Paper short abstract:

Various kinds of ignorance and not-knowing are expressed when referring to eating patterns. The ambivalence of "not-knowing-but" can be seen as a way of dealing with hierarchy of knowledge systems and with supremacy of expert knowledge while claiming for cultural legitimation of peripheral foodways.

Paper long abstract:

The usual phrase caught up when talking about food practices and food systems is "I don't know it for sure, but…". Various kinds of ignorance and not-knowing are expressed when referring to eating patterns and everyday choices. Identifying them is one of anthropologist's analytical challenges, but figuring out why and how this ambivalence is so widely used is even more intriguing.

In modernity particular knowledge systems are valued as reasonable, credible, legitimate. These are discourses of scientific argumentation, risk-benefit analysis, systematic reviews, expert recommendations which are not only substance for evidence-based policies and public health management, but also seep down to everyday practices and become hegemonic. They define what counts as knowledge and what counts as periphery: not-knowing, ignorance, old wives' tales. Expert knowledge is considered to be the layout for any kind of knowing about food and rational, healthy, responsible, and ethical consumption.

At the same time expert knowledge systems are the arena of the most profound uncertainty and insecurity. Then, what is considered to be peripheral: tradition, non-reflexive habits, social embeddedness, cultural repetition and intuition - appear as stable, trusted, and comforting alternative. The ambivalence of "not-knowing-but" can be seen as a way of dealing with hierarchy of knowledge systems while claiming for legitimation of everyday food patterns. The paper is then focused on strategies of disarming the modern expert discourse by undermining softly the supremacy of rational knowledge itself: questioning what is/can/should be known and what can/must be hidden.