Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Putting Food on the Table:
Rethinking the Culture and Nature
Problematic in Light of the
Sociology of Food
Elisha Vlaholias
Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Honours Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Sociology
20th July 2012
1
We should look for someone to eat and drink
with before looking for something to eat and drink, for dining alone is leading the life of a lion or a wolf.
-Epicurus, BC 341-270
2
ABSTRACT
Food is emerging as an important aspect of environmental problems, and, perhaps in an
interrelated fashion, an incipient field of debate in sociology. However scholarly responses
to food as an environmental issue, sociological or otherwise, have hitherto commonly
viewed food as an 'ingredient' of larger environmental concerns, rather than a matter to be
focused on in its own right. In this way environmental sociology is like a cooking recipe,
which asks you to 'add food and stir' without questioning the very recipe, or in this case the
theoretical framework itself. Yet as theoretical understandings underpin both social
practices and sociological research, it is essential that such theories be problematised and
debated as new issues come to light. This is what the present thesis proposes to do.
This thesis comprises the first stage of a larger research programme. Its overarching
premise is that the social category and cultural meanings of food must be integrated into
any future environmental sociology. However as a first step the current study limits its
focus to the interrogation of theoretical frameworks underpinning the sociology of the
environment and the emerging sociology of food, which are articulated as responses to the
nature/culture problematic in modernity. Since 'food' is inherently and simultaneously
'natural' and 'cultural' it problematises the nature/culture divide in a new way that requires
further inspection. For this reason this project takes food as a heuristic tool to
reproblematise and rearticulate the nature/culture divide that underpins social theoretical
frameworks of the environment.
The overall aim of this thesis is to critically engage with two ‘case studies’ in social theory
(authored by Claude Lévi-Strauss and Klaus Eder respectively) that have considered food
3
as a central social category in relation to the culture/nature divide. The purpose of this
comparison is to critically analyse and extract valuable insights from these texts that will be
rethought and reconstructed to consider the implications they might have towards the
development of a new conceptual framework. This new framework will examine the
cultural meanings of food, and understand food as a serious environmental issue, which
intersects both the broader industrial sphere and our everyday lives. This thesis thus
provides a preliminary step towards an environmental sociology of food.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is a pleasure to thank several people who, in one way or another, contributed and
extended their valuable assistance in the preparation and completion of this thesis.
It is difficult to overstate my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Suzi Adams, without
her support, inspiration, masterly explanations, and valuable feedback this thesis would not
have been possible. In particular I wish to express my deepest thanks for her extraordinary
patience as the preparation of this thesis overshot numerous deadlines.
I wish to thank my friends for their encouraging messages and for understanding my
absence whilst in my “study cave”.
Special thanks goes to my dearest sister, Naomi Vlaholias, for her camaraderie, skilful
tech-support, and diligent editing, not only of this thesis, but my many undergraduate
essays too.
I would also like to thank Elyse Aird and Shaileigh Page for their enthusiasm,
encouragement, and proofreading that helped to polish this work.
Last but not least, my parents, Nick Vlaholias and Rebecca Vlaholias, for their love and
support throughout all my studies. I would like to particularly thank my dad for his daily
cheerful encouragement, let’s hope I am indeed “on a winner”. Finally, I am indebted to
my mum for her endless support and for keenly discussing and listening to all my ideas and
rants about the modern food system over countless cups of tea.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 4 Introduction: An Appetiser 6
Overview and Summary of Chapters…………………………………………................8 Methodology………………………………………………….......................................11 A Note on Terminology………………………………………………………..............15
Chapter 1: What’s Cooking? Nature, the Environment, and Food in Sociology 18
The Sociology of Nature……………………………………………………………….20 Environmental Sociology………………………………………………………………27 The Sociology of Food…………………………………………………………………30
Chapter 2: The Structuralist Language of Food: Claude Lévi-Strauss 39
Intellectual Biography………………………………………………………………….40 The Raw and the Cooked………………………………………………………………49 The Culinary Triangle………………………………………………………………….54
Chapter 3: The Symbolic Frameworks of Food: Klaus Eder 65
Intellectual Sources…………………………………………………………………….66 The Social Construction of Nature……………………………………………..……....69 Culinary Morality……………………………………………………...……….............80
Conclusions and Future Directions: The Elementary Forms of Food 86
Claude Lévi-Strauss…………………………………………………………………....88 Klaus Eder……………………………………………………………………………...91 Civilisation and Kultur………………………………………………………………....94
Bibliography 99
6
INTRODUCTION: An Appetiser
In the last century the modern food system has become one of the largest global industries
with world food exports estimated to be over US$1026 billion in 2010 (Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2010, p.21).1 The food industry is a prime source of
profit, export, and employment, which involves a wide variety of stakeholders, such as
corporations, government agencies, unions, consumer groups, and health professionals
(Germov & Williams 2008, p.11). A concerning factor of the modern food system is that it
is dominated by Northern industrialised countries, and many of these key players have very
different interests (Beardsworth & Keil 1997; Dowler et al. 2009). The consequence of this
issue is that food is becoming an ‘industrialised product of global capitalism’ (Dowler et al.
2009, p.200). This shift has brought attention to the alarming reality of the modern food
system’s contribution to environmental problems, including greenhouse gas emissions, the
depletion of water, oil, and other vital resources. This shift has also led to predictions about
the effect of climate change on future food production (Dowler et al. 2009; Ericksen 2008;
Garnett 2008; Leahy 2008; Pretty et al. 2005).
The modern food system is progressively distancing nature from culture by encouraging
society to view the natural environment as an array of commodities and an infinite
resource.2 Many approaches to the environmental problems of the modern food system
have focused on economic and technological-based aspects. However this thesis argues
that changing practices can only occur if we investigate the underlying constitutions of
meanings concerning food that inform our changing social practices at a core level.
Understanding food as a social and cultural category is important because environmental
7
issues, such as ozone depletion, deforestation, and wildlife conservation can seem distant
and removed from everyday life, whereas the consumption of food is an activity that all
humans (ideally) engage in daily.3 This daily interaction with food makes environmental
problems more relevant, immediate, and accessible to people than the abstract and
distanced environmental issues mentioned above.
Food is significant because it is the ‘most elementary and simultaneously the most ‘social’
level of interaction with nature’ (Eder 1996 [1988], p.viii). The significance of food has
been recognised by some of the classical sociologists. For instance, Georg Simmel
explains that:
The fact we must eat is such a primitive and low-level fact in the development
of our life values, that it is without question something every individual has in
common with every other one. This is what makes gathering for a common
meal possible, and the overcoming of the mere naturalism of eating develops
on socialization mediated in this way. If eating were not such a low-level thing
it would not have found the bridge over which it rises to the significance of the
sacrificial meal, to the stylization and aestheticization of its ultimate forms
(Simmel 1957, p.250).
Cooking and eating are tasks that hold an importance far greater than simply fulfilling
physiological needs; they also represent a social activity and cultural form.4 This is evident
in research from social anthropology (see Douglas 1984; Goody 1982; Kuper 1997), which
reveals that ‘a commonly shared symbolic world is produced and reproduced’ (Eder 1996
[1988], p.ix) in the universal act of cooking and eating daily (Lévi-Strauss 1970 [1964]).5
Food is a powerful symbolic form that is established by assumed patterns of knowledge
that are spoken through the expression of norms when we consume food daily (Goody
1982). It is evident that ‘food’ is a subject of great cultural significance, but at the same
8
time it is essential to, and has numerous consequences for the natural environment (Taylor
2012).
Overview and Summary of Chapters
Food is becoming a significant feature of environmental problems, and, possibly in a
related manner, an emerging field of debate in sociology. However academic responses to
food as an environmental issue, sociological or otherwise, have thus far generally examined
food as an 'ingredient' of larger environmental concerns, rather than a matter to be focused
on in its own right. In this vein environmental sociology is like a cooking recipe, which
asks you to 'add food and stir' without questioning the very recipe, or in this case the
conceptual framework itself. However, because theoretical understandings underpin both
sociological research and social practices, it is critical that such theories be problematised
and debated as new issues come to light. This is what the present thesis aims to do.
This thesis is the initial stage of a larger research project. Its overarching premise is that
the social category and cultural meanings of food need to be included in any future
environmental sociology. Although as a preliminary step, the current study restricts its
scope to the examination of theoretical frameworks underpinning the sociology of the
environment and the emerging sociology of food, which are articulated as responses to the
nature/culture problematic in modernity. Since 'food' is essentially and simultaneously
'natural' and 'cultural' it problematises the nature/culture divide in a new way that requires
further inquiry. Therefore this thesis takes food as a heuristic tool to reproblematise and
rearticulate the nature/culture divide that underlines social theoretical frameworks of the
environment.
9
The overall intention of this thesis is to critically analyse two ‘case studies’ in social theory
(authored by Claude Lévi-Strauss and Klaus Eder respectively) that have studied food as a
major social category in relation to the nature/culture dualism. The purpose of this
comparison is to draw out and critically evaluate valuable insights from these texts that will
be rethought and reconstructed to consider the consequences they might have towards the
development of a new conceptual framework. This new framework will examine the
cultural meanings of food, and understand food as a serious environmental issue that
bridges the broader industrial sphere and our everyday lives. Hence this thesis provides a
first step towards an environmental sociology of food.
The current thesis specifically asks: ‘How can the social category of ‘food’ help to
problematise the meanings of the nature/culture divide in modern society?’. Rethinking the
nature/culture divide is important because understandings and interpretations of the
culture/nature divide vary in time and space, and inform our social practices and encounters
with our natural environment. The underlying social interpretations of the nature/culture
divide are not often made explicit, but as this project ultimately aims to develop a new
theoretical framework, these understandings need to be made explicit and problematised.
To this end this thesis must be seen as the first step of a larger research programme that
ultimately aims to develop an environmental sociology of food. An environmental
sociology of food will contribute to the rethinking of broader theoretical frameworks in
social theory and environmental sociology. It is a preparatory step to reinterpreting and
reproblematising concrete social practices and cultural meanings concerning food and the
environment, which are needed for social change.
10
The necessity of an environmental sociology of food will become much clearer in chapter
one, which will review the relevant literature from the sociology of nature, environmental
sociology, and the sociology of food. It will show that the sociology of nature was
developed as a response to the nature/culture divide in sociology, but it has neglected to
examine food as an important feature of this divide. The consequence of this inattention to
food is that the sociology of nature has strived to transcend the nature/culture dualism,
whereas by reproblematising the nature/culture divide with the social category food as a
central lens, the nature/culture divide does not need to be overcome. Instead the
nature/culture divide can become less of a dichotomy and more of an interplay that will
engage in both social constructionist and critical realist perspectives. The literature review
will also show that the sociology of food and environmental sociology have made
significant contributions to the sociological study of food. However neither field has
closely examined the concrete social practices, and the cultural meanings of food as an
environmental issue.
In chapter two the first case study is presented, which will hermeneutically reconstruct
Claude Lévi-Strauss’s The Raw and the Cooked (1970 [1964]) and his related essay ‘The
culinary triangle’ (1966a). Specifically this chapter will consider Lévi-Strauss’s intellectual
sources, and will examine his structuralist approach that he used to develop his culinary
triangle. From this understanding Lévi-Strauss’s culinary triangle and his distinction
between nature and culture will be critically analysed to segue into chapter three.
In chapter three Klaus Eder’s The Social Construction of Nature (1996 [1988]) will be
critically analysed as the second case study of this thesis. This chapter will situate Eder’s
work into the wider debates of modernity and critical theory, and it will analyse Eder’s
11
social constructionist approach to nature. From this perspective it will consider how Eder
links his interpretation of the relationship between nature, culture, and society to the
environmental problems of modern industrial societies, which will set a firm foundation for
the concluding discussion.
The concluding chapter, ‘The Elementary Forms of Food’, will critically analyse Lévi-
Strauss’s The Raw and the Cooked (1970 [1964]) and his ‘The culinary triangle’ (1966a)
together with Eder’s The Social Construction of Nature (1996 [1988]). It will extract
important insights from both of these texts, which will be rethought to consider how they
may contribute towards elaborating a conceptual framework for an environmental
sociology of food. As a result this thesis will establish the centrality of food in rethinking
the nature/culture divide, and it will determine that the social category and cultural
meanings of food problematises the nature/culture divide in a new way. The present thesis
will conclude by considering the future potential of this renewed problematic for both
theory and practice in modern society.
Methodology
This thesis will conduct a hermeneutical reconstruction of selected works by Lévi-Strauss
and Klaus Eder. Lévi-Strauss and Eder’s texts have been included for analysis because
they are two of the few works that explicitly consider the nature/culture divide and
recognise ‘food’ as a central category in their respective analyses.6 The present thesis
employs the methodology of textual analysis that draws on techniques from hermeneutics,
and also engages in the emancipatory intent of critical social theory. Hermeneutics and
critical social theory are contested theoretical approaches, and so it is important to clarify
and explain how these methods will be utilised in this thesis.
12
Hermeneutics is the art and/or science of interpretation, which is primarily concerned with
analysing and deciphering the meaning of a text (Bauman 1978; Harvey & Myers 1995;
Radnitzky 1970). Although in the twentieth century it expanded beyond textual analysis
alone. It has a long history and was originally used to identify the truth and authenticity of
Biblical interpretations (Bauman 1978, p.1). Since then various forms of hermeneutics
have emerged, and these diverse approaches have been questioned and widely debated (see
Gadamer 1976; Habermas 1978; Ricoeur 1974; Thompson 1981). The twentieth century
saw the shift from hermeneutics as textual analysis to a hermeneutics that encompassed a
broader ‘philosophical hermeneutics’ (see Gadamer 1976, 1979a; Heidegger 1999; Ricoeur
1974), and later to a ‘cultural hermeneutics’ found in some forms of interpretative and/or
cultural sociology (see Bauman 1978; Alexander 2003, 2007; Alexander & Smith 2001;
Arnason 1988). The hermeneutical differences between Paul Ricoeur (1974, 1981, 1991
[1986]) and Hans-Georg Gadamer (1976, 1979a, 1979b, 2006 [1970]) are important to the
methodology of this thesis, therefore a discussion of their perspectives is necessary at this
point.
Gadamer’s understanding of hermeneutics resulted from his critique of the earlier works of
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1987) and Wilhelm Dilthey (1989). Schleiermacher and Dilthey
subscribed to a form of ‘pure hermeneutics’, in which the interpreter needs to place
themselves in ‘the mind’ of the author to recover the original intention and correct meaning
of the text (Schleiermacher 1987; Dilthey 1989). Gadamer disagreed with this notion and
argued that hermeneutics ‘is not a matter of penetrating the spiritual activities of the author;
it is simply a question of grasping the meaning, significance, and aim of what is transmitted
to us’ (1979a, p.147). Gadamer believed that a text must preserve its relationship to the
author’s perspective, which is distinct to Ricoeur’s understanding of hermeneutics. Ricoeur
13
argued that there is an essential difference between the hermeneutical tasks of written and
conscious communication (1991 [1986], p.107). He suggested that the text is considered as
an object of study separate from the author’s intentions. He perceived texts to be ‘full of
meaning, charged with latent philosophies’ (Ricoeur in Lévi-Strauss 1970 [1963]).7 This
is a central idea of critical hermeneutics, which argues that texts should no longer be
interpreted as closed or true forms. On the contrary, the task of interpretation always
remains open and available to various understandings, to such an extent that hermeneutic
interpretation is potentially infinite (Taylor 1985).
This thesis resonates more strongly with Ricoeur’s hermeneutic approach than Gadamer’s
perspective. It seeks to critically interpret the selected texts of Lévi-Strauss and Eder,
rather than producing a commentary or exegesis of them. The present thesis interprets texts
as autonomous and independent from the author’s erstwhile intentions. Hence it will
critically engage with Lévi-Strauss and Eder’s respective works in a way that may exceed
their ‘explicit intentions and open up areas of discussion to which, at first glance, they may
not readily lend themselves’ (Adams 2011, p.12). This method is evident in the concluding
discussion, in which valuable insights will be extracted from Lévi-Strauss and Eder’s texts.
Their ideas will be rethought as a first step towards developing a theoretical framework
more adequate in elaborating an environmental sociology of food. An environmental
sociology of food will have theoretical consequences and practical implications for modern
society, and in this way it draws on the emancipatory approach of critical social theory.
Critical social theory emerged during the Enlightenment and it has continued to exist
predominately in European scholarship (Elliott 2009, p.xiii). It is a wide-ranging
endeavour that questions and ‘opens up’ the very giveness of the social world, and our
14
lives, to critical analysis and appraisal (Calhoun 1995; Elliott 2010). Calhoun states that
the main goal of critical social theory is to ask questions and move beyond the familiar
world, to discover new perspectives and possibilities of what society could be (1995, pp.1-
2). This central purpose stems from the work of German neo-Marxist academics of the
‘Frankfurt School’ (see Adorno & Horkheimer 2002 [1944]; Habermas 1989; Marcuse
1986).8 Critical theorists refuted traditional theory and the way it focused purely on
explaining and understanding society. In contrast they argued that the way the world is,
and the way we view the world, is a reciprocal relationship that influences and directs each
other. The Frankfurt School’s critical theory had a unique approach to social research,
because it sought to bring about emancipation and change to society as a whole.
This understanding of critical theory emanated, to a great extent, from Karl Marx’s use of
the term ‘critique’ in Capital (Marx 1954 [1893]). Marx established the idea of ‘critique’
as the critique of ideology, and he connected it to the practice of social revolution. This is
clear in his famous eleven ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, in which he argues that, ‘The
philosophers have only interpreted the world differently, the point is, to change it’ (Marx &
Engels 1970 [1845], p.199). Marx’s ‘Eleventh Thesis’ is an age-old call for the social
theorist’s responsibility to do more than think about the world; they also need to inform
action (Lemert 2010, p.283). The purpose of critical social theory is not to simply diagnose
the ills of modern society, but to help change society for the better by discovering its
progressive features and dispositions (Carr 2000; Geuss 1981). In a similar vein, the
present thesis emerged from a critique of the environmental ills of the modern food system.
