NOTES ON CHAPTER 1

Belasco 2008, states that “Interdisciplinary emerges as one of the main defining characteristics
of food studies” .
It may be premature to announce the birth of a new discipline.
Instead use interdisciplinary approaches to study food. Which requires crossing boundaries of
disciplines and integrating these and models carefully since there are “disparate” or UNALIKE
ideas and insights.
Some see interdisciplinary is a strength but others see it as a shortcoming (Jones 2009).
Food studies has always been a collection of disciplines. Developments over the past decade in
the production of food, composition of diet, politics and content of policy making have revealed
inadequacies of food studies.
Instead of being the end focus, food was “a novel means to illumintate already accepted
disciplinary concerns”’ (Belasco and Scantron 2002).
Only when researchers can see that food studies from production to consumption are
important in themselves will it become a new disciplinary approach.

 Interdisciplinary: integrating knowledge and methods from different

disciplines, using a real synthesis of approaches.

 Disciplinary projects are those which include only one branch of engineering where
as Interdisciplinary projects are those which involve more than one branch.

There are a number of academic homes of interdisciplinary research interested in a more

holistic understanding of food (Association for the Study of Food and Society ASFS,
International Sociological Associations Research Committee on Sociology of Agriculture and
Food, and Canadian Association for Food Studies (CAFS).
CAFS has been the leading association to advance interdisciplinary scholarship/research in food
studies. Objective is promotion of critical, interdisciplinary scholarship in the broad area of food
systems: food policy, production, distribution and consumption.

There has been impressive dynamism in food studies scholarship in the first two decades of the
21st century.

Follows in footsteps of earlier interdisciplinary food systems thinking and research in Canada
dating back to mid-1970s.

A unique aspect of food studies is the inclusion of both academic and non-academic work.

Pioneering publications reflect an orientation toward social justice, democratic citizenship, and
critical inquiry, and they were not configured to academia. (Mitchell’s politics of food,
Warnock’s profit hunger… pg 5. Examples of culinary, cultural, historical side of food studies
that remains largely outside the critical tradition.
Being critical carries a negative connotation that is associated with the tendency to seekout
shortcomings and limitations of others. Being critical has FOUR components.

1. Questions whether the arguments of a study are based on evidence rather than on
biases. Therefore critical perspectives require reassessment and re-evaluation of
analyses as new evidence becomes available.
-questioning someones views (empiricist) that is only based on senses since it will only
reflect what is happening not an analysis of WHY something happens.

The empirical approach is necessary for a critical perspective but not all empirical research is
critical. Agriculture and nutrition have been tightly bound to traditional disciplinary paradigms
relying on empiricism and conformity to dominant ways of thinking.

2. Being critical involves Questioning the basic values that lie behind the dominant
ideologies and discourses that inform scholarly thinking.
- Institutions such as schools, families and the media enforce processes of socialization
and training that normalize every day experiences. Coffee: disguses the reasons behind
this legal stimulant as well as labour conditions.
- Being critical involves a self-reflexive process of interrogating the key assumptions of
society, its institutions and everyday realities.
- We should not assume the right answer can be found by authority or habit, critical
thinking recognizes “all knowledge is contextual and subjective” (multiple answers exist
for every question)

3. Questioning issues of power.

- Not every answer is equally valid.
- Connections between socio-political structures and daily food practices.
- Understand how the capitalist economy: growth oriented economic models,
consumerism, industrialization, urbanization, and corporate concentration – affect
availability and accessibility of food, impact the environment, and limit food choices.

4. Considering possibilities for social change.

-Food studies exemplifies activist orientation in its desire to explore solutions for
transforming the food system and society at large.
-partnerships have been formed between food studies researchers and community
organizations outside of academia that share in the goal of creating a more just and
sustainable food system (Sustain Ontario, Nourishing Ontario Just Food).
- Collaborative approach to scholarship is called participatory action research (PAR).
- PAR questions the validity of a top-down approach to knowledge dissemination and
demands a research process for the people with the people.
Studies that incorporate some or all FOUR of these components can be understood as critical
food studies – they examine evidence, unearth values, question power, and encourage social
change.

The emergence of critical food studies / interdisciplinary of food studies is maturing and
remaining relevant as it addresses real problems that people face everyday!!!

Critical Food Studies Scholars Lenses

Political Economy (Marxist critique of capitalism)

- Historical processes or systems shape institutions in ways that reproduce patterns of
social imbalance and conflict in society.
Class inequalities: expansion of capitalist relations of production destroys rural livelihoods,
creates poverty and hunger, and contributes to ill health and obesity.
-social change takes place over time rather than universal laws applying to all historical periods.
-globalization and free trade liberalization. Impacts on food security and sustainability globally.
-political economic structures of global food system and effects on farmers and food (Akram-
Lodhi 2013) pg 7.
- critical approach to determine the reasons behind contradictory increasing rates of both
hunger and obesity in the world.
-incresed average age of farmers and cost-price-squeeze contribute to a steadily shrinking
number of farmers (viability and existence of farms)
- Rural depeasanitization – the movement of people, including smallholder producers, from
rural areas to urban areas in the developing world.
- AND new and emerging peasantries, have had a tremendous impact on the way food is
produced in the global South.
- labour relations in the wake of a globalized food system: reasons behind and impacts of
temporary migrant farm labour originating from Mexico and Central America (the shortage of
farm workers in some countries results in the temporary migration of farm workers, these
workers have a right to go back at the end of their contract. This makes them vulnerable to
poor living and working conditions)
“Tangled routes” of labour across Mexico/US/Canada involved in moving a commodity like a
tomato across many state lines.
Post-colonial approaches in food studies – previously experienced colonialism or imperialism
(the spread of capitalist economy on a global scale through export of capital and colonization of
various parts of the world by industrialized countries for their raw materials and labour).
-Gunder Frank and Wallerstein argue these countries have had their economic systems,
including farm bases, restructured according to the commodity demands of the global North.
-Bello and Baviera – structural adjustment programs (rigid fiscal policies imposed on debtor
nations in the global South by Banks, often requiring severe cuts to social programs)
Philippines: previously net exporter of food becomes net importers due to the increased
demand of rice in the global commodity market.
Agrofuels (any agricultural crop converted into ethanol biodiesel, generally used as energy
source to run trucks and automobiles. So far, most comes from Sugar or corn crops. Debate
over whether there is any energy gain at all in existing agrofuel production or any reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions)

land grabbing (appropriation/stealing by force of land or territory that belonged to other

peoples. Also refers to large scale land acquisitions in the form of leasing or purchasing by
wealth countries, fund, or individuals especially in developing countries following the rise in
agricultural commodity prices in 2008)

Agrofuels and land grabbing also play a large role in continual restructuring of agricultural
systems in the Global South.

Governance linked with political-economic structures because corporations and other food
players have a say in nutrition policies, private certificates, food labelling and standards
industry.

Food sovereignty political framework focuses on rights of people and governments in

determining their own agricultural systems, food markets, environments and modes of
production. A radical alternative to corporate led, (opposite) neo-liberal, industrial agriculture.

Food sovereignty bridges political economy and governance. Democratic decision making
power. Bad news for small-scale diverse agricultural systems.

Social and Cultural Perspectives

- Intersection of FOOD, SOCIETY, and CULTURE
- Feminists: food as a source of both power and oppression for women
- Queer theory: non-normative identity, expressions and practices.
- Fat studies: interdisciplinary field that critiques implicit and explicit negative
stereotypes, assumptions, and stigma associated with fatness and fat bodies.
- Anthropology houses food as something that forms culture.
- Food as a vehicle through ethnic identity is performed.
- Critical race theory: racialized people are marginalized
- Diasporic (movement from original homeland) communities use food as a sense of
“home” and influence our cuisines
- Migrant farm laborers shape our agriculture system.
- “Race and class conscious analysis” of food justice (elimination of disparities and
inequalities around class, gender, race and ethnicity in production, exchange and access
of food) movement states that social justice is a priority in creation of responsible food
systems and ecological sustainability.
- Food deserts: areas in which nutritious and affordable food is not readily accessible to
residents; these neighborhoods are often home to racialized, low income communities.
 - Indigenous studies researchers bring invaluable perspectives. Animal studies theorists
(lives of animals and posthumanist work that questions anthropocentric (human-
centered) framework about peoples interactions with domestic animals.
- Eatertainment: food programs and television, inflated in consumer culture. Ripe space
for critical interrogation.

Environmental Approaches
-Pollution and climate change. Food system dependent on health of our environment
-destructive practices (fossil fuels, pesticides, high rates of water consumption)
-Sustainability (number 1), biodiversity, genetically modified organisms, food waste and
fisheries and natural resource management.
-Political Ecology (matters are not apolitical)
Sustainable agriculture methods:
1.organic agriculture
2.biodynamic agriculture (healthy food, healthy soil and healthy farms) Rudolf Steiner
3. permaculture ( stimulate or utilize the patterns and features observed in natural ecosystems)

Some argue that the most destructive pat of current food system is the growing production of
animal protein.

Eating more sustainably can also mean eating closer to where one lives, minimizing the distance
between oneself and the distance between food needs to travel to one’s plate. Local food**

Alternative Food Networks: groups of interrelated people and organizations that aim to bring
structural and institutional changes to the existing mainstream practices in the food system.
- Alternative food networks are more environmentally friendly and sustainable
- Farmers markets, direct marketing schemes, vegetable box delivery, community gardens
and food cooperatives.
- Urban agriculture has been a popular AFN with discussing growing food in cities.

Health Approaches
Industrial food system: uses chemical inputs and antibiotics, as well a society that eats highly
processed and packaged food. Tremendous impacts on public health.
Structural factors of the environment: Non-communicable diseases such as obesity, diabetes,
heart disease.
Some scholars identify food and health on a different level – healthy eating and diets.
Popkin coined the term nutrition transition. Observes dietary changes based on high
consumption of saturated fats, sugar, and refined food – often called the western diet –
developing world and increasing rates of non-communicable diseases.
Nutritionism- sees food and diets reduced to their components and their biological functionality
addressed in terms of diseases. This doesn’t place an emphasis on the importance of cultural,
ecological, and health.
Critical Dietetics (remove the narrow approach) – seeks to consider the social, cultural,
historical and environmental concerns that inform nutrition.

