Preface

Sociology is a curious discipline. Its objects of attention are both the taken-for-granted and the exceptional. It looks at the *everyday experience* and the *extraordinary events* as problematic; suffused with simultaneous and conflicting yet flourishing negotiations. Moved by this insight Peter Berger opened up his famed book with this poignant statement: "It can be said that the first wisdom of sociology is this: things are not what they seem…. Social reality turns out to have many layers of meaning. The discovery of each new layer changes the perception of the whole."1 Thus, the sociological perspective exposes these layers and people who possess such outlook become competent social actors as they can navigate the social world with less friction and create sociological possibilities when there seems none.

From the title one can charge that the present volume is rather an unusual attempt to introduce sociology not as an academic field, but a form of *visuality*. As a visuality, the idea of a landscape as an analogy came into my mind. A landscape is a terrain which can be imagined (for those who have not seen the place they wish to visit), and upon arrival, the visitors actually see and feel the three-dimensional presence of the placeits many sights, sounds, and smell. The flux of such sensory experience generates a unique set of knowledge that may become a permanent fixture each time that person visits the place and even everytime the place comes to mind- a sort of mental *post it*. Visuality is a powerful *modus operandi* because it can be a frame of mind and a form of consciousness that generates practical actions.

The corpus of chapter essays collected in the present volume represents the kind of visuality just described. In their own capacity, they provide the flavor of feelings *albeit* textual that color the way readers view and feel sociology. This concern is particularly significant bearing in mind that some of the potential readers have neither formal nor deep encounter with the discipline or its subfields (e.g. economic sociology, historical sociology, environmental sociology etc). Each essay gazes on a specific terrain and from there either imagines it, traverses it, or explores its boundaries expecting to see what is there or what else lies beyond. In any case, each topic is unique in itself, but

<sup>1</sup> *Invitation to Sociology* by Peter Berger. 1963. Bantam Doubleday Dell.

#### XII Preface

despite such uniqueness, each contributes to a general appreciation of what the sociological perspective has to offer.

Preface XI

**Dennis S. Erasga, PhD**

Philippines

De La Salle University, Manila,

special note of gratitude is also extended to each of the chapter author who had to bear a very heavy burden of revisiting their manuscripts, not once, but many times with

each visit not only an intellectual challenge, but a test of patience.

The chapter essays are arranged in terms of their thematic orientation. There is, however, no rigid criterion applied in arranging the sequence of chapter essays per theme. After all, arbitrariness characterizes the choices we make all the time. The themes reflect the nuances suggested by the title of the book: sociology is a landscape that can be *imagined* (theories), a landscape that can be *experienced* (realities), and a landscape that can be *recreated* (trend). The demarcation, however, remains porous in view of the overall objective of the volume - to mine the essays with social knowledge (be it theoretical or empirical) necessary for sociological reflections. Thus, chapters with more theoretical bent are put under the theory section; chapters with methodological penchant and empirical findings are subsumed in the remaining two sections. Clearly, the idea behind the book is more than "peeling the layers" of the social as envisioned by Berger; the aim is to understand *what holds* these layers together and see how the whole looks anew given the fresh knowledge acquired.

Caveats on the prose of the chapter essays and chapter arrangement are in order:

In the tradition of edited books, authors weaved their narratives in a variety of ways, thus giving their pieces different scales of technicality and jargons. Their writing styles are product of any or all of the following: specific fields of interests, research experience, and translation nuances. Each field has its own set of distinctive jargons; more mature researchers are quite skilled in the art words economy and in organizing/developing arguments; while the translation process may inadvertently lose something vital along the way. Intriguing as it might sound- readers may have to fine-tune their reading styles accordingly. Suffice it to say, it is a hallmark of scholars to oscillate within different levels of difficulty and abstractness without losing sight of the goal in mind.

Lastly, although the chapter essays are self-contained and each one can be read as stand-alone, there are *promising areas of commonality* that hold them together. These "common areas"- so to speak- are something that book editor can neither prescribed nor dictate to the reader. Book editors, given the materials to work on before them, can arrange the chapters into arbitrary sections using their interpretation of the book objectives as the organizing yardstick. In the end, it is the readers who, stirred by their own epistemic leanings, theoretical orientations and research requirements, create their own *menu* (or set) of chapters. Using Berger's "layers" and "whole" analogies, the book is judged successful in its intention if its readers are able to *unpack the layers* and in doing so, *construct a new whole* that suits their purposes.

Lest I forget, I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to two special individuals from InTech: Ms Ana Pantar (*Editor Relations Consultant*) and Ivana Zec (*Publishing Process Manager*) for giving me the opportunity to participate in this rewarding experience. A special note of gratitude is also extended to each of the chapter author who had to bear a very heavy burden of revisiting their manuscripts, not once, but many times with each visit not only an intellectual challenge, but a test of patience.

