The Sociology

of Food
ii
 The Sociology
of Food
Eating and the Place of
Food in Society

JEAN-PIERRE POULAIN
TRANSLATED BY AUGUSTA DÖRR

Bloomsbury Academic
An Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY
 Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA

www.bloomsbury.com

BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published in French in 2002

© Jean-Pierre Poulain, 2002, 2011, 2013 and 2017

English language translation © Augusta Dörr, 2017

Jean-Pierre Poulain has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval
system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting

on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication
can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN: HB: 978-1-4725-8620-9

PB: 978-1-4725-8621-6
ePDF: 978-1-4725-8623-0
ePub: 978-1-4725-8622-3

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Cover design by Sutchinda Thompson

Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

 Translation with the aid of Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès—Toulouse
School of Tourism Hospitality Management and Food Studies
(ISHTIA), Research Center on Work, Organizations and Policies (CERTOP)
UMR-CNRS 5044 and Taylor’s Toulouse University Center (Malaysia)

The author and publisher gratefully acknowledge the permission

granted to reproduce the copyright material in this book. Every
effort has been made to trace copyright holders and to obtain
their permission for the use of copyright material. The publisher
apologizes for any errors or omissions in the above list and would be
grateful if notified of any corrections that should be incorporated in
future reprints or editions of this book.
vi
 Contents

List of figures and tables xii

Preface xiv
By the same author xx
Acknowledgments xxi
List of abbreviations xxiii

Introduction 1

PART ONE Permanent and changing aspects

in modern eating practices 5

1 The globalization of the food supply:

Delocalization and relocalization 9
1 Food becomes internationalized—through regional specialties 9
2 Local food cultures as champions of identity 11
3 From our rediscovered regions to the realm of the exotic 16
4 From massification to intermixing 18

2 Between the domestic and the economic spheres:

The ebb and flow of culinary activity 25
1 The industrialization of the food supply 26
1.1 The industrialization of food production and new forms
of self-production 26
1.2 The industrialization of distribution 28
2 Semi-prepared foods and cooking for pleasure 29
3 The restaurant and catering sector 31
4 The eater, the restaurant system, and choice 34
5 Retirement, or the return to the domestic sphere 37
viii CONTENTS

3 The evolution of eating practices 41

1 The theory of gastro-anomie and related debates 41

1.1 An over abundant food supply 41
1.2 The relaxing of social constraints 42
1.3 The multiple discourses on food practices and
their contradictory aspects 42
2 The enduring class system 44
3 Changes in eating practices 46
3.1 The simplification of meal structures 47
3.2 Eating between meals 48
3.3 The location of food consumption 50
3.4 Profiles of food days 51
4 The discrepancy between norms and practices 54
5 From anomie to a crisis of legitimacy for the normative system 59
6 Overabundance and the new poverty 61

4 From food risks and food safety to anxiety management 63

1 The misunderstanding of quality 66

2 Risk and modern societies 67
3 Risk: The experts’ view, the public’s view 68
4 Risk as a constant aspect of human food consumption 70
4.1 The ambivalent nature of human food consumption 71
4.2 Exacerbated risk and its corrosive effect on methods intended to
manage the ambivalent nature of human food consumption 75
5 From democratic risk management to the social reconstruction
of food 78

5 Obesity and the medicalization of everyday food

consumption 81
1 Obesity and socioeconomic status 85
1.1 The nature of the links 85
1.2 Socioeconomic status as a determinant of obesity 88
1.3 The stigmatization of the obese 89
2 The development of obesity and modern eating practices 92
2.1 The epidemiologic transition model 93
2.2 The roles played by food consumption in epidemiologic
­transition 94
2.3 Modern food practices: A risk factor? 98
 CONTENTS ix

3 Is obesity a social construct? 102

3.1 The change in the social representations of obesity
and fat 103
3.2 The Paradoxes of the medicalization of obesity 105
4 The dangers of a public health discourse on weight loss 108

PART TWO From sociological interest in food

to sociologies of food 113

6 The major socio-anthropological movements and their

encounters with the “food social fact” 117
1 The functionalist perspective 118
2 The perspective of the anthropology of techniques 120
3 The culturalist perspective 121
4 The structuralist perspective 122
5 Sociological perspectives on food 125

7 Epistemological obstacles 128

1 “Grub”: A second-rate subject? 128

2 The exclusive nature of the social fact and the dual tradition
of Durkheim and Mauss 130

8 From sociological interest in food to sociologies

of food 136
1 The sociology of food consumption 136
1.1 The determinants of food consumption 137
1.2 Contemporary successors 140
1.3 The sociology of taste 146
2 The “developmentalist” perspective 147
2.1 The influence of Norbert Elias 147
2.2 Cultural materialism 150
3 The H-omnivore or the sociology of the eater 151
3.1 Classificatory thought 154
3.2 The incorporation principle 154
3.3 From the omnivore’s paradox to the ambivalent natures
of human food consumption 156
3.4 Revisiting incorporation 156
x CONTENTS

