Updated January2000

SOCIAL CHANGE AND FOODWAYS

Jeffery Sobal
Division of Nutritional Sciences
Cornell University
Itacha, New York 14853
E-Mail: js57@cornell.edu

Societal changes are reflected in patterns of food, eating, and nutrition. This paper identifies general patterns in social dynamics and integrates them to construct a developmentalist model that describes social processes that influence changes in food culture. Then the paper deconstructs the developmentalist model, critiquing the generalizations inherent in such models using six perspectives that reveal complexity not portrayed in models. A developmentalist model is constructed as a system of structural processes that include globalization, modernization, urbanization, and migration influence food culture changes through consumerization, commodification, delocalization, and acculturation. Deconstruction of the model can be done using several relativistic perspectives, including individualism, historicism, ethnocentrism, Marxism, feminism, and postmodernism. Theorizing food, eating, and nutrition should involve the interplay of constructing and deconstructing models to provide multiple perspectives.

Introduction

Societies are continually changing, and social changes are reflected in food, eating, and nutrition patterns. This analysis will examine relationships between society and food, considering several different strategies for theorizing food.

Social change can be examined from a variety of perspectives (Moore 1974, Vago 1989) that may reflect evolutionary, equilibrium, conflict, and cyclical processes (Appelbaum 1972). Rather than become involved in debates about the forms of social change that are occurring, this analysis will use the term social dynamics to refer to large scale social changes.

The food, eating, and nutrition practices and patterns of a society have been referred to in many ways, each of which offers different perspectives for analyses of social dynamics. Foodways is a term often used by anthropologists, folklorists, and others who seek to portray the traditional food and eating patterns in a society (Camp 1989). Foodways typically denote traditional societal practices that are informally transmitted and may be difficult to modify. More recently, the term food culture has been used to denote the components of a larger culture associated with food, eating, and nutrition (e.g. James 1994). Both foodways and food culture have specific connotations, with foodways having more specific historical and geographical referents while food culture offers more universalistic and scientific connotations. To avoid the past images conjured up under foodways (and related terms such as food habits or cuisine), food culture will be used here to refer to the food, eating, and nutrition related categories, rules, and plans used in a particular society.

The relationship between social dynamics and food culture involve an interplay between the two concepts, rather than an opposition or either/or dichotomy between them. Each requires the other to exist, and theoretical examination of the intersection between the two can provide important insights about both.

Theorizing Food, Eating, and Nutrition

Thinking theoretically about food, eating, and nutrition benefits from a recognition and use of the tensions involved in contrasting conceptualizations of the world. A fundamental theoretical opposition occurs between the processes of "lumping" and "splitting" (Zerubavel 1996). Lumping involves the seeking of similarity, focusing on commonality rather than differences in an attempt to put information together to achieve more general conceptualizations. Splitting involves the seeking of dissimilarity, focusing on differences rather than patterns in an attempt to divide things up to achieve more specific conceptualizations. The opposition between lumping and splitting is parallel to but not identical with other conceptual distinctions, such as nomothetic versus idiographic analysis, universal versus particular generalizations, and comparative versus case-specific research.

This analysis will engage in two tasks relative to social dynamics and food culture. First, lumping will be used to construct a broad developmentalist model of social dynamics and food culture by attempting to identify generalizable patterns and integrate them together. Lyotard (1984) calls these models that portray broad conceptualizations and attempt to summarize general patterns "grand narratives."

Second, splitting will be used to deconstruct the developmentalist model of social dynamics and food culture that was constructed here, critiquing the assumptions and generalizations of the model and emphasizing the multifaceted complexity of social dynamics and food culture. While deconstruction has often come to be used by postmodern analyses in a particular manner (see Denzin 1994), the concept of deconstruction will be applied more broadly here to include a variety of perspectives that can be used in analytically splitting social constructions.

