood, MidxUK: Science Reviews; 1981.
• [10]Aikenhead G, Ogawa M: Indigenous knowledge and science revisited. Cult Studies Sci Educ 2007, 2:539-620.
• [11]Tarnas R: The Passion of the Western Mind. New York: Ballentine; 1991.
• [12]Maxwell N: From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution in the Aims and Methods of Science. Oxford: Blackwell Press; 1984.
• [13]Shils E: The order of learning in the United States from 1865 to 1920: The ascendency of the universities. Minerva 1978, 16(2):159-195.
• [14]Smith LT: Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. New York: Zed Books; 1999.
• [15]Cochran PAL, Marshall CA, Garcia-Downing C, Kendall E, Cook D, McCubbin M, Gover RMS: Indigenous ways of knowing: implications for participatory research and community. Am J Pub Health 2008, 98:22-27.
• [16]Fruehauf H: Chinese Medicine in crisis. Science, politics and the making of "TCM". J Chin Med 1999, 61:6-14.
• [17]Cajete G: Native science. Natural laws of interdependence. Clear Light: Santa Fe; 2000.
• [18]Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M: Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Malden: Polity Press; 2001.
• [19]Fleck L: Genesis and development of a scientific fact. In trans. Bradley F, Trenn TJ. Edited by Trenn TJ, Merton RK. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press; 1935:1979.
• [20]Campbell C: Whole. Rethinking the science of nutrition. Dallas: Benbella Books; 2013.
• [21]Jacobs D, Tapsell L: Food synergy: the key to a healthy diet. Proc Nutr Soc 2013, 72(2):200-206.
• [22]Hite AH, Feinman RD, Guzman GE, Satin M, Schoenfeld PA, Wood RJ: In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee. Nutrition 2010, 2010(26):915-924.
• [23]Slavin J: Dietary Guidelines. Are we on the right path? Nutr Today 2012, 47:245-251.
• [24]Kurtz C, Snowden D: The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems J 2003, 42(2):462-483.
• [25]Reason P, Bradbury H: The Sage handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and practice. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2008.
• [26]Carr W, Kemmis S: Becoming critical. Education, knowledge and action research. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press; 1986.
• [27]Paul R: Critical thinking. Santa Rosa CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking; 1990.
• [28]Hassel C: The craft of cross-cultural engagement. J of Extension 2005, 43:6. http://www.joe.org/joe/2005december/a1.php webcite
• [29]Hassel C: Woodlands Wisdom: a nutrition program interfacing indigenous and biomedical epistemologies. J Nutr Ed Behav 2006, 38(2):114-120.
• [30]Hassel C: Can cross-cultural engagement improve the land-grant university? J of Extension 2007, 45:5. http://www.joe.org/joe/2007october/a7.shtml webcite
• [31]Kiple KF, Ornelas KC: The Cambridge world history of food. Cambridge: Cambridge UK; 2000.
• [32]Keoke ED, Porterfield KM: American Indian contributions to the world. 15,000 years of inventions and innovations. New York: Checkmark; 2002.
• [33]Sharma H, Clark C: Contemporary ayurveda. Medicine and research in Maharishi ayurveda. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone; 1998.
• [34]Leslie C, Young A: Paths to Asian medical knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1992:1-18.
• [35]Hawking S, Mlodinow L: The grand design. New York: Banta; 2010.
• [36]Powderhorn/Phillips Cultural Wellness Center: Healing from the Four Directions. Proceedings from: Cultural wisdom for group and community healing. Minneapolis, MN: Cultural Wellness Center; 2002.
• [37]Cultural Wellness Center: The Cultural Wellness Center annual report. Minneapolis, MN: Cultural Wellness Center; 2011.
• [38]Bennet MJ: Towards ethnorelativism: a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Education for the Intercultural experience. 2nd edition. Edited by Paige RM. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press; 1993:pp21-pp71.
• [39]Kegan R: What form transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In Learning as transformation. Edited by Associates, Mesirow J. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass; 2000:35-70.
• [40]Houghton Mifflin: Webster’s II new college dictionary. New York: Houghton Mifflin; 1999:p274.
• [41]Carr T: Discovering nutrition. Malden: Blackwell; 2003.
• [42]Vogel VJ: American Indian medicine. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press; 1970.
• [43]Moerman D: Native American Ethnobotany. Portland: Timber Press; 1998.
• [44]Deloria V Jr: Red earth white lies. Golden, Co: Fulcrum; 1997:p40.
• [45]Schultz P: People protecting manoomin:Manoomin protecting people. Nibi and Manoomin: Bridging Worldviews Committee; 2009. http://www.cfans.umn.edu/diversity/Initiatives/wild_rice_audiomedia.htm webcite