Food security: all people have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food
Food insecurity: when people do not have adequate physical, social or economic access to food.

Scholars identify food insecurity as falling into neo-liberal paradigms of increased free trade and
technological production.

Food sovereignty relocates power away from corporations and into the hands of people who
are directly affected by food insecurity.

Community food security: food access and availability at the community level using local and
place based solutions and policies.

Food literacy is a critical component in empowering people to make positive changes in the
food system.

Food literacy: the competence knowledge and skills required to understand the movement
from field to table and how this process affects humans, other forms of life, and the
environment.

NOTES ON CHAPTER 2

“food crisis began in 1973, which created volatile prices after decades of stability, and which
raised issues of hunger and food security.
-ongoing farm crisis and environmental critiques of industrial agriculture (chemicals, fertilizers
etc).
-National studies were limited, a transnational approach was commodity studies : in which
researchers track production, trade, consumption, and ideas about single commodity such as
wheat, milk or tomatoes.
- Larger approach: FOOD REGIMES: combines commodity studies with world-systems analysis
to identify long periods of stability and change in agri-food systems.

Social Context
The first “world food crisis” 1972, prices of soy, maize, and wheat doubled or tripled.
Meat became more expensive because it’s wheat fed.
Farmers did not benefit: it was corporations, especially international trade.
Prices fell but remained volatile. The world of food became unstable and unpredictable.
World Food Summit (Rome, 1974) launched movements for food security. “Right to food”
agreed by governments, not a top priority as long as hunger declined.
The goal of food security: social welfare, equality and justice including social movements
specifically hunger. Complemented by food sovereignty (trade agreements 1900s).
Humanitarian motives mixed with need to dispose of too many farm products did harm as well
as good.
The WFP is multilateral and focuses on food emergencies. Refereed to as “dumping” rather
than aid but now emergency aid usually buys food from farmers in distressed areas rather than
sending food that undercuts prices and incomes.
National Farmers Union launched largest social movement in the world (La Via Campesina) and
defined new goal of food sovereignty. The goal of ending hunger receded farther into the
future.
FoodShare Toronto and Toronto Food Polocy Council recognized across North America as
pioneer non-profit organizations. The Stop grew from a foodbank (which it still is) to a complex
organization.
This shows how regional food systems can pursue goals of sustainability, food security and food
justice.
All political parties except conservatives NOW had a food policy (2011). The Greens had the
best food policy.
NDP focused on health as a linkage between farming and food.

Promoting Healthy Food

Not only quantity but quality became important in the 1970s.
“Organic agriculture “and “health foods” as well as concern for global food security were
popularized by writers.
Creating communities centered on growing, cooking, and sharing food. It’s proponents were
early critics focusing on soil loss, water pollution, dangers to wildlife from chemicals and
dangers to human health from additives, and environmental and health dangers of industrial
animal production.
Later sugar, fat and salt was emphasized as a danger (2013, Winson).
Karma Co-op and The Big Carrot – small, diversified farms, health food stores have multiplied.
Civil organizations such as FoodShare and The Stop took on the role of promoting healthy food
through education and advocacy.

Commodity Studies
Counihan showed how bread production, distribution and consumption can serve as a lens to
understand massive changes in family, community, and work in a small community in Italy.
The book Sweetness and Power shed new light on capitalism and colonialism.
Sugar reshaped culture for both the rich and poor. (pg22)
Lettuce easily harvested by machines, labour not family labour , except of families of migrant
Mexican with limited rights.
Industrial systems made lettuce cheap (monocropping in California) expense of small and mixed
farms closer to consumers.
Durability and ease of shipping and storing took precedence over consumption : Iceberg lettuce
became dominant in supermarkets shaping consumer choice.
British government would sacrifice it’s own farmers for cheaper imports. Paradoxical : Family
labour on one side of the world and wage labour on the other – changing diets of industrial
workers in England.
Situation due to migration, railway building and new forms of credit.
Commodity or value chain studies allow researchers to track food where it goes, and
understand larger patterns of production, distribution and consumption.

Food Regimes: Understanding Global Change

By tracking commodities along the supply chain we get a picture of regional specialization, class
relations in production and consumption, and interstate power, but only as these shape each
specific food. Putting it all together is called food regimes.
Food regimes is defined as “rule-governed structure of production and consumption of food on
a world scale”.
Most important food regimes were those centered on imperial power under British and US.

Food regime analysis combines both the “bottom-up approach” of commodity studies with the
“top-down” approach of world-systems theory.

World Systems Theory: capitalism. Key is it’s recognition that for the first time in history the
market became bigger than any national territory, that the system of national states arose and
that the power hierarchy among states shapes the market and is shaped by it.

Capitalism is because of the relationships among industrial wage labour in England, slavery in
the Carribean, servitude in Eastern Europe, and sharecropping in Italy: each region and
commodity complex existed only because of the relations among them, including the
differences in power of states.
-spatial dimension of the world-system.
-time dimension is equally important

World-system goes through phases of contractions and expansions that coincide with shifts in
power (CALLED TRANSITIONS BETWEEN HEGEMONIC POWERS).

Two major Contributions food regimes built on world-systems

- Markets are shaped by historical rules governing power, money, trade, labour and
more. Food regimes are relatively stable periods where all actors can predict the
outcome of their actions with reasonable accuracy.
- Periods of crisis or “transition” last as long as periods of stability do.

Changes in the food system since 1980s

- New corporate sectors have become powerful (Supermarkets (Loblaws) are more
powerful then brands (such as Kraft and Nestle))
- New commodities have become important in international trade, creating new relations
between North and South. (instead of growing food crops for domestic consumption,
farmers began to shift to export commodities ranging from shrimp to cut flowers, and
consumers began to buy imported processed foods rather than fresh local product)
 - New problems arose that cannot be solved by existing divisions of government
(achieved goal of helping farmers produce lots of grains and livestock to ensure people
got adequate calories and protein) Hamburger became iconic food of the regime.
Problem: we have too much grains and protein and not enough nutrients (nutrient-poor
products saturate food environments)
- Costly health problem caused by industrial diets heavy in fats, sugar, and salt have
become a burden on individuals and on health care budgets. Public health and medicine
are only beginning to incorporate diet into health care.
- Compounding environmental costs of the industrial food system now outweigh the
advantages of past productivity gains.
- Agriculture now contributing substantially to greenhouse gases and global warming,
pollution and overuse of water, loss of soil, drastic loss of species.

Toward a New Food Regime (as a lens to address many social problems at once)
Some assert the existence of a “corporate food regime” others criticize this view.
-early certifications were ORGANIC created by “alternative” farmers to help their customers
identify products and for fair trade. Created by social justice organizations in order to get better
prices for products such as coffee and cocoa. Problem for consumers: too many certifications
“label fatigue” and uncertainty that these certifications really deliver promised benefits.

Governments have a hard time keeping up with health and environment problems.
Corporations led by supermarkets have the role of making and implementing standards , and
social movements have shifted their advocacy from public policy to corporations. (corporate
self-regulation has not stabilized a new regime.

“Power of the public plate” ( Alliances between non-profit food advocacy organizations and
public institutions are an effective means to this end)
- Encourage schools, hospitals, and municipal agencies to provide healthy meals for
students, patients and workers and at the same time create demand for local
ingredients by sustainable farmers.
- Local Food Plus - Toronto (although they left the market they instilled behavior in
universities, government, and hospitals)
Canada the only so-called rich country to never have a national meal program in schools.

Communities of food practice: networks of individuals and organizations – public, private, and
non-profit, engaged in creating a regional, networked, inclusive agri-food economy.

CSA : Community-supported agriculture: 1990s, customers buy a farmers crops in advance of

the season and are paid in produce throughout the season. Allow farmers to not have to
borrow from the bank and allow customers to share the risks and benefits of agriculture.

New distribution systems create closer connections. ( Create short, local, alternative supply
chains). These movements may be seeds of democratic rather than corporate food regime.
CHANGE ALWAYS INVOLVES TENSION
Most organizations are converging on a concept of food citizenship.
Food citizenship: sense of belonging and participating in the food system through food-system
localization, based on values focused on the community and environmental sustainability.

Growing for export is not a reliable livelihood.

First nations are potentially the centre in Canada of better ways of using land to create a better
food system.

Creativity and trust are important. Easing the tension among movements.

MODULE 1

Topics
 Introductions to the course and to each other
 An overview of the factors that influence food choices
 The development of food studies and its key characteristics

Learning Objectives
By the end of this module, you should be able to:

 Describe why food habits are not only determined by individual choices but also
by larger social discourses, structures, relationships, and institutions.
 Define important terms for the field such as food system and food studies.
 Explain some key elements of food studies and its development.
 Locate your own food choices within larger social structures and relationships.

Think
Think about the following questions on your own:
What did you eat and/or drink at your most recent meal?
Why did you eat and/or drink those foods in particular?
Make a list of the factors that influenced your choice or the choice of the person who
made the food, if it wasn't you. Try to name at least five factors. Keep the list for later as
you will be referring to it at the end of this module.

What Makes Food Sociologically Interesting?

We often think of our food choices as something we decide on individually and

consciously. For example, when asked why they eat particular foods, people often say
that they choose based on aesthetics (e.g., how a food tastes, smells, or looks) or
practicalities (e.g., how much it costs or how easy it is to make).

But food habits are also shaped by other things, often beyond our direct and conscious
control. This becomes more clear if we consider how people eat in different geographic
areas, in different social groups, and in different time periods.

For example, why do you think the following things are true?

Canadians eat more meat now than in the past (Weis, 2015).

Men eat more meat than women.

On average Canadians eat two times more meat than Japanese people and twenty
times more meat than people in India (FAO, 2013).

If food choices were only individually based, we wouldn't see these kinds of larger
patterns.

When thinking about reasons, did you consider the role of culture, including changing
ideas about health and masculinity and femininity? What about the role of the economy
and government policies or institutions?