Constructing a Model of Social Dynamics and Food Culture

Many social analysts from a variety of disciplines argue that similar patterns of social dynamics have occurred in a variety of societies across the globe (Harrison 1988). The suffix "-ization" is often used to describe systems of social processes that occur as societies change, and major structural changes include globalization, modernization, urbanization, and migration. These processes of structural change are paralleled by changes in food culture. Table 1 summarizes some the major elements in structural and cultural changes related to food, which are not mutually exclusive and overlap with and interact with each other.

Globalization is a structural change that occurs in the linkage and integration of previously local, national, and regional phenomena into organizational arrangements on a worldwide scale (McMichael 1996; Sobal 1999). Activities that were previously local become spatially unrestricted as they are integrated into global networks. Globalization expands food activities beyond smaller, local foodsheds into worldwide agroindustrial food complexes.

Modernization is a structural change that involves technology development and adoption representing material social changes that are accompanied by socioeconomic shifts (Inkeles and Smith 1974). Pre-modern societies relied on human and animal muscle power to perform virtually all tasks, and the industrial revolution modernized such societies into those that use energy generated by water, steam, electricity, fossil fuels, nuclear reactions, and solar generation. These material transformations that occurred with modernization led to major changes in social structures and cultural values. The production, processing, distribution, and consumption of food were extensively shaped by modernization (Sobal 1999; Sobal et al. 1998).

Urbanization is the structural change from largely rural, low density residence that typically involves a large proportion of the people in primary production, to largely urban, high density residence where most people are involved in service occupations. Population shifts from rural to urban areas take people away from subsistence agriculture and make them dependent on others for food (Popkin and Bisgrove 1988).

Migration is a structural change where people move from original locations to new settlements. Several types of migration may occur, ranging in scale from local to international. Zelensky (1971) proposed that a migration transition occurred as societies moved from those where people rarely changed location to societies where they travelled and moved frequently and over long distances. Migration creates new cultural contacts, mixing food cultures in complex ways to catalyze changes in food and eating.

Consumerization is a cultural change that occurs as people move from being primarily producers of goods and services to mainly consumers. Consumerization moves from eating indigenous foods that people or others they know personally produce, to consumption of mass foods produced by anonymous others and purchased in general markets. Contemporary, postindustrial societies are highly consumerized, and this is reflected in modern foods and eating experiences (Warde 1997).

Commoditization is the cultural movement from consuming homemade foods to foods that are manufactured. Commoditization is a component of larger patterns of marketization that occur in a market transition where shifts from subsistence to wage activities occur (Nee 1989). Foods become economic objects as they are commodified, with producers and processors treating them as commodities rather than foods for consumption.

Delocalization is the shift from being food self-producers to being only food consumers as foods come from increasingly distant sources (Pelto and Pelto 1983). Local food systems involve close primary relationships between people involved with food, while delocalized food systems rely on distant and anonymous secondary relationships between growers, processors, preparers, and eaters.

Acculturation is the adoption of a culture different than the original cultural where a person was socialized (Keefe and Padilla 1987). As a component of culture, food preferences and choices change with acculturation, moving from traditional to adopted foods.

This system of structural and cultural changes can be seen as operating together as a complex system of interrelated processes, producing what is termed "development" as societies shift from "traditional" to "modern" forms (Harrison 1988). Developmental changes in social dynamics also involve other structural changes. Colonialization occurred as some societies imposed their economic, political, and cultural systems on others through processes of expansion and incorporation (Harrison 1988). Migration occurred as individuals, and sometimes whole populations, were involved in movements between spatial areas (Zelensky 1971).

Changes in food culture occurred in response to structural changes. Cultural contact led to acculturation, where individuals adopted some or all aspects of another culture. Creolization occurred where two or more cultures combined to produce new cultural forms different than those of the original cultures. Food creolization occurs as different food cultures mix and produce new adaptations that include elements of both of the originals (James 1997).

The process of food culture fusion mixes elements of different food cultures to produce new hybrid forms of food and eating, as seen in the process of localization of imported foods (Watson 1997).

