1
Introduction

Eating as a Topic of Interest

Public interest in food has increased markedly since the 1980s and scholarly regard has expanded commensurately. Food is a political issue, a matter of leisure and recreation, a topic of health, a resource for media industries, as well as a primary necessity of daily life. Crises in the food system have spurred political parties and social movements to action. A proliferation of food programmes and journalism − on television, in the press and latterly on the internet − has made food and eating a growth area of popular attention and conversation (Rousseau 2012). This reflects new priorities regarding the body and body management, as states, particularly those responsible for funding health care, become more concerned with what people eat. Consequently, food has come under more intense scrutiny from social research. Some aspects of the food system have always attracted scholarly research, and the most prolific contributors remain agriculture, pharmacology, medicine, nutrition, home economics, macro-economics and psychology. However, public preoccupations have made more space for socio-cultural disciplines like anthropology, cultural studies, social geography and sociology to fill major gaps in understanding, not least with respect to failures of policy intervention.

The changing social and economic circumstances occasioned by the post-war boom in the West had the effect of making food relatively cheaper, and older problems of poverty-induced hunger and malnutrition receded. Agribusiness, sustained economic growth, multinational corporations and ever greater international trade transformed the economic foundations of western diets. Abundant, accessible and relatively cheap foodstuffs, sourced globally, presented most people with the possibility of eating in much more varied ways than had been possible for preceding generations. By the end of the twentieth century, food systems had experienced some of the most profound effects of globalization (Inglis and Gimlin 2010). Of course, this did not result in immediate or radical changes in diet or culinary practices for individuals, but there were significant shifts over a few decades at aggregate level, sufficient for serious scholars to diagnose ‘a culinary revolution’ (Panayi 2008).

Increasing variety, and intensified commentary upon and exploitation of that variety, provided a powerful thrust for examining eating as a type of cultural consumption. Social research moved from an almost exclusive focus on processes of production, especially the circulation of commodities in the market sphere, to activities associated with consumption – recreation, aesthetics and the conduct of everyday life. Acknowledging consumption permitted eating to be treated partly autonomously of questions of the availability of foodstuffs; the presumption of a symbiotic relationship between supply and demand was severed by abandoning the assumption that eating be treated primarily as instrumental to physiological reproduction. However, that research emerged in a period increasingly obsessed by concepts of ‘culture’ and ‘the consumer’. The so-called ‘cultural turn’ provided a backdrop and impetus to emergent sociological approaches to food consumption. The legitimation of the study of consumption meant that eating could become a bona fide topic of social research.

The Objectives of the Book

A prodigious amount of empirical research on food and eating is now available, to which socio-cultural disciplines have made a significant contribution. The proliferation of handbooks and encyclopediae present the current state of knowledge on a wide range of discrete topics but their integration and synthesis is proving elusive. The task of pulling the accumulated evidence together is becoming ever more demanding. This is, no doubt, partly the result of the multidisciplinary nature of the study of food. Disciplines have their own particular scientific agendas and tend to be committed to incommensurable theories, which have been formulated over time in relation to particular substantive interests. Their key concepts serve to bracket out those forces, processes and facts considered of no theoretical interest, thus militating against theoretical synthesis. Since theoretical synthesis is more likely to be feasible within a disciplinary tradition, I try to reconstruct and extend sociological approaches, and do so by drawing specifically upon practice-theoretical approaches to consumption.

Eating is a form of consumption. Research on consumption is now vast, having expanded rapidly during the last two decades. Radical new departures in multidisciplinary studies of consumption coincided with ‘the cultural turn’ in the humanities and social sciences in the 1970s. Rather than viewing consumption as an instrumental and practical activity, it came to be seen as a means of communication with others, signalling self-identity through cultivation of distinct ‘lifestyles’. Consumption was recognized as an enjoyable and often constructive process, a process of creative appropriation of goods and services which served commendable personal and sociable ends. Reversing also the prevailing condescension towards popular culture and popular practices expressed by critics of mass culture, the cultural turn demonstrated the meaningfulness of consumption. Consumption was shown to play a role in identity formation and aesthetic expression in everyday life.