Sociologists emphasize that eating does not simply fill a biological need: it carries
diverse social and cultural meanings.

Our food habits and our food system are influenced by a complex set of social relations,
processes, structures, and institutions. Food scholars also emphasize that the food
system is structured by relations of power, which lead to inequalities—both within and
across nations—and contribute to both a direct impact on individuals in societies as well
as broader impacts on the environment and non-human world.

Food, Culture, and Identity: The “Micro” Level 1

The 18th century French epicure Brillat-Savarin famously said, “Tell me what you eat
and I will tell you who you are.”
Think about this quotation for a moment in relation to your own food habits and those of
people around you. What do you think what you eat says about who you are?
Here's an activity to help you think about this more. Picture the following person in your
head, without thinking hard about it:
A vegan.
What does a vegan look like (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, age, fashion style, body type,
etc.)? Did you assume anything else about them (e.g., income, class, education, etc.)?
Now do the same for:
Someone who often eats at McDonald's.
Someone who makes jams and preserves from scratch.
Our assumptions show that social discourses (ideas that circulate in our society about
particular issues) shape the identities we ascribe to people–and that which they ascribe
to themselves–based on personal food choices.

Food, Culture, and Identity: The “Micro” Level 2

As you probably noticed from the activity on the last page, food does not simply sustain
our physical bodies; food has social, emotional, spiritual, and political meaning. It is
integral to our interactions and connections within family and community as “a symbol, a
product, a ritual object, an identity badge, an object of guilt, [and] a political tool”
(Reardon, 2000, p.1).
Let's look at some of the roles of food:
A symbol: A sit-down meal, especially in the evening, can symbolize and create
feelings of “family.” Holiday foods are essential markers of holiday meals and
celebrations.
A product: In 21st-century Canada, where people grow food themselves much less
than before, food is almost always a product or a commodity—something we buy from a
store or restaurant. It is not something we can normally access for free, such as tap
water. (Think about why—after all, we need both food and water to survive. More about
this later in the course.)
A ritual object: Food can be a symbol during religious ceremonies or rituals. For
example, horseradish is a symbol of the suffering of Israelite slaves in Egypt in the
Jewish Passover Seder meal (see Figure 1.1). Food can also be involved in more
everyday rituals, such as the giving of a gift to the host/ess (e.g., a bottle of wine,
chocolates) when one is invited to his or her home.
An identity badge: An upper middle-class Torontonian might eat foods from various
ethno-cultural backgrounds to indicate (perhaps unconsciously) that she is
“knowledgeable” or “hip.” A teenager might eat fast food to fit in with his peers.
An object of emotions: We might feel guilty after eating what we think are unhealthy or
fattening foods. We might also seek comfort or nostalgia in foods we ate as kids.
Boredom, loneliness, and a myriad of other emotions may trigger a desire for certain
foods.
A political tool: Eating organic or local food, or boycotting certain products, may be a
way people hope to improve the food system. Activists might stage hunger strikes.
Let’s think about food as not only a ritual or symbolic object for special occasions
(like the Passover Seder) but as a ritual or symbolic object in more everyday
situations. If you think about your current or future family (however you define
“family”), how important is it to you that you share a sit-down meal at home, with
all members present, at least once a week?

Why is a shared meal—or shared food—important for a family?

Food and Political Economic Relations: The "Macro" Level

Sociologists are also interested in the “macro” level of the food system. They consider
the influence of agri-food policies, national political economic systems, and international
relations and trade on food habits and cultures.
The case of corn in North America demonstrates the complex relationships between
these macro-level structures and what and how we eat every day.
During the early 20th century, depression and war resulted in food shortages in North
America. As a result, governments put into place subsidies for farmers. The more of a
crop a farmer produced, the more financial support he or she would receive.

This resulted in an abundance of certain grains, most notably corn. Because there was
a corn surplus, and because governments were subsidizing corn production, corn
prices fell. Meat producers began to see corn as a cheap source of cattle feed.

Since corn was cheap, beef became cheaper to produce. Some food activists (Pollan,
2002) suggest that this has contributed greatly to the meatification of our diets. (Per
capita global meat consumption has more than doubled since the 1950s (Weis, 2015).

Another result of this is the growth of the alternative/health food industry. Grass-fed
beef, which used to be the norm, is now typically available in specialty stores at
a premium price.

Macro-level issues, such as politics, economics, and international relations and trade,
are often called the structural factors influencing our diets. They are beyond the direct
control of individual eaters.
It's important to remember that the influences of these structural factors can also go in
different directions. A more complete picture of the relationships between them is
illustrated in Figure 1.3, below:
International trade and relations, politics, economics, food production, food distribution,
food retailing, and other issues all mutually influence our diets and each other.

Chapter 2 of the textbook describes two key macro approaches that scholars take to the
food system: commodity-chain studies and food-regime analysis. You might think of
the description above on corn (a commodity) as a snippet of a commodity-chain
analysis. Food regime analysis focuses on the hegemonic (dominant) political and
economic arrangements that shape food systems.

Food Studies: A New Academic Discipline

Food Studies is a relatively new academic discipline. As you read in Chapter 1 of the
textbook, it is only in the past few decades that academic journals, associations and
programs dedicated to the study of food have emerged. Before that,
food production was a focus, in fields like agricultural economics or food science. But
food consumption, and the relations between consumption and production, were largely
ignored by scholars. When they weren't ignored, they were relegated to what were
considered to be “women's fields” like home economics.

Why did scholars ignore food in the past?

According to American food scholar, Warren Belasco (2008), there are a few reasons
for this:

The public/private, production/consumption divide

Until the 1960s, when feminists began to challenge the status quo, academia was
largely centred on the public realm and on issues which were considered to be
economically or scientifically “important.” Academic researchers considered issues such
as the molecular structure of sugar or how to improve crop yields. Consumptionissues,
such as what people ate and why they did so, were considered to be “private” issues of
the home (“feminine concerns”), and therefore “unimportant.”

Mind-body dualism
In earlier philosophies of education, there was the idea that academic institutions
existed to feed the mind. In this way of thinking, the mind is seen as separate from, and
superior to, the body. Bodily concerns, like eating or sex, are seen as "debasing" or
"primitive"—not proper subjects of academic inquiry. In addition, “mind” concerns, such
as academic theory, and “body” concerns, such as eating, are supposed to be kept
separate. You might notice that this idea persists to some degree today. Think, for
example, of how eating is typically banned during university classes.
Why is Food Studies Gaining Prominence Now?
Feminist activists and scholars, especially in the 1960s and 70s, began to challenge the
public/private, consumption/production divide. They showed that activities in the home
were not only important to people's well-being, but they also had larger economic value.
For example, they argued that if women didn't do unpaid work in the home, such as
grocery shopping and cooking, (male) workers wouldn't be able to be productive in the
workforce (i.e., they would spend too much time cooking for themselves or go hungry)
(Luxton, 1980). These scholars and others also began to question the idea that the
mind and body are, in fact, separate.
On top of this, the 1960s saw a burgeoning of interest in the effects of new technologies
(e.g., pesticides) on our health and the environment (Carson, 1962). At the same time,
consumer activists began to decry the increasing influence of corporations on our lives.
Concerned citizens began to scrutinize products and modes of production based on
health, environmental and ethical concerns. In more recent years, a slew of popular
books and films (e.g., Fast Food Nation, Food Inc., 100-Mile Diet, Supersize Me, The
Omnivore's Dilema and Cooked) have increased people's awareness of the inner
workings and widespread consequences of the food industry.
All of these factors have lead to an increased interest, among both the public and
scholars, about the place of food and the food system in our lives.

What is Food Studies?

As mentioned earlier in this module, some aspects of food were studied academically in
the past (e.g., agronomy, economics, food science, home economics), but these were
often studied separately, with little interaction between people in different fields. We now
realize that different aspects of the food system are so interconnected, and our food
habits are so complex, that it makes sense to study these things in relation to each
other. For this reason, contemporary Food Studies is a field that draws on many
different disciplines (it is multidisciplinary). Some scholars in Food Studies also
combine the insights and theories of more than one discipline into particular research
projects (i.e., to do interdisciplinary work).
Further, Food Studies scholars often share insights and collaborate
with community food activists, people who contribute practical and traditional knowledge
such as farmers, gardeners, chefs and policy makers. Food Studies conferences (e.g.,
the yearly conference of the Canadian Association for Food Studies (CAFS) or Food
Secure Canada (FSC)) try to break down the traditional barriers between the community
and academia by bringing people from both areas together to share ideas. This relates
to the critical approach of Food Studies. A critical perspective does not mean being
negative, but rather developing a deeply inquiring attitude, analytical capacity, and
research skills that encompass a diversity of perspectives. Being critical also means
understanding how our current food system works and envisioning an alternative food
system that is more sustainable and just. Food studies in this sense offers both a critical
and a constructive approach to issues pertaining to food (Koç et al, 2017 p. xv).
Many people come to the field of food studies because they see problems in the food
system that they want to change, like social inequality or environmental degradation.
(Perhaps these are issues that brought you to this course?) Breaking down
academic/community barriers is part of that critical movement toward change. Food
studies work such as this, that crosses both boundaries of academic disciplines and
engages people from across a range of skills and interests is referred to
as transdisciplinary.

In the Chapter 1 of the textbook, you were introduced to a definition the food system as
it is examined in food studies. We will use these definitions as anchors throughout the
course. Do you remember them? Use your memory and what you already know from
previous experiences and knowledge of food to answer the questions below. If
necessary, go back to the textbook or your reading notes.

Food System is “the historically specific web of social relations, processes, structures, and
institutional arrangements that cover human interactions with nature and with other humans
involving production, distribution, preparation, and consumption of food” (Koc et al., 2017, p.
xiv).

Key Aspects of Food Studies

Food Studies is:

 Interdisciplinary, Multidisciplinary and Transdisciplinary (it draws on diverse

disciplines and types of knowledge)
 Critical and Transformative (it seeks to bring about social change)
 System-Focused (it focuses on the connections between the food industry, our
government and political economic system, and our food habits)

In the Warm Up page earlier in this module, you were asked to consider the following questions
and come up with a list of at least five factors influencing your food choices:

 What did you eat and/or drink at your most recent meal?
 Why did you eat and/or drink those foods in particular?