This complex of social dynamics and cultural changes is illustrated graphically in the model presented in Figures 1 to 3. Figure 1 shows the major social dynamics involved in structural changes. Developing nations typically include several types of food culture (represented by the circles and triangles in the figure). Urbanization is an important structural process in developing societies, where considerable portions of the population often move from rural to metropolitan areas. In developed nations, urbanization is also an important structural process that influences food culture, which is represented by the various symbols in these ethnically complex societies. Modernization occurs as developing nations become more like developed nations. Migration typically flows more from developing to developed nations than vice versa. Globalization occurs as economic, political, and cultural forces flow between societies, with the greatest flow of influence moving from developed to developing nations rather than vice versa.

Figure 2 portrays a model of changes in food culture in developing nations. Indigenous food subcultures exist, with some mixing with more recent arrivals. Colonial food cultures exist as remnants of past historical eras when other societies moved into the nation. Mixing the indigenous and colonial groups produces creole groups, with the process of creolization combining elements of several food cultures (Watson 1997).

Figure 3 portrays food cultures in developed nations. Indigenous food subcultures may exist, but in most developed societies indigenous cultures have relatively little separate influence on the dominant food culture. Majority food cultures dominate the food systems of these nations and have often been labelled "national cuisines." Ethnic or migrant food cultures may exist from recent immigrant groups, and include some creole food subcultures from food fusion processes.

The construction of a developmentalist model deals with spatial and temporal variations in transitional patterns by assuming that such variations are only specific adaptations to the larger model. Some exceptions are recognized as cases where unusual factors overwhelm the usual developmentalist patterns. De-modernization is an exception to developmentalism, where reversals in broader transitions occur, often leading to declines in the quality of food, eating, and nutrition. One form of de-modernization occurs in despotic states and civil wars that totally disrupt the operation of most social systems. Examples of this can be seen in famines, especially in Africa and Asia (Von Braun 1999). Another form of de-modernization occurs in problematic transitions, such as the current post-Soviet transition in Russia and Eastern Europe, where movement from a directed to market economy has disrupted food production, processing, and distribution to such a degree that major declines in health and life expectancy have occurred (Cockerham 1998).

Developmentalism has oppositional countermovements that provide reaction, resistance, and opposition. Re-localization and regionalization movements have emerged in opposition to globalization. Alternative institutions have developed in the food system, such as consumer supported agriculture (CSA), farmers' markets, community gardens, and food cooperatives. Re-ruralization efforts seek to return to rural areas and enhance food self-production. Re-traditionalization occurs as in the emphasis on reviving and preserving heirloom varieties of plants and livestock, and in movements seeking return to indigenous foods. These oppositions operate as counterforces to the progress of a developmental model, but exist in reference to the assumptions of developmentalism in their struggles for resistance.

Deconstruction

Deconstruction is a methodology for questioning texts, which are representations, descriptions and accounts of the world (Denzin 1994). Deconstruction uses a variety of strategies to interrogate texts, attempting to expose inherent assumptions, biases, and hidden meanings. Deconstructionists tend to be intellectual "splitters" who work by problematizing obvious meanings by looking for contradictions, paradoxes, anomalies, and dilemmas.

Many conceptual dangers exist in the construction of models. Models must inherently focus on only some aspects of the world, which of necessity ignores and excludes other aspects. Models risk over-generalization, often producing grand narratives and totalizing their coverage to areas beyond the scope of the model. Models tend to reify the world, objectifying reality by treating concepts as real. Models often impose conceptual clarity that leads to the establishment of overly rigid formulas and narrow prescriptions.

Deconstruction uses a process of unpacking models to strategically identify and expose risks of focus, generalization, reification, etc. Unpacking may involve many procedures. Assumptions and omissions of models are recognized and examined. Generalizations of models beyond their useful scope are critiqued. The particulars of specific cases are described and laid out in the splitting of models and particular examples.

Relativism is a major conceptual theme underlying many forms of deconstruction of models. The focus of relativistic deconstruction is on demonstrating heterogeny rather than assuming uniformity, identifying differences rather than emphasizing similarities.