This thesis will now interrogate the meanings of the nature/culture divide with the social
category of food as a first step towards developing an environmental sociology of food. An
environmental sociology of food will have theoretical consequences, but it will also offer
15
practical perspectives for modern society. As a result this thesis, and the future research
programme it proposes, adopts the methodology of critical social theory in conjunction
with hermeneutics to bridge theory with concrete issues of public concern.
A Note on Terminology
The fields of the sociology of nature, environmental sociology, and the sociology of food
are not only characterised by various theoretical approaches, but also by a variety of
terminology that can be ambiguous. In particular the ‘modern food system’ is a term that
has been widely used to conceptualise the full scope of the food industry. It encompasses a
series of processes involved in transforming raw materials into foods, and is often
described by phrases such as ‘from field to table’ or ‘farm to plate’ (Kneen 1989; Sobal,
Khan & Bisogni 1998). Food system models have been developed as conceptual tools for
analysing the relations between agricultural, industrial, economic, ecological, social, health,
and other aspects of food and nutrition (Beardsworth & Keil 1997; Germov & Williams
2008; Sobal et al. 1998). A variety of models have been developed that focus on various
aspects of the food industry: food chains (see Austin & Zeitlin 1981; Blanford, Carter &
Piggott 1993; Hitchcock 1980; King & Burgess 1993; Marion 1986); food webs (see
Senauer 1992; Silverstein 1984); food contexts (see Bowler 1992; Burns, McInerney &
Swinbank 1983); and food cycles (see Kim & Curry 1993; Kramer 1973). However these
food models often simplify the processes involved in the production, distribution, and
consumption of food, and generally fail to account for global, political, cultural, and
environmental concerns (Germov & Williams 2008, pp.11-12).
For this reason the current thesis applies the term ‘modern food system’ with reference to
Geoff Tansey and Tony Worsley’s definition (1995). The modern food system
16
conceptualises the connections between three distinct aspects of life: first, biological: the
living processes to produce food and their ecological sustainability; second, economic and
political: the power and control which different groups exert over the different parts of the
system; and third, social and cultural: the personal relations, community values, and
cultural traditions which affect people’s use of food (Tansey & Worsley 1995, p.2).
Throughout this thesis food is primarily understood as a cultural form. Cultural forms are
interconnected with notions of ‘symbolic forms’, and the most seminal discussions of
‘symbolic forms’ are found in the work of Ernst Cassirer (see Cassirer 1953). Hence, for
the purposes of this thesis ‘cultural form’ and ‘symbolic form’ are used interchangeably.
Furthermore an essential point in the present thesis is that nature and culture are not just
‘things’ or ‘facts’, rather they are always invested with ‘cultural meanings’ that make them
‘real’ to us. Thus reference to the ‘social category of food’ in this thesis actually denotes
‘the cultural meanings of food as a social category’. With this in mind the subsequent
chapter will review the relevant literature from the sociology of nature, environmental
sociology, and the sociology of food to set a firm foundation for the discussion that follows.
1 The term ‘modern food system’ will be defined on p.15. 2 This has been an enduring critical concern in environmental debates (see Castoriadis 1981, 1985; Everdeen 1993; Simmons 1993). 3 Climate change was not added to this list, as in the view of the present writer, climate change is articulated as both ‘distant’ and ‘close’. It is distant in the sense that ordinary people do not feel they can do much to change it, but it is also close because it is experienced and noticed in people’s everyday life (through floods, changing temperatures etc.). 4 Due to the scope of this thesis, the present study will primarily focus on food as a cultural form, i.e. the meanings of food. 5 The terms ‘cultural form’ and ‘symbolic form’ will be discussed on p.16. 6 The work of Ronald Barthes, particularly his essay ‘Towards a psychosociology of contemporary food consumption’ (1997), was considered as an appropriate text for analysis, because in an arguably similar manner to Lévi-Strauss, he examined foods in order to find an underlying code or ‘grammar’ (1997, p.21). During the preliminary stages of this project, the merits of Barthes and Lévi-Strauss’s respective works were assessed in relation to the premise of this study. From this evaluation the present writer decided that Lévi-Strauss’s selected works were most suitable to the
17
central question animating this thesis (i.e. How can the social category of food help to problematise the nature/culture divide in modern society?). 7 This discussion of hermeneutics was part of a famous debate published in Esprit (Ricoeur in Lévi-Strauss 1970 [1963]) at the height of structuralism, and on the occasion of Lévi-Strauss’s publication of The Savage Mind (1966b). 8 The critical theory of the first and second generation of the Frankfurt School was a primary intellectual source for Eder, such that he is regarded as part of the third generation (Anderson 2011; Strydom 1993). Hence this discussion will be referred to in the analysis of Eder’s intellectual sources in chapter three.
18
CHAPTER 1: What’s Cooking? Nature, the Environment,
and Food in Sociology For many years the nature/culture divide limited sociology’s engagement with anything
beyond the ‘social’. Alan Irwin indicates this was due to the underlying assumption that
nature and society are separable, and therefore social sciences concentrated on all things
‘social’ and left ‘nature’ to the natural sciences (Irwin 2001; Sutton 2004). However in
recent decades the impact of human societies on the natural environment has become a
topic of great sociological interest, to such an extent that nature, the environment, and food
have increasingly emerged as rich fields of study (see, for example, Ferguson & Zukin
1995; Franklin 2002; Johnston & Baumann 2010; Murcott 1983; Sutton 2004; Warde &
Martens 2000). This thesis asks how the social category of food and its various cultural
meanings can help to problematise the meanings of the nature/culture divide in modern
society, and it is a first step towards developing a conceptual framework of an
environmental sociology of food. Its ultimate premise is that food as a social category must
be integrated into any future environmental sociology. However as a preliminary project,
this thesis focuses on the interrogation of theoretical frameworks underpinning the
sociology of the environment and the sociology of food, which are articulated as responses
to the nature/culture problematic in modernity. In turn an environmental sociology of food,
on the one hand, will contribute to the rethinking of theoretical frameworks in social theory
and environmental sociology, and on the other, will help to reinterpret and reproblematise
the concrete social practices and cultural meanings of food and the environment, which is a
necessary precondition of social change.
19
The present chapter will review the relevant literature from the sociology of nature,
environmental sociology, and the sociology of food. Firstly it will inspect why historically
‘nature’ was set outside the realm of sociological investigation. This literature review will
examine the different perspectives of the sociology of nature and environmental sociology,
and it will observe the key debates between social constructionists and critical realists. In
light of these debates this chapter will examine ways that sociologists have sought to move
beyond or rethink the nature/culture divide. It will highlight that in these various attempts
‘food’ has been neglected as an important problematic of this dualism. The current chapter
will then consider the relevant literature from environmental sociology, which in many
ways has replaced the sociology of nature. In environmental sociology ‘food’ is emerging
as an important aspect of environmental problems, however it is commonly viewed as an
‘ingredient’ of larger environmental problems, rather than an issue that needs to be focused
on in its own right.
The present literature review will then turn to analyse the sociology of food. It will
consider the production and consumption ‘division of labour’ in the sociology of food
(Tovey 1997), and it will review two works that have set to overcome this division by
examining the nature/culture divide. This chapter will show that although the various
works from the sociology of food emphasise the significance of food, it is not clear that
they are examining ‘food’ in the same way. For this reason the present chapter will argue
that the sociology of food requires a theoretical approach to give the various perspectives a
common framework. The literature review will conclude by indicating the significant
contributions environmental sociology and the sociology of food have made to the
sociological study of food. However it will argue that neither subject has closely
examined the concrete social practices and cultural meanings of food as an environmental
20
issue. ‘Food’ is increasingly viewed as a central aspect of environmental concerns, and so
this thesis will propose that food must be integrated into any future environmental
sociology.
The Sociology of Nature
‘Nature’, as Raymond Williams comments, ‘is perhaps one of the most complex words in
the English language’ (1976, p.217). When one asks ‘What is nature in sociology?’ the
answer is just as problematic, because the concept of nature is unclear and its meanings
have changed throughout history. Neil Everdeen establishes a difference between ‘nature’,
which is used when ‘referring to the great amorphous mass of otherness that encloaks the
planet’, and ‘nature’ when ‘referring specifically to the system or model of nature which
arose in the West several centuries ago’ (1992, p.xi). Kate Soper explains that nature is
differentiated from human and cultural domains, but it is also a concept that allows us to
question the ‘natural or artificial quality of our own behaviour and cultural formations’
(1995, p.2).1 Nature is often opposed or viewed as an ‘other’ to culture, society, and that
which is ‘artificially’ produced. This notion of nature as an ‘other’ to humans and culture
has been manifest in sociology.
As a discipline sociology was created from the historical rise of industrial capitalism in
Western societies. Phil Macnaghten and John Urry explain that sociology’s ‘key concept
has been that of society [and it has] tended to accept certain a priori assumptions about the
consequent relationship between nature and society’ (1995, p.203). Sociology has taken for
granted the triumph of such modern societies in their ‘spectacular overcoming of nature’,
and has concentrated on describing and explaining ‘the very character of modern societies’
(Macnaghten & Urry 1995). They argue that sociology’s historical indifference to nature
21
has been largely due to the academic division of labour, which arose from the Durkheimian
tradition that sought to establish sociology as a separate science of human societies, which
could research and explain the social world autonomously (Macnaghten & Urry 1998, p.5).
A major aspect of this approach was to demonstrate that ‘social facts’ should be elevated
over the lower order facts from psychology or biology.2 The realm of social facts presumed
its distance from, and antithesis to nature (Dickens 1996; Catton & Dunlap 1978;
Macnaghten & Urry 1998). This arguably drew Durkheim and sociologists away from
investigating the relationship between the biological and the social (Sutton 2004). The
academic distinction between a world of social facts and one of natural facts remained
highly uncontested until very recently. The rise in concern for global environmental
problems through new environmentalist movements and green political parties (see
Touraine 1977, 1981) were important developments that encouraged sociologists to assess
their capacity to conceptualise social-natural relations (Sutton 2004, p.5).
In the past three decades sociology’s interest in nature and the environment has expanded,
and it is now a burgeoning field. However for the purposes of the present thesis, this
literature review will limit its focus to the larger theoretical and conceptual understanding
of nature-society relations. It will draw upon Phillip Sutton’s (2004) conceptual distinction
between the sociology of nature and environmental sociology. Sutton’s variation between
the fields is:
For environmental sociologists, the discipline of sociology has to change if it
is to say anything significant about the looming ‘ecological crisis’, whilst for
[sociologists of nature], it is precisely the relatively detached and critical
character of sociology that is potentially able to bring something new to the
study of environmental issues (Sutton 2004, p.9).
22
These perspectives are not necessarily rigid polarised alternatives, however they currently
seem to be producing different perspectives to the study of nature, the environment, and
society. Underlying these fields is the polarised debate between critical realists and social
constructionists, which at this point requires a brief overview.3
Social constructionism is ‘the bread and butter’ of sociology. A general notion of social
constructionism is that our experiences and interpretations of nature are, to a great extent,
socially produced (see Everdeen 1992; Hannigan 2006; Irwin 2001; Macnaghten & Urry
1998; Smith 1997; Tester 1991). 4 However social constructionism is used in a variety of
ways, and so a common distinction has been made between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ forms of
constructionism. Strong versions of constructionism argue that nature does not exist in an
unmediated form. Furthermore human concepts and theories of nature are open to change,
and so they always require interpretation (Sutton 2004, p.58). An example of this ‘strong’
perspective is Keith Tester’s passage from his work Animals and Society: The Humanity of
Animal Rights, in which he argues:
A fish is only a fish if it is classified as one, and that classification is only
concerned with fish to the extent that [it helps] society define itself…
Animals are indeed a blank paper which can be inscribed with any
message, and symbolic meaning that the social wishes (Tester 1991,
p.46).
Tester rejects the reality of fish and lowers them to the variable meanings and
interpretations that human societies give them. However very few social constructionist
studies of nature and the environment are as extreme as Tester’s perspective (Burningham
& Cooper 1999; Sutton 2004). The majority of social constructionists adopt a ‘weak’
approach that acknowledges that nature does exist independently from humanity’s
23
interpretation, but they maintain that nature and the environment cannot be reduced to that
reality (Hannigan 2006, p.30).
It is the ‘reality of nature’, particularly in regard to real-world environmental issues, that
has caused some environmental sociologists to critique social constructionism for not
providing a ‘solid ground’ to analyse environmental issues. This approach is patent in the
recent work of some British-based sociologists and philosophers who argue for a critical
realist approach to study the relationship between the environment and society (see Benton
1993; Dickens 1996; Soper 1995, 2009). Critical realists are much more assertive about the
natural limits of human intervention and the inescapable reality of the environmental crisis.
Thus they seek to practice an environmental ethics and politics that looks beyond social
relations alone (Franklin 2002, p.6).
There are limitations in both of these ‘deep-rooted’ perspectives, and so several sociologists
have endeavoured to move beyond these positions to develop new ways of investigating
nature and society relations (see Franklin 2002; Freudenburg, Frickel & Gramling 1995;
Goldman & Schurman 2000; Inglis & Bone 2006; Irwin 2001; Macnaghten & Urry 1998).
The general purpose of moving beyond dualistic thinking is to prevent partial knowledge
from one-sided perspectives. Sutton argues that in order to replace this dualism, we require
‘ways of connecting the social and the natural within a single framework that would enable
a new programme for sociologists interested in the environment’ (2004, p.68). This idea is
significant because the present thesis argues that food simultaneously encompasses the
natural and the cultural, thus it can help to better elaborate the nature/culture divide in a
new way. With this in mind the literature review will now assess some leading attempts
that have questioned this divide, and in doing so will extract key ideas and identify gaps in
24
these approaches. This thesis will then seek to fill these gaps by rethinking the culture and
nature divide in modern society, as a first step towards elaborating a conceptual framework
better equipped to address the centrality and meanings of food.
In Macnaghten and Urry’s Contested Natures (1998) they claim to ‘transcend the by now
rather dull debate between ‘realists’ and ‘constructivists’’ (1998, p.2).5 They argue that
there is ‘no singular ‘nature’…only a diversity of contested natures; and that each such
nature is constituted through a variety of socio-cultural processes from which such natures
cannot be plausibly separated’ (Macnaghten & Urry 1998, p.1). Macnaghten and Urry
utilise a historical perspective of nature, such as ‘environment’, ‘countryside’, or
‘wilderness’ to reveal that they are cultural constructs with detailed time and space
aetiologies (1998, p.134). They note that sociology can provide insight into the socially
varied ways that nature and the environment can be viewed, interpreted, and evaluated
(Macnaghten & Urry 1998, p.19). Furthermore they suggest that the role of sociologists
studying nature should focus on ‘embedded social practices’, which ‘structure the
responses of people to what is deemed to be the ‘natural’’ (Macnaghten and Urry 1998).
The majority of their text is devoted to presenting the character and significance of these
social practices, and in doing so they indicate that our engagement with nature is ‘highly
diverse, ambivalent, and embedded in daily life’ (Macnaghten and Urry 1998, p.2).
Macnaghten and Urry’s work is an important account of the nature/culture interface.
However this thesis draws on Adrian Franklin’s critique that Macnaghten and Urry
‘conflate a sociology of nature with a sociology of nature leisure areas and tourism’
(Franklin 2002, p.7). Macnaghten and Urry assert the importance of understanding nature
through ‘embedded social practices’, however they focus on nature in touristic and
25
distanced leisure areas, rather than our daily encounters with nature. Although this thesis
agrees with Macnaghten and Urry’s historical perspective and their emphasis on multiple
natures, it concurs with Franklin’s critique that:
The social accounts of nature understood as environment and tourism fail to
penetrate [the] everyday natures and produce skewed accounts of so called
attitudes and values on the natural world. Of course people will proffer a
view on the rainforests of the tropics, desertification or acid rain in Sweden
and they will have accounts of their occasional trips to more distant natures,
but assuming that nature is a space and zone at one remove from everyday
life is a poor way of understanding people’s relations with the natural world
(Franklin 2002, p.8).
A social account of nature(s) cannot only focus on ‘places of sacred pilgrimage’, rather it
must consider everyday natures (Franklin 2002, p.8). This thesis proposes that the daily
practice of eating food is a significant way to examine how our ‘engagement with nature is
embedded in daily life’ (Macnaghten and Urry 1998, p.2).
Alan Irwin’s Sociology and the Environment (2001) also attempts to go beyond the social
constructionist and critical realist approach. Irwin specifically questions ‘What should the
relationship be between the discipline of sociology and the study of environmental issues,
problems, and concerns?’ (2001, p.viii). In contrast to Macnaghten and Urry’s focus on
social practices, Irwin’s approach considers how hybrid environments are socially
constructed. He draws on a sociology of science perspective to examine the way
environmental problems have a hybrid or co-constructed character, which calls the
social/natural dualism into question (2001, p.26). Irwin’s co-construction approach refers
to the social construction of both the social and the natural. He suggests that researching
environmental issues requires investigating the social and the natural together as part of the
26
same ‘nature-culture nexus’ (Irwin 2001, p.174). Hence Irwin argues that not only does the
social construct the natural, but the social also constructs the social. In essence he argues
for a critical sociology of the environment, because he indicates that ‘ultimately, the
sociological treatment advocated in this book stresses that environmental decisions are at
their core, a matter of social choice…[and] a sociological approach should shed light on
current institutional and technological assumptions’ (2001, p.134). However the role that
Irwin suggests for sociologists is very similar to those offered by other social
constructionist accounts (see Burningham & Cooper 1999; Hannigan 2006). It is unclear
how ‘the natural’ plays an important role in Irwin’s co-construction of environmental
problems. Instead as Sutton explains, ‘what [we see] is the way ‘the social’ constructs both
the social and the natural, making it very difficult to see how ‘nature’ plays any significant
role in the process’ (2004, p.73).
It is evident from this review that Macnaghten and Urry, and Irwin’s approaches do not go
beyond a social constructionist account of nature, and so their attempts to overcome the
nature/culture dualism are limited. Furthermore their responses to the nature/culture divide,
and others from the sociology of nature have neglected to examine food as an important
feature of this divide.6 This thesis therefore seeks to reinterrogate the nature/culture divide
with the social category of food as a central lens. However unlike Irwin, Macnaghten and
Urry, and other theorists that have sought to move beyond the nature/culture dualism, this
project does not seek to overcome this divide. Rather this thesis will argue that the social
category and cultural meanings of food problematises this divide in a new way, such that
the nature/culture divide becomes less of a dichotomy and more of an interplay that will
explore and reinterpret concrete social practices and cultural meanings concerning food and
the environment.