Go back to your list. Now that you’ve learned a few things from this module, try to add three or
more factors to your list. See if you can think of both micro-level factors and macro-level factors.
MODULE 2

Topics
 The social construction of “healthy eating” and healthy eating
discourse
 Differential access to healthy foods based on income and
neighbourhood
 Different ideas about healthy eating and body type based on
ethno-racial background and age
 The influence of employment and demographics on healthy eating

Learning Objectives
By the end of this module, you should be able to:

 Define discourse and explain how it relates to notions of healthy

eating.
 Describe how healthy eating motivations differ based on age and
ethno-racial background.
 Explain the notion of a “food desert.”
 Understand how employment and demographics relate to eating
habits.
 Move beyond an individualistic understanding of healthy eating and
list the social structures that influence healthy diets.

Warm Up
When Canadians are asked about healthy eating, they often refer
to Canada’s Food Guide (2007). It is no wonder, since children learn
about this guide in school and it is promoted widely by the Canadian
government. We may likely take it to represent facts about nutrition and
how to eat well.
However, the guide has changed significantly over the years and is
updated every 5 to 10 years (we are due for a new one!). Take a look at
this Health Canada webpage, where you can find different versions of
the guide over the 50 year period from 1942 to 1992. Do you notice any
differences between the guides in terms of suggestions for healthy
eating?
You might have noticed, for example, that in 1944, the guide
emphasizes that bread be eaten “with butter.” But in later years, butter is
not mentioned and “low-fat” milk products are promoted instead. These
differences suggest that there are no absolute facts about healthy
eating, only “discourses” that change over time and place. On the next
page, we’ll begin our discussion by looking at the idea of “discourse.”

The Social Construction of Healthy Eating: Introduction

Healthy eating as a discourse

In Chapter 5 of the textbook, Beagan and Chapman speak about healthy eating as
a discourse. This is the same as saying that ideas about healthy eating are socially
constructed. What does this mean? Let’s start with a definition.
Discourse is a way “of understanding an issue that circulates through a society and is
enacted through everyday practices” (Koç et al. 2017, p. 383).
From this general definition, we can say that:
Healthy eating discourse is a particular way of understanding healthy eating that
circulates through society and is reproduced (and sometimes resisted) through people’s
eating practices.
It’s important to remember that discourses are time and place specific.
To say that healthy eating is a socially constructed discourse means that there are no
absolute facts or truths about what kind of diet is best for our health. Rather, certain
ideas get labelled as “facts” or “truths” in certain places and times. Going back to
our Canada’s Food Guide example, eating butter was encouraged in the 1940s but not
so much in later years. In fact, as there began to be worries about the health effects of
fats in our diet, lower-fat milk products were promoted over butter. So, is butter healthy
or unhealthy? For sociologists, there is no clear answer to this. What we can say is that,
in the healthy eating discourse of the 1940s, butter was seen to be healthy, but in more
recent healthy eating discourse, there is some debate about whether and how much
butter is healthy.
To elaborate, discourses are created in a particular time period in a particular society by
people who are thought to be experts, and then disseminated by government, media,
and popular culture. Then they are further circulated in conversations between friends
and family and elsewhere, such as between doctors and patients. They are also
reinforced through people’s actions and behaviours.
Competing discourses
It is also important to remember that there is usually more than one discourse about an
issue that circulate in a particular society at the same time. These discourses compete
with each other for acceptance, each touting itself as the “truth.” Scholars tend to label
discourses that are most popular in a society (believed by the majority of people) as
“mainstream” and discourses that are less popular (accepted by a smaller number of
people) as “alternative.”
In the next section, we’ll look at examples of these through an examination of competing
discourses about what makes up a healthy diet in North America.

Healthy Eating Discourses in Vancouver

As we talked about in the last section, and as you probably know from experience, there
are competing discourses about healthy eating in our society.
Beagan and Chapman discovered some of these different discourses in their interviews
with Vancouverites and Haligonians. The scholars found three types of healthy eating
discourses, which they labelled “mainstream,” “traditional,” “alternative,” and
“complementary/ethical.” Do you remember what each of these discourses emphasized
as key to a healthy diet? (Try to remember, but go back to your notes if necessary.)
Here is a list of correct matches:
Mainstream
Emphasis on eating fruits and vegetables, grains, and low-fat proteins (similar to
Canada’s Food Guide). All ethno-cultural groups in the study

Traditional
Emphasis on homemade foods, and meat as an important component of healthy
meals.
Mainly (Older) African-Nova Scotians and Punjabi-British Columbians, some
European-Nova Scotians

Alternative
Emphasis on eating organic and avoiding agri-food chemicals and toxins. Not
specified

Complementary/Ethical:
Emphasis on the environment, ethical treatment of animals and relationships with
local people. Mainly European-British Columbians
Nutritionism: From Food to Nutrients
You probably noticed in the Warm Up to this module that Health Canada’s Food
Guide has become more and more complex over the years. This aligns with our shifting
thoughts about food. While in the earlier decades of the 20th century we thought of
meals as made up of different types of foods—vegetables, meat, dairy products, etc.—
in recent decades, we tend to think of meals as made up of different nutritional
components—calories, fat, vitamins, etc. Most recently, we have gotten even more
complex, talking about things like antioxidants, trans fats, and phytochemicals.
Some food activists, such as food journalist Michael Pollan, argue that this shift in food
discourse has actually been harmful to our health. While we now know more about the
components of our food, much of this information is confusing, he claims (Pollan, 2008).
Also, it takes quite a bit of education and effort to understand and calculate the nutrients
in all of the foods we want to eat or avoid. This type of critique has led to the use of the
term nutritionism.
“a conceptualization of food that reduces the value and benefits of food to its nutrient
profile, thereby distancing eaters from the places and contexts in which food is
produced” (Koc et al 2017., p. 389). This term is usually used by critics of this paradigm.

This flow chart breaks “diet” into three parts: “fats,” “proteins,” and “carbohydrates."
These are then broken down into nutrients. The nutrients ultimately affect brain
metabolism and tissue metabolism.

Here are two reasons that scholars are critical of nutritionism:

1. The abundant information we now have about the components of food is confusing, hard to
remember or cumbersome to put into practice. For example, when eating or shopping,
people sometimes don’t want or aren’t able to remember things like how many calories they
are supposed to consume of which foods, which kinds of fat are healthy, or whether
phytochemicals are good or bad for health.
2. Food has many other functions in society than promoting health, as we talked about in
Module 1. Eating, shopping and growing food can be pleasurable and satisfying. It can be a
building block of friendship, family, community and identity. Thinking about food only in terms
of its nutrients can be stressful and taxing. In fact, it can take the fun and joy out of eating!

From Nutritionism to Eating “Real” Food

Food journalist Michael Pollan is one of the most vocal opponents of nutritionism,
especially in his first two books In Defense of Food and Food Rules. He argues that
because of nutritionism, food information is now too confusing and cumbersome for
people to realistically consider it for their diets. He suggests that eating healthy is, in
fact, much easier than nutrition experts make it seem. He then lists a number of simple,
non-scientific rules for eating well.
Take a look at this summary of some of Michael Pollan's Food Rules(Opens image),
created by an anonymous graphic artist. Think about incorporating these rules into your
own life. How easy would it be? Can you think of any rules that might be difficult to
incorporate? Why? Jot down a few notes and keep them handy for the section below.

Healthy eating as an individual responsibility

Let’s take Rule #1: “Don’t buy anything your great grandmother wouldn’t recognize as
food.” Are there any reasons this rule might be difficult to follow? What if your school or
workplace has only highly processed foods on offer? What if you have a limited income,
and the only food retailers within reasonable distance from your home are convenience
stores or fast food restaurants?
Now consider Rule #10: “Look to farmer’s markets for the majority of your food and
snacks.” What if there are no farmers' markets in your neighbourhood or if they only sell
one day a week? What if the market food is too expensive for your budget?
The point is that there are many factors beyond an individual’s control that can affect
the healthiness of their diet. For this reason, Pollan has been criticized by food scholars
for having an overly individualistic focus (Guthman, 2007). These scholars suggest that
there are larger structural factors that need to be considered in discussions of healthy
diets. We turn to these factors in the next section.

Healthy Food Access and Affordability

Have you ever noticed price differences between foods we consider healthy and those
we consider unhealthy? At Tim Horton's, for example, a donut is notably cheaper than
yogurt and berries or a bagel with cream cheese.
This is not an anomaly. Studies have shown that healthier foods are more expensive
than less healthy foods on a per-calorie basis (Rao et al., 2013). On average, healthier
food-based diet patterns including more fruits, vegetables and whole grains were more
expensive than less healthy patterns, whether based on an actual day's intake or per
2000 kcal. The price difference—about $1.50/day per person, or close to $550/year—
represents the price difference per person for consuming a much healthier versus much
less healthy overall diet (Rao et al, 2013).

Typically, a neighbourhood is defined as a food desert if:

1. Residents have to go more than 1 km to get to a grocery store.

2. Residents have limited access to a vehicle (and have to walk, bike or use public
transportation to go food shopping).

You might think food deserts are only located in out-of-the-way rural and remote areas,
where there are few stores of any kind, let alone grocery stores; and this is sometimes
the case. But food deserts are also located in large cities like Toronto. More recently,
the term food swamp has also been used in analyzing food access (Lenardson et al,
2015). These analyses focus on health and neigbourhood characteristics in areas with a
high density of fast food and convenience stores relative to healthy food options.
In fact, the Ontario-based, non-profit food justice organization Sustain Ontario put
together a Map of Food Deserts in Toronto (click on the map to enlarge). What do you
notice about the relationship between income and the location of fast food stores and
grocery stores? Take a look, for example, at the dark red (very low income) section near
Jane and Finch. How many grocery stores versus fast food outlets are there? Now take
a look at the dark green sections (very high incomes). How many grocery stores versus
fast food outlets are there?
This map should help you see that food deserts are often located in low-income
communities. (Don’t be confused by some of the green areas with few grocery stores.
Remember that vehicle and public transportation access is important in defining food
deserts. Residents of wealthier neighbourhoods typically own cars, meaning they can
easily go much farther to get to a grocery store). Food access is affected by a host of
factors—including income, mobility, transportation, walkability—that create a “layering of
disadvantages.” It’s also important to note that low-income communities are typically
home to large numbers of residents of colour, and that First Nations reserves are often
food deserts. So, the concept of food deserts provides evidence of income andrace
inequality in food access.