4 The sociology of eaters: An interactionist perspective 161

4.1 Sociality, sociability, and social change 162
4.2 The plural eater 163
4.3 The four types of ethos displayed by eaters 164
4.4 The eating sector 166

9 The sociologies of food and attempts to forge connections 168

1 Revisiting Durkheim 171

1.1 Individualization 172
1.2 Informalization or destructuration 172
1.3 Communitization (communification) 172
1.4 Stylization 173
2 Scale analysis 175
2.1 The macrosocial level 176
2.2 The mesosocial level 176
2.3 The micro-individual level 177
2.4 The biological level 178

10 The sociology of French gastronomy 180

1 The complexity of French gastronomy 181

2 Why is gastronomy French? 184
2.1 Science and gastronomy, the place of food in academic culture 184
2.2 The model of social distinction 186
2.3 Taste as an axis of development 188
2.4 Catholic morality and the spirit of gastronomy 190
2.5 The food critic: An intermediary between two worlds 195

11 The “food social space”: A tool for the study of food

patterns 198

1 The social space and the dual space of freedom open to

human eaters 199
2 The various dimensions of the “food social space” 204
2.1 The “edible” space 205
2.2 The food system 206
2.3 The culinary space 209
2.4 The space of food habits 209
2.5 Eating and the rhythm of time 210
2.6 The social differentiation space 211
 CONTENTS xi

3 Food and its social construction 211

3.1 The transition from plant status to food 213
3.2 The transition from animal status to food 214
3.3 Milk and milk derivatives 217
4 A socio-anthropology of food: Aims and issues 219

As a conclusion: The call for constructivist positivism 220

New chapter: Food studies versus the socio-anthropology

of the “food social fact” 223
1 The emergence of cultural studies 223
1.1 The CCCS: A new look at popular cultures 224
1.2 The United States and “French Theory” 225
1.3 Cultural studies and its “Big Bang” 228
2 From cultural studies to food studies 230
2.1 The progress of food studies 231
2.2 Institutional dynamics and domains of thematization 232
3 The challenges of food studies 237

Notes 241
References 248
Index 279
 List of figures and
tables

Figures
1 The decision-making system in the contract catering sector 36
2 Times of food intake occurring throughout the day 50
3 Discrepancy between norms and practices 57
4 The development of food purchases in household budgets 143
5 The sociologies of food 170
6 Social forces according to Warde 174
7 Social forces influencing food choices 175
8 Levels of observation according to Desjeux 178
9 The food system 208
10 Maps 236

Tables
1 “Do you cook in the same way as your mother?” 30
2 Growth in the restaurant and catering sector 33
3 Composition of lunch 1995–97 47
4 Correlations between meal tray composition and
independent variables 48
5 Instances of food intake, comparison between 1995 and 1997 49
6 Correlation between food intake between meals and
independent variables 49
7 Profiles of food days 52
8 Food-related aspirations of 50–60 year olds 62
9 Obesity and socioeconomic status in adults 87
 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES xiii

10 Obesity and socioeconomic status in children and adolescents 88

11 The roles played by food in epidemiologic transition 99
12 The dimensions of food incorporation 159
13 Master's degree programs in food studies and in the human and
social sciences applied to the study of food 233
 Preface

O ver the last twenty years, the status of food and diet in the media
has undergone a change. The endless succession of crises, the rise in
obesity and in noncommunicable diseases, together with the food riots that
took place in the spring of 2008, have all brought the subject of food to the
forefront of public attention. Today, in addition to the benign articles discussing
gastronomy, or nutrition and diet, there are pages devoted to food-related
public policies and international relations. Food has now made headline news
on a countless number of occasions. Following a process of epidemiological
transition, degenerative disorders, cancer and heart disease have replaced
epidemics as the principal causes of death. As lifestyle plays a part in the
onset of these pathologies, the treatment of food and diet are viewed under
the umbrella of preventive measures.
In a reaction to globalization, regional food cultures have been endowed
with “heritage” status. The domain of fine cuisine, which had long kept regional
food cultures at a distance, has now begun to view them as a fresh source of
inspiration. In 2010, at the culmination of a lengthy process, UNESCO added
the “gastronomic meal of the French” and “traditional Mexican cuisine” to its
Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, followed
by the Mediterranean diet in 2013. In this way, table traditions and culinary
styles have officially become examples of a cultural legacy.
The controversies accompanying the application of biotechnology and
genetic engineering to food crops, and the production of biofuels from plant
biomass in potential competition with that of food, have become the subjects
of political debates. “Citizens’ conferences” have witnessed public calls for
moratoriums on the marketing of certain products and for the introduction of
organic foods into school canteen menus. In various countries, the ministries
of health and agriculture (sometimes in competition) have launched national
initiatives relating to nutrition and diet.
The food riots brought the old question “How can we feed the world?”
back into the spotlight. Thomas Malthus had previously expressed this
problem in the form of two growth curves developing at different rates: one,
representing food production, grew at an arithmetic rate, while the other,
representing population increase, developed in a geometric progression.
 PREFACE xv