27
Environmental sociology
Recently some sociologists have become increasingly sensitised to the reality of
environmental problems and the ecological crisis. This has led to a reassessment of the
environment as a problem in its own right in sociology. A central part of this reappraisal
was Samuel Klausner’s consideration of sociology’s human exceptionalism doctrine (1971,
p.25). From this perspective Catton and Dunlap developed the term ‘Human
Exceptionalism Paradigm’ (HEP) to refer to traditional sociology’s implicit worldview,
which believed human-environmental relationships were unimportant to sociology because
‘humans are 'exempt' from environmental forces via cultural change’ (1978, p.250). In
contrast to HEP they developed an alternative view termed the ‘New Environmental
Paradigm’ (NEP) to emphasise the ‘eco-system dependence of human-societies’ (Catton &
Dunlap 1978, p.250). The NEP showed that ‘sociology has to take seriously a dilemma
traditionally rejected – human societies necessarily exploit surrounding ecosystems in
order to survive, but societies that flourish to the extent of overexploiting the ecosystem
may destroy the basis of their own survival’ (Catton & Dunlap 1978, p.250). As a result
environmental sociologists began to study the social factors that cause environmental
problems, the social impacts of those problems, and they also offer and critique efforts to
solve environmental problems.
In the 1990s the development of environmental sociology saw the long-standing debate
between social constructionists and critical realists begin to settle. Both positions came to
accept the reality of environmental problems, even though our awareness of environmental
issues arose from scientific research, media attention, and activism from environmental
movements (Buttel 1987; Harper 2001; Pepper 1996). As a result of these shifts, the
sociology of nature was generally replaced by environmental sociology. Environmental
28
sociology has ‘bloomed’ into a burgeoning field that examines nature and the environment
differently to the work considered in this chapter hitherto. However these works exceed the
horizon of this thesis, and will only be given a brief consideration.
Several theorists have studied public attitudes towards specific environmental problems
(see Dowler et al. 2009; Murch 1971). Environmental movements have been a central
topic of concern in many sociological studies (see Touraine 1977, 1981). Furthermore
ecofeminist theories have explored the relationship between women and nature as a central
theme (see Daly 1979; Gaard 1993; Griffin 1980; Haraway 1991). The concept of risk and
environmental problems has also been considered as an important issue in social theory
(see Beck 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1999; Goldblatt 1996; Lash & Urry 1994). Others have
been interested in green politics as a form of postmodern politics (Coates 1998; Gare 1995).
Sociologists have also recently made significant contributions to the study of climate
change (see Giddens 2009; Lever-Tracy 2008; Lever-Tracy & Pittock 2010; Urry 2010a,
2010b, 2011).
It is clear from the variety of literature mentioned above that interest in nature and
environmental issues has expanded rapidly. This literature review will now consider how
environmental sociologists have discussed the topic of food in order to identify gaps in the
literature. Recent works have considered how the application of new biotechnologies,
particularly those related to agricultural production and food (genetically modified food
products), have led to new challenges for environmental movements (see Kousis 2010;
Lezaun 2004; Schurman 2004). Food has also been a central aspect of work on sustainable
consumption. Environmental sociologists have examined the rise of fair trade food
products and energy-saving light bulbs as emerging forms of ‘green govermentality’
29
(Rutherford 2007). They have also questioned how sustainable consumption should be
governed, as it has become ‘fashionable’ in Western societies, but is ‘deeply marred by the
continuing inequalities inherent in its uptake’ (Hinton & Goodman 2010, p.245; Fuchs &
Lorek 2005; Goodman 1999; Trentmann 2007). The relationship between animals and
human culture in terms of food products has also arisen as an important topic for
sociological analysis. Environmental sociologists have considered how the global
consumption of meat and the rearing of animals as livestock reveal something about human
society’s relationship with non-human animals (see Cudworth 2003; Franklin 1999; Tovey
2003; Warde 1997). Furthermore several works have studied how the culture of meat-
eating has accelerated contemporary environmental problems, including climate change
(see Pimental & Pimental 2003; Taylor 2012).
It is evident from the literature considered above that food in environmental sociology is
budding as an important aspect of environmental concerns. However this thesis argues that
in these approaches food is commonly viewed as an ‘ingredient’ of larger environmental
problems rather than an issue to be focused on in its own right. In this way environmental
sociology is like a cooking recipe which asks you to ‘add food and stir’ without questioning
the very recipe, or in this case the theoretical framework itself. The present thesis therefore
argues that an environmental sociology of food is required to examine food as a serious
environmental issue that intersects both the broader industrial sphere and our everyday
lives. In order to achieve this it must reinterpret and reproblematise concrete social
practices and cultural meanings concerning food and the environment. Food must be
integrated into any future environmental sociology. However as this thesis seeks to rethink
the culture and nature divide in light of the sociology of food, this chapter will now turn to
consider this emerging field.
30
The Sociology of Food
‘Food’ is a complex and multi-faceted issue with enormous cultural significance. Food
products themselves shift from ‘agriculture to culture, from farm to plate, from eating to a
meal’ (Ferguson 2005, p.700). Each of these movements require sociological analysis as
they all traverse broader social issues including, government regulation, production and
consumption, labour and gender, and the social relations of immigration (see Belasco 2002;
Germov & Williams 2008; Mintz 2002; Ward, Coveney & Henderson 2010; Wendell
1981). These matters are of great sociological interest because they are central to the
development, structure, and functioning of society. John Germov and Lauren Williams
explain that a sociological study of food generally examines:
The role played by the social environment in which food is produced
and consumed. This does not mean that individual choice and personal
taste play no role. Rather, because social patterns in food habits exist, a
sociological explanation is helpful in understanding the social determinants
of why we eat the way we do (Germov & Williams 2008, p.6).
However only a short time ago the sociological imagination did not spare much thought for
food. In view of this ‘glut’ of knowledge ‘ripe’ for the sociological ‘picking’, this literature
review must first question: Why has the sociology of food been neglected for so long?
(Ferguson 2005; Ferguson & Zukin 1995; Johnston & Baumann 2010; Murcott 1982, 1983;
Warde & Martens 2000). A central reason for sociology’s limited engagement with food is
largely due to the nature/culture divide that was discussed earlier. In this vein Deane
Curtin and Lisa Heldke (1992) suggest that the lack of sociological interest in food may
have derived from the Western intellectual dualism that emphasises cognition over
embodiment, and depreciates the material and practical nature of human life. This dualism
has a gendered dimension, as the sphere of food was once regarded as part of the private
and supposedly less salient world of women, such that food was only considered worthy of
31
attention once it was conceptualised in the field of men, markets, and production (Johnston
& Baumann 2010).
Despite this historical neglect, sociologists have increasingly come to acknowledge the
importance of food in social life, shedding light on how food plays a vital role in the
creation of meaning and the construction of bonds of solidarity and attachment (Ferguson
2004; Mennell, Murcott & van Otterloo 1992; Warde 1997; Wood 1995). The 1980s saw
the production of many of the pioneering works in the sociology of food (see Goody 1982;
Mennell 1996 [1985]; Mintz 1985; Murcott 1982), many of which were inspired by social
anthropologists Mary Douglas and Claude Lévi-Strauss, who well before sociology,
understood that food had ‘meaning’ (see Douglas 1978 [1975]; Lévi-Strauss 1970 [1964];
1966a). By the end of the 1990s the field really began to flourish because sociologists
recognised the taken-for-granted nature of everyday food practices (Murcott 2011, p.15).
Furthermore in the last decade the sociology of food has expanded to such an extent that
food sociologist Pricilla Ferguson who earlier bemoaned, ‘Why is there no sociology of
food?’, happily declared in 2005 that ‘“Food Studies” has arrived’ (Ferguson & Zukin
1995; Ferguson 2005, p.679).
When sociologists study food the focus has not been on particular culinary practices or
cooking techniques, but on investigating the social conditions of food production and
consumption methods; examining the general discourses of food symbolism and food
choices; and interpreting the cultural context of food customs and preferences (see
Beardsworth & Keil 1997; Germov & Williams 2008; Johnston & Bauman 2010; Wills
2011). It also considers the connection between food and human interaction, and
investigates how food is talked about, discussed, and understood in the public realm (see
32
Albala 2002: Anderson 2005; Atkinson 1980; Blank 2007; Mäkelä 2000; Montanari 1994;
Murcott 1983). The increasing number of sociologists producing food literature has opened
up an exciting realm of scholarly discovery (Ferguson 2005). For this reason this chapter
will now explore selected works from the sociology of food.
It is evident from the above synopsis that the sociology of food is developing into an
emerging field. Although this is an advantageous development, it also makes the means of
charting the territory of food studies a rather complex task, as the food system is rich with
‘interconnected phenomena’ (Ferguson 2005, p.680). For this reason this thesis will focus
on selected debates in the field, by reviewing what Hilary Tovey (1997) refers to as the
production/consumption ‘division of labour’ within the sociology of food. On one side of
this divide, there are sociologists that would locate themselves within rural sociology, and
investigate the organisation of agriculture and food production (see Goodman 1999; Harris
1969; Tovey 1997). On the other side, there are sociologists who would align themselves
with the sociology of consumption, and study eating, diet, and culture (see Atkinson 1980;
Caplan 1997; Johnston 2008; Johnston & Baumann 2010; Johnston & Szabo 2010; Warde
1997).
This division is imbalanced because of the ‘consumption turn’ in sociology and as a result
the sociology of food has given limited attention to the social, economic, political, and
environmental features of food production (Tovey 1997, p.21). An early exception to this
is Goodman and Redclift’s Refashioning Nature (1991), which considers both food
production and food consumption as part of the modern food system. In this manner they
attempt to connect transformative shifts in food production technology to changing
consumer concerns about food. As the sociology of food has grown, more literature has
33
been produced that attempts to rise above this division. However the main motivation to
study the production of food often appears to be a way to incorporate the topic of food into
a general sociological analysis of contemporary processes of change and restructuring in
the global economy (Tovey 1997, p.22). Tovey explains that ‘the undoubted strength of the
approach derives from its treatment of food as comparable (and different in comparable
ways from) any other commodity’ (1997, p.22). A major limitation of this approach is that
food is merely viewed as another commodity, such that food as a social category, loaded
with cultural meanings, is not taken into consideration.
In recent times the growth of alternative food networks has caused sociologists to rethink
food production and consumption perspectives (see Dowler et al. 2009; Goodman 1999;
Marsden 2000; Tovey 1997).7 This chapter will now review two specific works that sought
to rethink this approach by questioning the nature/culture divide. Food sociologists have
been apprehensive about finding the most effective way to interpret alternative food
systems and their internal relationships. Two central aspects of this impasse are the rise in
sociological interest in the consumption side of food, and the need to include ‘nature’ more
successfully into conceptualisations of food (Marsden 2000).
David Goodman’s article ‘Agro-food studies in the ‘age of ecology’’ (1999) begins by
considering this impasse. He premises that the theoretical understanding and political
relevance of food and agricultural studies are limited by the nature/society dichotomy that
views nature as external to the social domain (Goodman 1999, p.17). Goodman asserts that
this dualism reinforces the objectification of nature and weakens analytical, political, and
ethical engagement. He considers actor-network theory as a way to overcome this
deficiency, because it provides theoretical tools to address the nature/culture divide.
34
Goodman argues that food as a co-production is the crucial unifying material and symbolic
connection that bridges the natural and social together (Goodman 1999, pp.33-34). The
notion that ‘food’ is simultaneously material and symbolic, and therefore can be helpful to
interrogate and potentially bridge the natural and cultural divide is a central premise of this
thesis, which will run like a Leitmotif throughout following chapters, and will be discussed
in greater detail in the concluding discussion.
Despite Goodman’s sound intent, his use of actor-network theory on further consideration
is quite limited. Terry Marsden critiques Goodman’s approach and argues that more
cautious steps are required to build a social and ecological approach to alternative food and
agricultural developments (2000, p.20). Marsden recognises that nature and ecology must
indeed be an essential part of a more social and politically materialised approach, but he
argues that there are many ways that this can progress (2000, p.21). Marsden explains that
Goodman’s use of actor-network theory is uncritical and does not provide a clear
explanation of how the nature/culture dualism could be overcome (Marsden 2000, p.21).
He indicates that actor-network theory remains methodologically firm, but needs to be
linked with more substantive theoretical questions (Marsden 2000, p.28). As a result of this
critique he argues for the continued development of a social constructionist approach that
could build upon aspects of actor-network methodology, and connect it to substantive
theoretical dimensions and empirical studies (2000, p.21).
Marsden questions whether other approaches on top of actor-network theory are worth
considering in order to achieve a greater understanding of the hybridity of social and
natural life (2000, p.21). These questions lead Marsden to a major tension in the sociology
of food literature, specifically:
35
Dealing with this dichotomy – between the natural and cultural attribution
of value of food goods…hold[s] and project[s] varying natural and social
conceptions of the same food objects. The analytical question that such a
dichotomy raises is how are these differences in the hybridity of foods, on
the one hand, and the range of associated actors on the other, brought
together? (Marsden 2000, p.26).
Research on food and agriculture often uses this as the start point of their analysis. In the
sociology of food researchers face a central issue when examining hybridity, as food
products from ‘conception to digestion’ are hybridised in various ways and by numerous
actors, as they travel through the food system (Marsden 2000, p.26). This is an exciting
process for sociologists because of the way in which the same object is constantly
acculturated (see Ferguson 2005; Marsden 2000). These dialectics have not yet been
rigorously engaged with in the current literature from the sociology of food and agriculture.
Marsden suggests that we need to ‘build upon a more asymmetrical and differentiated
understanding of food as a natural, social, and political construction’ (Marsden 2000, p.28).
Goodman and Marsden’s respective works analyse the theoretical framework of agriculture
and food studies by explicitly examining the nature/culture dualism. They explain that the
nature/culture divide must first be considered in order to ‘respond fully to new ethical and
relational issues raised by environmental groups and urban food movements’ (Goodman
1999, p.18). In this manner they identify with the growing literature from the sociology of
nature that challenges the abstraction of nature and promotes the ‘greening’ of social theory
(see Benton 1993; Irwin 2001; Macnaghten & Urry 1998). In a similar manner this thesis
seeks to interrogate the nature/culture divide with the social category of food, and argues
that our understandings and interpretations of the nature/culture divide inform our social
practices and encounters with the natural environment. Therefore like Goodman and
36
Marsden, this thesis will explicitly examine the nature/culture divide, but it does not
consider this approach as a way to interpret alternative food systems. Rather it more
broadly examines the underlying social interpretations of the nature/culture divide as a first
step towards the development of an environmental sociology of food.
The sociology of food has developed into a widespread topic that encompasses a variety of
theories, perspectives, and interpretations.8 This sheer abundance of food literature has
presented some challenges, which will now be considered. This literature review has
shown that when food is analysed sociologically, we are not just referring to what we eat,
but what we ‘think about, talk about, dream about, and philosophize about’ (Johnston &
Baumann 2010, p.43). A central tenet of the sociology of food is to investigate what food
means and what it represents (Wills 2011, p.16). Ferguson explains the complexity of food
when she describes:
The inherently unstable character of comestibles, along with the material
destruction required by their consumption, dictates the many forms that food
assumes in the world we live in. From production to consumption, from
material to symbolic, food is all about transformation – of the material
foodstuff, of the consuming individual in body and in spirit, and of the eating
order that encompasses products and people. From production and preparation
to physiological and symbolic consumption, every stage of the food cycle turns
food into something else (Ferguson 2005, p.680).
Food is never “just” food, and this topically of food has resulted in great debate (Ferguson
2005; Goodman 1999; Marsden 2000). These debates question how food should be
academically researched, and specifically ask: ‘Does food serve as the subject or object of
explanation?’, and ‘Is food considered a given or a social construct?’ (Ferguson 2005,
p.680). It is clear from this literature review that a position has been made for food in
37
sociology. All of the texts reviewed in this section share a mutual focus on food, however
it is not always clear that they are talking about the same thing in a useful way (Ferguson
2005, p.680). In light of this understanding this thesis suggests that the sociology of food is
lacking a theoretical approach to give these studies a common denominator. In response to
these debates and this critique, the present thesis argues that ‘food’ is inherently both a
natural object and a cultural subject, and it therefore provides a way to rethink the
intersections of the nature/culture divide.
The literature review has navigated through and assessed the strengths and limitations of
the relevant literature from the sociology of nature, environmental sociology, and the
sociology of food. As a result the current thesis proposes that a new social theory is
necessary to address the deficiencies of these fields. This thesis argues that our implicit
interpretations and meanings of the nature/culture divide inform our social practices and
encounters with the natural environment. Therefore a first step towards developing a new
conceptual framework is to return to the nature/culture divide, and to reproblematise it with
the social category of food as a central lens. For this reason the following chapter will
hermeneutically reconstruct Claude Lévi-Strauss’s The Raw and the Cooked (1970 [1964])
and ‘The culinary triangle’ (1966a) to examine how he has conceptualised ‘food’ and the
nature/culture dualism together.
1 Kate Soper is a philosopher, however she has contributed to key debates in the sociology of nature and environmental sociology from a critical realist perspective (see Soper 2009). 2 For Durkheim, social facts are ‘the proper field of sociology’ (2002 [1895], p.12). A social fact is ‘any way of acting, whether fixed or not, capable of exerting over the individual or external constraint’ (2002 [1895], p.117). Inter alia they are evident in the form of customs, beliefs, morality, and law (Hannigan 2006, p.6). 3 Critical realist and social constructionist perspectives are not the only approaches to nature and the environment in sociology, however they will be focused on for purposes of the present thesis. 4 Social constructionism will be returned to in chapter three, which will analyse Klaus Eder’s unique social constructionist approach in his work The Social Construction of Nature (1996 [1988]).
