Source: Dunechaser
¶ I apologize for the re-post of this entry since it was originally delivered at in.itiative.org; however, I thought it important enough to start off this personal blog…
¶ If you heard someone mention ‘vethnography’ or ‘vethnomedicine’, what would come to mind? If you subsequently heard them reference ‘ethnography’ or ‘ethnomedicine’, would you have a better picture of what was being discussed? Let’s start the discussion with a couple of definitions.
Ethnography: “Ethnography is a genre of writing that uses fieldwork to provide a descriptive study of human societies. Ethnography presents the results of a holistic research method founded on the idea that a system’s properties cannot necessarily be accurately understood independently of each other. The genre has both formal and historical connections to travel writing and colonial office reports.”
Ethnomedicine: “Ethnomedicine is a sub-field of ethnobotany or medical anthropology that deals with the study of traditional medicines: not only those that have relevant written sources (e.g. Traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda), but especially those, whose knowledge and practices have been orally transmitted over the centuries. In the scientific arena, ethnomedical studies are generally characterized by a strong anthropological approach.”
¶ So, what are vethnography and vethnomedicine? Vethnography is best characterized as the study and description of veterinary and agricultural infrastructure and their role in society. The vethnographer holistically examines the interweaving of social context into agricultural production and, subsequently, agriculture’s influence on social systems in a given culture, region or society. Integrated into this methodology, and perhaps a sub-specialty within it, is the specific investigation of cultural/social influences on veterinary medicine and animal health, including traditional veterinary medical treatments – hence, veterinary + ethnomedicine.
¶ The average American or European is quite detached from his/her food source, and therefore, is generally not socially engaged with the agricultural systems that provide for his consumption. Further, most individuals in this same demographic are not directly dependent upon the land or directly responsible for it’s sustainable use. A vast variety of foodstuff magically appears in our supermarkets – prepackaged and sanitary (in both cleanliness and attribution to a particular animal or farm). Even though there has been recent increased consumer interest in ‘organically-produced’ food, farm co-ops, and community supported agriculture (CSA), there is still a massive gap between where and how the food was produced and the person doing the eating. In the end, would an American consumer buy a chicken that still looked like a chicken, say, with its head still attached? We want to know more about our food, but not that much.
¶ By and large, the closest we get to becoming intertwined with our food is to find out if the animal was raised grass-feed, or free range, or ‘organically-produced’. But are these labels actually useful and do they represent a social connection to our food? Was the ‘grass-fed’ beef sitting on our table actually finished on grain in a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO)? Was the ‘organic’ chicken free to run outside or merely provided ‘access’ to the outdoors? The consumer believes such descriptors provide insight into the lifestyle that his/her food lead, but in reality, are they just marketing tools? The mere fact that this question can be asked can only mean one thing – we are still detached from our food.
¶ In contrast, many people in developing countries are still intimately involved with their food. The agricultural production cycle is carried out daily in their backyards – and they are dependent upon its output for their basic subsistence. Livestock have real value, as a form of wealth and as providers of meat, milk, and fiber. Certain crops are important to a region and are considered staples in the diet of the local population. Surplus meat and animal by-products are sold for profit and some crops are grown for sale as a market commodity – these are the micro-economic factors associated with individual and small-scale production. Additionally, agricultural systems at the family, and even larger level, are based on traditional methods developed according to particular social traditions and beliefs, suitable and available land, and the requirements of the particular livestock or crop being raised. In this way, the food cycle is directly integrated into – and forms the basis of – the socio-economic characteristics of the culture or society. The influences of certain cultural and social practices must be understood and incorporated into any exploration of agriculture as a resource in society and the effects agricultural systems can have on various sectors, such as: public health infrastructure, political and economic stability, and environmental policy and land use.
¶ Even though there are many sources available regarding human ethnomedicine, as far as I can tell, there is no dedicated publication or repository for agriculture-specific ethnography or veterinary ethnomedicine. An interesting example is the open-access publication, The Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. Although heavily human-medicine focused, this journal includes many minor references to veterinary medicine, particularly when certain plant-based treatments are used in both traditional human as well as animal medicine. An example of a much broader-based selection of specifically focused veterinary medicine articles can be found at the African Networks on Ethnomedicines’ online publication, African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative medicines (AJTCAM).
