TSElosophers meeting on 29 May 2026
Participants: Albrecht Becker, Annika Hasselblad, Samu Kantola, Kari Lukka, Anniina Kinnunen, Mia Salo
Reading:
Heuts, F., & Mol, A. (2013). What is a good tomato? A case of valuing in practice. Valuation Studies, 1(2), 125–146.
Summary
In the paper, Heuts and Mol (2013) explore how valuation plays out in practice by bringing in the example of tomatoes. Rather than asking what the monetary value of a tomato is, they investigate how different informants/experts, such as growers, traders, retailers, cooks, and consumers, value tomatoes in different practical situations. In their praxiographic analysis, the authors identify five registers of valuing tomatoes, which have to do with money, handling, historical time, what it is to be natural, and sensual appeal. They also argue that the processes of valuing are embedded in relations of care. They show that the five identified registers often overlap, and sometimes this creates tensions that lead to conflict and negotiation. A tomato may simultaneously be valued for its price, taste, appearance, authenticity, or the care invested in its production. The article seeks to contribute to valuation studies by shifting attention away from fixed, pre-defined notions of value and towards valuation as a practical and relational process. Rather than treating values as stable properties of objects, the authors argue that values emerge through practices, relations, and situations. They also suggest how valuation can be viewed as performative: values do not just lie ‘out there’ on their own, but various actors can actively help create them. Finally, the article demonstrates how an apparently simple and non-controversial object can reveal the complexity of social life and the multiple ways in which people judge what is good.
Discussion
The TSElosophers generally enjoyed the article and considered it beautifully written. The discussion began with the paper’s use of a tomato as a seemingly simple, non-controversial object for analysis. Participants appreciated how the article demonstrates that even the valuation of an ordinary thing, such as a tomato, can become remarkably complex when the practices through which it is valued are explored closely. This led to reflections on the importance of studying valuation as a process rather than focusing solely on the value of particular objects, an insight considered especially relevant to interpretive qualitative research.
While there were several admiring tones among TSElosophers, a couple of participants took a more critical tone. One TSElosopher reflected on the paper’s inductive and Latourian style, noting that while the authors’ engagement with the literature is demonstrated throughout the text (primarily in footnotes), its theoretical contribution remains somewhat implicit and may be found primarily in the “lessons” presented at the end. Given that in the valuation literature, it is well-established that the value of a thing tends to be dynamic and multidimensional by nature; that the process of creating or cultivating value is a well-known phenomenon both in practice and theory; and that the success of such processes remains always uncertain, the contribution value of the lessons of the article can be contested. This critique led TSElosophers to discuss whether it makes more sense to clearly separate the notion of value from processes of valuation – as an interpunctuation of these processes – or to subsume the notion of value under the concept of valuation process.
A more philosophical debate then ensued about whether a tomato has a value without humans. While some argued that from an anthropocentric viewpoint, which the Heuts & Mol (2013) article represents, value depends on human valuation, others pointed out that from a more ecocentric viewpoint, there are ecological relations in which tomatoes may also be valuable independent from humans. The discussion ultimately highlighted a relational understanding of value, where value is constituted through relationships rather than being an intrinsic property of objects.
The final part of the discussion focused on the concept of valuation registers presented in the paper, which participants generally found useful for understanding how objects can be valued simultaneously through multiple frames, such as economic, social, cultural, emotional, and moral ones. Examples ranged from antique tea cups and luxury handbags to public-sector decision-making, where doctors prioritise patients in emergency situations or where self-driving vehicles may face ethical dilemmas. The discussion concluded with a broader reflection inspired by the article: if valuation processes can be found in almost any object or practice, then almost anything can become a topic of study. However, this also raises an important question for researchers: while everything may be researchable, is everything equally interesting?