38
5 The terms ‘constructionist’ and ‘constructivist’ refer to the same notion/perspective, the present thesis uses the former term, while Macnaghten and Urry (1988) adopt the latter. 6 For other theorists from the sociology of nature that have responded or sought to overcome the nature/culture divide (see Franklin 2002; Freudenberg, Frickel & Gramling 1995; Goldman & Schurman 2000; Inglis & Bone 2006; Macnaghten & Urry 1998; Murphy & Dunlap 2011; Pickering 1996). 7 Alternative food systems are more ‘non-conventional chains’ that generally refer to those connected with organics and ‘radically different organizational structures’, such as food co-ops, farm-assured schemes, and ethical trading (Marsden 2000, p.20). 8 It is important to mention that there are numerous sociological works that study food differently to those discussed in this chapter. However these texts are beyond the scope of this thesis, and will only receive a brief acknowledgement. Some scholars have explored the connection between food and gender identities (see Bentley 2005; Inness 2001; Nath 2011); others have investigated the links between food, race, and ethnicity (see Ray 2004; Williams-Forson 2006); the impact of globalization on the modern food system (see Barndt 2002; Friedman 1993; Mintz 2002, 2008; Ritzer 2004; Scholosser 2002; Wilk 2002, 2006); the role of food in the media and popular culture (see Ferry 2003; Parasecoli 2008); the historical development of the modern food system (see Albala 2002; Boisard 2003; Ferrières 2003; Goody 1982; Mennell 1996 [1985]; Serventi & Sabban 2002; Toussaint-Samat 1992; Wheaton 1983); and there has also been a burgeoning study into ethical food consumption and alternative food choices (see Blank 2007; DuPuis & Goodman 2005; Guthman 2003; Johnston 2008; Johnston & Szabo 2010; Moore 2006; Smith 2006; Warde 1997).
39
CHAPTER 2: The Structuralist Language of Food:
Claude Lévi-Strauss
This chapter will consider Claude Lévi-Strauss’s The Raw and the Cooked (1970 [1964])
together with its succeeding article ‘The culinary triangle’ (1966a) (Hereafter referred to as
RC and CT respectively) in order to examine how they contribute to reproblematising the
nature/culture divide in modern society.1 Lévi-Strauss’s work has been selected for
analysis because, although he is an anthropologist, RC is one of the few texts that explicitly
considers the nature/culture divide and recognises ‘food’ as a central category in its
analysis. Stephen Mennell notes that RC and CT have ‘transfixed almost everyone working
on the subject [of food]’ (1996 [1985], p.6), to such an extent that it has expanded beyond
anthropology and has became a foundational text for the emerging field of the sociology of
food (see Beardsworth & Keil 1997; Ferguson & Zukin 1995; Mennell 1996 [1985]).2 In
Lévi-Strauss’s CT he presents a structuralist study of culinary practices to show that ‘the
cooking of a society is a language [that] unconsciously translates its structure’ (1966a,
p.595).3 As a result food sociologists generally acknowledge that Lévi-Strauss introduced
them to ‘how good food is to think with’ (Ferguson 2005, p.681).4 This chapter focuses on
Lévi-Strauss’s RC and CT because he has made a seminal contribution to the central
question animating this thesis (i.e. ‘How can the social category of ‘food’ help to
problematise the meanings of the nature/culture divide in modern society?’). For this
reason the present thesis will analyse his connection between the techniques of cooking and
his distinction between nature and culture. In the concluding chapter this analysis will be
revisited to reconstruct how Lévi-Strauss’s work, together with Eder’s, contributes to a
rethinking of the culture/nature divide with the social category of food. It will be a first
40
step towards developing a theoretical framework that can underpin an environmental
sociology of food.
This chapter will conduct a hermeneutical reconstruction of Lévi-Strauss’s texts. It will
consider RC and how this investigation of myths led Lévi-Strauss to note the significance
of cooking practices in understanding society. The discussion of RC will set the foundation
for an analysis of CT, because in this essay he focuses on food and the notion of the ‘raw’
and the ‘cooked’ in detail. Prior to this analysis the present chapter will provide an
overview of Lévi-Strauss’s intellectual biography, and it will justify the selection of this
classical anthropologist with reference to the French social theory tradition. The present
chapter will consider Ferdinand de Saussure (1974 [1916]), and Roman Jakobson’s (1956)
linguistics, which were essential intellectual sources for structuralism in general, and
particularly in the development of RC and CT. It will then consider Lévi-Strauss’s
interpretation and use of structuralism in RC, and from this understanding CT will be
critically analysed. Lastly the limitations of Lévi-Strauss’s distinction between nature and
culture will be assessed, which will facilitate the transition into Klaus Eder’s cultural and
symbolic approach in chapter three.
Intellectual Biography
In preparation for the critical analysis of Lévi-Strauss’s works, this chapter must first
consider his intellectual biography to assist in contextualising RC and CT. Claude Lévi-
Strauss was a French social anthropologist (1908-2009) and has been regarded as one of the
founding ‘fathers of modern anthropology’ (Leach 1996 [1970]; Wiseman, Groves &
Appignanesi 1997). He lived in Paris and studied law and philosophy at Paris-Sorbonne
University. After he aggregated from philosophy he became a secondary school teacher
41
and taught in Paris until he was offered a role as a visiting professor of sociology at the
University of San Paulo (Leach 1996 [1970], p.18). During this time Lévi-Strauss
conducted several research projects into the Mato Grosso and the Amazon Rainforest,
which he drew upon in later studies.
Lévi-Strauss’s first major text The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1969 [1949]) was a
play on the title of Emile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1995
[1912]). Lévi-Strauss drew on Durkheim’s idea of the ‘social fact’, which occurs over
and above the subject, and nearly has a life of its own, but Lévi-Strauss aimed to ‘purify it
of the presence of and necessity of subjects at all’ (Ortner 2006, p.108). In The Elementary
Structures of Kinship (1969 [1949]) Lévi-Strauss sought to investigate how families were
organised by examining the logical structures that lie beneath relationships rather than their
contents (1969 [1949]). This text was well received and swiftly came to be considered as
one of the most significant anthropological works on kinship (Leach 1996 [1970]). From
this initial project, Lévi-Strauss elaborated his structuralist perspective in several of his
subsequent works (see Lévi-Strauss 1966b; 1969 [1962]; 1973 [1955]). His main theories
are set forth in Structural Anthropology (1963 [1958]), in which he considers culture to be
a system of symbolic communication. As a result of these works he became widely
recognised as one of the leading theorists in the structuralist school of thought (Leach 1996
[1970], p.30).
The term ‘structuralism’ first came into use in the late 1920s in the work of the Russian
linguist Roman Jakobson (1956).5 It was not until the mid-1950s that it became popular in
France through Lévi-Strauss’s work (1969 [1949]), but by the end of the 1960s
structuralism became widely recognised in countries outside of France (Hénaff 1998).
42
Structuralism generally denotes a method of interpretation and suggests that the structure of
human thought processes are the same in all cultures, and that these processes occur in the
form of binary oppositions (McGee & Warms 2012; Runciman 1969). Lévi-Strauss sought
to uncover these underlying thought processes by studying kinship, myths, and, of
particular interest to the present thesis, food. Furthermore his structuralist approach
emphasised that features of culture need to be understood in terms of their relationship to
the entire system (McGee & Warms 2012; Sturrock 1993). This structuralist method was
fundamental in his master project, Mythologiques, a four-volume study of ‘the logic of
myth’. The first volume in this series is RC followed by From Honey to Ashes (1973
[1966]), The Origin of Table Manners (1978 [1968]), and The Naked Man (1990 [1971]).
In these works Lévi-Strauss followed the cultural evolution of a single myth from the
Bororo tribe in South America through to North America, and then to the Arctic Circle
(pp.1-2). He embarked on this far-reaching project in his customary structuralist method,
as he examined the underlying structure of relations among the features of the myth, rather
than concentrating on the myth itself (p.164). Lévi-Strauss’s structural study of myths and
cooking in RC and CT will be analysed in greater detail shortly.
Lévi-Strauss’s work has been very influential for the social and human sciences, including
anthropology, philosophy, and sociology (see Barthes 1972, 1997 [1961]; Bourdieu 1990;
Derrida 1978; Foucault 1994). Nevertheless as Lévi-Strauss is from the field of
anthropology it is necessary to justify the selection of his work in this sociological thesis.
In the discussion of Lévi-Strauss’s intellectual history thus far, the present chapter noted
that Lévi-Strauss was engaged in philosophy and sociology before he become professor of
social anthropology at the Collège de France. Lévi-Strauss’s disciplinary shifts are
significant, not because they were major changes in his academic trajectory, but because
43
they reveal how the French tradition of social theory is quite distinct to the German or
English tradition. French social theory incorporates the sociological perspective together
with philosophical, political, and anthropological viewpoints. The French tradition’s
interdisciplinary connections are particularly evident in the case of Durkheim, which will
now be considered.
Durkheim is celebrated as one of the ‘founding fathers’ of sociology from his earlier works
(see Durkheim 1984 [1893], 2002 [1895]), however in his later writing he became
interested in the anthropological view (and the human condition) of society. This shift is
clear in the collaboration with his nephew Marcel Mauss in Primitive Classifications (1963
[1903]), which was the precursor to his ‘anthropological turn’ in The Elementary Forms of
Religious Life (1995 [1912]).6 Durkheim argued that human kind is a symbolising animal,
and through this symbolisation a civilising process occurs that connects each individual in
society (Rundell & Mennell 1998). In order to assert this Durkheim considered the
boundary between sociology and anthropology to be fluid (Rundell & Mennell 1998, p.21).
Durkheim’s thought was influential to Mauss’s theories (see Mauss 1970 [1969]), which in
turn was very distinct, but nevertheless important in the formation of Lévi-Strauss’s work
(see Lévi-Strauss 1987). This connection is clear in Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s essay ‘From
Mauss to Claude Lévi-Strauss’ (1960). As Merleau-Ponty explains:
Following the movement of Mauss’s thought beyond what he said and wrote
we are looking at him retrospectively in the perspective of social anthropology.
We have already crossed the line which separates his thought from a different
conception of and approach to the social conception which is brilliantly
represented by Claude Lévi-Strauss… in which social facts are neither things
nor ideas; they are structures (Merleau-Ponty 1960, p.116-117).
44
Lévi-Strauss’s reinterpretation of Mauss’s work played a central role in defining his early
intellectual course (Lechte 2008, p.111), which was facilitated by the interdisciplinary
constellation of French social theory. This tradition embraced interdisciplinary interaction
in such a way that the field of sociology and anthropology have intermingled and shaped
each other. In addition concepts from the field of linguistics were also important to the
formation of Lévi-Strauss’s structuralist approach in RC and CT. However the concept of
structuralism requires further elaboration, and so this chapter will now consider the initial
development of Lévi-Strauss’s approach in The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1969
[1949]), followed by a discussion of Saussure and Jakobson’s linguistics.
In The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1969 [1949]) Lévi-Strauss studies the link
between kinship and exchange. He examined a ceremonial custom of a meal from small
restaurants in the south region of France, in which a small bottle of wine is given to each
diner with their meal (1969 [1949], p.58). The wine each patron receives is similar to their
neighbours (i.e. they both receive the same amount of the lowest quality wine), however
Lévi-Strauss observed that ‘the contents of the wine will be poured out, not into the
owner’s glass, but into [their] neighbours. And this neighbour will immediately make the
corresponding gesture of reciprocity’ (1969 [1949], p.58). Lévi-Strauss viewed this
exchange and noted that the amount of wine, and the portion of food remains the same, but
‘the difference in attitude towards the wine and food is immediately manifested’ (1969
[1949], p.58). Lévi-Strauss explains that the bottles are identical in volume, the content is
similar, and each customer consumed no more wine than the amount they started with, and
so he indicates from an economic perspective no one has gained or lost (1969 [1949], p.59).
However he discerns ‘there is more to the exchange itself than the things exchanged’ (1969
[1949], p.59). In this way ‘the link between exchange and the ‘total social fact’ is revealed,
45
since it is not what is exchanged that is important, but the fact of exchange itself, a fact
inseparable from the very constitution of social life’ (Lechte 2008, p.112). From this study
Lechte considers some significant ideas of Lévi-Strauss’s anthropology:
The first is the principle that social and cultural life cannot be uniquely
explained by a version of functionalism: cultural life is not explicit in
terms of the intrinsic nature of the phenomenon in question. Nor can it
be explained empirically by facts deemed to speak for themselves…
[rather] structuralist anthropology…focuses on the way elements of a
system combine together, rather than on their intrinsic value (Lechte
2008, p.112).
In this manner Lévi-Strauss argues that symbolic structures of kinship, the exchange of
goods, and language are essential to understand social life. In order to gain a greater
understanding of these ideas, the present chapter will now consider the work of Saussure.
Saussure was interested in the deep structures of language rather than its content, and his
theory of langue and parole was especially significant to the formation of Lévi-Strauss’s
structuralist anthropology.7 Saussure used this theoretical pair to present the differences
between language as a ‘coherent structure of differences’ and language as it is ‘practiced by
the community of speakers’ (Lechte 2008, p.180). He argued that language could not be
understood by its content, rather it needed to be viewed at the level of structure (Leach
1996 [1970]). Saussure’s central notion is that language is first and foremost a social
institution, and so he deemed the individual linguistic approach to be deficient. Saussure
observed the way language changes constantly, and as a result he argued that people indeed
form language, but they are equally formed by language (Lechte 2008, p.181).
46
In his Course in General Linguistics (1974 [1916]) Saussure endeavoured to produce a
‘universal science of language’ in which all communication corresponds to ‘unmoving
rules’ (Ashley et al. 2004, p.3). Merleau-Ponty explains that in Saussure’s linguistics:
Structure is a concrete, incarnate system. When Saussure used to say that
signs are diacritical – that they function only through their differences,
through a certain spread between themselves and others, and not, to begin
with, by evoking a positive signification – he was making us see the unity
which lies beneath a language’s explicit signification, a systemization which
achieved in a language before its conceptual principle is known (Merleau-Ponty
1960, p.117).
Saussure began his structuralist analysis of language by dividing it into smaller phonemic
units. He examined the units or signs that build any system of communication, to show that
these ‘signs’ can be divided into two elements, the ‘signifier’ and the ‘signified’ (Saussure
1974 [1916], p.157). These two parts are symmetrical to each other and, in Saussure’s
system, a signifier is typically a word, either spoken or written, but it may also refer to an
image, sound, smell, or taste, while the signified is the mental concept or meaning.
Saussure argues that ‘the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary’,
because there is ‘no essential bond in language between word and thing’ (Lechte 2008,
p.180). David Morley clarifies that, for Saussure, meaning is solely a ‘function of
difference within a system’ as the signs that we seek to understand are ‘purely differential
and defined not by their positive content but negatively, by their relations with the other
terms of the system’ (1992, p.67). Hence the sign’s essential feature is in being what the
others are not, and from this notion Saussure postulates an unlimited series of differences. 8
Saussure’s concepts laid the foundations for the application of this system in the social and
human sciences, by allowing the focus of study to shift from detailing facts of human
47
behaviour and historical events to researching ‘human action as a system of meaning’
(Lechte 2008, p.181). As Lechte explains, this:
Was the result of emphasising, at the broader societal level, the arbitrary nature
of the sign and the corresponding idea of language as a system of conventions.
Whereas a search for intrinsic facts and their effects had hitherto been made (as
exemplified when the historian supposed that human beings need food to
survive, just as they need language to communicate with each other – therefore
events turned out this way), now the socio-cultural system at a given moment in
history, becomes the object of study…an approach that would generally attempt
to take seriously the primacy of the socio-cultural domain for human beings
(Lechte 2008, p.181).
For Lévi-Strauss the application of this concept involves methodological classification of
difference and ‘separation of the self and other’ (Ashley et al. 2004, p.3). It requires a
strong distinction, in which the characteristics of one object, individual, or group are
viewed in sharp polarity to another, for example man/woman, black/white, or in the case of
RC and CT, the distinction between nature and culture.
Lévi-Strauss’s structuralist anthropology draws on this linguistic approach, as he considers:
In all languages of the world, complex systems of oppositions among phonemes
do nothing but elaborate in multiple directions a simpler system common to
them all; the contrast between consonant and vowel, by the workings of a double
opposition between compact and diffuse, acute and grave, produces… what have
been called the “vowel triangle” and the “consonant triangle”:
(Lévi-Strauss 1966a, p.597).
a u i
k p t
48
This concept requires an understanding of Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle’s (1956)
linguistic approach. Jakobson and Halle claimed that young children gain control of the
basic vowels and consonants in order to ‘generate meaningful noise patterns’ in a
standardised sequence (1956, p.38). They examined that a child first develops the
fundamental vowel/consonant opposition by recognising a contrast in ‘loudness’. A child
identifies that a vowel is a ‘high-energy noise and loud-compact’, whereas a consonant is a
‘low energy noise and soft-diffuse’ (Jakobson & Halle 1956, p.38). Lévi-Strauss made
strong claims for structural linguistics, because he perceived that other forms of cultural
expression, such as kinship systems, were categorised in a similar manner to the human
language (Runciman 1969, p.255). He argued that this methodological principle could be
transposed to other domains, and particularly to ‘that of cooking’ (Lévi-Strauss 1966a,
p.587). These linguistic concepts are patent in RC and CT, and will be returned to in the
ensuing analysis. However at this point a brief comparison of Bronislaw Malinowski’s
(1935) functionalist perspective of food to Lévi-Strauss’s might be useful.
Malinowski’s study of the Trobriand Islanders investigated the meaning of food in their
society (1935). Malinowski studied the Trobriand society from a functionalist perspective,
as he identified that ‘gifts of food’ were vital to ‘maintain kinship bonds’ and ‘relations of
power’ among the Trobrianders (1935, p.101). From this observation he determined that
food production was central to understand how this society lived and functioned. However
when the functionalist approach was succeeded by structuralism, the study of food changed
significantly and the ‘meaning’ of food become central. Alan Beardsworth and Teresa Keil
examined this change, and explain that:
The questions posed about food and eating from a structuralist perspective have
a different emphasis as compared to those posed from a functionalist viewpoint.
49
Rather than focusing upon practicalities and the social processes involved in
producing, allocating and consuming food, the structuralist gaze is directed towards
the rules and conventions that govern the ways in which food items are classified,
prepared and combined with each other (Beardsworth and Keil 1997, p.61).
