Page 248 - KATE_JOHNSTON_2017
P. 248

Myths thus also contribute to the transformation of the tonnara through the particular

               form of governance. Looking at the specific regional management of Atlantic bluefin through


               ICCAT, we could say that the specific form of management (including myths, knowledge and


               activities) enacts, what Callon and Law call, a ‘new totality’ (in Bear & Eden 2008, p. 494).

               That is, a new assemblage has come into being through discourses of sustainability, the threat

               of species loss and particular responses to that threat through fishery management. In this


               contemporary  context,  the  tonnara  as  a  socio-technological  hybrid  entity  has  reconfigured

               and  a  new  tonnara  has  emerged  made  up  of  an  assemblage  that  now  includes  fishery


               scientists and legislation, and fish cages and fattening ranches. Most importantly, this is a

               new ‘ontological reality’ (Hawkins & Race 2011, p. 114) for those who live by and from


               tuna.

                       Within  the  norms  of  the  global  fishing  industry  where  point  of  capture,  harvest,

               process  and  trade  are  often  stretched  over  long  distances  and  traverse  several  national


               jurisdictions, it seems unremarkable to define the tonnara as a fishery (type of fishing gear

               and species). It also seems acceptable that the harvest, processing and trade of bluefin now


               stretch  over  similarly  large  distances.  But  it  is  worth  remembering  that  some  of  the  most

               significant socio-cultural characteristics of the tonnara have until recently had much to do


               with proximity between the trap and point of harvest and processing.

                       In  summary,  the  mobilisation  of  tradition  involves  ‘establishing  the  borders  of


               permissibility’  (Schochet  2004,  p.  296)  and  therefore  defining  and  limiting  what  is,  and

               therefore  is  not,  part  of  a  tradition.  The  EU  proposal  that  appeals  to  fishery  policy  by


               positioning the tonnara as a traditional fishery is one example. In this case the borders of

               permissibility are established first in the definition of a fishery and in naming the tonnara as a

               fishery, and secondly, in the definition of tradition, and naming the tonnara as a traditional


               fishery. This is an act of making possible the tonnara as a fishery divorced from its particular




                                                                                                      236
   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253