Skip to main content

Visibility: Inviting an Untroubled Gaze

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Making Sense of ‘Food’ Animals
  • 322 Accesses

Abstract

Chapter 9 shifts focus to the increased material as well as discursive visibility of ‘food’ animals, especially in the ‘ethical’ foodscape. It addressing the question of what effect increased visibility of ‘food’ animals and increased transparency of meat production processes have on the edibility of animals, and what this says about how animals are ‘made sense’ of. The emergence and deployment of visibility as a marketable commodity, promoted and used as brand leverage, is demonstrated. The chapter shows how visibility does not challenge participants’ constructions of animals as food. Power, knowledge, and pleasure are brought to bear by producers and consumers alike on the animal subject of their gaze, and consequently, under the weight of this ‘entitled gaze’, they remain firmly mapped as edible resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Although commonly attributed to Sir Paul McCartney, it was Linda McCartney who first said this. As far as I can tell, it first appears in her 1995 cookbook, Linda’s Kitchen: Simple and Inspiring Recipes for Meals without Meat.

  2. 2.

    It is recognised that consumer ‘choice’ is not an accurate representation of the many factors that contribute to this shift in social practices involving meat. However, it depicts the nature of my participants’ engagement with a more transparent model of meat production, which they characterise as voluntary and even sought after, rather than imposed and unwelcome.

  3. 3.

    Acknowledging that sight, like the other senses of perception, is always mediated and never independent of its co-constitutive environment of social practices which shape how what is sensed is made sense of.

  4. 4.

    An organisation sponsored by the American Meat Institute (AMI) and used to promote the project and the accompanying videos (http://animalhandling.org/ht/d/sp/i/80622/pid/80622).

  5. 5.

    For example:

    • Chico Locker and Sausage Co. Inc. “A look inside the glass walls of a slaughterhouse.” 27 August 2012. Web. 20 October 2015.

    • Smith Meadows. “Behind the scenes at a local butcher shop.” 15 April 2013. Web. 20 October 2015.

  6. 6.

    Just a fraction of such accounts include:

    • Eisendrath, Ben. “Loving a good slaughterhouse.” The Atlantic 30 March 2012. Web. 21 October 2015.

    • Grover, Sami Grover. “A look inside a humane slaughterhouse.” Treehugger. 2 May 2011. Web. 20 October 2015.

    • McEvedy, Allegra. “My visit to the slaughterhouse: crossing the line between life and meat.” The Guardian 29 August 2014. Web. 23 October 2015.

    • Rivera, Lizzie. “Can Eating Meat Ever Be Ethical?” The Independent. 8 April 2016. Web. 21 January 2019.

    • Bell, Ryan. “The Smell of the Slaughterhouse.” National Geographic. 29 February 2016. Web. 21 January 2019.

    • Timms, Katie. “Inside an Abattoir”. Plymouth Herald. 10 June 2018. Web. 21 January 2019.

  7. 7.

    In the same way that knowledge contributes to how other sensory (taste, smell, touch, sound) experiences, real or mimetic, are interpreted.

  8. 8.

    Based on US-style legislation, these laws are designed to criminalise the (unmanaged and unmediated) monitoring and investigative activities undertaken by various animal advocacy groups and organisations in relation to any industry that uses animals for profit, but particularly those that raise ‘food’ animals and produce meat.

  9. 9.

    Characterised by the reallocation of wealth “away from middlemen and towards small producers and consumers” (Schor and Fitzmaurice 2015: 410).

  10. 10.

    Characterised by an orientation towards consumers as “hedonic feelings-centered fun-oriented flesh-and-blood living creature[s]” (Holbrook and Hirschman 2015: 2).

  11. 11.

    Sturken and Cartwright’s original phrase: “the conventions of popular narrative cinema are structured by a patriarchal unconscious, positioning women represented in films as objects of a ‘male gaze’. In other words, Mulvey argued that Hollywood cinema offered images geared toward male viewing pleasure” (Sturken and Cartwright 2009: 76).

  12. 12.

    Agritourism has been a popular topic in the tourism and agricultural literature for more than a decade, where it is examined from the perspective of economic development and sustainability—that is, its respective benefits and impacts (e.g. McGehee and Kim 2004; Carpio et al. 2008; Phillip et al. 2010). As far as I know, there has as yet been no sociological or more critical exploration of its constitution as a social practice as there has been for other forms of tourism—notably dark or thanatourism.

  13. 13.