Lévi-Strauss, as one of the founders of structuralist anthropology, was central to this
theoretical shift as he argued that the universal aspects of human culture do not exist in
manifest and comparable facts or customs, rather they exist only at the level of structure.
Hence Lévi-Strauss argued that we cannot discover anything from the comparison of
isolated cultural items. Rather it is the contrast between the items that provides the
information, because each item has significance only in relation to the others. From this
understanding he sought to contrast the patterns of these relations in order to observe the
links between sets of human behaviours (p.333). This is the structuralist method he utilised
in RC and CT, and so this chapter will now analyse these texts accordingly.
The Raw and the Cooked
RC is one of the seminal texts of structuralist anthropology. In his ‘overture’ Lévi-Strauss
explains that RC only describes ‘the initial stages of a long journey through…native
mythologies’ (p.1). He began by establishing a ‘key myth’ from the Bororo tribe in South
America, which he compared to other myths of the same community, and then examined
them in contrast to the myths of the neighbouring villages. Eventually he explored some
eight hundred myths from the many indigenous populations of South America (p.1). From
opossums to parrots, cooking to Charivari, Rousseau to rainbows, Wagner to vultures, and
Jupiter to jaguars, Lévi-Strauss managed to weave all these together ‘in a seamless web’,
such that John Morton remarks that his reading of RC was like stepping into a strange
dream (1988, p.100). Yet amongst all the fantasy Lévi-Strauss’s structuralist analytical
objective is clear. His central idea is that myths cannot be understood in isolation, they
50
must be interpreted as part of a complete system of myths. A structuralist analysis of myth
systems requires an examination of all the common features of various myths and the
differences that connect them. Lévi-Strauss argues that it is not the individual myth that is
important, rather he believes that we must view the relationship and variations between the
myths (p.4). He explains that:
I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths
operate in men’s minds without their being aware of the fact…it would
perhaps be better to go still further and, disregarding the thinking subject
completely, proceed as if the thinking process were taking place in the
myths, in their reflection upon themselves and their interrelation (p.12).
In this way he posits that there is ‘one myth only’ because underneath the mélange of
mythical stories he identifies a binary universal structure, particularly that of nature and
culture (pp.4, 64-65, 164).
Cooking runs like a Leitmotif throughout RC as Lévi-Strauss proposes that the key myth
from the Bororo tribe ‘belongs to a set of myths that explain the origin of cooking’, while
in others, cooking practices operate as symbolic markers that mediate between a series of
binary oppositions: heaven/earth, life/death, nature/society (pp.64-65). Lévi-Strauss
explains that the purpose of RC is to show how empirical categories, ‘such as categories of
the raw and the cooked, the fresh and the decayed, the moistened and the burned…[can] be
used as conceptual tools with which to elaborate abstract ideas and combine them in the
form of propositions’ (p.1). He determined through a systematic analysis of each myth
together, that several of the myths were on the same theme and function in terms of a
double contrast between what is raw and what is cooked, and between the fresh and the
decayed (p.142). A passage from RC in which Lévi-Strauss contrasts the myths of two
tribes, specifically the Ge and the Tupi-Guarani, might be useful to clarify this concept:
51
The raw/cooked axis is characteristic of culture; the fresh/decayed one of
nature, since cooking brings about the cultural transformation of the raw, just
as putrefaction is its natural transformation. In the total system thus restored,
the Tupi-Guarani myths illustrate a more radical procedure than the Ge myths:
according to the Tupi-Guarani way of thinking, the significant contrast is
between cooking…and putrefaction…whereas in the Ge myths the significant
contrast is between the cooking of foodstuffs and eating them raw…[The]
dividing line between nature and culture is different, according to whether we
are considering the Ge or Tupi myths: in the former it separates the cooked from
the raw; in the latter it separates the raw from the rotten. For the Ge, then, the
raw + rotten relationship is a natural category, whereas for the Tupi the raw +
cooked relation is a cultural category (pp.142-143).
From this analysis Lévi-Strauss determines that eating practices and ‘the gustatory code’
occupy a privileged position, because the myths depict ‘the origin of fire, and thus the
origin of cooking’, and so Lévi-Strauss explains ‘we gain access to myths about man’s loss
of immortality’ (p.164). Lévi-Strauss considers that negatively or positively all of the
myths are about the origin of cooking food. This reveals ‘the truly essential place occupied
by cooking in the native thought’, as cooking marks ‘the transition from nature to culture’
(p.164). From this point in RC the myths widen to consider the ‘causes of man’s mortality’
(p.170). A comprehension of human mortality reaches far beyond the scope of this thesis.
For this reason this chapter will now view the conclusion Lévi-Strauss draws in RC, and it
will then analyse CT, an independent essay that emerged from this investigation.
In RC, Lévi-Strauss concludes that although myths may seem unique, they are simply one
particular instance of a universal law in human thought. Lévi-Strauss proposes that myths
signify the mind that creates them, because they make use of the world, of which it is itself
52
a part (p.341). He explains that ‘there is a simultaneous production of myths themselves,
by the mind that generates them, and, by the myths, of an image of the world which is
already inherent in the structure of the mind’ (p.341). It is evident that Lévi-Strauss
recognises the honoured place that food held in the myths he analysed. He concluded that
cooking is a medium that reveals the unconscious binary opposition of nature and culture in
human thought. Lévi-Strauss determined that through the act of cooking, people
communicate that they are cultured and human rather than ‘savage’ or animal, or to put it in
Lévi-Straussian terms that they were themselves ‘cooked’ instead of ‘raw’ (p.164).
In RC’s final chapter ‘The Wedding’ (p.319-342) Lévi-Strauss’s premise that the binary
opposition of nature and culture is universal in human thought becomes much clearer. He
draws a comparison of primitive and traditional customs that contain notions of the raw and
the cooked, and notes that in several regions of France ‘there is evidence of identical
customs intended to hasten the marriages of young men and women that have remained
celibate too long’ (p.334). Lévi-Strauss examines these various customs, and discovers that
in the St Omer district, if a younger daughter is married first, her poor elder sister at some
point during the celebration would be ‘seized and placed on top of the oven so that she
might be warmed up, as the saying was, since her situation seemed to indicate that she had
remained insensitive to love’ (p.334). He recognised that similar customs throughout
France existed, but in several areas of England the sanction was different, as the unmarried
sister was ordered to dance barefoot (p.334). In contrast again was the custom in the Upper
Forez, Isère, Ardèche, and Gard areas of France, in which the unmarried elder brother or
sister were made to eat a salad of clovers and oats, or nettles and roots, which was termed
‘making them eat salad’ or ‘making them eat turnip’ (p.335).
53
In Lévi-Strauss’s structuralist fashion he explained that rather than interpreting these
various customs individually, they must be compared and contrasted in order to ‘isolate the
common features and hope to understand them’ (p.335). In this manner Lévi-Strauss
interprets the customs and argues that:
They all seem to depend, more or less on the contrast between the cooked
(oven) and the raw (salad), or between nature and culture, the two contrasts
being readily confused in linguistic usage. In eighteenth-century French “to
dance barefoot” might have been expressed by the phrase danser à cru (“to
dance raw”); compare chausser des bottes à cru “to wear boots without
stockings”…In English, “to sleep naked” can still be expressed colloquially
as “to sleep in the raw” (p.335).
However Lévi-Strauss realises these connections do not account for the first custom ‘the
symbolic “roasting” of the elder unmarried sister’, and so he endeavours to link this
tradition with other long-established ‘roasting’ customs and beliefs in remote societies. He
noticed that similar ‘roasting’ traditions existed in Cambodia, Malaysia, Siam, and various
regions of Indonesia, for women who had just given birth or reached puberty (p.335-336).
From this consideration Lévi-Strauss indicates:
This rapid summary of customs, which ought to be systematically noted
down and classified, does at least allow us to suggest a tentative definition:
the individuals who are “cooked” are those more involved in physiological
process: the newborn child, the woman who has just given birth or the
pubescent girl. The conjunction of a member of the social group with
nature must be mediatized through the intervention of cooking fire, whose
normal function is to mediatize the conjunction of the raw product and the
human consumer, and whose operation thus has the effect of making sure
that a natural creature is at one and the same time cooked and socialized
(p.336).
54
Lévi-Strauss objected to the dominant idea that ‘traditional customs are less logical than
primitive customs’ (p.337). He suggested that primitive customs continually function along
the same lines, that ‘the “cooking” of women and adolescent girls corresponds to the need
for their relations with themselves and the world to be mediatized by the use of
“hypercultural” utensils’ (p.337). In contrast, European societies forced the unmarried
elder sister onto the stove, removed her shoes, and were feed with raw foods, should,
according to Lévi-Strauss, be given opposite meanings.
From this comparison between traditional and primitive customs, Lévi-Strauss surmises
‘that these interpretations, which have been so laboriously deduced from remote and
initially incomprehensible myths, link up with universal analogies which are immediately
perceptible in our use of words, whatever our native language happens to be’ (p.340).
Lévi-Strauss argues that the distinctive character of myths results from the ‘multiplication
of one level by another or several others, and which, as in language, serves to indicate areas
of meaning’ (p.340). In RC, Lévi-Strauss emphasises that the relationship between cooking
practices and the nature/culture divide is manifest in both primitive and traditional
cultures.9 As a result he argued that ‘the cooking of a society is a language [that]
unconsciously translates its structure’ (1966a, p.595), which led Lévi-Strauss to explore
this connection in greater detail in his essay CT.
The Culinary Triangle
From the analysis of RC it is clear that the theoretical connection between cooking
practices and the nature/culture divide was a recurrent theme. The present chapter will now
analyse CT in which the above becomes a central focus. This essay is significant because it
demonstrates how cooking can be used to conceptualise the distinction between nature and
55
culture. It also argues that specific culinary activities can reveal ‘sociological and
cosmological differences’ (Hage 1979, p.81). Furthermore, his concept of the culinary
triangle is important to this thesis because it has received broad recognition in the sociology
of food for its abstract element in the structure of food and food systems (Ferguson 2005,
p.686).
In CT Lévi-Strauss observes that just as there is no human society without a spoken
language, so too is there no human society which does not, in some shape or form, process
its food by cooking (1966a, p.587). Although Lévi-Strauss realised that each culture’s food
products are highly diverse, he recognises that people organise and cook their food in a
similar manner. His culinary triangle is an abstract model that is independent of any
culture and intended to be universally applicable. Lévi-Strauss’s overarching aim in CT is
consistent with that previously concluded in RC, that ‘the cooking of a society is a language
[that] unconsciously translates its structure’ (1966a, p.595). In CT he provides a detailed
structuralist analysis of cooking practices, and as a result he determines that the
differentiation between the raw and the cooked is a reflection of the universal binary
opposition of nature and culture in human thought.
Lévi-Strauss begins his essay by providing an account of how he derives his cultural
generalisations from a linguistic foundation. He explains that ‘like language, it seems to
me, that the cuisine of society may be analyzed into constituent elements, which in this case
we might call ‘gustemes’ and which may be organized according to certain structures of
opposition and correlation’ (Lévi-Strauss 1963 [1958], p.86). ‘Gusteme’ was a term Lévi-
Strauss coined from the linguistic term ‘phoneme’, which to recall from the earlier
discussion, was examined in the work of Saussure (1974 [1916]) and also in Jakobson and
56
Halle’s linguistics (1956). Lévi-Strauss was interested in the idea that phonemes, which are
developed by binary oppositions of distinct phonetic sounds, establish meaning in everyday
language, and so he sought to apply this concept to the ‘language’ of cooking (1966a).
Recalling Jakobson and Halle’s vowel and consonant triangles (1956), Lévi-Strauss
develops a triangle of culinary practices with each apex corresponding to the categories of
the raw, cooked, and the rotten:
He suggests that the cooked is a cultural transformation (élaboré) of the raw, whereas the
rotten is a natural transformation (non-élaboré). He perceives that underlying the triangle
there is a double opposition between elaborate/unelaborate and nature/culture (Lévi-Strauss
1966a, p.587).
However Lévi-Strauss considers this initial triangle to be a structure of empty forms,
because it does not reveal anything about the cooking of any specific society. He
determines that it is only through observation that one can discover what the ‘raw’,
‘cooked’, and ‘rotten’ mean. Through a multitude of examples from diverse cultures, Lévi-
Strauss identifies that these meanings will not be the same everywhere (Lévi-Strauss 1966a,
p.587). Drawing on his knowledge of phonemes and linguistic triangles, Lévi-Strauss
recognised that a ‘concrete triangle [must be] inscribed within the abstract triangle’ (1966a
Figure 1 The Culinary Triangle (Primary Form) (Leach 1996 [1970], p.40)
57
p.587). He notes that in all cuisines food is not simply cooked, rather each foodstuff must
be cooked in one way or another. In the same way he observes that there is not one true
state of rawness. Only select foods can be consumed raw and usually raw food can still
only be eaten once selected, washed, chopped, or seasoned. In addition, rotting can only
occur through particular methods, whether spontaneous or controlled (for example blue
cheese) (Lévi-Strauss 1966a, p.587).
From this knowledge Lévi-Strauss searches for three cooking methods to situate within the
raw, cooked, and rotten triangle. He returns to his study of myth and identifies that there
are two primary methods of cooking, the roasted and the boiled. Lévi-Strauss then
questions:
In what does their difference consist? Roasted food is directly exposed to
the fire; with the fire it realizes an unmediated conjunction, whereas boiled
food is doubly mediated, by the water in which it is immersed, and by the
receptacle that holds both water and food. On two grounds, then, one
can say that the roasted is on the side of culture: literally, because boiling
requires the use of a receptacle, a cultural object; symbolically, in as much
as culture is a mediation of the relations between man and the world, and
boiling demands a mediation (by water) of the relation between food and
fire which is absent in roasting (Lévi-Strauss 1966a, p.588).
Lévi-Strauss determines that behind the opposition of roasted and boiled is the underlying
binary opposition of nature and culture. However he identifies that a third term is required
to complete the culinary triangle, to which he believes the cooking technique of smoking is
the most appropriate. Smoking, like roasting, involves an unmediated process, but it also
differs from roasting, because, like boiling it is a slow method of cooking (Lévi-Strauss
1966a, p.591). He observes that smoking is closest to the abstract category of the cooked,
58
and that it represents the most cultural method of cooking (Lévi-Strauss 1966a, p.593).
With smoking decided as the third culinary practice, Lévi-Strauss establishes his developed
culinary triangle by situating these three cooking processes (roasting, boiling, and smoking)
onto the original triangle:
Lévi-Strauss explains that within the primary model he traced another triangle that
represents the most elementary cooking recipes:
Roasting, boiling and smoking. The smoked and the boiled are opposed as to
the nature of the intermediate element between fire and food, which is either
air or water. The smoked and the roasted are opposed by the smaller or larger
place given to the element air; and the roasted and the boiled by the presence
or absence of water. The boundary between nature and culture, which one can
imagine as parallel to either the axis of air or the axis of water, puts the roasted
and the smoked on the side of nature, the boiled on the side of culture as to
means; or, as to results, the smoked on the side of culture, the roasted and the
boiled on the side of nature (Lévi-Strauss 1966a, p.594).
Lévi-Strauss considers that his two-dimensional culinary triangle shape might need to be
replaced by a complex three-dimensional tetrahedral form in order to account for all the
various cooking practices, such as grilling, frying, braising, and steaming. In addition this
structure could be enlarged to encompass the opposition of ‘animal and vegetable
Figure 2 The Culinary Triangle (Developed Form) (Lévi-Strauss 1966a, p.594)
59
foodstuffs (if they entail differentiating methods of cooking)’ (Lévi-Strauss 1966a, p.595).
The ‘distinction of vegetables into cereals and legumes’ could also be added to the structure
(Lévi-Strauss 1966a, p.595). Moreover he suggests that seasonings too, should be
positioned in regard to the inclusion or exclusion of salt and pepper on a given food product
(Lévi-Strauss 1966a, p.595).
After considering these various cooking practices, which could continue to expand
infinitely, Lévi-Strauss concludes that the most efficient way to utilise the culinary triangle
is to position it as a grille.10 In this way the culinary triangle may be superimposed on
numerous sociological, economic, or religious contrasts including: family and society, men
and women, village and bush, and sacred and profane (Lévi-Strauss 1966a, p.595). It is
clear that in RC and CT, Lévi-Strauss provides an important argument for the underlying
meanings of food and the cultural significance of eating (Murcott 1982, p.209).
Nevertheless sociologists and anthropologists alike have frequently raised concerns about
Lévi-Strauss’s methodology and theoretical assumptions, which will now be considered as
a basis for a more detailed critique of Lévi-Strauss’s distinction between nature and culture
in the concluding discussion.
When RC was first published Morton recalls that it was met with both intrigue and
scepticism (1988, p.100). In the ‘Overture’ of RC, Lévi-Strauss rebuts censures of
formalism and idealism that were directed against the structuralist approach he developed
in Structural Anthropology (1963 [1958]). He justified his work by explaining that:
For this book to be worthwhile, it is not necessary that it should be assumed
to embody the truth for years to come…I shall be satisfied if it is credited
with the modest achievement of having left a difficult problem in a rather
60
less than satisfactory manner than it was before. Nor must we forget that
in science there are no final truths. The scientific mind does not so much
provide the right answers as ask the right questions (p.7).
However Morton asked ‘can a project of the scope of Mythologiques escape the charge of
seeking ‘a total mythological pattern?’’ (1988, p.101). Morton’s question is answered in
the final pages of RC as Lévi-Strauss does indeed draw a conclusion beyond establishing a
fruitful viewpoint for the analysis of myths. He reveals his intention in RC when he states:
If now asked to what final meaning these mutually significative meanings
are referring - since that in the last resort and in their totality they must refer
to something - the only reply…is that myths signify the mind that evolves
them by making use of the world of which it is itself a part (p.341).
Many believed that Lévi-Strauss’s approach would lead to an important discovery, however
most were unwilling to accept his conclusion that myths were generated by ‘an image of
the world which is already inherent in the structure of the mind’ (p.341). For this reason
this chapter will now view two major critiques of Lévi-Strauss’s concepts. The first on the
limitations of his transcultural approach, and the second will consider the deficiency of his
structuralist methodology based on linguistics.