It is frustrating that progress in the sociology of consumption was slow to filter into research on food. For consumption research offers many promising avenues for food scholars. One is an opportunity to interrogate the activity of eating more rigorously. How exactly should eating be conceptualized? Of course, most people, for most purposes, leave puzzling about its definition to sociologists and proceed happily several times a day to engage in an activity that comes as second nature. However, what is entailed in consumption of food is not simply a given. It might be thought of as a purely physiological process. Arguably, the interpretive social sciences have paid too little attention to the embodied dimension of physical reproduction entailed in eating. However, it would make little sociological sense to restrict attention solely to processes of bodily incorporation of foodstuffs. All peoples surround the physiological process with conventions about what counts as food, and when, where and with whom eating should occur. Even the comportment of the body is subject to social discipline through manners and etiquette. For sociological purposes, a broader framework of concepts is required to position eating and render it explicable. One task of the book is to make clearer what is at stake in defining eating as an activity and to propose a set of concepts to frame it as a moment of consumption.

By emphasizing communication, agency and engagement, exponents of the cultural turn, while charting the meaningfulness of these activities and items for self-identity, demonstrated how and why people made consumption into personal and social priorities. However, as I have argued elsewhere, cultural analysis had several weaknesses, both in terms of its focus of attention and its theory of action (Warde 2014). Its proclivities included, first, a focus on the display for others of symbols of identity, obscuring the fact that most consumption is ordinary or inconspicuous (Gronow and Warde 2001). Second, to emphasize culture was to downplay social structure (Abbott 2001), eclipsing distinctive features of the social realm, of social interdependence and social interaction, and of status and class. Third, the cultural turn found little place for objects and technologies as material forces. In addition, however, cultural analysis of consumption contained a deeper set of theoretical weaknesses embedded in its general theory of action. Despite its internal diversity, primary recourse was to a voluntaristic theory of action, upholding models of an active, expressive, choosing consumer, motivated by concerns for personal identity and a fashioned lifestyle. The model of an active and reflexive actor predominated, implying that conscious and intentional decisions steer consumption behaviour and explain its sense and direction. In key respects, its model is similar to the sovereign consumer of neo-classical economics, for it effectively shares in the dominant and basic template of consumption which presents the process as one where the individual engages in very many discrete events, characterized by personal deliberation preceding personal, independent decisions made with a view to the satisfaction of preferences. One feature of this book is to explore how far we can advance without the use of such a concept of choice.

Another of my objectives is to demonstrate the benefit to the sociology of food and eating of greater engagement with theories of practice. Theories of practice offer remedies for both the substantive and explanatory deficiencies of cultural analysis. They are not themselves specifically sociological theories. Many different disciplines are currently attempting to apply them to their conceptual and empirical concerns. Yet, even if they belong to no discipline, practice theories have considerable affinity with sociological understandings of everyday life. They are, however, very diverse; Schatzki (2001: 2−3) noted that three diverse currents of thought, post-functionalist, post-structuralist and post-humanist, all found the practice approach attractive. Nicolini (2012) effectively captures their very considerable range. Consequently, even enumerating their common features is controversial. However, against the model of the sovereign consumer, they tend to emphasize routine over actions, flow and sequence over discrete acts, dispositions over decisions and practical consciousness over deliberation. And, in reaction to cultural analysis, emphasis is placed upon doing over thinking, the material over the symbolic, and embodied practical competence over expressive virtuosity in the fashioned presentation of self. The degree to which these features are pronounced bequeaths weaker and stronger variants (Warde 2014: 285−6).

This book avoids purely theoretical arguments and concentrates instead on demonstrating the relevance of the theory to a substantive domain where it matters. Nevertheless, I retain an ambition to indicate how analysis of a particular, complex practice − eating − might enhance the theory of practice, solve some of its puzzles and develop it in ways relevant to the analysis of other practices. One moot point is whether extant theories of practice have the conceptual machinery adequate for distinguishing between different types of practice. It remains debatable whether all practices have the same basic structure and set of characteristics. Given that, on any definition, the social world hosts a great many practices, reflection on the sources of variation is limited. In the absence of an agreed comprehensive typology, I seek to show that there is something special and specific about eating which demands adaptation and development of the theory. I coin the concept of a compound practice, observe different degrees of coordination and regulation of practices, argue that Practices may be conceptualized as entities, and extend the theory to account for the sharing of practices and also how their rudiments, essentials and nuances are imparted to other, and potential future, agents.¹

The book oscillates back and forth between the abstractions of theories of practice and substantive analysis of aspects of eating. The aspiration is not only to show that the concepts of practice theory can be applied to eating but also to shed substantive new light on eating. The primary objective is to address explanatory problems and puzzles, and to account for the actuality of how contemporary eating is carried out. Success would entail the identification of some novel and improved accounts of contemporary structure, trends and meaning. I attempt this in relation to the learning of new tastes, the role of handbooks and manuals, the compatibility of diverse performances with integrated Practices, the competing role of cultural intermediaries and their effects on the coordination and regulation of eating, the role of controversy in popular judgements and justifications of behaviour. The evidence I use is, however, little more than a demonstration of the relevance of categories or concepts to the description of unsystematically selected episodes and some illustration of theoretical points. Evidence about contemporary experiences of eating is presented briefly, cursorily and with minimal background, using examples drawn selectively and sparsely from previous research.

The case for theories of practice includes contesting standard modes of social scientific explanation. In line with a long running argument in the sociology of consumption against the concept of choice, practice theories offer a strong alternative by seeking a platform at the meso-level. Rejecting methodological individualisms, emphasis is placed on repetition and on aspects of everyday life which make it impossible to give a satisfactory account of an activity like eating without recognizing its collective and unreflective elements. Standard explanatory models fail to capture the practical, collective, sequential, repetitive and automatic aspects of consumption (Warde and Southerton 2012). First and foremost, standard models presume the defining characteristic of consumption to be purchase, with the manner of appropriation of goods and services within the practices of everyday life at best a subsidiary feature. However, if one considers use as well as purchase, matters are complicated considerably. If consumption is appropriation for the sake of a practice (Warde 2005), it becomes an integral part of everyday life because tools and materials are constitutive of the power to act. Then, consumption is the use of things for the purpose of mundane conduct. Second, the extensive evidence of the social patterning of purchase suggests that ‘decisions’ are not purely personal. In part, they are practical responses to the affordances and constraints of a shared social environment. People conform to the norms of groups to which they are attached. Social groups differ in their views of what is valuable and desirable; tastes are distinguishing. Equally important, to the extent that different groups participate unequally in different activities, their requirements for goods and services will vary. Third, choices are not independent of one another; decisions are sequential and cumulative, with past performances precluding some options and leaving gaps for new ones. Fourth, many items are acquired repetitiously, with some items routinely depleted and replaced. Repeat transactions are sometimes explained in terms of economy of physical and mental effort and of reassurance afforded in situations of uncertainty. Fifth and finally, the role of deliberation is easily exaggerated. While very expensive purchases or strategic consideration of ethical commitments may entail protracted reflection and consideration of a range of options, a great many items of ordinary consumption are acquired and consumed mindlessly, as for example groceries, fuel, electricity and water. Moreover, given the prevalence of collective and state services, not to mention the unequal social division of labour of shopping, much of what is appropriated is vicarious; the final consumer has no need of deliberation if someone else does the provisioning.

Hence, in this account I pursue a strong programme for the application of theories of practice. I am aware that I do not, for lack of space if no other reason, demonstrate how a theory of practice can be readily applied to many empirical issues or show explicitly how it might be superior to all other approaches. Nevertheless, I hope to indicate its potential, using brief examples, by showing that it constitutes a basis for a theoretical synthesis which encompasses neglected aspects of the activity of eating. I proceed to explore the conjecture that the concept of practice captures eating particularly well. It might then be of use in several ways. First, it brings issues of food into the sociological mainstream with the possibility of contributing to sociological theory. Second, it develops theories of practice in a sociological context. Third, it informs policy making in relation to behaviour change. Fourth, it gives some new and distinctive answers to puzzles about why people eat what they do. Behind these concerns lies also a fundamental theoretical issue about the boundaries of practices and their interrelationships. In an earlier attempt to demonstrate the value of practice theories for studying consumption (Warde 2005), it had been my intention to illustrate the argument using evidence about eating, but it proved too difficult, apparently because of its complexity. Instead, I used the example of motoring – the activity of driving cars – which I subsequently came to view as a more regularized and regulated activity. One purpose here is to demonstrate how theories of practice can be applied to highly complex but weakly regulated activities.

The Structure of the Book

The book falls roughly into two parts. The early part (chapters 2−4) clears the ground for a practice-theoretic account of eating. It reviews research on eating, introduces theories of practice and constructs eating as a scientific object. The second part (chapters 5−7) develops key concepts for the analysis of eating as a practice. It identifies some of the means by which eating is organized and coordinated in order to explain how myriad individual performances are generated. The recursive relationship between performance and practice, which is common to all versions of the theory, is applied to account for repetition and innovation, reproduction and change. A key challenge is to demonstrate that the repetitious and the routine, and also the dynamic, aspects of alimentary life can be fairly represented within the confines of a practice-theoretical analysis.

Chapter 2 reviews the development of socio-cultural studies of food. It considers the role of research in different disciplines in framing understandings of food consumption, noting that much more is known about production and provisioning. It argues that rather little attention has been paid to developing theories about eating. After discussing the role of theories in the interpretive social sciences, it finds obstacles in the multidisciplinary formation of studies of food and in excessive attention paid to trying to solve food crises. It also observes that the powerful cultural turn in the humanities and social sciences directed research towards particular fields, with the consequence that other important aspects were neglected. With a view to theoretical innovation, some older traditions of research are explored for their continuing relevance. In the final section, some new themes emerging since 2000 are briefly identified, leading to the suggestion that theories of practice are worthy of careful examination as they may have the potential to provide a distinctive and broad basis for a better understanding of eating.

The third chapter introduces the reader to theories of practice and elaborates on the key concepts relevant to the later arguments about eating. Theories of practice were rediscovered in the 1970s and were developed to deal with particular puzzles in social theory. Attention is paid to the sociological theories of Bourdieu and Giddens in this, the first phase of the modern evolution of the concept of practice. The doyen of the second phase is Schatzki who developed an ontological version of practice theory which has had considerable influence on studies of consumption. Exegesis focuses on his analytic distinctions between practice and performance, dispersed and integrated practices, and the nexus of understanding, procedure and engagement which constitutes practices. Emphasis is put upon the collective nature of practices and the organization that lies behind them. The result is a general impression of the emphases of explanations based in theories of practice and hints at their relevance for analysing eating.

The fourth chapter begins by discussing the value of constructing eating as a scientific object. Eating is positioned as a form of final consumption, therefore inviting a focus on the activities occurring after the many steps involved in production, procurement and preparation of food. But defining eating is not straightforward. A simple dictionary definition of the verb to eat is ‘to take into the body by mouth as food’ (Chambers 1972). Sociology has never found such a definition adequate; if not entirely deficient, it is surely very narrow because it lacks reference to the social aspects of eating. Episodes of eating typically involve other people, require suitable social settings, as well as often have special connections to whomsoever prepared the food. I review some of the ways that prominent and powerful sociological accounts have attempted to conceptualize the social element. I argue that none is sufficiently comprehensive and all could benefit from further systematization.

The chapter therefore reviews concepts designed to capture the social, culinary and bodily dimensions of eating – the elementary forms, or principal components, of food consumption. I conclude that an inclusive and yet analytically parsimonious definition of the scope of the study of eating would approach consumption as episodic events, menu selection and physiological and sensory processes of bodily incorporation. Each is dealt with in turn, discussing some of the analytic benefits and puzzles associated with their application. Basic features of the concepts and their mutual connections are developed with passing reference to other literature. The aim is to make clear what exactly it is about eating that requires explanation. It is maintained that all performances of eating involve the permutation of the three interrelated elements, and that the associated concepts constitute a sparse and effective analytic framework for describing patterns of behaviour. The final section summarizes the position and presents material from a research interview which illustrates how the concepts capture an everyday account of the organization of eating.

The second part of the book aims to develop a series of concepts, with relevance beyond eating, for the theoretical understanding of practice. Three sets of processes – the organization of practices, the nature of habituation and the capacity for competent performances in changing situations – are dealt with in successive chapters. These processes are illustrated mostly from secondary studies in the field of food consumption – the growth of media coverage of cooking and eating, reactions to the obesity crisis, acquiring a taste for exotic foods and the enthusiasm of ‘foodies’.

Beginning from the debate about ‘gastro-anomie’, the supposed contemporary condition where people are uncertain about the rules governing taste in food, chapter 5 discusses current advice about what to eat. Contradictory recommendations indicate the inherent complexity of the practice of eating. The delivery of competent performances requires orchestration of the elementary forms, a not inconsiderable difficulty. The problem is one of adjusting conduct appropriately to different social settings and meal occasions. At least four integrative practices claim authority in the governance of how to eat, witnessed by texts giving advice about nutrition, cookery, manners and taste. Analysis of instructional and promotional texts shows how cultural intermediaries and professional associations construct, legitimize and contest standards and procedures. It is argued that eating is not a simple integrative practice but a compound of component practices. The consequence is that eating tends to be weakly coordinated and weakly regulated, leaving much discretion to individuals.

While intermediation plays a part in the institutionalization of the practice of eating, it does not account in itself for how performances are enacted. Chapter 6 seeks to assimilate the critique of voluntaristic and decision-making models of human action into a practice-theoretic analysis of eating. In the light of evidence from neuro-science, experimental psychology, behavioural economics and cultural sociology, the orthodox ‘portfolio’ model of action is shown to have significant weaknesses. Wansick's Mindless Eating (2006) is used as an entertaining example of how little attention people pay to the activity most of the time. The implication is that much eating behaviour is habitual rather than a matter of deliberation and choice. Various approaches to the analysis of habit and habituation are examined. Concepts of habit require that environment and context play a substantial role in explaining performances. Some accounts of the interdependence of habit and environment are examined and relevant attributes of environments isolated. The theoretical points are illustrated by a case study of obesity, its possible causes and potential remedies. The general long-term failure of weight-loss diets is highlighted, a failure attributed to several features of the reproduction of practices – embodied habits, temporal routines and the norms circulating within social networks – which are germane to explaining practical competence in everyday life.

Chapter 7 wrestles with the concept of repetition and its many modalities which are fundamental to a sociological analysis of practices. The aim is to explain how performances are fluently staged in a manner consistent with their being shared socially. It examines the basic anatomy of performances and asks how people come to approximate their conduct to the injunctions of practices such that their behaviour exhibits recognizable similarities. This involves a discussion of the concepts of dispositions and practical sense, rescued from Bourdieu. Concepts of custom, convention and especially routine are employed to underpin an account of the conditions for the reproduction of practices. The question of how the procedures necessary for competent performances are learned and how then they are triggered by social environments is examined. This deploys a conception of culture as external to the individual. The chapter continues by asking how people learn new tastes in the light of one standard criticism of practice theories – that they cannot explain change. Explanation of the spread of tastes for ‘foreign’ cuisine in Britain is taken as a case study, revealing the importance of cultural intermediation. Finally, the issue of ‘agency’ is addressed, assessing how far the theoretical argument for habituation, routine and convention can be pushed.

The book concludes with a summary of the argument and a discussion of some of its implications. It offers a synoptic account of the key themes and theorems of practice theories to indicate the distinctive emphases brought by their approach to sociological analysis. It reconsiders issues of shared understandings, practical competence, personal and collective routines, conventions, cultural intermediation and institutions. The consequences specifically for an analysis of eating are then summarized, using an extended illustrative example of eating out.

Copyright page

Acknowledgements

1
Introduction

Eating as a Topic of Interest

The Objectives of the Book

The Structure of the Book

Note