    In her volume The Politics of Reality, Marilyn Frye describes the arrogant eye as one that organises everything seen with reference to itself and its own interests: “Everything is either ‘for me’ or ‘against me’” (1983, 67). Also: “The arrogant perceiver … coerces the objects of his perception into satisfying the conditions his perception imposes” (ibid.).

  14. 14.

    Merriam-Webster; Oxford Dictionary; Dictionary.com.

  15. 15.

    Elsewhere (Pick 2012), Pick takes issue with certain strands of posthumanist theory, specifically the work of Jane Bennett and more especially Donna Haraway. For this reason, I suspect her use of the term ‘vibrant assemblages’ is intended to be slightly disparaging.

  16. 16.

    I acknowledge that practices of ethical consumption, including those involving meat, have become reflective, and therefore reproductive, of systematised relations of class, gender, and ‘race’. However, as noted in the Exclusions and Limitations section of Chap. 1, the parameters of the research process and the priorities of my research precluded me from including aspects of social location in my data collection activities.

References

  • Aaltola, E. (2015). Animal Suffering: Representations and the Act of Looking. Anthrozoos, 27(1), 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acampora, R. (2005). Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices. Society and Animals, 13(1), 69–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acampora, R. (2016). [Provocations from the Field] Epistemology of Ignorance and Human Privilege. Animal Studies Journal, 5(2), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, G. (2006, August 9). Ramsay Reduced to Tears as Pigs Go Underknife. The Independent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arcari, P. (2017a). Normalised, Human-Centric Discourses of Meat and Animals in Climate Change, Sustainability and Food Security Literature. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(1), 69–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcari, P. (2017b). Perverse Visibilities? Foregrounding Non-Human Animals in ‘Ethical’ and ‘Sustainable’ Meat Consumption. The Brock Review, 13(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcari, P. (2018). The Ethical Masquerade: (Un)Masking Mechanisms of Power Behind ‘Ethical’ Meat. In M. Phillipov & K. Kirkwood (Eds.), Alternative Food Politics: From the Margins to the Mainstream (pp. 169–189). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, M., & Friedrich, B. (2009). The Animal Activists’ Handbook: Maximizing Our Positive Impact in Today’s World. New York: Lantern Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, C., Cloke, P., Clarke, N., & Malpass, A. (2005). Consuming Ethics: Articulating the Subjects and Spaces of Ethical Consumption. Antipode, 37(1), 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J. (1992). Why Look At Animals? In About Looking (pp. 1–14). London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, G. (2016, October 15). Matthew Evans’s for the Love of Meat Draws in Viewers. The Australian. Online. June 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buddle, E. A., Bray, H. J., & Ankeny, R. A. (2018). Why Would We Believe Them? Meat Consumers’ Reactions to Online Farm Animal Welfare Activism in Australia. Communication Research and Practice, 19(2), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgin, V. (2009). Situational Aesthetics: Selected Writings by Victor Burgin (A. Streitberger, Ed.). Leuven: Leuven University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpio, C. E., Wohlgenant, M. K., & Boonsaeng, T. (2008). The Demand for Agritourism in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 33(2), 254–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrulew, M. (2012). Animals in Biopolitical Theory: Between Agamben and Negri. New Formations, 76, 53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, N., Cloke, P., Barnett, C., & Malpass, A. (2008). The Spaces and Ethics of Organic Food. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(3), 219–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Columpar, C. (2002). The Gaze as Theoretical Touchstone. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 30(1/2), 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, I., & Crang, P. (1996). The World on a Plate: Culinary Culture, Displacement and Geographical Knowledges. Journal of Material Culture, 1(2), 131–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cudworth, E. (2003). Environment and Society. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cudworth, E. (2011). Social Lives with Other Animals. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dave, N. (2014). Witness: Humans, Animals, and the Politics of Becoming. Cultural Anthropology, 29(3), 433–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emel, J., & Wolch, J. (1998). Witnessing the Animal Moment. In J. Wolch & J. Emel (Eds.), Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands (pp. 507–531). New York: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, R. (2008). Bíos: Biopolitics and Philosophy. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. (2016). For the Love of Meat. Narrator and Co-author: Matthew Evans. Producer, Director and Co-author: Stephen Oliver. Distributor/Broadcaster: SBS One.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairlie, S. (2010). Meat: A Benign Extravagance. Hampshire: Chelsea Green Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fearnley-Whittingstall, H. (2008, January 20). Poultry Is Not a Class Issue. The Guardian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foer, J. S. (2009). Eating Animals. New York; Boston; London: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1973). The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception (R. D. Laing, Ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1989). The Order of Things. London; New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1997). Society Must Be Defended (M. Bertani & A. Fontana, Eds.). New York: Picador.