In the event of the latter catching up with the former, the ensuing situation
would be characterized by famines and wars. Many have already sounded
the alarm, among them Josué de Castro, René Dumont, and Jean Ziegler,
attempting to disassociate the problem of hunger from the domain of charity
and to establish it as part of the international political agenda. To some extent
they have succeeded and their gloomy prognoses regarding food availability
have not come to pass—for the time being. Technological developments have
brought about a considerable improvement in productive capacity, and this,
coupled with a drop in birth rate that has occurred during the transitional
process, is pushing this fateful moment ever further into the future. The
famines currently being experienced are due more to problems of accessibility
than of availability.
In this way, food and diet have become political, environmental, heritage,
cultural, and public health issues. All these different domains represent various
frameworks within which to investigate our modern world, and provide the
social sciences with “food for thought.” The topical nature of these themes in
the 1990s and 2000s, both as a social issue and as a news item, contributed to
a change in the academic status of food and dietary practices. Indeed, during
the crises relating to “mad cow disease”, the media called for comments
from sociologists, who had been working on this theme for some time in an
environment of relative indifference. Their discourse was heard; it played a
part in identifying the symbolic, political, and scientific issues involved in the
questions that could not be answered easily using the traditional knowledge
accumulated through biological research, and which those responsible for
managing the crisis interpreted in terms of irrational consumer behavior.
Noted by press and public alike, the sociologists’ comments confirmed the fact
that eating involved far more than simply providing the body with nutrients.
They were also noted by researchers in the human and social sciences, who
discovered the potential interest presented by a sociology through food, in
addition to a sociology of food.
This change in its social and media status has contributed to the scientific
thematization of food and food practices.
However, some work was necessary in order to eliminate certain
epistemological obstacles and to establish this subject within the domain
of sociology and the social sciences. The French sociological tradition is
characterized by the tension between a disciplinary approach based on
the Durkheimian principle of the “social fact,” and the Maussian concept
of the “total social fact.” The former adheres more or less scrupulously to
the notion of the social fact as autonomous, while the latter is established
within the tradition inaugurated by Marcel Mauss, as part of the concept of
the “techniques of the body,” according to which the disciplinary boundaries
xvi PREFACE

between psychology and biology are characterized by a certain fluidity.

From the Maussian perspective, therefore, it is necessary to establish a
pluridisiplinary dialogue. Once the boundaries are removed, this dual
dynamic adapts itself perfectly to every aspect of the subject, allowing it
to become established within the social space. In this way, human eating
practices may be presented as a “social fact” (Émile Durkheim), a “total
social fact” (Marcel Mauss), and as a “total human fact” (Edgar Morin).
These three definitions all share the same principle—that the act of eating
amounts to much more than the biological infrastructure on which it is
based. Moreover, each of the definitions, from the first to the third and with
ever-increasing emphasis, highlights the vital importance of implementing
an interdisciplinary dialogue. The “food social fact” will therefore constitute
the subject of this book.
The way in which humankind experiences the fulfillment of its dietary
needs cannot be reduced to purely biological, technical, or even utilitarian
considerations. That concept of fulfillment occupies a prominent position
within the culture of each social group. Eating is a “social act”—indeed, a
“social event”—an equally central aspect of both family and public life. The
meal lies at the heart of the socialization process in the two senses of the
word: it is a site of apprenticeship, where the life rules governing a group are
learned, and a place of sociality, of sharing and conviviality. It would appear
that obesity and other troubles related to dietary behavior represent the price
to be paid by societies that tend to overlook this.
Man needs nutrients: carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, mineral salts, vitamins,
water, and so on, elements which he finds in the natural products forming
part of his environment. However, he can only ingest and absorb these in
the form of food, more particularly, in the form of cooked dishes—in other
words, natural products that have been developed within a culture, and are
transformed and consumed in accordance with highly socialized conventional
practices. Eating is, therefore, both a natural and a cultural act, through which
these two focal points, so often presented in Western thought as opposite
extremes, interlock and merge, and the social practices that it maintains
likewise contribute to its organization.
As a physical manifestation of a culture’s fundamental values, culinary
activity and table manners provide us with an ideal domain within which to
observe social representations at work. From the production, distribution,
preparation, and consumption of food, the act of eating structures the
organization of the human group, establishing itself as a vital subject for socio-
anthropological research. Food cultures demonstrate the specific character of
the bio-anthropological connection between a human group and its biotope.
Although this has been recognized by a certain number of researchers,
ethnologists, sociologists, anthropologists, historians, and geographers, it has
 PREFACE xvii

