Bernadette Tesoriero was born in 1961 into an Australian/Italian family. Her entire life she has been surrounded by the facets of food that have been previously discussed (ie. It’s necessity for survival, and its intrinsic cultural position). Despite working full-time as a travel consultant, Bernadette runs a small catering business in her community; during childhood her parents owned a grocer and milk shop. Her life both personally and professionally is entrenched in food and culinary culture.

In her interview Bernadette was asked to read a paper about the formal development of the fork. You can read this paper here. The aim of this interview is to present a technology that is, currently, inherent to the modern dining experience, while also existing on the peripheries of what is considered technology (i.e machinery, electronic devices). Above all that was discussed in this interview, Bernadette’s fascination about how children learn to use cutlery. She displayed particular interesting in the following:

“[the use of the knife and fork] was contrary to the fundamental inhibitions of the child; rather the child, as the 18th century adult did, learned and adjusted to the mould set for them by a larger societal framework.”

There was discussion about how as a child develops they are essentially performing for their guardians in a way that they believe is required of them. What is thought of as nature by adolescence could be actually be a nurtured behaviour.

This thinking was then presented in reference to the plate. Bernadette was posed with the question:

“Having considered this phenomenon related to a fork, could you imagine a similar dynamic for a plate in 2040?”

The intangibility of these concepts is, understandably, quite difficult to fathom and communicate, however; Bernadette’s response mimicked the notions of Mental Construal theory. This theory argues that humans have an intrinsic ability to comprehend past, future, present, and other people’s perspectives. The farther a person or object is removed from a direct experience the more abstract the mental construal. Bernadette was describing an experience where someone, who would otherwise have no understanding of fine dining, is actively partaking in the performance of a dinner setting. A situation where the customer participates in the delivery and formation of a meal, just as much as the chef/cook does.

As such, in contemplating a future scenario where technology has advanced beyond conceivable limits, Bernadette believes that elements such as the fork and plate could develop in their cultural significance and function.

References

Y, Trope and N. Liberman 2011, Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance Psychol Rev, vol. 117, no.2, pp 440-463.

In contemplation of the future, Tuomo Kuosa argues that there have been two paradigms that have maintained scholarly hegemony. These two paradigms are determinism and mystic prediction, and indeterministic control based studies (Kuosa 2011). These future methodologies take a individualistic stance when considering humanity’s future, and both can be considered as responses to a respective cultural status quo; the second of these paradigms, Kuosa argues, was brought forth after World War II by the US, whereby in response to the indeterminant nature of war, thinking was cemented in probabilities and external trend analysis. In a like manner, a deterministic futuring paradigm, as a response to a dominant cultural norm, is referenced in literature during periods of history where religion acted as a major agent of change in all facets of society (i.e governance and culture).

Maryisabella Ada Ezeh of the University of Nigeria, writes about Shakespeare’s Macbeth and explores the contention between determinism and a sense of free-will; she argues that this thematic concern of the play is reflective of it’s cultural paradigm. This society is clearly evidenced to favour a deterministic way of thinking, in contrast to modern lines of thinking where the former has little influence.

A third future studies paradigm has emerged that takes a more pluralistic approach. Most of the scholarship surrounding this methodology began toward the end of the 20^th century; the early models of Sohail Inayatullah (1990), Wendell Bell (1997), and Jennifer Gidley (2009) have opposed the concept of an individual future. Rather there is an acceptance of multiple, and preferred futures, which allow designers and researchers to take advantage of a range of methods that can generate and reference these multiple futures.  See this post by the World Futures Studies Federation to explore how different models have influenced each other, and have developed a taxonomy of traditions in modern future studies.