Age, Ethno-racial Background, and Healthy Eating

In Chapter 5, Beagan and Chapman talk about the influence of identity on diets—
things like age, gender, and immigration. The desire to belong to a certain age group,
gender, nationality, or ethno-racial background influences what people want or feel they
are supposed to eat. In this section, we focus on age, immigration, and ethno-racial
background. We’ll return to the influence of gender on food practices in Module 4.

Age and life stage

Many studies show that teenagers eat junk or fast food as a way of fitting in. In one
recent Toronto study, a 15-year-old girl in Parkdale said she didn’t want to eat as much
fast food as she did but felt pressured to do so. She put it this way: “It’s a teenager
thing…Everyone’s eating out and you don’t want to bring [food] from home ’cause
everybody’s watching you” (Johnston, Rodney, and Szabo, 2012).
This teen was like many other teens interviewed when she described eating junk food or
fast food as “a teenager thing.” Many teens, especially boys, see healthy eating as an
adult preoccupation—something teenagers just don’t do.
Immigrant teens, especially visible minorities, might feel even more pressure to eat fast
or processed foods to fit in, particularly during weekday lunches when they’re
surrounded by peers. While many immigrant families cook healthy foods at home, this
food might be rejected in favour of fast food or other more typical “Canadian” food;
teens might see their “home” food as an unwanted marker of difference. As adults, such
teens might come to embrace traditional foods from their backgrounds as they become
more secure in their identities. However, the pressure on teens toward culinary
assimilation with mainstream norms is great.

Ethno-racial background
People not only identify with others of the same age but they also identify as members
of a particular race or ethno-cultural background. This can also have an influence on the
healthfulness of their diets.
Let’s watch the video below about African-Canadian and African-American culture.
As you may have noted, some of the interviewees in the film talked about an African-
American identification with “soul food.” They saw eating soul food as a part of being
“black” or a way of connecting to African-American history with positive mental health
outcomes. However, some interviewees were concerned about potential negative health
effects of soul food, which is often high in salt, sugar, and fat. Still others pointed out
that the real problem for health is not soul food (which can have healthy versions) but,
rather, the fact that African-Americans tend to live in food deserts. So there is some
debate about this. But the point here is that ethno-racial identity may influence dietary
health.
Ideas about a healthy body type also vary by cultural background. In a Canadian study
by Ristovski-Slijepcevic et al. (2010), one African-Canadian woman suggested that
extreme thinness was not an ideal in African-Canadian culture. She said, “[It's not ideal
if] you can’t tell the front from the back, [if] you know what I mean. You got to have a
little bit of leg or ‘sumpin sumpin’…Not too many black women are small: we all have
big boobs and big behinds” (p. 323).
In fact, many black women from this study suggested that being too thin was
unhealthy. The implication is that food habits and body shapes that are portrayed as
unhealthy from some ethno-racial perspectives might not be seen as unhealthy from
other ethno-racial perspectives.

Employment Culture and Household Demographics

So far, we’ve talked about the fact that healthy eating is more than an individual choice.
People’s eating habits are constrained by where they live and how much money they
have. They are also shaped by people’s group affiliations. In this section, we’ll talk
about a larger structural influence on healthy diets in Canadian society: employment
culture and household demographics.
Now what about the Canadian situation, more generally? Let’s turn to the Szabo
reading.
Szabo points out that as women have entered the workforce in large numbers over the
past few generations, household make-up has changed. There has been a significant
rise in dual-earner, single-parent, and single-adult households and a significant decline
in households with one earner and one full-time homemaker. In fact, only about one in
five households now has a full-time homemaker. (see Figure 3.1 below).
(Note that this is a slightly different calculation than what you read in the Szabo reading
for this week, but the implications are the same.)
What makes this situation worse, Szabo explains, is that our employment culture hasn’t
changed much in North America even though women have entered the workforce.
While there are more work-life balance programs, they are still few and far between,
and they don’t adequately address the work-life conflicts people experience from having
to balance both full-time work and household duties.
This means that even though people want to eat healthily and have the skills to do so,
they are often constrained by their job and other life responsibilities from spending much
time cooking. This is not to say that people have no choice. Some people who have
demanding jobs also find the time and energy to cook and shop conscientiously.
However, we can recognize that employment conditions and household demographics
have some influence on people’s food habits.
MODULE 3

Topics
 How our food habits shape and are shaped by culture
 Influences of capitalist consumer culture and alternative culture on food and
shopping habits
 Ways in which unconscious cultural constructs shape food habits

Learning Objectives
By the end of this module, you should be able to:

 Describe processes through which food behaviour influences culture and culture
influences food behaviour.
 Use sociological terms such as taboo, fetish, and cultural schemas to explain
food habits and possibilities for food system change.
 Relate your own food shopping and eating habits to capitalist or alternative
values.

There are important material constraints on how we choose food, such as our food budget. If we
have a low income, there is sometimes little we can consider beyond cost. However, cost
constraints are typically fairly obvious to us. This week, we’re going to talk about a sometimes
less-obvious influence on our food choices: culture.
Food and Culture: Introduction
When we think of food and culture, we often think of ethno-cultural background. For
example, we might assume (perhaps erroneously) that Canadians from a Chinese
background are good at using chopsticks or that someone who grew up in a South
Asian household likes spicy food.
Our discussion of food and culture this week goes beyond these simple associations
and cultural stereotypes. We explore the influence of the larger culture of capitalism on
all of our food habits. We also look not only at how culture shapes us but how we
shape it.

What is Culture?
Culture refers to things like knowledge, language, values, customs, and material
objects that circulate in a group or society. Culture is consciously passed on from one
generation to the next through parenting and education. It is
also unconsciously absorbed and reproduced through things like everyday practices,
conversations, actions, popular culture, and the media.
How does culture influence food shopping?
When you think of culture, you might think of someone’s ethnicity or background. This
can have a definitive influence of food choices. But as you read in the Johnston and
Cappeliez chapter for today, a less obvious and often-unconscious influence on all of us
is capitalist consumer culture.
As members of a capitalist society, we have certain expectations about the shopping
experience. This is sometimes more obvious if our expectations are not met.
Imagine the following:

 A store in which there is only one brand available of each item.

 A system where you pay a certain amount for a weekly basket of vegetables, but
you don’t know ahead of time how many or what kind of vegetables you will get.
(also referred to as Community Supported Agriculture system, described by
Friedmann in Chapter 2 p. 27.)
 A store in which produce is only available when it is in season locally.
 A vendor that prices products based on what he or she needs to make ends
meet rather than what the market price is, such as a food cooperative.
 A store where there is no place to park a car.
How would you (or do you) feel shopping in such places? Would you dislike the
experience, feel neutral about it, or even enjoy it?
It is not surprising if you feel uncomfortable with some of these scenarios. Each one
violates a principle of capitalist consumer culture that we have come to expect. What
are these principles? Try to identify them using your own experience.
Variety/choice
A store in which there is only one brand available of each item.
Predictability
A system where you pay a certain amount for a weekly basket of vegetables, but
you don’t know ahead of time how many or what kind of vegetables you will get.
Consistency
A store in which produce is only available when it is in season locally.
Cost-effectiveness
A vendor that prices products based on what he or she needs to make ends
meet rather than what the market price is.
Convenience
A store where there is no place to park a car.

Culture Shapes Us
How does culture “work”? How do ideas and norms affect our behaviour?
In the reading for this week, Johnston and Cappeliez describe their interviews with a
group of Torontonians who shop at Whole Foods Market in Yorkville and another group
who shop at Karma Co-op in the Annex. They compare these two groups because
shopping at either place is a very different experience.
Cultural schemas are “unconscious networks of neural associations” that shape our
habits, including our food habits. They are internalized through everyday experience in
our culture and are activated in certain situations to motivate our behaviour (Vaisey,
2009, p.1686).

In a capitalist consumer culture like ours, one of the cultural schemas that we might internalize is
that our needs and desires can be fulfilled through the purchase of commodities. An idea
expressed throughout our culture, especially in advertising, is that “the good life” revolves
around buying particular things. In this sense, foods can be “co-modified” valued more for the
values they represent, than the actual properties of the foods themselves.
We also internalize cultural schemas around shopping—such as the notion that shopping and
products should be convenient, predictable, consistent, cost-effective, and should involve
choice/variety.
As a profit-driven grocery store, albeit one focused on healthy foods, Whole Foods draws on
many of these cultural schemas to promote itself. Can you think of examples from the video?
(Go back to your video notes, if necessary). By promoting itself using these common cultural
schemas, Whole Foods also reinforces the idea that the principles of convenience, predictability,
consistency, cost-effectiveness, and variety are important. This, in turn, reinforces these
principles in our neural networks.
Karma Co-op differs from Whole Foods in many ways because it is a non-profit co-op with an
environmental, social, and health mission. In the video, we can see that Karma both draws on
and challenges some of the cultural schemas we are talking about. What are some examples from
the video? How does Karma promote itself (1) according to one or more of the values of
convenience, predictability, consistency, cost-effectiveness, and variety and (2) as an
organization that challenges one or more of these values?
Our examination of these two stores shows that dominant cultural schemas in capitalist consumer
culture are reinforced in some places (e.g., conventional for-profit stores as well as alternative
organizations) and challenged in others (e.g., alternative food organizations. like co-ops). Since
most people shop at conventional stores, they are most often exposed to cultural schemas that
promote convenience, predictability, consistency, cost-effectiveness, and variety. Thus, most
people come to internalize these capitalist consumer values as desirable and good. This is one
way in which culture influences us.
All this being said, we are not robots that automatically do what is the norm in our culture. We
have agency to make decisions, even decisions that go against mainstream culture. On the next
page, we’ll look at this issue and how we influence culture.