The first limitation of Lévi-Strauss’s work is his transcultural approach. As previously
considered, the intention of Lévi-Strauss’s analysis is to show that beneath the diversities of
culinary culture there is an implicit common structure (1966a, p.595). Mary Douglas (1978
[1975]) questions Lévi-Strauss’s belief that it is more useful to examine the widespread
similarity between cultures, rather than observing the differences between them. She
indicates that Lévi-Strauss ‘takes leave of the small-scale social relations which generate
the codification and are sustained by it’ (Douglas 1978 [1975], p.250). In response Lévi-
Strauss explains that his project is significant because he has found a way to identify
61
universal forms of human thought (p.341). However sociology is often wary and critical of
universal and grand theories of society as they do not address dynamic aspects of culture,
nor do they account for human individuality.
The second limitation is the methodological weakness of Lévi-Strauss’s culinary triangle
because his universal statements about cooking practices are only partially supported by
experiments that have tested his structuralist anthropology. Bob Ashley (et al.) critique
Lévi-Strauss’s concepts as they suggest that at times ‘there seems to be a sleight of hand
operating with Lévi-Strauss’s explication’ (2004, p.33). Adrienne Lehrer endeavoured to
trial the methods that Lévi-Strauss used to construct his culinary triangle (1972). She
examined his establishment of the raw, the cooked, and the rotten, together with the
cooking techniques of roasted, boiled, and smoked. In this project she determined that
while her data confirms some of Lévi-Strauss’s conjectures, she found many others to be
amiss (Lehrer 1972, p.155). Lehrer scrutinises Lévi-Strauss’s opposition of nature and
culture, and the way he postulates boiling with culture and roasting with nature. She
considers Lévi-Strauss’s data as ambiguous, especially his metaphorical connection
between ‘boiled’ and ‘spoiled’ simply because it ‘resembles it’ (Lévi-Strauss 1966a,
p.594). She explains that this relationship cannot be confirmed in any way. Lévi-Strauss’s
culinary triangle is not a precise model of the way cultures generally categorise their own
cooking techniques, and so Lehrer determines ‘there are dangers in generalising from
linguistic analysis’ (1972, p.169).
However Lévi-Strauss is not arguing that these meanings are the same across all cultures.
He recognises that there are vast differences between diverse cultures, and as Stephen
Horrigan notes ‘empirical criticisms miss the point’ of Lévi-Strauss’s work’ (Horrigan
62
1988, p.41). Lévi-Strauss in fact argues that the nature/culture opposition can be
configured in various ways depending on the context of the food practices of diverse
cultures (Ashley et al. 2004, p.34). The strength of Lévi-Strauss’s argument proceeds from
his simple model, but as Ashley (et al.) recognise, ‘if this apparent simplicity is actually
generated by some rather crude conjectures along the way, then the legitimacy of the
culinary triangle itself begins to look rather precarious’ (2004, p.34). Furthermore there
has been doubt towards the foundation of Lévi-Strauss’s theory, specifically in his
application of Jakobson and Halle’s linguistic theory (Clarke 1981; Mounin 1974). Hence
it is clear that Lévi-Strauss’s generalisations from RC and CT are not the best approach to
interpret food cultures (Atkins & Bowler 2001, p.6).
This chapter has provided a detailed analysis of Lévi-Strauss’s structuralist study of food
practices in both RC and CT. Although several limitations in Lévi-Strauss’s methodology
and theoretical deductions have been identified, this thesis still considers Lévi-Strauss’s
distinction between techniques of cooking, and between nature and culture, as valuable to
the study of food. However this thesis concurs with the critique from Ashley (et al.), as the
nature/culture divide at the core of Lévi-Strauss’s work could be utilised in a more
adequate theory (2004, p.40). Cooking is indeed a method in which the raw materials
produced by nature are transformed into culture. Nevertheless this thesis finds a point of
contention in Lévi-Strauss’s trans-historical proposition: that the binary opposition of
nature and culture is a way to categorise all human food practices. The present thesis
instead surmises that the nature/culture divide lies beneath the dominant eating practices of
many societies, but it is not an organising principle that should be generalised to all human
societies, because the meanings and the distinction between nature and culture are not
historically fixed but have developed over time. Thus ‘our notions of nature and culture are
63
themselves ‘cooked’’(Ashley et al. 2004, p.40). This critique will be discussed in greater
detail in the concluding discussion, where it will be analysed together with Klaus Eder’s
The Social Construction of Nature (1996 [1988]). Eder’s text is significant to this historical
critique of Lévi-Strauss, because Eder examines the nature/culture divide in relation to the
historical trajectories of industrial society’s food practices.
1 All page numbers henceforth refer to RC except where otherwise indicated. 2 The current thesis justifies the use of Lévi-Strauss’s RC by highlighting the fertile relationship between sociology and anthropology, especially in regard to the study of food. Anthropologists have had a long interest in food because they recognise its ‘central role in many cultures’ (Counihan & Van Esterik 1997, p.37). The anthropology of food has deep roots, with Edward Burnett Tylor (1878 [1865]) planting the seeds for the subject when he argued the fact, disputed at the time, that cooking qualified as a human universal. Twenty years later John G. Bourke produced the anthropology of food’s first detailed paper The Urine Dance of the Zuni Indians of New Mexico (1920 [1881]). Since then Anthropologists have demonstrated how food is connected with economy, power, kinship, and human thought, and through their early studies they established a strong tradition (see Counihan & Van Esterik 1997; Douglas 1978 [1975]; Firth 1934; Fortes & Fortes 1936; Richards 1932; Rozin 1999; Sahlins 1972; Weismantel 1988). Sociology is now catching up, and food is recognised and researched by anthropologists and sociologists alike for its numerous meanings and functions including: social, psychological, cultural, economic, religious, artistic, and political (Rozin 1999, p.22). 3 The nature/culture divide was an important binary opposition in Lévi-Strauss’s CT and will be discussed in greater detail on p.54. 4 In Lévi-Strauss’s Totemism (1969 [1962]) he refers specifically to the choice of animals as totems for their symbolic value rather than their economic value as food products. However in his later works, as this thesis chapter will show, Levi-Strauss’s greatly demonstrated that what is good to eat (bonnes à manger) is also good to think (bonnes à penser) with (1969 [1962]). 5 The influence of Jakobson (1956) and Saussure’s (1974 [1916]) linguistics will be considered in greater detail on p.45. 6 Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1995 [1912]) has been influential for later generations of sociologists, especially in Jeffrey Alexander’s strong program of cultural sociology (see Alexander 2003, 2007; Arnason 2010). 7 Langue is ‘the individual natural language’ regarded as a structure or system’, while parole is the ‘individual speech acts, or acts of language as a process’ (Lechte 2008, p.180). 8 Bob Ashley (et al.) provide a sound explanation of Saussure’s concept. They explain that ‘the relationship between the signifier and the signified is an arbitrary one: there is no inherent reason why, for example, the three black marks ‘p-i-g’ should signify a non-ruminant omnivorous ungulate…instead, Saussure proposes that ‘p-i-g’ signifies the mental concept ‘pig’ only by virtue of its difference from other signifiers (Ashley et al. 2004, p.3). In this way ‘pig’ signifies the ‘oinking animal’ because it is not ‘pug’, ‘fig’, ‘pit’, or various other signifiers. 9 Lévi-Strauss’s The Savage Mind (1966b) is related to his study in RC and CT as in this work he argued against the dominant idea that there is a difference between the ‘pre-logical’ mentality of primitive individuals and the ‘logical’ mentality of the modern individual. Leach explains that Lévi-Strauss sought to show that ‘‘primitive’ people are no more mystical in their approach to reality than we are…likewise they are able to make sense of the events of daily life by reference to codes composed of things outside themselves – such as the attributes of animal species’ (1996
64
[1970], p.101). In essence Lévi-Strauss asserts that primitive people are just as sophisticated as we are, but they simply use a distinct system of notation. 10 Especially with chef Heston Blumenthal developing new cooking techniques daily.
65
CHAPTER 3: The Symbolic Frameworks of Food:
Klaus Eder This chapter will examine Klaus Eder’s classic but neglected work The Social Construction
of Nature (1996 [1988]) (Hereafter referred to as SCN).1 Eder’s text has been selected for
analysis because like Lévi-Strauss’s works, SCN is one of the very few texts that explicitly
considers the nature/culture divide with the problematic of ‘food’ as a main category in its
analysis. Furthermore this thesis draws attention to Eder’s social theory of nature and the
environment because of its relevance to current debates in sociology (see Ferguson 2005;
Irwin 2001; Macnaghten & Urry 1998; Sutton 2004). SCN is important because it offers a
reinterpretation of the relationship between nature, culture, and society, and it links cultural
interpretation to the environmental problems of food in modern industrial societies.
The present chapter will hermeneutically reconstruct SCN. From this analysis this study
will critically discuss the insights wrought from the respective analyses of Lévi-Strauss and
Eder’s work in order to begin to configure a theoretical framework that can elaborate an
environmental sociology of food. This chapter will first consider Eder’s intellectual
sources. It will then contextualise SCN within his broader project, and situate it into wider
debates on modernity and critical theory. Eder’s argument will then be critically analysed,
which will lead into the concluding discussion that will consider SCN together with Lévi-
Strauss’s RC and CT. Through the analysis of these works together, this study will show
that the cultural meanings of food provide an important, but hitherto marginalised lens,
through which to interpret the nature/culture divide. It will argue that it is important to
investigate the underlying constitutions of meanings that inform our social practices
towards the natural environment at a core level. As a result the concluding discussion will
66
show that this thesis provides a preliminary step towards elaborating a conceptual
framework that is more adequately equipped to investigate an environmental sociology of
food.
Intellectual Sources
Before critically engaging with SCN it is important to consider Eder’s intellectual sources,
and to contextualise his work by understanding how he came to write SCN. Klaus Eder is
professor of sociology at the Institute of Social Sciences, Humboldt University of Berlin.
He was a student of Jürgen Habermas at Frankfurt University, and considered part of the
third generation of critical theory (Anderson 2011; Strydom 1993). One of his first
publications Die Entstehung Staatlich Organisierter Gesellschaften: Ein Beitrag zu einer
Theorie Sozialer Evolution (1976) was a contribution to the theory of social evolution,
which analysed the emergence of state-orientated societies. The work of Habermas and
critical theory more broadly were central intellectual sources for Eder’s intellectual
trajectory, and now require a brief overview to properly contextualise SCN.
Recalling the discussion of critical theory in the methodology section of this thesis, critical
theory in a narrow sense refers to the work of German neo-Marxist academics of the
‘Frankfurt School’ who placed an emphasis on critiquing society and culture. Jürgen
Habermas was initially a part of the original Frankfurt School’s inner circle, however he
became unsatisfied with the first generation’s pessimistic conclusions, particularly Adorno
and Horkheimer’s perspective in Dialectic of Enlightenment (2002 [1944]). His objection
emerged from his post-war outlook, as the world, now full of new social and political
possibilities, looked very distinct to the one described by Adorno and Horkheimer
(Anderson 2011; Elliott 2009). Habermas specifically argued that the negative view of the
67
early Frankfurt School was not just a conclusion of a solemn observation of historical
processes, rather it arose from incorrect theoretical assumptions (Whitebook 1979, p.41).
He suggested that if Adorno and Horkheimer’s perspective was correct, if the
Enlightenment, which was meant to cause liberty and plenitude to humans, was from its
formation, also bound to bring imprisonment and suffering, then critical theory is left in a
quandary. Habermas’s theories are an attempt to resolve the problems of the first
generation of critical theory, but he also wished to retain its original perspective and
maintain some elements of its diagnosis of social problems. It is beyond the scope of the
present work to provide a detailed account of Habermas’s theoretical developments, so this
chapter will now focus on his concepts that are relevant to the premise of Eder’s SCN.2
Habermas examined how in modernity the domain of science led to the demise of the
Church’s sovereignty, and was eventually replaced by the epistemic power of natural
science and reason (Porter 2001). From this understanding he determined that modernity
brings a huge expansion in the amount and quality of specialised knowledge. However at
the same time this knowledge becomes detached from everyday life, to the extent that the
gap between what we know and how we live widens (Habermas 1996 [1981], p.45). From
this understanding Habermas describes modernity as an ‘unfinished project’, in which he
explains that:
The project of modernity as it was formulated by the philosophers of
the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century consist in the relentless
development of the objectivating sciences, of the universalist foundations
of morality and law, and of the autonomous art, all in accord with their
own immanent logic… Partisans of the Enlightenment…could still
entertain the extravagant expectation that the arts and sciences would
not merely promote the control of forces of nature, but also further the
68
understanding of the self and world, the progress of morality, justice in
social institutions, and even human happiness (Habermas 1996 [1981],
p.45).
However Habermas examined twentieth century society and he noted that little of this
optimism remains, and so he asked, ‘Should we continue to hold fast to the intentions of the
Enlightenment, however fractured they may be, or should we rather relinquish the entire
project of modernity?’ (1996 [1981]. p.46). In response he argued that modernity is
‘unfinished’ because it is an ongoing process that should not be reversed, but he also
explains that we should not accept every development it produces. Modernity is a ‘project’
because Habermas maintains that we must critically measure the cultural, technological,
and economic potential of modern society, and this must be done in light of secular
humanitarian ideals (Finlayson 2005, p.66). Hence Habermas determined that modernity is
an ‘unfinished project’. Elliott explains that Habermas believed in ‘the basic assumption of
the Enlightenment − particularly [that] the expansion of the spheres of freedom and
solidarity’ were enough to transform society, and so he adjusted critical theory to consider
language, communication, and rationality as a way to bring about a radical social change
(Elliott 2009, p.158). 3 Habermas drew attention to everyday interaction and
communication between people as a major source of emancipatory impulses (Anderson
2011, p.5).4 He sought to identify the general and universal features of communicative
action, and he aimed to develop a communicative rationality and a progressive learning
process, which he believed could foster autonomy and liberate human interaction from
dominion.
As mentioned earlier Klaus Eder was a student of Jürgen Habermas at Frankfurt University.
As a younger critical theorist and student, Eder worked with Habermas on his theory of
69
sociocultural evolution (Strydom 1993, p.304). However during the late 1970s and early
1980s, Eder began to move away from Habermas’s thought. Eder’s shift is described by
Piet Strydom as a radical change, because within a decade Eder moved from uncritically
accepting Habermas’s ‘universal historical and general societal applicability’ of the theory
of social evolution, to becoming one of its sharpest critics (Strydom 1993, p.304-305).
Eder’s connection to Habermas’s theory was split for the first time in his book, Die
Vergesellschaftung der Natur: Studien zur sozialen Evolution der praktischen Vernunft
(1988), which in 1996 was revised, enlarged, and translated into English as The Social
Construction of Nature: A Sociology of Ecological Enlightenment (1996 [1988]).
Eder’s critique and development of Habermas’s theory is evident throughout his
intellectual trajectory. His numerous works develop a macrosociology with an emphasis on
historical and comparative studies, European sociological research, and structural analysis
(see Eder 1993; 2001; 2002). Much of his research is from the field of political sociology,
as he considers democracy, social movements, social structure, and collective action (see
Eder 1991 [1985]; 1993; 1999; 2006). However in the late 1980s his attention to social
movements provoked his interest in the environment, and he became concerned with
modern industrial society’s ‘increasingly violent and destructive’ relationship to nature (see
Eder 1990a; 1990b; 1995; 1996 [1988]; Eder & Kousis 2001). From this concern he
developed a unique interpretation of nature and what he terms ‘ecological reason’ that he
posits in SCN.
The Social Construction of Nature
SCN argues that although environmental problems and approaches have been apparent for a
long time, both industrial and developing countries’ relationships to nature are becoming
70
increasingly harmful. Eder originally published SCN in Germany in 1988, at a time when
new social movements arose and awareness of environmental issues became important
(Anderson 2011; Touraine 1971, 1981).5 Most answers to the current environmental
problem have been offered by economics, technology, and politics, but in SCN Eder argues
for a cultural account. Eder was one of the first sociologists to argue for a cultural
approach to the environment, and in SCN he attempts to formulate a concept of practical
reason through the ‘reconstruction of the cultural foundations of man’s relationship to
nature’ (p.x). It is with this cultural underpinning that Eder’s intentions in SCN are two-
fold. Firstly, he provides the foundations of a social critique of ecological reason through a
comparative analysis of the relationship to nature in various societies, and secondly, he
determines the conditions that have so far hindered environmental learning processes
(p.vii). Eder pursues his argument by organising his text into three sections. In part one,
Eder builds the foundations of cultural theory to critique ecological reason.6 In part two, he
questions the logic of cultural practices of the appropriation of nature through a
comparative analysis of food taboos. However in part three, Eder shifts his methodological
perspective to consider the consequences of the spirit of environmentalism on politics in
modern society. This empirical perspective moves beyond the scope of this thesis, and so
this chapter will only briefly consider this third part to segue into the concluding
discussion.
Reason is a central idea in SCN and at this point requires further elaboration. In classical
philosophical terms, reason is distinguished into three domains of human activity;
theoretical reason, practical reason, and technical reason (Millgram 2001; Taylor 1995).
Theoretical reason concerns the use of reason to investigate and hypothesise truth and what
to believe. Practical reason is the use of reason to determine how to act and to decide
71
whether a course of action is worth implementing. Technical reason simply attempts to
find the best means for a given end. Eder, in a similar manner to Horkheimer, Adorno, and
Habermas before him, were all interested in practical reason, and sought to uncover the
pathologies of society that are based in the fragmentation and fragility of reason. As
mentioned previously, Adorno and Horkheimer had a pessimistic view of society, and from
this outlook they argued that technical reason, and the fetters of capitalism and technocratic
bureaucracy dominate modern society and nature. In contrast to Adorno and Horkheimer’s
approach, Habermas believed that the way to emancipate society from domination was
through practical reason. Habermas linked the disrupted interplay of reason and
irrationality to the fundamental forces of communication and language, and he aimed to
rescue communicative rationality through his unfinished project of modernity (Elliott 2009,
p.178). However in Habermas’s approach there is no place for the environment, because he
views, along with many critical theorists, that the inclusion of nature is the negation of
reason (see Whitebook 1979). In this regard Eder departs from Habermas and places the
social relation to nature at the centre of contemporary society. He considers that the
changes in society’s relationship to nature could give rise to new forms of modernisation
and politics. From this understanding he critiques Habermas’s notion of communicative
reason, because ‘despite all [the] communication on ecological matters, we have remained
culturally naïve ‘Philistines’ in our interaction with nature’ (p.viii). Eder argues that
society is symbolically organised, and he contends that cultural meanings may be a way to
reconstruct practical reason. It is from this insight that Eder begins his critique of
ecological reason and argues that it needs to be radicalised by cultural theory.