Many different theoretical perspectives have emerged as standard strategies for deconstructing models. Two major groups of three perspectives each will be used here to deconstruct the developmentalist model of social dynamics and food culture presented earlier. First, comparative perspectives of individualism, historicism, and ethnocentrism will be used to point out the relativistic problems in developmentalist models. Second, ideological perspectives of Marxism, feminism, and postmodernism will be employed to provide another set of relativistic critiques of developmentalist models.

Individualism. Individualistic critiques suggest that models are case bound, using specific examples as primary referents and forcing other cases into the patterns exhibited by those examples. The construction of models generalizes over and purposively ignores individual differences in people, social groups, and places. Individualist perspectives deconstruct models by emphasizing the unique particularisms and variations that occur through the interaction of traits and environments. A developmentalist model of food culture dynamics omits considerations of the huge range of distinctive and exceptional genetic, personality, social and other traits that do not fit overall trends of the model.

Historicism. Historicist critiques emphasize that models are time bound, being developed, having information available, and using the perspectives of selected time periods. Construction of models must of necessity occur at a time point, which has limited information available about the past and no information about the future. Historicism can be used to deconstruct models by pointing out the use of contemporary standards and the interpretation of available information from a presentist perspective. A developmentalist model of food culture dynamics tends to offer temporal absolutism rather than taking a historically relativist perspective, emphasizing commonalities across time periods and minimizing variations within the current era and other periods. Broader historicization may offer insights about precedents, patterns, and variations in food culture.

Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrist critiques state that models are culture bound and limited in cultural scope, using as comparisons the variations among the thousands of cultures that have existed. Construction of models tends to occur from one cultural perspective, and misses the assumptions and insights of other cultural frameworks. Ethnocentrism can be used to deconstruct models by emphasizing cultural exceptions to a model, and cultural differences in classifying, interpreting, and evaluating the elements and processes involved in the model. A developmentalist model of food culture is grounded in Westernized thinking that makes cultural assumptions about progress, growth, technology, and other issues specific to Western cultural values. The developmentalist model tends to be an Americanization of social dynamics that assumes that cultural universals exist, imposing monoculturalism on all of the different cultures involved in development rather than taking a multicultural approach that is sensitive to multicultural.

Marxism. Marxist critiques emphasize that most models are bound within a particular perspective on political economy and limited in their scope of economic considerations. Structural power differentials inherent in the market capitalism of individual nations or the world capitalist food system shape food cultures by creating and manipulating consumer markets to maximize profits for merchants and corporations. Marxist analysis can be used to deconstruct models of food culture dynamics by identifying assumptions grounded in political economy and suggesting alternative perspectives. Mainstream developmentalist models emphasize free market capitalism that overrides cultural, social, psychological, and biological considerations involved in food, eating, and nutrition. Marxist critiques point out the capitalist economic assumptions in developmentalism and suggest alternative interpretations.

Feminism. Feminist critiques emphasize the genderedness of models, pointing out that most models are gender bound. Most major perspectives about social dynamics are based on male models of the world that focus more on material more than social considerations. Feminism can be used to deconstruct models by emphasizing that most social structures and cultures are gendered. Social structures tend to privilege men and marginalize women, and men tend to control food cultures while women are responsible for enacting routine activities within food cultures (McIntosh and Zey 1989). Developmentalist models tend to be gendered in their focus on foods as commodities rather than as aspects of social relationships, and in the differential access to power between the genders within the food and nutrition system. Degendering or explicitness about the genderedness of food culture can offer insights about the fundamental relationships between women, men, and food.

Postmodernism. Postmodern critiques emphasize the non-rationality of models, suggesting that the complexity and contradictions inherent in models is concealed by the very process of model construction and use (Ritzer 1997). Post-modernists reject the current cultural project that seeks to use rationality to improve and perfect society, and instead emphasize the multiple, contradictory, fragmented, and pluralized nature of the world. Postmodernism can be used to deconstruct developmentalist models by pointing out that some food issues are valorized, such as economics and convenience, while others are marginalized, such as aesthetics, spirituality, and meaning (Maxwell 1996). The very foundations of a developmentalist paradigm are questioned by postmodern thinking, which seeks to see the many possible food cultures of the world operating in an increasingly uninterpretable and complex consumer culture with ever changing components that cannot be summarized or interpreted by the grand narratives of large scale totalizing models.