We Shape Culture I
There are many pleasurable and beneficial aspects to capitalist consumer culture. This
is one reason most of us agree to live in such a culture and adhere to the values of
convenience, predictability, consistency, cost-effectiveness, and variety. Having variety
in food, for example, allows us to experience the sensual pleasures of different tastes,
smells, and textures. If our favourite grocery store has a predictable list of products, we
can count on buying those products whenever we want or need them. If a store has
convenient hours, we can go shopping whenever it suits our schedule. The list goes on.

On the other hand, environmental and social justice activists say that capitalist consumer values
promotes environmental damage, social injustice, and human health problems. Consider the
value of variety: if people expect grocery stores to carry all types of products regardless of the
season, a significant amount of global imports is required because such variety can’t be grown or
produced locally. As you probably know, global imports, in turn, can contribute to climate
change because of long-distance transport. Global imports can also undermine the livelihoods of
local farmers, which is a social justice issue. If stores buy imported apples instead of local
varieties (which often happens if imported varieties are cheaper), then local farmers suffer
financially.
Some people recognize the environmental, social, and heath problems associated with capitalist
consumer culture and try to resist or even change this culture. One group of people doing this
have been labelled “alternative hedonists.” Examining this group and the notion of alternative
hedonism gives us a sense of how we shape culture. We will do this on the next page.
We Shape Culture II

Alternative hedonism
In Chapter 3, Johnston and Cappeliez discuss the idea of alternative hedonism, a term
coined by British philosopher Kate Soper. They also define and explain it. This is an
important definition for this module. Did you take note of it while reading? Do you
remember what it means?
What is “alternative hedonism”?
“The idea that alternative forms of consumption (e.g. buying local, biking instead of
driving, reusing items instead of buying new ones, etc.) are motivated not only by
altruistic concerns and a desire for ‘a better world’ – they can be motivated also by
the self-interested pleasuresof consuming differently” (Koç et al. 2012, p.380, emphasis
added).>

Soper calls people who find pleasure in alternative ways of consuming—a fairly small
subgroup of the population in our society—alternative hedonists.
To reiterate, alternative consumption (including "ethical eating") can feel good to people
both because they feel they are improving the world AND because alternative
consumption can be pleasurable in itself. The word hedonism refers to pleasure, which
means that “alternative hedonists” enjoy different kinds of pleasure than are typically
emphasized in consumer culture.
How?
Soper gives the example of someone who bikes to school or work instead of driving.
They might feel good about the fact that they are not contributing to greenhouse gas
emissions. Yet, they might also enjoy the act of biking itself. Since capitalist
consumerism has negative consequences, such as traffic jams on ugly highways, biking
can feel like a pleasurable escape. Bikers might also enjoy parts of the experience like
feeling the wind in their hair, hearing the birds sing, or becoming invigorated through
outdoor physical exercise.
Figure 3.2: An alternative hedonist may enjoy cycling not only for its
environmental benefits but because cycling itself is pleasurable.
Source: Wikimedia Commons, City of Toronto, 2010(Opens image)
Can you think of some other examples of the pleasures of alternative consumption
specifically around food habits? (Can you think of why practices such as buying local,
shopping at alternative venues such as farmers’ markets and food co-ops, or cooking
from scratch might be pleasurable? Or can you think of how shopping at mainstream
grocery stores might be unpleasurable, making people want to avoid it?) We will come
back to these ideas in the Shopping Field Trip activity at the end of this module.
To add to your own ideas, we can think about some examples from Chapter 3 of the
textbook. Some Karma Co-op shoppers Johnston and Cappeliez interviewed might be
considered alternative hedonists because they felt alternative pleasures around food
shopping that revolved around social connections (e.g., feeling “at home” in a
community of like-minded people or seeing “smiling faces”), not the typical pleasures of
capitalist consumer culture.

Pleasure and consumption

People who pay attention to environmental, health, and social justice issues are often
portrayed as sacrificing themselves for the greater good. The idea is that they
do without convenience, predictability, consistency, cost-effectiveness, variety, and
other things such as pleasure in order to live out their values. Think about stereotypes
about vegan activists who eat “bland” tofu, or environmentalists who walk or bike in all
kinds of weather to avoid driving. The idea of “alternative hedonism” counters these
stereotypes and helps us to see how pleasure and ethics can be combined. It also gives
us a theoretical frame to understand not only how culture shapes us but how we shape
culture. Cultivating alternative or non-consumer pleasures is one way that alternative
hedonists influence culture. The greatest influence typically happens within the
subgroup, but the ideas of this subgroup can also influence the larger consumer culture.
The growing popularity of organic foods and farmers’ markets in the past few years is
one example of this.
But to what extent does alternative hedonism among a small group of people contribute
to broader changes in our food culture? We’ll examine this in more detail next.

Changing Food Culture: Conscious and Unconscious Processes

The concept of alternative hedonism, which we discussed on the last page, is one
theoretical tool that helps us to understand how we shape culture. It also helps to
elucidate how cultural shifts can happen. This is an important question for social justice
and environmental activists who want to change what they see as a problematic
consumer culture.
How to change the food system and food culture is one of the driving questions of
Johnston and Cappeliez’s research on Whole Foods and Karma Co-op. To help answer
the question, they use Anthony Giddens’ concepts of “practical consciousness” and
“discursive consciousness.” These are two concepts to remember.
Discursive consciousness refers to the ideas people have about their own actions
and decisions—ideas that people are conscious of and can fairly easily articulate
(express or talk about). One way to remember this term is to think about the
word discourse, which sometimes refers to conversation.
Practical consciousness refers to intuitive or unconscious ideas that drive decisions
and actions that people aren’t necessarily able to express or explain. These ideas are
so embedded in our habits or ways of thinking that we usually aren’t aware of them.
Practical consciousness ties in well with the idea of cultural schemas, which we talked
about earlier in this module. Cultural schemas are part of what makes up our practical
consciousness.
People’s food habits are driven by both discursive and practical consciousness.
Johnston and Cappeliez argue that, if we want to change food culture, we need to
change both people’s discursive consciousness and their practical consciousness. In
other words, if we want the food system to become more sustainable and socially just,
we need to help people not only decide consciously that they want to eat and shop in
environmental and socially just ways but also feel unconsciously that they benefit from
eating and shopping in these ways.
To make this idea more concrete, think about the members of Karma Co-op interviewed
by Johnston and Cappeliez. Many Karma Co-op shoppers wanted to shop at Karma for
political/ethical reasons (discursive consciousness), but they also “just felt good” there
(practical consciousness). For Johnston and Cappeliez, this is a positive trend toward
improving the food system. The role of practical consciousness in shifting the food
system is also supported by other research on the reasons for growing citizen support
for alternative food retail markets, such as farmers markets (Mount et al, 2013;
Appavoo, 2016). In these studies, consumer support farmers markets corresponds with
a value for the markets' contribution to a "sense of community" rather than any
particular attributes of the food itself.
On the next page, we’ll look at another element of food culture that might need to
change to improve our food system: food taboos.

Changing Food Culture: Food Taboos

One aspect of food culture that we haven’t talked about thus far and that is of interest to
social scientists is food taboos.
A food taboo is the avoidance of a particular plant or animal as food, the thought of
which is often associated with revulsion or repugnance (Mennell, 1991). For instance, in
mainstream Canadian culture, things like insects and cat and dog meat are typically
taboo foods.
We might think that food taboos just make sense. A food is taboo, we assume, because
it is naturally disgusting to everybody. But this is clearly not the case if we examine food
habits around the world. To give just a few examples, dog meat soup is a summer
staple in Korea and scorpions are a delicacy in China.

Classification: “food” and “not food”

Sociologists and anthropologists point out that food taboos rarely have to do with the
food itself or with a natural human repugnance around eating certain things. Rather,
food taboos are more about classification. Every culture has a category for “food” and
“not food.” Interestingly, some foods that are taboo in a culture are very similar
appearance-wise to foods that aren’t taboo in that same culture. For example,
crickets—classified as “not food” in our culture—are very similar to shrimp, which are
classified as “food.” In other words, classifications are not necessarily based on the
nature of the food itself. In fact, food taboos are often felt viscerally and emotionally
rather than because of conscious reasoning. If you ask a Canadian why they don’t eat
insects, they may simply say, “Because they’re gross!” But how objectively “gross” are
they if they are eaten in many other parts of the world?

Classification: “us” and “them”

This brings us to a second type of classification arising from food taboos. If in
mainstream Canadian culture, cats, dogs and insects are seen as “not food,” then
people who do eat these things are seen as “weird” or “strange”—essentially “not like
us.” Put differently, food taboos are a way for people to shape their identities, to define
themselves (“us”) in relation to others (“them”) (Douglas, 1966).

Religious Food Taboos

Food taboos resulting from religious directives are perhaps more noticeable than
general food taboos in Canadian culture. You are probably familiar with the Muslim and
Jewish prohibitions against eating pork. According to Jewish law, animals are permitted
as food if they (1) chew cud and (2) have cloven hooves. Since pigs do not chew cud,
they are forbidden as food. In the Muslim tradition, pork is considered harmful to eat,
and it is stated in the Qur’an (2:173) that “the flesh of swine” is forbidden (CMJE, n.d.).
Some argue that religious food taboos are divinely inspired. They are simply the word of
God. Others, especially sociologists and anthropologists, suggest that religious food
taboos may have other explanations or origins. Above, we talked about the social
function of taboos. They help define the “in” group and the “out” group. Religious food
taboos can also serve this function. Particular foods might also become taboo in a
religion because of the health benefits of avoiding these foods. Pork, for example, has
been associated with parasites, high blood pressure, rheumatism, arthritis, boils,
asthma, and eczema (Meyer-Rochow, 2009). There may also be economic or material
benefits to food taboos. American anthropologist Marvin Harris is famous for his
cultural-materialist perspective on pork taboos. For him, pork was prohibited in some
regions because pigs were difficult to keep. They competed with humans for food and
water and could not be herded (Harris, 1985). This said, people may not be aware of
these non-religious benefits of food taboos. Food taboos may serve social, health, and
economic functions but still be regarded as divinely inspired.