In SCN, Eder develops his argument through a strong critique of ecological reason. Eder
explains that ecological reason has developed as a response to the ecological crisis, and its
72
general idea is that the pollution of nature needs to be limited in order to sustain the planet
for future generations (p.vii). However Eder is concerned that ecological reason is merely
a euphemism of utilitarian rationality (p.57). In this way he explains:
The issue is whether this ecological reason will become part of a form of
practical reason that can avoid the pitfalls of utilitarian rationality. What is
at stake it whether ecological reason can be connected with an appropriate
‘ecological’ ethics. If this were to succeed, then an ecological ethics could
no longer be reduced to a utilitarian ethics. Then the seducibility of morality
by knowledge, that characteristic of modern utilitarian reason, could no
longer continue to be the characteristic of the social evolution of practical
reason in modernity. The question of whether, despite all the knowledge
now available to us, we are producing an ecological reason today from
which an ecological morality is absent therefore compels a renewed
critique of ideology: a critique of ecological reason (p.57).
Eder question ecological reason when he considers that the ‘exploitation discourse of
industrialism’ and ‘the pollution discourse of environmentalism’ have stemmed from the
same utilitarian perspective of nature (p.vii). According to Eder both perspectives and
interactions with nature are exploitive. This argument echoes that of Max Weber (see
Weber 1985 [1930]), and more recently in the work of Ulrich Beck (see Beck 1991; 1992;
1995; 1996). Eder contends that the modern culture of nature is controlled by technical
reason and an instrumental rationality, which is so deeply embedded that it has even filtered
into the environmental movement. Eder explains that although ecological reason advocates
a more ‘rational’ engagement with nature, it still judges nature based on what it can endure,
and so modernity is unable to consider ‘nature’ as anything more that an ‘object’ of human
needs (p.vii). Noel Castree indicates that this is a common concern of radical
environmentalists, including deep ecologists or eco-Marxists, who ‘generally point to the
73
failure of technocratic environmentalism to get to grips with the mass industrialism, mass
consumption, and capitalist production logic fundamentally causing environmental
degradation’ (1997, p.268). Eder agrees, but what makes his analysis innovative is his
resolve that the environmental problems of modern industrialism must be situated in their
cultural context in order to be understood accurately. At the time of SCN’s publication (i.e.
1988) this brought new insights to bear on sociological analyses of the environment, and in
this way it is a pioneering argument.
Eder argues that, ‘Modernity’s characteristic pride in dominating nature has caused us to
forget that we are living in a culture that more or less unconsciously ‘forces’ us into a self-
destructive relationship with nature’ (p.vii-viii). The central idea here is ‘unconsciously’,
because for Eder, ecological reason does not lead to an alternative approach to nature,
rather it reproduces the ‘long-standing and culturally deep-rooted attitudes and modes of
action’ that further society’s ‘self-destructive relationship with nature’ (p.vii). Eder
surmises that ecological reason cannot solve this destructive course, as it is simply the
newest form of practical (technocratic) reason. Following Weber (1985 [1930]), Eder
connects ecological reason to the Protestant spirit, as he considers that it emerged from the
same utilitarian perspective of nature. Although as Bronislaw Szerszynski explains, it has
now been enlightened ‘by ecological awareness of the prudential reasons to protect nature
for human benefit’, which Eder views is a ‘further rationalization of the instrumental
relation to nature promoted by Protestantism’ (Szerszynski 2005, p. 153). Eder argues
against this Protestant spirit of ecological reason. He proposes that we need to search deep
underneath the surface of our practical engagement with nature to rediscover the underlying
symbolic dimensions and cultural codes that shape our practical interaction with nature. In
this way SCN questions ‘the naturalistic analysis of the relationship between nature and
74
society [and opposes it with] a culturalist interpretation of this relationship [that views]
nature as something that is constituted symbolically rather than objectively given’ (p.9). It
is from this perspective that Eder seeks to produce a communicative type of rationality that
moves beyond the nature and society relationship of domination, and shifts towards a new
‘environmentally friendly’ cultural order (p.10).
Eder elaborated his cultural approach to nature in the late 1980s. Since that time several
theorists have adopted a cultural perspective (see Bird 1987; Castree & Braun 2001; Ross
1978) towards nature, which resonates with the general ‘cultural turn’ over the last decade
in the human sciences. In various ways these other studies have ‘unearthed’ sites in which
nature is materially and discursively constructed in modern society. Eder’s social
construction of nature remains an important contribution to the cultural interpretation of
nature, but as stated in the literature review, social constructionism is ‘the bread and butter
of sociology’. Therefore it is necessary to examine how Eder’s use of social
constructionism differs to others. Recalling the discussion of social constructionism vs.
critical realism in chapter one, the common idea of social constructionism is that our
interaction and understanding of nature are, to a great extent, socially produced (see
Everdeen 1992; Hannigan 2006; Irwin 2001; Macnaghten & Urry 1998; Smith 1997; Tester
1991). Mick Smith argues that it is unmistakably clear that our experiences and
interpretations of nature are socially produced, when he explains that:
Either ‘nature’ denotes ‘the entire system of things’ in which case everything we do
is natural (including one must presume, nuclear testing, pesticide spraying, and so
on) or, people arbitrarily select from and read into nature what they will, ignoring
countervailing examples…[and] they operate with a particular and partial reading
of nature without recognising that this conception is, in part at least, a social
construction which mirrors their own predilections (Smith 1997, p.164).
75
This is a common critique of environmentalism as once nature is considered a social
construct, any discussion about the ‘intrinsic value’ or the ‘natural limit’ of nature can be
regarded as an ideologically questionable effort to limit human freedom, which causes an
uncertain terrain for political agenda (Castree 1997; Smith 1997). From this critique, Smith
emphasises that an important start for environmental politics is to consider how nature has
been constructed throughout history and in various cultures (Sessions 1995; Smith 1997).
Eder takes a similar approach in his comparative analysis of food taboos and customs in
different societies and eras, because he emphasises the cultural/symbolic meanings of
nature and food as they appear within human societies.
Eder’s social construction of nature breaks new ground through his detailed historical
analysis of culture. It also differs to other social constructionist approaches to nature,
because of his emphasis on food and ‘consumption’. He argues that our consumptive
habits and preferences are not predetermined by human needs, rather they are culturally
constructed and symbolically mediated (Castree 1997; Smith 1997). Eder builds a
thorough framework in which nature is socially constructed, but his form of social
constructionism is self-reflexive, because he believes ‘critical theoretical reason must
always make sure of [its] social function, and that means it must infuse theoretical reason
with sociologically enlightened reflexivity’ (p.50). This approach allows him to defend
environmentalism’s moral and political particularity, and it also permits him to still provide
a realistic account about the rationality of environmental practice (Ney 1998; Smith 1997).
In Eder’s social construction of nature he recognises that society has an ‘unthematisable’
symbolic foundation, and according to Szerszynski’s interpretation of Eder’s text, ‘we
operate [in practice] in accordance not with an abstract ecological rationality but with a
concrete ecological morality informed by unexamined symbols and metaphors’
76
(Szerszynski 2005, pp.153-154). Yet Eder explains that despite all the knowledge modern
society has gained, it is still producing an ecological reason that lacks ecological morality
(p.57). Eder explains that it is tempting to restore the Protestant spirit of nature with a
‘Catholic spirit’, or a traditional, or ‘Romantic’ interaction with nature, but Eder indicates
that ‘such an escape’ will be avoided in his text (p.x). He explains his reason for avoiding
this ‘restorational’ approach with reference to the theoretical purpose of SCN, which is:
To sketch out the foundations of a social critique of ecological reason by
starting from a comparative analysis of the relationship to nature in
different societies. Such a critique is the opposite of restoration. It may
use elements of tradition, but it does not remain bound to them. This
prevents any restorational intent (p.x).
Eder’s simultaneous use of practical (non-technocratic) reason together with cultural values
are central to the problematic of modernity. Eder’s text engages in questions surrounding
modernity, including questions of the Enlightenment, reason and rationality, and the
Romantic emphasis on meaning, which at this point requires discussion.7
The world was once viewed as a given or a ‘taken for granted horizon’, but through the
Enlightenment, modernity becomes ‘inherently problematic and problematizable’ (Adams
2011, p.8).8 Before the Enlightenment, Western civilization was based on faith in God,
tradition, and authority, but with the Enlightenment, these deep-rooted values and beliefs
were questioned, and in many cases, superseded by new concepts from philosophical
reason. 9 Johnathon Israel explains that in the Enlightenment a ‘general process of
rationalization and secularization set in which rapidly overthrew theology’s age-old
hegemony in the world of study’ (2001, p.4).10 This period, and the notions of ‘progress’
and the ‘improvement of society’ that came with it, resulted in two distinct lines of
enlightenment thought (Arnason 1991 [1984]; Porter 2001). The first saw the benefits of
77
progressing towards a rational society with autonomy, conscience, individuality,
democracy, and the removal of religious authority from the state (Israel 2001; Whitebook
1979). In contrast the second argued for a ‘Counter-Enlightenment’ that would critically
review and support the old models of thought and systems of values (Israel 2010, p.15).
A major aspect of the Enlightenment involved a ‘disembedding from nature’, and the
conquest of the environment in which the ‘visions of nature’ are cleared of meaning and
viewed as surplus, or as an ‘Other’, to an excessively rationalised world (Adams 2011, p.8).
This second line of thought resonated with the artistic and intellectual movement of
Romanticism. Johann P. Arnason explains that:
Romanticism in the widest sense of the term… is the defence of
meaningfulness against subsumption under the meaning-destroying
mechanisms of an Enlightenment geared towards the expansion and
rationalization of power and embodied in the reified economic and
political structures of the modern world (Arnason 1991 [1984], p.210).
These two lines of thought are central to the problematic of modernity, because instead of
reducing ‘modernity’ to ‘the Enlightenment’, as other theorist have done (see Adorno and
Horkheimer 2002 [1944]; Bauman 1989, 2000; Habermas 1996 [1981]), Arnason argues
that an image of modernity needs to encompass both Romanticism and the Enlightenment
(Arnason 1991 [1984]). The Enlightenment and Romanticism should not to be considered
as mere historical epochs, but as cultural currents than can be characterised by an emphasis
on reason and rationality (Enlightenment) and meaning and the imagination (Romanticism)
(Arnason 1991 [1984]). At this point, considering Arnason’s innovative thoughts on ‘the
cultural horizons of modernity’ may help to reconfigure Eder’s perspective (Adams 2011,
p.138).
78
Like Eder, Arnason was also a student of Habermas, and his cultural hermeneutics was a
direct response to Habermas’s theory of communicative action and his notion of modernity
as the ‘unfinished project of the Enlightenment’ (Adams, Smith, & Vlahov 2011, p.5).
Arnason understood modernity as a ‘field of tensions’, in which Romanticism is not in
opposition to the Enlightenment, rather Arnason argues that Romanticism and the
Enlightenment are to be understood as cultural currents constitutive of modernity itself.
They exist as an underlying ‘constitutive polarity of modern structures of consciousness
that can express itself in highly different constellations’ (Arnason 1991 [1984], p.210). As
Suzi Adams interprets from Arnason’s thought, the Enlightenment and Romanticism are
not reduced to historical or intellectual movements, rather they are ‘elaborated more
broadly as cultural currents’, which are essential elements of modernity’s field of tensions
(2011, p.138). Arnason explains that by understanding that modernity is organised around
the ‘radical conflict of interpretations’, it justifies a radically decentred perspective of the
world, and it also offers a new direction for the comparison with other traditions and
worldviews (1991 [1984], p.211).
Although Eder may disagree with Arnason’s understanding of modernity, the present thesis
proposes that Arnason’s thought is pertinent to Eder’s SCN because in his comparative
analysis of food taboos and customs he establishes two fundamental and conflicting
culinary cultures that coexist in modern society. The first is the ‘carnivorous culture’,
which communicates a utilitarian and dominant treatment of nature (the Enlightenment),
while the ‘vegetarian culture’ prescribes a harmonious relationship with nature
(Romanticism) (p.132). Eder explains that the carnivorous culture is dominant, but he
argues that in modern society, the symbolic effectiveness and power is determined by the
interplay and conflict of these cultures (p.138). Although Eder does not refer to Arnason’s
79
thought in SCN, this thesis argues that these conflicting culinary cultures are constructions
of the world through cultural meanings (1991 [1984]). Jeffery C. Alexander and Piotr
Sztompka, for example, recognise that Eder draws from both the Enlightenment and
Romantic strain, when he identifies ‘a cultural conflict between the theoretical antinomies
of rationality and romanticism, evolution and equilibrium…and utilitarian reason versus
communicative reason’ (Alexander & Sztompka 1990, p.6).
Eder argues that rather than depending on practical (non-technocratic) reason, sociology
needs to consider the social ‘locus’ of environmental ‘irrationality’ in the modern cultural
constructions of nature (Ney 1998, p.1072). However, he questions ‘where do we start?’ as
he believes theoretical reason can only provide ‘enlightenment on the illusion tied to
[practical reason]’ (p.1). With this in mind Eder proposes that: Sociological analysis, which treats the societal relationship to nature as a
problem of practical reason, first requires a radicalization of the sociological
perspective in terms of cultural theory. The point is to reconstruct the symbolic
forms in which nature is represented, beyond the utilitarian relationship to
nature which has become the cultural norm (p.2).
This reconceptualisation overcomes two obstacles in the nature/culture divide, firstly it
moves past sociology’s naturalistic tendency to view nature as the ‘other’ to society, and
secondly it concentrates on the way societies symbolically structure their encounter with
nature. Steven Ney argues from his interpretation of SCN, that Eder wants to recover a
philosophical notion of practical reason in sociological analysis that provides
comprehensive sociocultural constructions of nature (1998, p.1072). Eder achieves this by
locating rational learning processes, however he does not find these in ‘the evolution of
rational ideas about nature’, but in ‘the evolution of cultural constructions of nature’ (Ney
1998, p.1072). Eder determines that the cultural significance of the Protestant spirit for the
80
modern relationship to nature becomes very evident when the symbolic significance of
nature is explored in different eras and cultures (p.viii). This research indicates that the
modern relationship to nature has decreased, to such an extent, that nature, as a symbolic
form, has no significance of its own. Eder is concerned that this utilitarian culture now
endeavours to control the ‘most elementary’ and at the same time the ‘most social’ aspect
of our interaction with nature, that is, the culture of food (p.viii).
Culinary Morality
From the discussion of Eder’s work thus far it is clear that a major premise of SCN is that
we must become conscious of the symbolic foundations of our relationship to nature if we
want to discover the learning processes that can change our destructive relationship to
nature (p.viii). This led Eder to present a compelling case that food is eminently cultural
and a valuable way to examine modern society’s relationship to nature. He shows that
nature and society’s self-destructive relations are reflected in our eating practices, as ‘eating
is not only material, but a symbolic appropriation of nature…[and] an elementary form of
the transition from nature to culture’ (p.ix). Eder explains that our daily cultural practices
are central to a critique of ecological rationality, and so in part two of SCN he provides an
extensive anthropological analysis of culinary morality that draws on work from Mary
Douglas, Marvin Harris, and Marshall Sahlins (see Douglas 2002 [1966]; Harris & Ross
1987; Sahlins 1976).
Eder believes that eating is essential to the ‘civilizational process’ of humanity (see Elias
1978; Mennell 1996 [1985]). He considers that food taboos are ‘culturally deep-seated’,
and they communicate ‘a collective moral sentiment’ that exists before any ‘moral
consciousness’ in a society can be formed (pp.58-59). Eder argues that food taboos are
81
norms at the ‘interface between nature and culture’ (p.59). He questions the significance
and function of food taboos, and he approaches his investigation in three steps. Firstly he
reflects on several other explanations of these food taboos, which include, rationalistic,
functionalistic, and structuralist interpretations. Eder explains that the purpose of this
consideration is to assess why food taboos exist in the first place (p.59). His second step is
a comparative analysis of the food taboos from the Jivaro Indians in Brazil, the food taboos
in classical Judaism, and the food taboos in modern Western European culture.
From this analysis Eder’s third step is to investigate the ‘morality implicit’ in these taboo
systems. He discovers that the significance between what is edible or inedible portrays a
‘symbolic border between society and non-society’, and ‘between symbolic order and
symbolic disorder’ (p.73). Eder perceives that the standard that distinguishes the human
world from nature is ‘reasonability’, and that ‘reason is part of society. Unreason belongs
to nature [and] those who do not fit into the social order are considered unreasonable’
(p.105). However Eder explains that this distinction between reason and unreason ‘makes
it possible to make the unreasonable the objects of the reasonable’, and so Eder questions
the rationality of food taboos (p.105). He specifically asks: ‘Are the food taboos rational in
view of the natural environment of a society?’, ‘What are the consequences of food taboos
for the reproduction of society in nature?’, and ‘Do food taboos destroy this natural
environment or do they contribute to its reproduction?’ (p.105). Eder contends that the
attempt to determine the rationality of food taboos risks leading to unrestrained relativism,
and so he conceives ecological rationality more narrowly. In this manner he considers that
food taboos are rational if they:
Enable and protect communication under the conditions of differentiation of
society away from nature. Successful communication produces social
82
relationships without conflict and solves disputes without force and repression.
In simple, as well as in traditional and modern societies we find rationality
and irrationality in the sense of successful or failing communications (p.106).
From this understanding Eder returns to his analysis of food taboos and he interprets that
both the Jivaro tribe and ancient Hebrews were able to establish successful communication.