nonetheless proved somewhat difficult to establish the subject as a legitimate

domain within the human and social sciences.
The complex interweaving of its social and cultural dimensions with
its biological and corporal aspects, together with its ubiquitous presence
in social life, whether in a personal, everyday context, or on festive public
occasions, has, arguably, cloaked the ”food social fact” in a type of
paradoxical invisibility with regard to science. France, the land that witnessed
the birth of gastronomy, was perhaps more affected by this paradox than
other nations, and experienced particular difficulty in accepting food as a
subject for serious scientific study. And yet there was Roland Barthes, who
left us all too soon, with his famous article “Toward a Psychosociology of
Contemporary Food Consumption,” as well as his superb introduction to
the new edition of Brillat-Savarin’s La Physiologie du goût. There was also
Claude Lévi-Strauss, who, with Le cru et le cuit and L'origine des manières
de table, attained the highest rankings based on bibliometric indicators,
although for a considerable period of time that section of his work was
relegated to the domain of theoretical curiosities and simply “written off”
as examples of structuralist criticism. It was not until the late 1970s that
the social sciences turned their attention to food, beginning with history
and sociology. The next twenty years or so witnessed the emergence of
numerous works on the subject, produced in a relatively clandestine fashion.
This amounted to the construction of a scientific legacy, which was to
come to light during the crises of 1990 and 2000. Historians, sociologists,
anthropologists, and psychologists then found themselves required both to
describe the phenomena most frequently interpreted by those responsible
for managing the situation as “irrational consumer behavior,” and to highlight
the issues involved. It became apparent that cracks had emerged in the
globalized productivist model based on the upstream processing of food
products, although it had previously functioned successfully and had enabled
the West to emerge from a period of atavistic malnutrition following the
Second World War.
The aim behind this book, which was published in France in 2002 (but
written between 1999 and 2001), was to reveal the richness of the studies
exploring the social and cultural dimensions of food and eating.
Its standpoint is encapsulated in the use of the plural form, Sociologies
de l’alimentation. The intention was to emphasize the fact that, through its
complexity and the status of eating as a universal social activity, the study of
food involves all the various paradigms and perspectives of the social sciences,
thus underlining the need to establish a dialogue with neighboring disciplines.
With hindsight, this use of the plural form has nothing to do with any suggestion
of the relative immaturity of this domain pending the creation of a sociology
of food, as I might previously have believed. Instead, it confirms the benefit of
xviii PREFACE

adopting a multiparadigmatic epistemological approach, especially with regard

to this particular subject.
The second aspect of this book, which I would like to highlight, is the section
devoted to gastronomy, which is presented both as one of the characteristic
features of French culture and, at the same time, as an epistemological
obstacle. It is characteristic in the sense that the attitude toward it is not
confined solely to the affluent classes, but is shared by society as a
whole, for reasons based on various sociohistorical considerations. It is an
epistemological obstacle because the subject has been the focus of a tension
within the French sociological domain, between a critical stance based on
defending the autonomy of popular tastes (in certain cases succumbing to a
naïve populism), and the theory of distinction, whereby gastronomy was left
in the shadow cast by the process of social differentiation.
Finally, works previously published in French and not widely known to the
English-speaking world will be brought to its attention through the translation
of this book, which is both a theoretical essay and an introductory guide.
Since it first appeared, there have been considerable developments in
this field in the English and French-speaking worlds alike. However, they
have followed somewhat different scientific routes. Food studies was mainly
developed and institutionalized in the United States. At the same time, France
and the United Kingdom continued their commitment to certain disciplinary
bases, albeit from different perspectives: socio-anthropology in the case of
France and cultural sociology in the United Kingdom. For this reason, we have
decided to add a new chapter, with a view to identifying the issues arising
from this dual trajectory.
As a way of completing and extending this work, we invite those readers
undeterred by the French language to explore the dictionary of food cultures
edited by us with the support of a ten-member international scientific
committee.
In addition to its function as an inventory of the different disciplines
concerned with the food social fact, this book forms part of a longer-term
perspective. We are surely on the threshold, if not of a revolution, at least of
a profound change in our conceptions of nutrition. The rapid developments
that have taken place in nutrigenetics, nutrigenomics, and particularly in
epigenetics, are remodeling the current view of food and diet by opening new
areas of research and above all, of dialogue, between the social sciences and
nutrition studies. The knowledge acquired in relation to food consumption
models and the food social fact will therefore serve a dual purpose with regard
to research and food education.
We are currently facing a challenge; this entails ceaselessly connecting
and reconnecting the “nutritional” social fact with the food social fact.
 PREFACE xix

As knowledge develops in the former domain through the identification of

personal risk factors, this will inevitably emphasize the individualization
of our relationship with food. The food social fact, for its part, serves as a
reminder that eating is an act of sharing, a social, meaningful act established
within cultural frameworks. The nutritional social fact and the food social fact
constitute two aspects that contribute to the well-being and health of the
human eater.

Jean-Pierre Poulain
Kuala Lumpur, March 2016
 By the same author

Le tourisme dans les DOM-TOM, with G. Fontaine, Éditions Lanore-Dela-

grave, 2004.
Penser l’alimentation, with J.-P. Corbeau, Éditions Privat, 2002.
Manger aujourd’hui. Attitudes, normes et pratiques, Éditions Privat, 2001.
Histoire de la cuisine et des cuisiniers. Techniques culinaires et pratiques de
table en France du Moyen Âge à nos jours, with E. Neirinck, Éditions Lanore,
1987, 5th ed., extended, 2004, Japanese translation published by Dohosha,
1993, 1998, and 2005, Portuguese translation published by Colares, 1999,
Spanish translation published by Zendrera Zariquiey, 2001.
Les jeunes seniors et leur alimentation, Cahiers de l’OCHA, no. 9, 1998.
Pratiques alimentaires et identités culturelles, Éditions The Goï, “Les Études
vietnamiennes,” 1997.
Abrégé d’ingénierie hôtelière et touristique, with G. Larosse, Éditions Lanore,
1997.
Traité d’ingénierie hôtelière, Conception et organisation des hôtels, restaurants
et collectivités, with G. Larrose, Éditions Lanore, 1986, 3rd ed., extended, 1995.
La cuisine d’assemblage, Éditions BPI, 1992.
Vins et cuisine de terroir en Languedoc, with J. Clavel, Éditions Privat, 1989,
2nd ed.,1990, out of print.
Histoire et recettes de l’Alsace gourmande, with J.-P.- Drischel and J.-M.
Truchelut, Éditions Privat, 1988, out of print.
Histoire et recettes de la Provence et du Comté de Nice, with J.-L. Rouyer,
Éditions Privat, 1987, out of print.
Le Limousin gourmand, Éditions Privat, 1984, to be republished.
Le pot-au-feu, convivial, familial: histoire d’un mythe, co-author, Éditions
Autrement, 1999.
Cultures. Nourriture, co-author, Éditions Actes Sud, “Babel,” no. 245, 1997.
L’histoire du vin; une histoire de rites, co-author, Office international de la
vigne et du vin, 1997.
 Acknowledgments

This book would not have been possible without the research I conducted with
colleagues and without long conversations with other researchers engaged
with food. Among the sociologists involved are:

–– Edgar Morin, who supervised my thesis in the 1980s, when the

theme was not especially in vogue.

–– Georges Condominas, to whom I am indebted for his theories, for

Vietnam, his energy, and that meal at the Hue citadel . . .

–– Claude Fischler, for our shared debt to Edgar Morin, for fresh
territories revealed in France and abroad, and for all our reciprocal and
friendly assistance.

–– Jean-Pierre Corbeau, a friend and colleague at the “Sociology and

Anthropology of Food” Research Committee, AISLF.

–– Françoise Paul-Lévy, a friend whose radical approach and rigorous

attitude to theory helped me to construct or reconstruct my positions
during our long conversations.

–– Annie Hubert, for her solidarity, her knowledge of the technology

of cuisine − both academic, as the heir to André Haudricourt, but
also practical and gastronomic − for South-East Asia, Reunion
Island and the smoked meats . . .

–– Jean-Louis Lambert; our encounters through various Ministry of

Agriculture research programs were always fruitful and friendly.

–– Claude Rivière, for his encouragements and highly stimulating

comments, and our shared interest in Guinea-Conakry.

–– Jean-Michel Berthelot, who guided me on a career change, and

whose advice was a powerful motivator.

–– Christiane Rondi, an organizer at the AISLF, who always paid

close attention to the work of the CR17.

–– Dominique Desjeux, as an editor who offered me his trust, and

as the anthropologist whose works inspired me.
xxii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to many in the medical world, to all those who fought to ensure
that sociologists have a voice in nutrition sciences. Pierre Barbe and Jean-
Pierre Louvet, who gave me a platform at the first colloquiums. Monique
Romon, Bernard Guy-Grand, Arnaud Basdevant, and Luc Méjan, my advocates
at the editorial committee of the Cahiers de nutrition et de diététique.
INSERM’s expertise on child obesity gave me both the opportunity to conduct
sociological studies on obesity and to observe nutrition sciences at work.
My utmost gratitude goes to: Gérard Ailhaud, Bernard Beck, Pierre-François
Bougnères, Marie-Aline Charles, Marie-Laure Frelut, Marina Martinosky,
Marie- Françoise Rolland-Cachera, Daniel Rivière, Daniel Ricquier, Christian
Waisse, Olivier Ziegler and Jeanne Étiemble.
In the domain of agronomical research, Jean-Claude Flamand, Georges Borie,
Jean-Marie Guilloux, Valérie Péan and the team on the agrobioscience project
at INRA created a fascinating dialogue between the supposedly hard sciences
and the social sciences.
In the marketing sector, Mohamed Merdji and Geneviève Cazes-Valette
were keen to create a link between our disciplines, and became our friends.
In a domain such as the sociology of food, research activities can only
be developed through partnerships with that of economics. The studies
conducted with and for the CIDIL under the direction of Yves Boutonnat and
Mijo Vernay, the Compass group, with Patrick Bénard, Christophe Mériot,
Roger Genty and Pierre Auberger, and Nestlé France with Simone Prigent,
provided the opportunity to collect the empirical data vital to scientific work.
I also owe much to the members of the scientific committee of the
Observatoire CIDIL de l’Harmonie Alimentaire (OCHA): Marian Apfelbaum,
Claude Fischler, Matty Chiva, Jean-Louis Flandrin, Marie-Christine and Didier
Clément, Francès Huffer, and Maggy Bieulac, the tireless organizer.
Finally, I am very grateful to the members of the CRITHA team: Jacinthe
Bessière, Jean-Marie Delorme, Muriel Gineste, Sandrine Jeanneau, Cyrille
Laporte, Frédéric Zancanaro, Paul-Emmanuel Pichon, Jean-Marc Vanhoutte,
Jean Zammit, and, of course, last but not least, Laurence Tibère, are all fully
associated with this work.
 List of abbreviations

AFSSA Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments

AFERO Association Française d’Étude et de Recherche sur l’Obésité

AISLF Association Internationale des Sociologues de Langue

Française

ALFEDIAM Association de Langue Française pour l’Étude du Diabète

et des Maladies Métaboliques

ANAES Agence Nationale d’Accréditation et d’Évaluation en Santé

AOC Appellation d’origine contrôlée

BMI Body Mass Index

BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

CNAC Conseil National des Arts Culinaires

CNOUS Centre National des Oeuvres Universitaires et Scolaires

CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

CREDOC Centre de Recherche et d’Étude

ESRC Economic and Social Research Council

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GATT General Agreement on Tariff and Trade

GIRA Gordon Institute Research Associates

GMO Genetically Modified Organism

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points

IDC International Classification of Diseases

INSEE Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques

INSERM Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale

IOTF International Obesity Task Force

xxiv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ISO International Organization for Standardization

NAAFA National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance

NIH National Institute of Health

RHF (Restauration Hors Foyer) Non-Domestic Catering

SNDLF Société de Nutrition et de Diététique de Langue Française

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization

WHO World Health Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

 Introduction

M an needs nutrients: carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, mineral salts,

vitamins, water and so on, which he finds in the natural products that
form part of his environment. However, he can only ingest and absorb these
in the form of food—in other words, natural products that have been culturally
constructed and developed and transformed and consumed in accordance
with highly socialized conventional practices. Cooking and the observance
of table manners are social activities carried out within a space free of the
material restrictions of an ecological, technological, and biological nature.
Human beings’ conception of the fulfillment of their nutritional needs cannot
be reduced to strictly utilitarian or technological considerations. Food plays a
structuring role in the social organization of a human community. Whether the
focus is on production, distribution, preparation or consumption, it is a vital
area of socio-anthropological scholarship and has been recognized as such
by a large number of researchers in social and human sciences: ethnologists,
sociologists, anthropologists, geographers, historians and psychologists.
However, it has proved somewhat difficult to present the subject of “food” as
a distinct category within these disciplines.
In the field of sociology, food practices initially appear to be a commonplace,
almost standard theme, and one to which various schools of thought have
applied their “explanatory paradigms.” At the same time, however, they are
also the subject of a theoretical paradox. These practices are almost invariably
the focus of sociological scrutiny. Perhaps most particularly in the case
of France, they serve as identity markers and as a means of developing a
coding system to differentiate between social groups—and yet they have had
difficulty in being accepted as a genuine subject for sociological study.
Today’s sociologists are called on by colleagues who specialize in
neighboring scientific disciplines—nutritionists, food science and food safety
specialists, economists, administrators and political analysts—to attempt to
elucidate what they term the “irrational” behavior of eaters or consumers
in the context of a “food crisis.” Food has long been confined within the
categories of “health,” “gastronomy” and “cookery,” and is seen as one of
those perennial, constantly recurring themes in articles of the “Want to shed
those excess kilos before your holiday?” variety. In today’s media, it occupies
2 THE SOCIOLOGY OF FOOD

the prominent position reserved for major social issues or even worse, for
scandals. Now it makes headlines in the main daily papers and is the focus of
features on TV magazine programs or in the written press.
Still reeling from the shock of having to manage the “contaminated blood
scandal,” politicians in France have called on experts to attempt to identify the
scientific and social issues underlying this crisis. A food safety agency, AFSSA
(Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments), has been established,
and “citizen conferences” on food have been held. These public consultations
are presented as a system for democratic risk management and a new tool
for governance.
For over twenty years now, the signs of new scientific interest and activity
are becoming evident. These come in response to an intense social demand
from the general public as well as from public and private institutions, which
are in a position to finance research into the social and human sciences.1
There have been theses, scientific books and articles, commissions from
institutions for research and studies, and more insistent questions from the
public and the press. Ultimately, these could lead to a new definition of the
theoretical status of this subject.
This work is intended to form an appraisal of the sociology of food and eating,
or more precisely, the “sociologies,” the plural form being more apposite at
this point. Our study will be divided into two stages. The initial focus will be
on contemporary food practices, the changes they are undergoing, and the
permanent features that have become apparent. What are the impacts of
globalization? Between “McDonaldization” and the re-invention of traditional
local cuisine, what has become of food consumption models? What effects—
described by some as disintegration—have transformations in the structure of
our everyday lives had on our eating habits? What lies behind this feeling of
crisis, of aggravated risk in relation to modern eating practices? Our aim is to
see how sociology can contribute to our understanding of this phenomenon
and to identify the social issues that underlie them. We will take the case of
obesity and its development in the Western world as a means of analyzing
transformations in attitudes to food. The medicalization of our daily eating
habits will serve as our starting point with regard to the dialogue between the
social sciences and human nutritional sciences.
In the second section, we will turn to the history of sociology to see how
the chief schools of thought within this discipline have considered the subject
of food while studying issues deemed more important. We will then examine
the gradual shift that has taken place, from a general sociological interest in
food practices to the attempts to establish a “sociology of food and eating.”
Indeed, from the 1970s onward, this subject was central to the work of certain
sociologists and anthropologists: Igor de Garine, Claude Fischler, Annie Hubert,
 INTRODUCTION 3

Claude Grignon, Nicolas Herpin, Jean-Pierre Corbeau, Jean-Louis Lambert,

and Jean-Pierre Poulain.
However, there are many possible avenues of study; these may form an
extension to the sociology of consumption, or to studies of “body techniques”
(the ways in which the body is used in different societies), to the sociology
of culture, or to the sociology of the imaginary. It is actually more accurate to
speak of sociological approaches toward food rather than a sociology of food.
Our interest, therefore, lies in the epistemological status of food within the
domain of sociology and, more broadly, within French culture. In France, the
history of sociology as a discipline and of its establishment in the university
system, in competition with other disciplines, has had a significant bearing on
the definition of its subject: social phenomena. This has created a sensitive
situation with regard to the study of complex topics in which sociological,
biological, and psychological dimensions all come into play. There have been
all too few sociological studies devoted to the socio-historical phenomenon of
gastronomy, that prime marker of French identity. Until its extreme complexity
and the social functions it fulfills have been clarified, the development of
sociological reflections on eating and food will be impeded. Finally, using
the concept of the “food social space,” developed in the work of Georges
Condominas (1980), we will seek to discover the circumstances under which
the sociological gaze falls on food and eating practices.
4
 PART ONE

Permanent and
changing aspects
in modern eating
practices

A t the end of the Second World War, while hardship and shortages were
still fresh in the collective memory, a productivity pact was formed
between the farming sector and the French nation. The challenge quite simply
involved feeding the entire population. Both cherished and cursed by the
political world, French farmers, backed by agronomic research, accomplished
a true technological revolution in less than two generations. This was to enable
them not only to meet that commitment, despite their steadily decreasing
numbers, but also to ensure the development of the agri-industrial sector,
which spearheads the nation’s exports today.
The history of food consumption in the Western world is marked by a
fundamental break that occurred in the latter half of the twentieth century,
6 THE SOCIOLOGY OF FOOD

when man lost his connection to his environment. Following centuries of

atavistic malnutrition, everyone can now eat their fill; there are distinctive
social practices, of course, but at least food is finally available to all (Aron 1987).
A lasting impression of abundance—soon to become overabundance—was
established.
These structural transformations in the food sector were accompanied by
a change in collective thought. The early 1980s witnessed the emergence of
a “new poverty,” with people struggling to feed themselves just as European
Community fridges were being piled high with thousands of tonnes of beef
and butter taken off the market in order to maintain prices. Artists, singers and
musicians then joined forces in support of the charitably founded “restaurants
du cœur” (literally “restaurants of the heart”) chanting the refrain: “No-one
should be allowed to be cold or hungry today!” Underlying this generosity
of spirit was a fundamental change in the value systems of Western society:
eating had ceased to be the primary aim of the social group and had become
an entitlement. No longer associated with “charity,” which was rooted in
religious sentiment or in the socially oriented political thought that had long
prevailed, it now entered the domain of human rights. The right to eat was
elevated to a fundamental value, just as the rights to healthcare and leisure
time were established in the 1930s.
The year 1996 witnessed the eruption of the crisis related to “mad cow
disease” followed a few months later by the row on genetically modified
foods (GMO). The headline in Libération proclaimed: “Après la vache folle, le
soja fou . . .” (“First mad cows, and now mad soya beans”). Food became a
focus of intense media interest, with listeriosis and food poisoning in general
making front-page news. It was discovered that our cows’ fodder included
bone meal made from slaughterhouse waste; this caused immense shock,
which was symbolic in its nature. Here were herbivores being made to eat
animal products and, worse still, products from their own species—when
they were not being fed human placenta instead. Some newspapers ventured
to run the headline: “From Mad Cows to Cannibal Cows.”
The nightmare goes on. We have been informed that sewage sludge and
used oil have been put into chicken feed. The slightest details regarding animal
fodder, the conditions in which livestock are reared, and food processing
methods are all out in the open. This world, hitherto unknown to urban
consumers, is now brought to them directly by the TV news, just as they are
eating their family meal. This is a world of increasingly sophisticated technology,
manipulated by “sorcerers’ apprentices” ready to sacrifice the laws of nature
on the altar of productivity and profit. We are becoming appreciably more
anxious about what we are putting into our bodies. “We no longer know
what we are eating,” and, if that is the case, “we cannot know what we will
become” (Fischler 1990). The expression “La mal bouffe”1—known in English
 ASPECTS IN MODERN EATING PRACTICES 7

as “Frankenfood”—now serves to accentuate a perverted form of modernity.

We gradually veer from crisis to scandal, toward the unthinkable.
Manufacturers would like to teach us how to “manage” the risks involved
in eating, to reassure consumers, as they put it. However, entrenched in a
techno-scientific culture of quality, they have difficulty in grasping the reactions
of contemporary consumers, viewed as too irrational and accused of giving
way to hysteria. They have equal trouble in understanding the insistence of the
press on reporting the slightest incident, condemning this as irresponsible.
For, ever since the mad cow saga, food, particularly of the mal bouffe variety,
has become a regular feature in the media, and one that requires constant
refueling.
Politicians have had their fingers burned by the contaminated blood scandal
and are taking steps to cover themselves. Suspect products are withdrawn
from the market in the name of caution, sometimes too hastily, and with no
thought for the disastrous effects this will have on certain production sectors.
Advisory committees are called on to present us with the facts. However,
current knowledge is insufficient (and at times even contradictory), particularly
with regard to new issues such as prion diseases. The situation requires
caution, and conclusions are being expressed in a probabilistic manner
characteristic of the scientific domain. This does not exactly serve to reassure
the public or the media, who are seeking a simple yes or no answer to the
simple question: “Is this dangerous?” This has led to a permanent feeling
of crisis, and the proliferation of seminars and conferences devoted to food
safety has done more to aggravate the situation than to alleviate it.
As troubles never come alone, so France, which has previously had a good
record regarding obesity, with its astonishingly low prevalence rate in adults
(barely 6 percent), now seems to have been affected by this problem. Indeed,
child obesity is developing at such a rate that in twenty years’ time it could
have reached the same level as that of the United States (INSERM 2000).
French specialists in obesity, following in the footsteps of their American
colleagues, have spoken of an epidemic, with some even venturing to use
the term “pandemic.” Changes in our eating practices have been singled out
for blame—notably the “Americanization” of our habits. This has had an effect
on our national pride; we have been deluded by nutritional discourses such
as the “French paradox”2 and “Mediterranean diets,” which are more or less
imaginary in nature (Hubert 1998).
A challenge to globalization arose in the very heart of the Aveyron
department, on the Plateau du Larzac. That iconic site had previously played
a central role in the resistance to Promethean modernity that had witnessed
the participation of the “’68 generation.” A protest movement was organized,
and a McDonald’s restaurant under construction in Millau was destroyed—
or rather, dismantled. José Bové, the leader of the Confédération Paysanne