In Harris’s theory of cultural materialism, social and cultural life arises from people
finding practical solutions to their daily problems. In other words, culture has a utilitarian
basis (Harris, 1979).
Food Taboos: Sustainable Urban Food Production
A recent proposal by McGill University PhD student Jakub Dzamba shows that food
taboos can have implications on food system change.
Dzamba designed a system for cricket farming, which he proposes can help feed food-
insecure families (i.e., families who don’t have enough to eat). He promotes his system
as a very efficient way of producing nutritious, high-protein food in urban centres.

Changing Food Culture: Food as Fetish

Another aspect of food culture that has an influence on sustainability and social justice
in the food system is the Marxist idea of the commodity as a fetish.
The 19th century German political-economic philosopher Karl Marx was interested in
capitalism and, in particular, how it created a class system dividing those who owned
companies (the capitalist or upper class) and those who worked in these companies
(the proletariat or lower class). One of his main questions was why the proletariat class
didn’t revolt even though they suffered class inequalities.
One of his theories, which applies well to the food system, is the idea of commodities—
items we buy on the market—as fetishes.
To understand the term fetish, we need to remember that, in Marx’s time, fetish mainly
referred to religious objects. Religious fetishes, like the one pictured in Figure 2.4, are
objects that are believed to have special powers beyond their material form. For
example, a religious fetish might be thought to contain the spirit of a god or have god-
like powers.
For Marx, commodities in a capitalist system (in today’s world, they include objects such
as cars, iPods, and oranges) are like religious fetishes in that we treat them as though
they have power or value in themselves (Marx, 1867). We sometimes even revere them
like religious fetishes. This way of treating or seeing commodities is actually misleading,
Marx argued. The real value of commodities, he claimed, comes not from the
commodities themselves, but from the labour that goes into producing them.
The important issue for Marx was that, when commodities become fetishized in
capitalism—when we see cars, iPods, and oranges as valuable in of themselves—we
fail to recognize the labour that made them possible. Even more importantly, we fail to
see the unequal social relations that went into their production (e.g., the income and
power divide between company owners and workers). And if we are blind to these
unequal relations, we do little to oppose them.

De-fetishization
Although the fetishization of food products iscommon in capitalism, alternative food
organizations and projects have begun to de-fetishize food products. Farmers’ markets
and food certified by the international Fair Trade organization are two examples of this.
If people see the farmer face-to-face at a market or see a Fair Trade label, they are
more likely to think about the labour behind the products they are buying. They might
then want to take action against social injustice in the food system, whether in a small
way—like continuing to shop at alternative venues and buy fair trade products—or in a
larger way—like campaigning for migrant workers' rights. For this reason, some food
activists believe that de-fetishization is part of food system transformation.

Fetishization and culture

Getting back to some of the larger themes of this module, these examples again show
how we both shape and are shaped by our culture. Because capitalism fetishizes
products, we don’t tend to see the labour behind the food products that we buy (i.e.,
culture shapes us). But food activists are creating new organizations and projects where
food is de-fetishized. This can raise awareness about issues such as farm worker
exploitation (i.e., we shape culture).
“Adbusting” or “culture jamming” is when people creatively alter corporate advertising to
bring attention to the negative health, environmental or social consequences of the
product being advertised—another example of an action that can de-fetishize products.
This poster from the "Raise the Bar" campaign is one example of adbusting waged
against Hershey chocolate corporation. This example of culture jamming action by an
activist organization to de-fetishize products has resulted in a corporate commitment by
Hershey to end reliance on child labour in chocolate production; certifying 100 percent
of its cocoa as Fair Trade by 2020. The organization continues to track the progress
towards social justice by publishing an annual scorecard of companies that market
chocolate. Has this strategy been successful? Perhaps you have noticed similar
examples on social media. If so, do you think that the campaign was successful in
raising awareness on the issue? Post your thoughts not the class discussion board.

MODULE 4

Topics
 The social construction of gender
 Gender roles in food provision
 Gender and food choices

Learning Objectives
By the end of this module, you should be able to:

 Compare sociological theories explaining gender differences.

 Use statistics to bolster your position in a discussion on food and gender.
  Explain which foods are associated with men and women and why.
 Describe why gendered food practices contribute to gender inequality.
 Define “foodwork” and describe the various influences on “gender.”

Food and Gender: Introduction

One of aspect of the food system that we’re most familiar with is household meals. In
fact, meals at home are so familiar to us that we don’t often see, let alone question, the
social relations and discourses that allow them to happen. This week, we’re going to
bring some of these relations and discourses into the open—in particular, those that
have to do with gender. We’re also going to talk about how our food choices shape and
are shaped by our gender identities.

What is “Foodwork”?
In Chapter 6 of the textbook, Brady, et al. discuss the gender divide in foodwork. Your
textbook glossary defines foodwork as follows:
Foodwork: “The efforts involved in food production, procurement, preparation, service,
and clean-up. It may be paid (as employment) or unpaid (in the household)” (Koç et al.
(2017) p. 386).
In this session, we're going to focus on unpaid domestic (household) foodwork.
Let's think about household foodwork for a moment. Since it has historically been the
domain of women in most cultures, in the private space of the home, it tends to receive
only limited attention. Many of the activities involved have also become somewhat
invisible to us, since we don't think of them as “important.” However, feminists have
shown that the activities involved in feeding a household are varied and complex—
worthy of the term “work.”

Foodwork Activities
Feminist food scholars and, most famously, American sociologist Marjorie DeVault (1991), have
documented the different types of activities involved in foodwork.
They include:

 Planning meals
 Travelling to food stores
 Selecting and purchasing products
 Growing food
 Preparing raw ingredients
 Cooking/baking
 Cleaning up
  Disposing of waste
You might be able to think of more.
How does your list from the previous page compare?
DeVault and others also point out that, while foodwork can be satisfying and pleasurable, it is
also complex and draining. This is because the activities involved are not only physical (e.g.,
walking around a grocery store or chopping vegetables). They are also mental (e.g., making sure
to buy enough food and the right ingredients to make meals for the entire week)
and emotional (e.g., deciding how to negotiate the different food preferences, allergies,
nutritional needs, etc. of different family members). Some feminist scholars also consider
teaching table manners to children and facilitating dinner-table conversations, as types of
foodwork.
Foodwork includes activities that are:

 Physical
 Mental
 Emotional
For all of these reasons, foodwork is of interest to scholars studying gender and the gendered
division of household labour. Before we get into the “meat and potatoes” of gender and food, we
will get into some definitions.

What is “Gender”?
In our culture, many people think of gender as a biological or genetic fact. If someone
has XX chromosomes and female sex organs, they will act like a girl or a woman. If
someone has XY chromosome and male sex organs, they will act like a boy or man.
However, we also know from living in the world that some biological “men” act in
traditionally “feminine” ways and some biological “women" act in traditionally
“masculine” ways. Transgender children have also frequently been made to live
as either a “boy” or a “girl,” even though they have biological or genetic characteristics
of both sexes. Clearly, biology is not the only factor at work.
Feminist scholars have noted that women and men (or transgender individuals who live
as one or the other) have different opportunities in the world because of social
institutions (e.g., the workforce or the family) and the patterns within these institutions.
For example, women may be better cooks than men not because they have a biological
affinity for it, but because they typically have more opportunities to learn how to cook. In
many families, girls have been expected to do more “indoor” work and boys to do more
“outdoor” work. If a woman chooses to work at her job fewer hours than her male
partner because she is expected to do more childcare, she, again, may have more
opportunities to spend time in the kitchen than a man.
The role of socialization in creating gender has also been emphasized. Children are
taught when they are young to act in gender-appropriate ways (ways that a particular
culture sees as “feminine” or “masculine”) by their parents, teachers, the media, and
other influences.
More recently, a fourth way of understanding gender has become common in sociology.
The theory is often referred to as “doing gender” (or what Brady et al. refer to in
Chapter 6 of the textbook as “gender construction”). In an influential article published
in 1987, sociologists Candice West and Don Zimmerman observed that people don't
stop developing a gender identity in childhood, as the socialization theory suggests.
Rather, they “act” or “perform” gender throughout their lives. When people don't act in
gender-appropriate ways, West and Zimmerman argue, they suffer social and material
penalties.
The “doing gender” theory is often the most difficult for people to understand. So, let's
think about this for a second. If you were suddenly to start acting like a different gender,
what would happen? What social, physical, and material penalties might result?
List some examples of penalties for not "doing gender" properly.
Social penalties: teasing, dirty looks, bullying, ostracism
Physical penalties: spanking by parents, violence (e.g., anti-gay hate crimes, which
have been on the rise in recent years)
Material penalties: discrimination in employment

The point is that, if we don't act in appropriately “masculine” or “feminine” ways

(according to your particular culture's definitions of these ways), there are negative
consequences. As a result, West and Zimmerman argue, we cannot say that we “have”
a gender that is biologically determined and stable throughout our lives. Rather, we “do”
gender in interaction with others as we go about our lives.

Defining Gender
In this course, we will take a holistic view of gender, keeping in mind that gender is
constructed at different levels of society and in multiple ways.
Barbara Risman's view of gender as operating at different domains or levels of society
is useful here.
For Risman, gender operates at:
The individual level of identity, which is influenced by socialization.
The interactional level, where individuals "do" gender in response to cultural
expectations.
The institutional level, where organizational practices (e.g., in the family, employment,
etc.) create a gendered distribution of resources and opportunities.
(Risman, 2004, pp.433, 437)
It is important to note that these gender domains are continually influencing each other
(see Figure 4.1 below).

What about Biology?