This image references this modern tradition of future studies methodology, but depicting the scope of what a pluralistic approach can proffer to design researchers

When contemplating a future for food, or simply what food can look like in the future, there is a focus on the pertinence of food to a society. What makes food so important that we need to enact futuring methodology? In 2002, The Guardian published an article that countered a general focus, by various health agencies, on obesity. Rather, the fast food industry was presented as an impedance to the social nature of food; it is now “desocialised” and “uncivilising” (Fernandez-Armesto, 2002). This article examples how culture and human nature are major notes of consideration when contemplating a future for food. Fernandez- Armesto positions food beyond its necessity for biological survival.

References

Bell, W. 1997/2003, ‘Foundations of Futures Studies I: History, Purposes, Knowledge’ New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Gidley, J. M., Fien, J., Smith, J-A., Thomsen, D. C., and Smith, T. F. 2009, Participatory Futures Methods: Towards Adaptability and Resilience in Climate-Vulnerable Communities, Environmental Policy and Governance, vol. 19, no. 06, pp. 427-440.

Kuosa, T. 2011, Evolution of futures studies, Futures, vol.43, no. 3, pp.327-336

Voros, J. 2017, Futures cone, The Voroscope, viewed 20 October 2018, <https://thevoroscope.com/2017/02/24/the-futures-cone-use-and-history/ >.

Ada Ezeh, M. 2015, William Shakespeare and Freewill: A liberation and naturalistic enquiry into the actions of Macbeth, Global Journal of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no.4, pp 42

When considering the future, and the methods at hand that allow for prediction, visioning, forecasting (i.e future methodologies), food and it’s production are inextricable factors whose dynamism and intricacies must be considered and ruminated on. Although at centre of political debate, the planet’s changing climate is a major precedent in the urgency placed on governance to facilitate futuring methodology. This blog post will explore the relationship between climate change and food production; achieved through an analysis of the literature that sits at the intersection of climate research, future methodology, and food.

It is argued that the process of futuring and speculative design has immediate impact on the present (Fry, 2009). It can be argued that a consequence of defining the ‘present as future determinant’ is a hegemonic paradigm characterised by an emphasis on quantitative data; the focus on, for example, population (specifically, over population and its consequences), sea levels, CO2 emissions, and waste management. It is not the position of this post to discredit this position, but rather to provide an alternative in the hopes to speculate in a more wholistic and effective fashion. It is the maxim of Design Futuring to speculate beyond the polarity of dystopian and utopian outcomes. As such, in this landscape, designers are reminded that ‘we cannot predict a particular future accurately, by focusing on a range of alternatives, we can better prepare for uncertainty, indeed, to some extent embrace uncertainty’ (Inayatullah 2008, p 6).

Food has constantly been at the centre of cultural dynamism, and there is credence in the connection between the dining experience and this dynamism; it is the way in which we experience food that defines its possibilities. As such, this allows us to pose the question of how can Design Futuring methodology can be utilised upon the dining experience to produce alternatives to a future that seems at the mercy of climate affected food production.

Netflix’s Chef’s Table is an exploration into the machinations of the dining experience – the program examines how different chefs are able to manipulate this experience with reference to their own lives. The trailer for it’s most recent season reveals an exploration with more cultural scope.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWDF4uTlOto

Link to trailer

This series touches upon a range of cultural themes but the most pertinent to the scope of this research is the conclusion that food exists beyond its necessity for human survival. The basic notions of nutrition are aspects of biological survival, but the references to cultural pride and history are argued to be just as important when contemplating the place for any dining experience in society, upper class or otherwise. This interaction is the foundation for the development of a prototyped plate design that aims to equalize the dining experience; to showcase how food has an intrinsic performative element that all can access.

References

Fry, Tony. 2009 “Design futuring: sustainability, ethics and new practice”. ‘Methods of Change 2 — Designing in Time’ in Design Futuring, Oxford : Berg, pp.145-155.

Inayatullah, S., 2008. Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming. Foresight, 10 (1), 4-21.

Chef’s Table: Season 5 | Official Trailer [HD] | Netflix 2018, youtube video, Netflix on Youtube,