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. P., & Tulloch, S. (2013). Was Blind but Now I See: Animal Liberation Documentaries’ Deconstruction of Barriers to Witnessing Injustice. In A. Pick & G. Narraway (Eds.), Screening Nature: Cinema Beyond the Human (pp. 110–126). New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freud, S. (1955). The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. London: The Hogarth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frye, M. (1983). In and Out of Harm’s Way: Arrogance and Love. In The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (pp. 52–83). Santa Cruz: Crossing Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genel, K. (2006). The Question of Biopower: Foucault and Agamben. Rethinking Marxism, 18(1), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, K. (2016). Witnessing Animal Others: Bearing Witness, Grief, and the Political Function of Emotion. Hypatia, 31(3), 572–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, C. (2017). Complicating the Theory of the Male Gaze: Hitchcock’s Leading Men. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 15(4), 496–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, M. K. (2004). Reading Fair Trade: Political Ecological Imaginary and the Moral Economy of Fair Trade Foods. Political Geography, 23(7), 891–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, M. K., Maye, D., & Holloway, L. (2010). Ethical Foodscapes?: Premises, Promises, and Possibilities. Environment and Planning A, 42(8), 1782–1796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., DuPuis, E. M., & Goodman, M. K. (2012). Alternative Food Networks: Knowledge, Practice, and Politics. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, R. (2013). Problems with the Defetishization Thesis: Ethical Consumerism, Alternative Food Systems, and Commodity Fetishism. Agriculture and Human Values, 31(1), 109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes-Conroy, A., & Hayes-Conroy, J. (2008). Taking Back Taste: Feminism, Food and Visceral Politics. Gender, Place & Culture, 15(5), 461–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes-Conroy, A., & Hayes-Conroy, J. (2010). Visceral Difference: Variations in Feeling (Slow) Food. Environment and Planning A, 42(12), 2956–2971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (2015). Experiential Consumption. In D. T. Cook & J. M. Ryan (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Consumption and Consumer Studies (pp. 1–3). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • hooks, b. (2000). Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T. (2011). The Ethical Turn in Commodity Culture: Consumption, Care and the Other. sic: Journal of Literature, Culture and Literary Translation, Vol. 2. Online. March 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T., & Huber, A. (2015). A Revolution in an Eggcup? Supermarket Wars, Celebrity Chefs, and Ethical Consumption. Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 18(2), 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linne, T. (2014). Grazing the Green Fields of Social Media. In E. A. Cederholm, A. Bjorck, K. Jennbert, & A.-S. Lonngren (Eds.), Exploring the Animal Turn: Human-Animal Relations in Science, Society and Culture (pp. 19–32). Lund: The Pufendorf Institute for Advanced Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lisle, D. (2004). Gazing at Ground Zero: Tourism, Voyeurism and Spectacle. Journal for Cultural Research, 8(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. (2006). 9/11. Synopticon, and Scopophilia: Watching and Being Watched. In R. V. Ericson & K. D. Haggerty (Eds.), The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility (pp. 35–54). Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayes, C. (2015). The Biopolitics of Lifestyle: Foucault, Ethics and Healthy Choices. London; New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGehee, N. G., & Kim, K. (2004). Motivation for Agri-tourism Entrepreneurship. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesirow, B. (2011, January 6). Kill it, Cook It, Eat It, Slaughtering in Your Living Room in HD. LA Weekly. Online. April 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micheletti, M., & Stolle, D. (2010). Vegetarianism - A Lifestyle Politics? In M. Micheletti & A. S. McFarland (Eds.), Creative Participation: Responsibility-Taking in the Political World (pp. 125–145). Boulder, CO; London: Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey, L. (1989). Afterthoughts on ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ Inspired by King Vidor’s Duel in the Sun (1946) (pp. 29–38). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey, L. (1999). Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. In L. Braudy & M. Cohen (Eds.), Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings (pp. 833–844). New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey, L. (2001). Unmasking the Gaze: Some Thoughts on New Feminist Film Theory and History.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, S. J. (2012). Unnerving Images: Cinematic Representations of Animal Slaughter and the Ethics of Shock. Doctoral Thesis, The Centre for Comparative Literature, University of Toronto. 274 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, K. (2001). Witnessing: Beyond Recognition. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, K. (2004). Witnessing and Testimony. Parallax, 10(1), 78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, K. (2017). The Male Gaze Is More Relevant, and More Dangerous, than Ever. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 15(4), 451–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pachirat, T. (2011). Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight. New Haven; London: Yale Agrarian Studies Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pachirat, T. (2015). The Glass Walls Fallacy: Reflections from an Industrialized Kill Floor on the Promises and Pitfalls of Transparency. Keynote: Animal Publics: Emotions, Empathy, Activism. Australasian Animal Studies Association Conference, July 12–15, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padva, G., & Buchweitz, N. (Eds.). (2014). Sensational Pleasures in Cinema, Literature and Visual Culture: The Phallic Eye. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, J. (2010). The New Visibility of Slaughter in Popular Gastronomy. Masters Thesis, Cultural Studies: University of Canterbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, M., & Elliott, R. (2010). Negotiating Masculinities: Advertising and the Inversion of the Male Gaze. Consumption, Markets & Culture, 5(3), 231–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillip, S., Hunter, C., & Blackstock, K. (2010). A Typology for Defining Agritourism. Tourism Management, 31(6), 754–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillipov, M., & Goodman, M. K. (2017). The Celebrification of Farmers: Celebrity and the New Politics of Farming. Celebrity Studies, 8(2), 346–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pick, A. (2012). Turning to Animals Between Love and Law. New Formations, 76, 68–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pick, A. (2015a). Vegan Cinema: Looking, Eating and Letting Be. Conference Keynote Lecture. Sixth Australasian Animal Studies Association Conference: Animal Publics: Emotions, Empathy, Activism. July 12–15, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pick, A. (2015b). Why not Look at Animals? Necsus European Journal of Media Studies. Spring, Online. November 2015. 17 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pottinger, L. (2013). Ethical Food Consumption and the City. Geography Compass, 7(9), 659–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Probyn, E. (2000). Carnal Appetites: FoodSexIdentities. London; New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow, P., & Rose, N. (2006). Biopower Today. BioSocieties, 1(2), 195–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodosthenous, G. (2015). Theatre as Voyeurism: The Pleasures of Watching. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (2009). The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sassatelli, R. (2011). Interview with Laura Mulvey. Theory, Culture and Society, 28(5), 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satya. (2006, October). The Satya Interview with Peter Singer. Satya. Online. July 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schor, J. B., & Fitzmaurice, C. J. (2015). Collaborating and Connecting: The Emergence of the Sharing Economy. In L. A. Reisch & J. Thogersen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption (pp. 410–425). Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smaill, B. (2014). New Food Documentary: Animals, Identification, and the Citizen Consumer. Film Criticism, 39(2), 79–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stănescu, V. (2013). Why “Loving” Animals Is Not Enough: A Response to Kathy Rudy, Locavorism, and the Marketing of “Humane” Meat. The Journal of American Culture, 36(2), 100–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, P. R. (2009). Making Absent Death Present: Consuming Dark Tourism in Contemporary Society. In R. Sharpley & P. R. Stone (Eds.), The Darker Side of Travel (pp. 23–38). Bristol; Buffalo; Toronto: Channel View Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, P., & Sharpley, R. (2008). Consuming Dark Tourism: A Thanatological Perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 574–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturken, M., & Cartwright, L. (2009). Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urry, J. (2005). The Place of Emotions within Place. In J. Davidson, L. Bondi, & M. Smith (Eds.), Emotional Geographies (pp. 77–83). Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadiwel, D. (2008). Three Fragments from a Biopolitical History of Animals: Questions of Body, Soul, and the Body Politics in Homer, Plato, and Aristotle. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 6(1), 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiper, A. P. (2014, January 6). Danish Crown Slaughterhouse, Denmark. alastairphilipwiper.com . Online. April 2014.

  • Wolfe, C. (2012). Before the Law: Humans and Other Animals in a Biopolitical Frame. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yancy, G. (2008). Colonial Gazing: The Production of the Body as ‘Other’. Western Journal of Black Studies, 32(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoonen, L. V. (1994). Feminist Media Studies. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula Arcari .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Arcari, P. (2020). Visibility: Inviting an Untroubled Gaze. In: Making Sense of ‘Food’ Animals. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9585-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9585-7_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-9584-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-9585-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics