The Changes in Food Habits in the UK and France - Essay Example

I. Introduction The attention of the social scientific community has been drawn to food or the phenomenon of eating out in the recent two decades. Nutritionists, anthropologists, historians, social analysts and agricultural economists have constantly investigated food habits, but for various reasons. Though, prior to the 1990s widespread social scientific concern in the social, practical and cultural dimensions of food was trivial. In the perspective of a sociologist, the field involved a waning discussion on the characteristic of the appropriate meal and its function in household organisation, handful rare articles on extraordinary behaviour such as children’s sweet, vegetarianism and health food buying, and important, mainly overlooked, historical evaluation of the changes in food habits in the UK and France (Wiessner & Schiefenhovel 1996). Historical documentations of food provision have a tendency to put emphasis on either the general levels of consumption in a particular society, on issues of extreme poverty and starvation, or on specific food provisions, such as sugar. Merely a handful of the common books on the food habits of the British people focus on the commercial condition of meals. Fast foods, restaurants and espresso bars are mentioned very occasionally in the directories of such writings. For instance, Burnett (1989) provides an inclusive synopsis of transforming behaviour in the UK ever since the momentous Industrial Revolution, explaining how disparities in class and ethnic backgrounds affected forms of diet and general norms of nutrition, and though there are informative and helpful concise sections on altering trends of eating out, merely an insignificant fraction of a sizeable book is dedicated to meals taken outside of the home (as cited in Fine et al. 1996: 82). General historical narratives of food habits and consumption in the United States have had used more mentions of the practice and, since the practice or habit of buying and consuming food on commercial vicinities is more traditionally established, the United States is better provided with literatures of both its historical and geographical distribution. Yet, literature remains inadequate. Therefore, this paper will explore and analyse available literature on food habits and food consumption behaviour of individuals in the various parts of the world, but particularly in the Western region, through the application of various theories of consumption. II. Exploring the Phenomenon of Eating Out Outlooks of the West towards consumption have consistently been divided. On the one hand, reinforced incidences of consumption are intricately tied up to increasing economic production and provide the opportunity to address the basic needs of the group of average people which numerous societies in the distant and recent past have failed to do. On the contrary, consumption is ethically doubtful, related to needless luxury, pleasure-seeking and uncontrolled materialism. Several current inputs to this old debate have disputed that contemporary consumer culture is ethically undamaging, and even something which could rightfully be accepted and recognised. The gratifications of consumption, involving those acquired directly in a form of commodity, are existent and provide a key contribution to individual pleasure and satisfaction. Among the advantages of the practice advocated by modern consumer culture are attributed to the facts that they produce recognised types of labour, endorse an artistic approach to everyday life, preserve several socially and culturally significant practices such as compassion and generosity, provide leisure and mental motivation, guarantee agreeable levels of gratification, allow expression of individual and group identities in disobedient as well as conventional style and, obviously, motivate economic competition and generate jobs (Pietrykowski 2004). Provided with these constructive features, if they as well furnish individuals with a sense of contentment and happiness then it would be unwise to denounce contemporary consumerism. One significant aspect of the investigation on British people living in urban areas was the remarkable sense of happiness and gratification that individuals admit to obtain from eating in commercial premises or what is commonly called as ‘eating out.’ Whether the anticipation is exceptionally great that customers become hesitant to divulge dissatisfaction is indecisive, yet there are findings that indicate reasonable expectation (Deaton 1992). This we take into account to be related to a more common outlook towards social events. That food consumption incidents convey belonging or membership and defined borders of inclusion and exclusion is a fundamental assumption of anthropology. Social distance is indicated by one’s preference of whom to share a meal with. Nearly all societies appear to differentiate between four groups of individual: “(1) co-resident kin, (2) other kin and friends, (3) strangers to whom one has some obligation to hospitality, and the (4) remainder” (Pol & Pak 1995: 403). According to the study of Douglas and Nicod (1974), “in Britain the food served on a meal occasion is also an indication of affinity. The more significant the meal occasion, the more elaborate the food and the closer the ties between companions” (as cited in Magrabi et al. 1991: 74). Eating together is normally predicted to be a socially important episode, one which has habitually provided substantial pleasure. The belief that a household meal is a vital source of family integration is grounded accurately on the believed capability for sharing food to establish mutual cohesion and mutual aid. In spite of the household dinner table also being a source of family disagreement and conflict on a number of instances, the assumption is that in the longer run recurring unity will reproduce feelings of mutual love and warmth. The growth of the occurrence of eating out does not appear to have severely endangered the probability of family members eating together, because they have a tendency to eat out together as well. Whether a meal eaten in commercial premises provides the same prospect for family bonding is questionable, yet there is no specific basis to believe it any less adequate a situation. It is fascinating to think whether the introduction of the commercial alternative to eat out has boosted the array of potentially important eating episodes. There is no ground to believe that the occurrence of domestic leisure has declined generally as an outcome of the higher availability and convenience of commercial meals or eating out. The growth of new places for eating together could actually enhance the possible dimension of the circle with whom a certain person could eat. It is not improbable that there are individuals with whom one could eat in a fast food or a café, whom it would, by no means, be proper to invite home. Hence, circles of friends could be expanding for numerous individuals and if, certainly, eating together heartens mutual empathy, and then the increasing popularity of restaurant eating could add to the overall human gratification. That this could be the situation does rely upon the sameness of the experience of food sharing with companions in eateries and in the home. The fact is perhaps that these are not equal, and that the request that entails private generosity is sign of greater social sympathy than a shared meal in an eatery. However, the variations could not be very great as to get rid of all the effect. I would then assume that social networks of friendship have developed in the recent years and that this contributed positively for the partakers. One hypothesis is that meals bring about empathy among the participants. Meals are a possible source of instant social pleasures of social interaction, unrestrained action which could result into a better understanding and appreciation of one another, and as well of hospitality, of enjoying together (Grigg 1999). One further trait of the social dimensions of eating out is the significance of the phenomenon itself. Several of the last events of eating out were for certain occasions, special events such as birthdays, christening, and others and being together on these celebrations is an indication of social membership and relationship. It could be regarded an opportunity to be as these kinds of special events, not to have been requested to come possibly being viewed as insignificant. One has to make an apology for failure to be present in a particular occasion if invited, again suggesting a little sense of social responsibility to eat together to define an important passage of time or an alteration of social status. The argument is that it is imperative to attend an occasion if invited, if probable, since the meal stands for a socially important, temporally explicit celebration. To have consumed the similar meal prior or ahead of the occasion would not be an adequate alternative, even though several of the same individuals were present. Two sociological messages could be learned (Grigg 1999). As the occurrence of meal events increases, hence does the possibility for sharing and working with a broader network of individuals. An inherent assumption of those who think that the household meal is endangered is that the decreased frequency of such meals will decrease the attachment and affinity family members will have for one another. The idea is of a “negative sum-game” (Cochrane & Bell 1956: 38) wherein decreased frequency of family meals indicates feebler family ties. Nevertheless, the consequence is seldom considered, that more meals with colleagues or friends have constructive influences on social interactions and relationships with substitute companies. However, this could well be so, since it is likely that the increasing popularity of eating out will boost sociability and cohesion among more expansive networks of individuals. This assumption provides a new perspective of the argument of Hirschman (1982) regarding consumer dissatisfaction. He claimed, primarily, that the gratifications coming from the possession of ‘consumer durables’ are more likely to become dissatisfaction. Second, through evaluation, the indulgence from sensual gratifications such as eating is greatly consistent, since they entail a shift from uneasiness to comfort on nearly every special event. Third, the dissatisfaction coming from ‘consumer durables’ could direct well-off individuals to hunt for instead the personal benefits of political involvement (as cited in Wiessner & Schiefenhovel 1996: 104); nonetheless, Hirschman is unconvincing for the reason that he puts emphasis on commodities and disregards services. Investigations on the phenomenon of eating out indicates that at least a certain extent of the pleasures of involvement can be acquired when using up services; that involvement could be merged with the quest for other pleasure with significant chances of satisfaction; and that a particular occasion, the assembly of individuals together for intentions of pleasure, is a greatly successful modern source of the pleasure of consumption (Pietrykowski 2004). The planning of occasions, even for example the festivals and fairs conceived by local sightseer boards to draw the attention of tourists to their places, is possible a means in which makers could ward off the reduction of demand caused by dissatisfaction with ‘consumer durables’. Through making the best use of the capability for occasions to bring people together in circumstances within which consequence could be somewhat indecisive, and where they could anticipate acquiring the natural gratifications of involvement, events’ organisers could create a broad possible array of consumption choices appealing. III. Variety The idea of the presence of a vast quantity of products and services, and the thinking that every consumer, through choosing without restraint among alternatives, can widen his or her experience, are primary sources of the attractiveness and the authority of consumer culture. The promotion of these ideas presents great importance on extent of experience, and most importantly, on variety. The idea of variety is useful for providers who can in so doing distinguish their goods from those of other providers, and it is useful for consumers as well since the alternatives they choose stand as indications of their uniqueness, individuality, their distinction from other individuals. This symbiotic activity on individuality is fraction of the justification of the productiveness of the consumer society. The idea of variety and individuality has to be created and regularly reproduced (Fine et al. 1996). Variety can be motivated by occasions. Each occasion is distinctive, exclusive in its temporal position, possibly unique and impressive accurately due to its distinctiveness. It is not that it should be exceptionally dissimilar from other occasions. Certainly, as with several examples of consumer products, being exceptionally unique hits of eccentricity and oddity, an impact which majority of consumers aim to prevent creating. A significant aspect of the ‘occasion’ is that it be controlled without being completely conventional. Trustworthy prediction of what could happen and what demands could be placed on the partaker is important to guarantee that the occasion is adequately arranged in order that it will not be threatening because confusing or unsafe. On the other hand it must not be accurately identical on each event, which could provoke boredom (Fine et al. 1996). Slight dissimilarities, hence than one occasion can be differentiated from another, could be adequate to maintain constant demand for the services which make occasions possible. The extent of variation needed to instil an idea of variety could be small. Appadurai (1986) discussed the surfacing of a national cuisine in the Indian region. He emphasises that, eating permits a variety of registers, tied to particular contexts, so that what is done in a restaurant may be different from what is appropriate at home, and each of these might be different in the context of travel, where anonymity can sometimes be assured… The new cuisine permits the growing middle classes of Indian towns and cities to maintain a rich and context-sensitive repertoire of culinary postures (Appadurai 1986: 9). Any evaluation of the degree to which eating habit contributes to the array of cultural experience should be responsive to meanings and contexts. Sociologists and other social scientists who claim that variety is deceptive argue that several of the items marketed and sold as brand new and unique seem, on closer examination, to have a great deal in similarity with other previously available products. Wood (1990), when articulating his analysis of eating out, focuses almost exclusively upon food ingredient, disregarding much of the presence of variety since it is acquired through less important attributes of the practice, furnishings, trend and so forth. I completely agree that such attributes are a main source of the presence of variety, yet doubt whether these are in any sense less important. To a certain extent, they look like extremely important, as attributes of the significance of hospitality and camaraderie suggest. Furthermore, nor do I completely believe that the food is ever more homogenised! The idea of variety in the business world is primarily attained through a practice of specialisation. Extensive competition demands each means has some unique feature which will suggest it in evaluation with similar competitors, yet which does not establish it very incomparable that its prospective customer disappears to an unworkable level. In the perspective of the commercial maker, innovation includes demonstrating particular basic components of the meal presentation re-oriented in various combinations. The basic components for a business organisation are the obvious demands of its principal customer, the richness of its cooking, the derivation of the cuisine, the character of the service and if liquor is sold (Grigg 1999). Alternative eatery establishments primarily have their roots in historical forms and frequently have domestic counterparts. The emergence of novelty, groundwork of fashion within the commercial sector, is attained through dealing with the components. New fashion trends involve waiters and waitresses performing as comedians or entertainers in motif restaurants; any quantity of various cuisines throughout the globe; fast courses and slow course; Chinese buffets and Arabian mezze; entertainment and advertisements to furnish the idea of being in a remote location. A few components produce a massive quantity of variations, the explanation why critiques such as Wood is both accurate and erroneous in viewing practices of homogenisation behind obvious diversity. The effect of variety relies upon on how customers understand and appreciate it. The presence of an array of commercial options, merely so differentiated, informs little regarding the means in which consumers use them. Their techniques appear to be abundant. From my research, variety appears to be predicted, even if the experience of its actual range is familiar to merely a narrow extent by nearly all people. For quite a few people the current market provides an agreeable surplus of options which can be exploited for specific reasons, for others a great deal of the variety is excessive to their preferences or demands. The technique of ‘omnivorousness’ (Cochrane & Bell 1956: 70) could be a potential response to growing variety, a pursuit, for one motive or another, for as expansive an array of experience as probable. In due course consumers could develop preferences for a broader array of items than before, without it appearing crucial, or likely, or favourable to have preferences, to give importance to one kind of article over another. Other individuals appear content to go back to the identical forms of location, eating identical cuisines and favouring what they know. Even if definite that the variety of alternatives is growing, there is however an inclination to overstate its extent, for a great deal of specialisation is founded upon slight delineation of mass production strategies with similar parts packaged as variations (Cochrane & Bell 1956). Nevertheless, customers do take into account these variations as of great importance. They differentiate. They have favourite espresso bars and souvenir shops. Though, frequently it is slight