X Preface

acquired.

the goal in mind.

sociological perspective has to offer.

despite such uniqueness, each contributes to a general appreciation of what the

The chapter essays are arranged in terms of their thematic orientation. There is, however, no rigid criterion applied in arranging the sequence of chapter essays per theme. After all, arbitrariness characterizes the choices we make all the time. The themes reflect the nuances suggested by the title of the book: sociology is a landscape that can be *imagined* (theories), a landscape that can be *experienced* (realities), and a landscape that can be *recreated* (trend). The demarcation, however, remains porous in view of the overall objective of the volume - to mine the essays with social knowledge (be it theoretical or empirical) necessary for sociological reflections. Thus, chapters with more theoretical bent are put under the theory section; chapters with methodological penchant and empirical findings are subsumed in the remaining two sections. Clearly, the idea behind the book is more than "peeling the layers" of the social as envisioned by Berger; the aim is to understand *what holds* these layers together and see how the whole looks anew given the fresh knowledge

Caveats on the prose of the chapter essays and chapter arrangement are in order:

In the tradition of edited books, authors weaved their narratives in a variety of ways, thus giving their pieces different scales of technicality and jargons. Their writing styles are product of any or all of the following: specific fields of interests, research experience, and translation nuances. Each field has its own set of distinctive jargons; more mature researchers are quite skilled in the art words economy and in organizing/developing arguments; while the translation process may inadvertently lose something vital along the way. Intriguing as it might sound- readers may have to fine-tune their reading styles accordingly. Suffice it to say, it is a hallmark of scholars to oscillate within different levels of difficulty and abstractness without losing sight of

Lastly, although the chapter essays are self-contained and each one can be read as stand-alone, there are *promising areas of commonality* that hold them together. These "common areas"- so to speak- are something that book editor can neither prescribed nor dictate to the reader. Book editors, given the materials to work on before them, can arrange the chapters into arbitrary sections using their interpretation of the book objectives as the organizing yardstick. In the end, it is the readers who, stirred by their own epistemic leanings, theoretical orientations and research requirements, create their own *menu* (or set) of chapters. Using Berger's "layers" and "whole" analogies, the book is judged successful in its intention if its readers are able to *unpack the layers* and

Lest I forget, I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to two special individuals from InTech: Ms Ana Pantar (*Editor Relations Consultant*) and Ivana Zec (*Publishing Process Manager*) for giving me the opportunity to participate in this rewarding experience. A

in doing so, *construct a new whole* that suits their purposes.

**Dennis S. Erasga, PhD**  De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

**Part 1** 

**Theories** 

**Part 1** 

**Theories** 

**1** 

**Biopolitics:** 

Dennis S. Erasga

*Philippines* 

*De La Salle University, Manila,* 

**Biodiversity as Discourse of Claims** 

My research interest with biodiversity as a discursive phenomenon dates back in 1996 when I was working as a Junior Sociologist at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). I was involved with the Institute's flagship project on rice biodiversity- a multi-country component project interested in documenting the cultural dimension of rice genetic conservation at the community and farm levels. I was puzzled by the seemingly oxymoronic juxtaposition of rice and biodiversity. Soon, I discovered that my initial notion of

When I was invited to write a paper about biodiversity for this volume, I was tempted to organize my key arguments around the politics of biodiversity (as it has been the original line of inquiry of my previous academic work on the topic). My reason was that the concept has been given birth by political claims of conservation biologists and evolved, henceforth as a form of political activism involving new sets of interest groups. However as an environmental sociologist who has been intrigued by the discursive nature of political claims, I decided to use a title that truly reflects the tricky nature this notion. Tricky because the conventional notion led many of us to believe that the politics of biodiversity was inaugurated by the way it has been used by the international community to promote common economic and political ethos (e.g., Convention on Biological Diversity). I disagree. My position was that the politics of this concept goes as far back as to the very day of its coinage. Tracing the genealogy of biodiversity as a discursive claim is a more strategic and encompassing way of reframing the issues it implicates. Phrased differently, it is my position that the discussion of the biography of the concept we call biodiversity is to highlight not only the politics that goes with it, but to call attention to the sociological relevance surrounding its current usage. Thus the thesis of my chapter is twofold: I submit

biodiversity is as limited as my understanding of its origin as a concept.

i. Biodiversity is a politically charged concept as *its birth is politically instigated;*  ii. Biodiversity is a politically charged concept as *it is invoked to further political agenda.* 

In order to amplify the major thesis of the chapter, I divided the discussion in two major parts. Part 1 elaborated on the scientific context that led to the naming of this concept. Part 2 highlighted the power play that goes with its current usage. Respectively, the former tackled the genealogy of biodiversity; its birth as a social construction to justify a call for collective

**1. Introduction** 

that:
