Taking Consumers Seriously: Two Concepts of Consumer Sovereignty

Journal of agricultural ethics - Tập 14 - Trang 201-215 - 2001
Michiel Korthals1
1Applied Philosophy, Wageningen University and Researchcentre, Wageningen, Netherlands

Tóm tắt

Governments, producers, and international free tradeorganizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) areincreasingly confronted with consumers who not only buy (or don'tbuy) goods, but also demand that those goods are producedconforming to certain ethical (often diverse) standards. Not onlysafety and health belong to these ethical ideals, but animalwelfare, environmental concerns, labor circumstances, and fairtrade. However, this phantom haunts the dusty world of social andpolitical philosophy as well. The new concept ``consumersovereignty'' bypasses the conceptual dichotomy of consumer andcitizen. According to the narrow liberal response to this newconstellation, with respect to food one should conceptualizeconsumer sovereignty as the right of the individual consumer toget information on food products and to make his or her ownchoice on the market of food products. In this conception, thereis a very strong emphasis on rules and principles with respect tothe autonomy of individuals. I argue that these narrow liberal concepts are not sufficient forappropriate public policy-making in democratic societies, andthat they only enable us to identify problems; they do not helpnon-experts (and experts, if it comes to that, as well) inweighing the different ethical claims. Besides, not onlyprinciples play a role in the outcome, but all kinds of ideals aswell, like roles, values, and norms. My principal argument isthat analysis or justification of norms or principles is notsufficient to get a synthesis or construction of ethicalsolutions: we need some value orientation to guide us inbalancing the different ethical claims by solving an ethicalproblem. Moreover, this balancing is something that requiressocial space and social time, i.e., public debates. With theconcept of public debates a whole new dimension enters ethicalanalysis, because the attention of ethicists shifts toformulating criteria of successful and rational public debates. However, in the broad liberal view these concepts aresupplemented with values, preferences, practices of care, andinvolvement. I argue firstly for a broadened perspective on foodas an integral part of life styles and not only as something thatpresents risks. That is the reason that food gets such intensiveattention from the public, which is summarized in the concept ofconsumer concerns. Secondly, I defend the argument that not only(rational) public debates, but intensive commitments of bothproducers and consumers in every link of the chain in so calledcare practices or consumer councils can enhance confidence in thefood production system and the way we extract our daily intakefrom nature.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Beck, U., Risksociety (Sage, London, 1986).

Belt, H. v.d. and M. Korthals, “Autonomy, Information Freedom and Trust,” Economy and Society (forthcoming).

Chambers, S., Reasonable Democracy: Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discours (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1996).

Elster, J., “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory,” in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1997), pp. 3–34.

Foucault, M., Histoire de la Sexualité 2: L'usage des Plaisirs (Galllimard, Paris, 1984).

Food Ethics Council, GM Foods: No Thanks, Unless (London, 1998).

Giddens, A., Modernity and Selfidentity (Polity Press, London, 1991).

Gutmann, A. and D. Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996).

Johnson, P., Frames of Deceit (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993).

Korthals, M., “Cooperation and Morality,” Journal of Moral Education 21 (1992), 17–27.

Korthals, M., “Ethical Dilemma's of Sustainable Agriculture,” Food Ethics Review 1(1) (2000a), 25–35.

Korthals, M., “Zorg praktijken in de landbouw (Practices of Care in Agriculture)” (2000b, forthcoming).

Korthals, M. and E. Theune, “From Animal Welfare to Intrinsic Value,” in R. Von Schomberg (ed.), The Social Management of Biotechnology (Aldershot, Avebury, 1998), pp. 231–250.

Lagerspetz, O., Trust: The Tacit Demand (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998).

Luhman, N., Vertrauen (Lucius and Lucius, Stuttgart, 1989).

Mepham, B. (ed.), Food Ethics (Routledge, London, 1996).

Miller, D., A Theory of Shopping (Polity Press, London, 1998).

Mortelmans, K. and S. Watson, “The Notion of Consumer in Community Law: A Lottery?” Tijdschrift voor Consumentenrecht (4) (1995), 30–40.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genetically Modified Crops: The Social and Ethical Issue (London, 1998).

Petit, M. The Changing Global Agri-Food System, Manuscript (MSU, Lansing, MI, 1999).

Powell, D. and W. Leiss, Mad Cows and Mother's Milk. The Perils of Poor Risk Communication (McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal, 1998).

Rawls, J., in S. Freeman (ed.), Collected Papers (Harvard, Cambridge MA, 1999).

Rousseau, J. J., OEuvres Completes (Gallimard/Pléiade, Paris, 1959).

Schumpeter, J., The Theory of Economic Development (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999).

Serpell, J., In the Company of Animals (Cambridge University Press, London, 1996).

Thompson, P. B., “Values and Food Production,” J. Agric. Ethics 2 (1989), 209–223.

Todt, O. and J. Lujan, “Labelling of Novel Foods, and Public Debate,” Science and Public Policy 22 (1997), 119–223.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of agricultural ethics

Tập 14

201-215

Thông tin tác giả