Theorizing the Complexity of Social Dynamics and Food Culture

The construction and deconstruction of models uses many different paradigms to deal with the world. Paradigm differences may be contradictory without being used as if they are oppositional, and triangulation of the diversity of existing perspectives is useful in theorizing food, eating, and nutrition. Thinking about food can creatively use the tensions between perspectives to develop further understanding by constructing models with some theories, and critiquing them with others. The process of developing and challenging models can develop deeper understanding of the benefits and limitations of models for understanding food and eating. Such theoretical triangulation (Denzin 1978) can provide multiple perspectives that challenge us to think broadly and theorize about social dynamics and food culture in the most comprehensive possible manner.

To paraphrase Levi-Strauss, food is not only good to eat, but it is also good to think about. Food reflects society, including social analysis, and food culture is embedded within social dynamics. Just as societies are diverse, thinking about food needs to be diverse. The analytical social science lumping that constructs developmentalist models of food culture can be complemented with the analytical splitting of food studies splitting of food culture into diverse cases and components. Appreciating and using diverse and multiple perspectives will assist in better theorizing food.

References

Appelbaum, R. (1972). Theories of social change. Chicago: Markham.

Camp, C. (1989). American Foodways: What, when, why and how we eat in America. Little Rock, AK: August House.

Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act. New York: McGraw Hill.

Denzin, N.K. (1994). Postmodernism and deconstruction. In: D.R. Dickins and A. Fontana (eds). Postmodernism and social inquiry. New York: Guilford Press. Pp 182-202.

Harrison D. (1988). The sociology of modernization and development. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Inkeles, A. and Smith, D.H. (1974). Becoming Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

James, A. Cooking the books. Global or local identities in food cultures? Anthropologie et Societes 18:39-56.

James, A. (1997). How British is British Food? In: Caplan, P. (ed). Food, Health, and Identity. New York: Routeledge. pp 71-86.

Keefe, S. and Padilla, A.M. (1987). Chicano ethnicity. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Maxwell S. Food security: A post-modern perspective. Food Policy 1996;21(2):155-70.

McIntosh, W.A. and Zey, M. (1989). Women as gatekeepers of food consumption: A sociological critique. Food and Foodways 3(4):317-32.

McMichael, P. (1996). Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Moore, W.E. (1974). Social change. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nee, V. (1989). A theory of market transition: From redistribution to markets in state socialism. American Sociological Review 54:663-81.

Pelto, G.H., and Pelto, P.J. (1983). Diet and delocalization: Dietary change since 1750. In: R.I. Rothberg, and T.K. Rabb (eds). Hunger and history: The impact of changing food production and consumption patterns on society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 309-330.

Popkin, B.M. and Bisgrove E.Z. (1988). Urbanization and nutrition in low income countries. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 10:3-23.

Ritzer G. (1997). Postmodern Social Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sobal, J. (1999). Food System Globalization, Eating Transformations, and Nutrition Transitions. In: Grew, R. (ed) Food in Global History. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sobal J., Khan L.K., and Bisogni C.A. (1998). A conceptual model of the food and nutrition system. Social Science and Medicine 47:853-63. Vago, S. (1989). Social change. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Von Braun, J., Teklu, T., and Webb, P. (1999). Famine in Africa: Causes, responses, and prevention. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Watson, J.L. (ed). (1997). Golden arches east: McDonalds in East Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Warde, A. (1997). Consumption, food, and taste: Culinary Antinomies and commodity culture. London: Sage.

Zelinsky, W. (1971). The hypothesis of the mobility transition. Geographical Review 61:219-49.

Zerubavel E. Lumping and splitting: Notes on social classification. Sociological Forum 1996;11(3):421-33.

Updated and copyrighted Oregon State University 2000. Send mail to Food Resource Nutrition and Food Management, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. OSU Disclaimer URL Home: http://food.oregonstate.edu/