The role of biology is a controversial one in the sociology of gender. For a long time in
academia, gender was understood as primarily, if not wholly, biological. Sociologists note that
biological explanations of gender are dangerous because they can perpetuate gender inequality.
For example, consider the argument that women are better cooks because they are innately
(biologically) better at nurturing others. This can lead to assertions that women should,
therefore, remain in the domestic realm, leaving men to dominate the workforce and public
realm.
For these reasons, sociologists tend to downplay biological explanations of gender. Some
acknowledge that biology plays a part alongside sociological influences in creating gender.
Others argue that biology is a tool that perpetuates gender stereotypes but in reality has nothing
to do with how folks act.
Now that we have defined “foodwork” and “gender,” we can move on to the interactions
between the two.

Who is Doing the Foodwork?

The ubiquity of the male celebrity chef in popular culture gives us the impression that
men are doing a lot more foodwork than in the past.
Is this true? How much are regular men cooking at home? We don’t have Canadian
statistics going further than the 1980s, so let’s start with U.S. statistics.
Take a moment to look at the graph. What do you notice about men’s domestic cooking
and cleanup time since the 1960s?
There hasn’t been much change. In fact, overall, men cook and cleanup only about 30
minutes more per week (or 5 minutes more per day) than they did in the 60s.
The gap between men and women’s time in the kitchen has decreased since 1965, but
that’s mainly because women now spend much less time in the kitchen than they used
to, not because men spend more.

Canadian Statistics
Let’s look at the Canadian context.

Chart 4.1: Cooking and Cleanup Time, Canada (in hours per week) from 1998–
2010
Source: Adapted from Statistics Canada. (1998, 2006, 2011). Overview of the time
use of Canadians. Ottawa: Minister of Industry.
We see a similar trend to what we saw in the U.S. data, with women doing less cooking
and cleaning up over time, but only slightly since 1998. The time men spend cooking
and cleaning up has mostly stagnated since the late 90s, with no change between 1998
and 2005 and only a three-minute increase per day from 2005 to 2010.
Another thing to notice is the difference between men and women’s time. Women still
spend about twice as much time cooking and cleaning up (6.4 hours/week) as men (3.2
hours/week) in Canada.
In other words, we have to be very careful about conflating what we see on the Food
Network with what’s happening in real households.
Another important point is that these statistics are about the general population. The
statistics are quite different if we look at co-habiting men and women.
Is the gender gap greater between married men and women or greater between single men
and women? What do you predict? Again, we don’t have Canadian data on this, but we can
assume some similarities with the U.S. data.
Was your prediction correct? The gap is bigger between married men and women than
between single men and women. Women tend to cook more after marriage while men
tend to cook less.
One thing to take away from this chart is that gender roles typically become more
exaggerated after marriage. This is a pattern that researchers have found for domestic
work in general (Fox, 2009). We have said that women generally do about twice as
much cooking as men. But, from the chart, you can see that married women cook about
4.5 times as much as married men. This pattern has also been observed in a recent
analysis of US data of who is making the grocery shopping trips for households (Taylor,
Ralph and Smart, 2015). In this analysis of couples with similar time commitments to
employment outside the home, women made almost twice as many of the grocery
shopping trips as did their male partner.

Why are Women Still Doing the Foodwork?

Why are women still doing most of the household foodwork despite feminist advances
and women's almost equal participation in the labour force?
In the readings for this week (Chapter 6 of the textbook), Brady et al. talk about four
main theories that explain the gendered division of labour in the home. These theories
cover cooking as well as other household work, such as childcare, cleaning, and
laundry.
Do you remember the four theories from the readings?
The four theories from the readings are:

1. Relative resources
2. Time constraints
3. Gender ideology
4. Gender construction
Make sure you have a good understanding of this part of the readings.
Here, we're going to focus on the “time constraints” and “gender construction” theories.

Time constraints theory

According to this theory of gender, women do more foodwork because they do less paid
work and, therefore, have more free time. It's true that women do slightly less paid work
than men. Employed men spend about 45 minutes more per day at work than employed
women (Statistics Canada, 2010). Also, interview research shows that some co-habiting
couples do, in fact, negotiate who does what housework based on things like who gets
home first from work or who does more paid work (Bove & Sobal, 2005).
On the other hand, other studies have shown that many women still do more foodwork
than male partners even if the women do more paid work. In fact, some men
do less foodwork when they are unemployed and presumably have more time (Beagan
et al. 2008; Hochschild, 1989).
Why might this be?

Gender construction theory

According to the gender construction theory, men do less foodwork and women do
more because these activities are ways for men and women to “do gender.” In other
words, cooking more often is a way for women to show that they are “proper women”
and cooking less often is a way for men to show that they are “proper men.”
So, why do some unemployed men cook less than female partners even though they
have more time? Some scholars use the gender construction theory to explain this. The
idea is that men feel emasculated by losing their jobs and don't want to add to their
emasculation by doing foodwork, a traditionally “feminine” task (Hochschild, 1989).
As we said in the above section, “What is gender?,” the gender construction theory also
talks about negative consequences for women and men when they don't act according
to socially defined gender roles. The following video clip gives an excellent example of
this in relation to food practices.

Exceptions: Resisting Gender Roles Around Foodwork

While the dominant, or most common, discourses in our society associate womanhood,
motherhood, and femininity with household foodwork, there are
also alternative or counter-discourses. To put it another way, some women resist
traditional gender roles by rejecting household foodwork, and some men resist
traditional gender roles by embracing household foodwork.
British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is one example. There has traditionally been a strict
dichotomy between men's cooking (e.g., professional, artistic, restaurant based) and
women's cooking (e.g., domestic, mundane, home based). But in his books and TV
shows, Oliver is sometimes portrayed in a domestic setting, cooking for his wife and
kids. He also famously encourages women andmen, girls and boys, to learn how to
cook for themselves and their families. Jamie Oliver is unusual in promoting
men's domestic cooking, so this is a weak counter-discourse. However, it is one
example of resistance to traditional gender roles around food. You may be able to think
of others.
Another example comes from Sex and the City, a TV series that ran from 1998 to 2004
(with film sequels in 2008 and 2010). In the series, different versions of femininity are
portrayed in the main characters, and there is often subtle commentary on traditional
gender roles. You might know, for example, that Carrie, the main character, uses her
oven for storage.

What did you find? What different versions of femininity and womanhood are
portrayed and how is each tied to food? What does this say about discourses of
femininity?
We could say there are two versions of femininity related to food and foodwork in this clip: (1)
Miranda, a modern woman with a career who likes large mugs of coffee—not dainty cups of tea—
and is horrified by the idea of baking pies from scratch, and (2) Magda, a more traditional woman
who values nutrition (she says “tea is better for you”) and making pies from scratch.
The point is that there are strong discourses in our culture that associate women with cooking/baking
and dainty, healthy foods. However, other discourses that challenge those traditional associations do
exist on the margins (like Miranda's character on Sex and the City).

What does this mean? For McPhail, et al., this way of thinking lines up with more
general attitudes in our society about gendered behaviours and gender inequality. We
tend to believe that people do things according to individual choice even though, in
reality, our behaviour is shaped by larger social structures (e.g., gender). Denying the
influence of larger social structures means that we can deny or
ignore systemic issues (issues based on our social system, rather than on individual
issues or opinions). In other words, people tend to think that sexism is the result of a
few sexist individuals rather than a larger social pattern. If we want to combat issues like
gender inequality, we need to recognize the social structures and systemic issues that
support it. We discuss this further in the next section.

Implications: Gender, Food, and Oppression

In Chapter 6 of the textbook reading for this week, Brady and colleagues suggest that
gendered food practices are linked to gender oppression. Why?
Think back to what you learned about gender and foodwork, as well as gender and
eating styles. How might they also be harmful to men, women, and transgendered folk
who act and live in non-traditional ways? Remember, we are talking about systemic and
structural inequality—we are not blaming individuals. The point is that our underlying—
sometimes unconscious—assumptions about eating/foodwork roles and our social
system contribute to gender inequality. But how?

Foodwork in the home and gender inequality

Gender inequality around domestic foodwork relates to a number of issues, including
the following:

 If one person in a relationship is expected to do the majority of the household

foodwork, even if they are employed, this can lead to overwork and exhaustion.
  If one person in a relationship is expected to do the majority of the household
foodwork, they may have trouble balancing work, life, and career advancement.
This, in turn, leads to inequalities in the public sphere (e.g., men having more
leadership roles in government and companies than women).
 If household foodwork is seen as “feminine,” men are discouraged from doing it,
and they are denied the pleasures, meanings and skills associated with this
work.
 If one person in a relationship works only part time, or is “stay-at-home”, they
may become less time-crunched. However, these choices mean financial
dependence. In other words, they become dependent on the wage earner in their
lives (often a man) and have fewer choices if they want or need to change life
paths (e.g., leave a failed or abusive relationship). Financial independence is
also important for self-confidence.
 If time for foodwork in the household is limited, and food choices are affected,
parents may be made to feel responsible/guilty for poor eating habits and limited
food skills of children.

Gendered foods and eating styles and gender

inequality
Gender inequality around food and eating styles include the following issues:

 If women are expected to eat “healthy,” dainty foods and small portions (and pay
attention to their weight), this can contribute to a culture where women are
undernourished or develop eating disorders. (Susan Bordo [1993] has done great
work on this subject. If you're interested in reading more, check out her
book, Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body, especially
the chapter called “Hunger as Ideology.”)
 Studies of college-age students across a range of gender identities found
transgender women to be particularly vulnerable to pressures to conform to
specific eating and body image norms as evidenced by extraordinarily high rates
of eating disorders in this group (Gordon et al, 2016).
 If men are expected to eat meat, avoid healthy foods, and eat larger portions,
they may find it difficult to resist gender norms and chose foods they actually like
or that represent their political convictions through eating patterns such as
vegetarianism (Sumpter, 2015).
 Studies have also shown that this association among meat, unhealthy foods, and
“masculinity” can be detrimental to men's health (Mroz et al., 2011) and make it
more challenging to adopt healthy food practices.
 If eating “healthy,” dainty foods and small portions is encouraged as a feminine
ideal (and paying attention to body weight), this may also contribute to fat
discrimination and “body moralizing.” This is something that Brady, et al.
discuss in Chapter 6 of the textbook. We will also discuss this more in Module 6.
Simple Highlight
What do you think about these issues? Let's finish the module with a debate. Turn to the
next page for instructions.