variations that are characteristically important. With the growth of consumer culture, the outlook of consumers become more embedded, the importance of consumer preference more valued, the significance of that which is domestic more doubtful. Duty to give back is gained and that entails substantial labour; the gift’s value is not accurately quantifiable and the character of the gained obligation indecisive; it is not promising to grumble or get another set of food if the dish is disliked for any reason; and there is no option to choose what wants to be eaten. Hence, most main attributes of the state of consumer autonomy are nonexistent, but individuals assert to be better gratified than in an eatery. Personal generosity is a kind of shared provisioning; it is greatly valued for the hints of affection tied to invitations and the social obligation created by recognition. Thus even though it is less difficult to delight customers in a restaurant the context is fairly different and, at first view, less prominent. There is still an inadequate mention in the literature about the phenomenon of amusement and the social relationships drawn in. However, personal generosity is enjoyed more, individuals feel more comfortable and they mostly appreciate and understand their colleagues, chat and food. This desirability relies upon a particular description of the circumstances of the “private host-guest relationship,” involving, chiefly, a custom of mutual reciprocity (Pietrykowski 2004: 309). One extremely important variation between the practices of the profit-making and the collective forms is the character of the social relationships and commitments. What is notable is that being a beneficiary of personal generosity is remarkably enjoyable in spite of the commitments to labour abundantly in return at another time. Moreover, according to available literatures, attitudes within the collective form are itself exceptionally diverse. What food is consumed, with whom, where, when and within what situations is greatly discriminated. One important aspect of behaviour in this form is the capability for various groups of individuals to cope with general social patterns to generate various events and consequences. If the commercial producer of diversity is specialisation, the common counterpart is invention (Fine et al. 1996). A foremost argument of sociological assumption involves whether variety weakens norms and hierarchies. It is commonly claimed that modern culture has turn out to be, fairly recently, diversified, though it is not precisely definite what this could imply. One explanation of the argument, possibly supportive of the previous work of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, could be that there were previously dominating traditions, ones that are never followed by everyone, which explains why sets of conflict were fascinating, but that either within social divisions, or throughout a particular society as an entirety, there were paramount forms of behaviour, anticipated norms of behaviour and ideal interpretations of cultural representations. This did not involve an actual cultural diversity since there were contributing genuine forms of traditions (Grigg 1999). While a number of actual grounds for argument are within the dominant culture, nearly all individuals lived some agreed rendition of that culture. IV. Conclusion Eating out is a key and widening channel for sociable relationship. Few individuals eat outside alone, and merely a small fraction of eating out occurrences is for intentions of business. Thus most individuals eat outside with family or colleagues, companions frequently comprising both, hence enhancing opportunities for social interaction. Generally, the practice of eating outside offers a perspective for sociability and hospitability and the sustenance of social networks of friendly and intimate relationships. In a dimension of temporal-spatial mobility, smaller and unsteady households and families, dissatisfaction with long-established divisions of labour, the phenomenon of eating out is an abundant spring not of bad manners, but of hospitality and mutual aid. References Books Appadurai, A. (1986), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cochrane, W. W. & Bell, C.S. (1956), The Economics of Consumption: Economics of Decision-Making in the Household, New York: McGraw-Hill. Deaton, A. (1992), Understanding Consumption, Oxford: Oxford University. Fine, B. et al. (1996), Consumption in the Age of Affluence: The World of Food, New York: Routledge. Magrabi, F. M. et al. (1991), The Economics of Household Consumption, New York: Praeger Paperback . Miller, D. (1995), Consumption as the Vanguard of History, In D. Miller, Acknowledging Consumption (pp. 1-57). London: Routledge. Solomon, M. et al. (2006), Consumer Behaviour: A European Perspective, London: Prentice Hall. Wiessner, P. & Schiefenhovel, W. (1996), Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Providence, RI: Berghahn Books. Journal Articles Grigg, D. (1999), The Changing Geography of World Food Consumption in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century, The Geographic Journal , 1. Pietrykowski, B. (2004), You Are What You Eat: The Social Economy of the Slow Food Movement, Review of Social Economy , 307+. Pol, L. G. & Pak, S. (1995), Consumer Unit Types and Expenditures on Food Away from Home, Journal of Consumer Affairs , 403+. Wood, R. (1990), Sociology, Gender, Food Consumption and the Hospitality Industry, British Food Journal, 94 (9), 3-5. Online References Cultures of Consumption, Arts and Humanities Research Council, accessed 24 May 2009. http://www.consume.bbk.ac.uk/worddocuments/consumption%20biblio.doc Rivenbark, A.E. (2003), A Hedonic Price Comparison of Manufactured and Site-Built Homes, Athens, Georgia. http://www.fcs.uga.edu/ss/docs/rivenbark_anna_e_200312_ms.pdf Ryan, M. (2006), The Implicit Market for Characteristics of Merino Wool: A Hedonic Approach, Discipline of Agricultural Economics, University of Sydney. http://www.awex.com.au/awexwr/_assets/main/lib5002/the%20implicit%20market%20for%20the%20characteristics%20of%20merino%20wool-%20an%20hedonic%20approach.pdf Read More