Millet” as a postcolonial-masculinist sign of difference

Tracing the effects of ontological-epistemic erasure on a food grain

Bibliographic Data

ID12799112
AuthorsP Chandrasekaran (0000-0001-6478-384X, Juilliard School, corresponding author)
Year2023
Volume26
Issue4
Pages886-904
Publication date2023-05-30
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueFood Culture & Society (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1552-8014 • E-ISSN: 1751-7443
PublisherRoutledge (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/15528014.2023.2188654
OpenAlexW4381281277
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited31

In this paper, I use deconstructive theory to analyze the category of “millet” and the endangerment of food grains in India. I argue that “millet” cohered as a sign of difference from the 1960s through India’s Green Revolution, which created a national infrastructure for the materialization of colonial and masculinist ideology. In the hills of Uttarakhand and through the food grain regionally known as mandua, we see how India’s postcolonial success relied on the ontological-epistemic erasure of women’s food/land practices and assaulted the intertwined “rootedness” (place-making faculties) of women and the crops they cultivate. Reading mandua as “millet” under erasure (millet) reveals how mixed crop systems and practices of socio-ecological reciprocity eroded in the face of Green Revolution ideology and functioned as a bulwark against it. I turn finally to the counterhegemonic potential of “millet,” as Uttarakhandi seed activists link with decentralized third world networks, which are exchanging seeds and building power across and from marginalized places. This opens a potential space of visibility and belonging for Uttarakhandi women farmers in the national arena at a time when the ecological and alimentary value of “millet” has entered national and global conversations, infusing the sign of difference with new meaning.KEYWORDS: MilletUttarakhandIndiaGreen revolutiondevelopmentdeconstructionecofeminismfood grainspostcolonialmore-than-human Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.Additional informationFundingThe work was supported by the American Association of University Women [Postdoctoral Research Leave Fellowship]; National Science Foundation [SBE Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant]

Ideology · Media studies · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Sign (mathematics · Social science · Sociology · Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development · Anthropological Studies and Insights · CRISPR and Genetic Engineering · Law · Mathematics

Tools

Open DOI