However in modern society our food taboos are based on premises that impede this
rationality, because we ‘continue to act as if what we eat [has] no communicative
significance’ (p.106). Despite these negative findings Eder observes the way modern
environmental movements argue against the exploitation of nature, and so he determines
that ‘the rationality issue is still undecided’ (p.106).
It is evident from Eder’s comparative analysis that he considers food taboos to be a means
of communicating social order. Eder’s excursus also shows that in modern society there
are two coexisting culinary cultures. One that communicates a utilitarian treatment of
nature, and the other prescribes a harmonious relationship with nature (p.132). He terms
the former ‘the carnivorous culture’, and the latter ‘the vegetarian culture’. Eder identifies
that the carnivorous culture developed from the ancient Greek tradition with its emphasis
on blood rites, while the vegetarian culture stemmed from the Jewish tradition and its
restrictive use of bloody rituals and strict rules of purity. He explains that these two
cultures are the foundation of the environmental debates in the public sphere. The first
tradition has become dominant in modern society, and in this way nature is purely viewed
as a material object to be moulded and conquered. The second tradition has remained at the
level of collective consciousness, but was activated through the recent ecological crisis,
which brought the realisation that nature can no longer be taken for granted (p.132).
83
Eder shows that in modern society power is established through the ‘interplay of
carnivorous and vegetarian culture’, and we reproduce this ‘modern social contract’ in our
everyday culinary actions (p.138). He argues that instead of finding the culture of
modernity in intellectual rationalisations and self-description, we can understand culture in
its daily function. In this way Eder determines that when food is the object of symbolic
conflicts ‘the implicit meaning becomes explicit’ (p.139). Therefore by drawing attention
to the ‘generally unconscious cultural presuppositions of these conflicts’, Eder argues that
we may be able to shift the dominating symbolic power of the carnivorous culture to the
alternative vegetarian culture (p.132). Eder’s explanation of modern society’s potential to
move towards this alternative culture leads into the third part of SCN, which will now be
briefly considered.
In part three of SCN Eder’s discussion shifts to consider political aspects, asking whether
environmentalism is changing modern culture. Eder considers the way nature has been
framed and communicated in modern society, and he argues that these frames of reference
have been institutionalised to the extent that they have become ecological ideology (p.6).
This shift has brought the carnivorous and vegetarian cultures of modernity into conflict,
and so they must now find a new way to coexist. With this in mind Eder examines the
environmental movement in contemporary Western society, and he considers practical
politics and the possibilities for a non-utilitarian culture of nature (p.163). Eder then
investigates the consequences of the spirit of environmentalism on politics in modern
society, and he argues that it may have the potential to develop a new ecological
masterframe. This third part of SCN requires a far more detailed analysis than this chapter
has presented due to the scope of this thesis. Nevertheless, what this brief discussion has
shown is how Eder links and situates his more theoretical discussion into the practical
84
realm of political and social change, which matches the overarching aim of the present
author’s research programme.
SCN is a rich text that contains extensive insights for those from various disciplines that are
concerned with the environmental problems that contemporary society faces. However the
insights that Eder presents are not sufficient in and of themselves for an adequate
theoretical framework for an environmental sociology of food. For this reason the
concluding chapter ‘The Elementary Forms of Food: Conclusions and Future Directions’
will critically analyse Eder’s SCN together with Lévi-Strauss’s The Raw and the Cooked
(1970 [1964] and ‘The culinary triangle’ (1966) to consider how the cultural meanings of
food can be used to investigate society’s relationship to nature, which will provide a
preliminary step towards elaborating a theoretical framework for an environmental
sociology of food.
1 All page numbers henceforth refer to this text, except where otherwise indicated. 2 For a detailed analysis of Habermas’s theory (see McCarthy 1978; Nordquist 1986; Outhwaite 1994; Pussey 1987; White 1995) 3 Habermas’s argument that language, communication, and rationality need to be included in critical theory is evident in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1989) and in The Theory of Communicative Action (vol.1, 1984 [1981]; vol. 2, 1987 [1981]). 4 Emancipatory impulses refer to conditions that may bring about the creation of genuine democratic institutions and could endure the destructive effects of capitalism and state administration (Anderson 2011; Finlayson 2005). 5 Alain Touraine has had a long-standing interest in social movements, and through his research on South American and Polish social movements he argued that society shapes its future through its social struggles (see Touraine 1977; 1981). 6 Eder’s use of the term ‘ecological reason’ will be explained on p.72. 7 ‘Modernity’ is a contested term that often refers to the social conditions, processes, and discourses consequent to the Age of Enlightenment. To some degree, modernity describes an era (or a set of ideas related to an era). Modernity was a topic of great debate in the 1980s, in which theorists argued whether the era of modernity had past, whether it was still occurring, and, if the era of modernity had ended, it questioned whether this shift was beneficial. There has also been continuous debate on modernity and multiple modernities (see, for example, Arnason 1991 [1984]; Eisenstadt 2002; Wagner 1999). However modernity is more than an era, it ‘designates the social, political, cultural, institutional, and psychological conditions that arise from certain historical processes’ (Finlayson 2005, p.63). Sociology as a discipline arose in direct response to the social problems of modernity (Harriss 2000, p.325). Although modernity is discussed as a ‘theory’, it is not an isolated thought, but an accumulation of ideas and notions that are ‘woven into all the
85
various programmes’ (Finlayson 2005, p.63). For this reason the debates surrounding modernity are important to this discussion of Eder’s work as they were occurring at the time he published SCN. 8 The specific era of the Enlightenment has been contested, but it is generally thought to have occurred during the 17th and 18th centuries (Israel 2001; Porter 2001). 9 ‘Reason’ is a contested term, which is often conflated with ‘rationality’. For the purposes of the current discussion this thesis will view ‘reason’ as the capacity that human beings have to make sense of things, to determine and verify facts, and to shift or justify practices, institutions, and beliefs (Kompridis 2000, p.271). 10 Rationalisation is a process in which social actions become progressively more based on factors of efficiency and calculation rather than inspired from morals, emotions, customs, or tradition. In Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1985 [1930]) he established that rationalisation was the result of aims from Protestant denominations (in particular Calvinism) that focused on the rational means of economic profit as a way to cope with their ‘salvation anxiety’ (1985 [1930], p.136). Rationalisation is viewed as an ambivalent characteristic of modernity, which is largely seen in Western civilisation’s capitalist market, in the rational administration of the state and bureaucracy, and in the rapid growth of modern science and technology (Harriss 2000). In Weber’s Economy and Society (1978) he described that the ultimate impact of increased rationalisation was a society in which individuals were trapped in an ‘iron cage’ of rational control. In this way rationalisation does not generally denote what is actually ‘rational’ or ‘logical’, but a persistent quest for progress and goals, which in turn may disadvantage society (Ritzer 2004).
86
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS: The Elementary Forms of Food
This thesis asked ‘How can the social category of ‘food’ help to problematise the meanings
of the nature/culture divide in modern society?’. For this reason the project began by
contextualising the research question in the relevant literature from the sociology of nature,
environmental sociology, and the sociology of food. The first chapter specifically revealed
that the sociology of nature was developed as a response to the nature/culture divide in
sociology, but it has neglected to examine food as a significant part of this divide. From
this analysis the present thesis argued that the nature/culture divide needs to be
problematised with the social category and cultural meanings of food. In this way the
nature/culture dualism becomes less of a dichotomy and more of an interplay that can
engage in both social constructionist and critical realist perspectives. The literature review
also inspected environmental sociology and its approaches to food. It recognised that
although food is budding as an important aspect of environmental concerns, food is
commonly viewed as an aspect of larger environmental issues, instead of a central category
that fundamentally shapes approaches to the nature, culture, and the environment in modern
society.
The focus of the literature review then turned to examine the sociology of food and it
demonstrated that the growing sociological interest in the importance of food has meant
that food as a social category is increasingly problematised. A central question in the
sociology of food is whether it should be researched as an ‘object’ or a ‘subject’, and
whether food is a ‘natural’ or a ‘social’ construct (Ferguson 2005, p.680). Although the
diverse works in the sociology of food share an emphasis on the cultural and social
87
significance of food, the literature review indicated that food is never “just” food, and so it
is not clear that texts in this field are discussing the same thing in a useful way. From this
analysis it was argued that the sociology of food requires a theoretical approach to give the
diversity of views a common framework. As a result this chapter determined that both
environmental sociology and the sociology of food have made significant contributions to
the sociological study of food, however neither subject has closely examined the concrete
social practices and cultural meanings of food as an environmental issue.
The present thesis thus proposed that a new social theory is needed to address the
deficiencies of the sociology of nature, environmental sociology, and the sociology of food.
It suggested moving towards an environmental sociology of food, which could examine the
cultural meanings and social practices of food, and also consider food as a serious
environmental issue that intersects both the broader industrial sphere and our everyday
lives. From this understanding the thesis argued that the first step towards developing a
new theoretical framework was to return to the nature/culture divide, and to reproblematise
and rethink it with the social category and cultural meanings of food as a central lens. It
specifically questioned: ‘How can the social category of ‘food’ help to problematise the
meanings of the nature/culture divide in modern society?’ It was decided that the most
appropriate method to approach this question, in the first instance, was to critically engage
with two ‘case studies’ in social theory that explicitly considered the nature/culture divide
and recognised ‘food’ as a major category in their respective analyses.
The texts selected for evaluation were Claude Lévi-Strauss’s The Raw and the Cooked
(1970 [1964]) and ‘The culinary triangle’ (1966a), together with Klaus Eder’s The Social
Construction of Nature (1996 [1988]). In chapters two and three these texts were
88
hermeneutically reconstructed to examine the ways in which Lévi-Strauss and Eder have
investigated the nature/culture divide with food as a social category. It is clear that both
theorists provide diverse interpretations of the social categories of food and the
nature/culture divide. For this reason the concluding discussion will now critically analyse
these texts together in order to extract valuable insights to consider the implications their
respective works might have towards an environmental sociology of food.
Lévi-Strauss
Lévi-Strauss’s theoretical connection between the techniques of cooking and his distinction
between nature and culture provides a vital contribution to the sociology of food because
his structuralist approach changed the study of food from merely observing its function in
society to exploring the underlying ‘meanings’ of food. This final chapter will now
reconstruct and rethink Lévi-Strauss’s insight from RC and CT, specifically, that cooking is
a medium which reveals the binary opposition of nature and culture as a universal structure
of the human mind. The purpose of this reconstruction is to consider how Lévi-Strauss’s
concepts contribute to reproblematising the meanings of the nature/culture divide in
modern society.
Lévi-Strauss produced his culinary triangle to demonstrate how cooking can be used to
conceptualise the distinction between nature and culture, and he argued that through the act
of cooking, people communicate that they are cultured and human, rather than ‘savage’ and
animal, or in his words ‘cooked’ instead of ‘raw’ (Lévi-Strauss 1970 [1964], p.164). Leach
explains that from this distinction Lévi-Strauss was questioning ‘How is it and why is it
that [human beings] who are a part of Nature, manage to see themselves as other than
Nature even though, in order to subsist, they must constantly maintain relations with
89
Nature?’ (Leach 1996 [1970], p.109). Lévi-Strauss noted that ‘animals’ just eat food,
which for them is any available substance that their instincts categorise as ‘edible’. In
contrast human beings do not have such instincts, as once they are weaned from their
mother’s milk they require the mores of society to determine what is food and what is not,
and what foods should be eaten on various occasions (Leach 1996 [1970], p.42). This
notion that humanity is distinct from animality does not readily convert into ‘primitive’
languages, but in Lévi-Strauss’s study of myths and culinary practices he examined the
fundamental questions of ‘what is a human being?’ and ‘where does culture divide off from
nature?’ (Leach 1996 [1970], p.42). Lévi-Strauss observed that for centuries humans have
utilised fire in order to transform their food from a raw to a cooked state, but he recognised
that they do not need to cook their food. As a result he interpreted cooking as a way for
humans to symbolically demonstrate that they are human and not animal, civilised and not
uncivilised. He argued that fire and cooking are basic symbols that distinguish nature from
culture, such that the this binary opposition is always latent in humanity’s customs,
attitudes, and behaviours, even if they are not explicit.
However recalling the limitations of Lévi-Strauss’s approach, this thesis argued that Lévi-
Strauss’s distinction between nature and culture was in itself ‘cooked’, and this point
requires further discussion. Lévi-Strauss believed that underlying the cooking practices of
all human societies was the binary opposition of nature and culture. However his
distinction between nature and culture is historically constructed. Lévi-Strauss’s
understanding of ‘the cooked’ is cultural, and he considered it to be progressive and
civilised, while he perceived that ‘the raw’ is natural, and therefore it is regressive and
uncivilised (Lévi-Strauss 1970 [1964], p.164). This thesis argues that underlying Lévi-
Strauss’s approach are notions of civilised and uncivilised. Lévi-Strauss’s understanding of
90
the transition from the raw to the cooked was a common idea in traditional societies, and
very distinct from those we have in contemporary society. Claude Fischler explains that
traditionally ‘raw foodstuffs had to be civilized or, so to say, tamed through culinary
processing in order to be fit for consumption’ (1980, p.946). In traditional societies the
natural environment was considered to be wild, uncivilised, and cruel, and thus it needed to
be conquered and tamed for humanity to progress (Cudworth 2003; Franklin 2002;
Macnaghten & Urry 1998; Sutton 2004).
However modern society’s culinary processes have increasingly shifted from the kitchen to
the factory. If one were to examine modern society’s cooking techniques, or rather its
industrialised and commercialised food system through Lévi-Strauss’s lens, our culinary
practices would be situated at the furthermost point of ‘the cooked’ (cultural side) of the
culinary triangle. Modern society would perhaps therefore be classified as ‘overcooked’ or
very cultured, but this cultural category has far more negative implications than Lévi-
Strauss’s idea of culture. Anne Murcott considers this negative implication of culture when
she remarks:
What is happening is that contemporary industrial society is being seen as over-
culturalised and its members [and the natural environment are] suffering the…
consequences of too much modernity in all aspects of lifestyle including their
diet. In line with this ‘diagnosis’, ‘health’ foods, more ‘natural’ foods are
presented as the appropriate antidote (Murcott 1982, p.205).
The modern concept of culture signifies a ‘nightmare’ of the dirty, tasteless, and
industrialised, while nature signifies the ‘pastoral dream’ of pure, fresh, and natural
(Everdeen 1992; Williams 1972). This understanding of the modern nature/culture divide
can be summarised in the dominant idea that ‘culture perverts nature’ (Fischler 1980,
p.942), which is markedly different to Lévi-Strauss’s trans-historical notion that ‘nature
91
progresses to culture’ (Lévi-Strauss 1966a, p.587). Lévi-Strauss’s approach cannot
adequately categorise modern society’s concept of nature and culture, because the
nature/culture divide is no longer a sharp or clear distinction (Merleau-Ponty 1960, p.123).
The problem with Lévi-Strauss’s interpretation of the nature/culture divide is that he
considers it to be an unconscious binary opposition in all human thought. He does not
recognise that we ascribe meaning to nature, and so these meanings change and are
historically constructed on a symbolic level rather than on a literal level (Murcott 1982,
p.205). Fischler explains that humans feed ‘not only on proteins, fats, carbohydrates, but
also on symbols, myths and fantasies. The selection of [food] is made not only according
to physiological requirements, but also on the basis of cultural and social representations’
(1980, p.937). In this way society experiences, and furthermore consumes nature, but it
does so through our understandings that are mediated by our values, languages, social
imaginaries, and technologies (Hogan et al. 2010, p.337). Hence any approach to food as
an environmental issue must take into account the underlying constitutions of meanings
concerning food that inform our changing social practices at a core level. Eder emphasises
the significance of the cultural and symbolic meanings of food, and so this chapter will now
turn to consider his perspective.
Klaus Eder
In sharp contrast to Lévi-Strauss’s trans-historical understanding of the human condition,
Eder presents a historical trajectory by investigating the environmental crisis as a Western
historical phenomenon. Eder argues for a cultural interpretation of nature and society that
views ‘nature as something that is constituted symbolically rather than objectively given’
(1996 [1988], p.9). Although Lévi-Strauss considered modern society’s relationship to
nature to be ‘over-culturalised’, Eder argues that humans have remained ‘culturally naïve
92
‘Philistines’’ in their interaction with nature (Eder 1996 [1988], p.viii). Lévi-Strauss and
Eder interpret and utilise the categories of nature, culture, and ‘food’ in very different ways.
Nevertheless according to Eder modern society’s relationship to nature is far from being
‘over-culturalised’ in the Lévi-Straussian sense, rather it is dominated by a utilitarian
perspective, such that modernity is unable to consider ‘nature’ as anything more than an
‘object’ of human needs (Eder 1996 [1988], p.vii). This thesis concurs with this notion,
and like Eder, is particularly concerned that, following Max Weber (1985 [1930]), the
increasing rationalisation and rationalising currents of modernity are flattening out contexts
of meaning, in general, and the symbolic significance, which is reproduced in our everyday
culinary actions (Eder 1996 [1988], p.viii). This has major consequences for the
environment, because our social categories and underlying cultural meanings of food
inform our social practices at a fundamental level. Although Eder’s analysis focused on the
environmental crisis from a Western historical perspective, it is now clear that
environmental problems are global issues that affect all societies beyond the West (see
Friedman 1993; Mintz 2002; Ritzer 2004; Wilk 2006).
Eder’s reinterpretation of the relationship between nature, culture, and society together with
an emphasis on the cultural and social significance of food is an important contribution to
the development of a new theoretical framework more suitable to the task of elaborating an
environmental sociology of food. The central tenets of this thesis are similar to Eder’s, as it
recognises food as a powerful cultural form, and this project developed from the belief that
we need to search beneath the surface of our practical engagement with nature to rediscover
the underlying cultural meanings that shape our practical interaction. The social category
and cultural meanings of food are central to this thesis, however the present thesis
maintains that the natural and biological dimensions of food, and its implications for both
93
the ‘natural’ and ‘social’ world are also important (Dowler et al. 2009, p.204). Kate Soper
emphasises the importance of the natural in her critical realist perspective of nature:
For there is one sense in which nature does always have a say in human activities
…This is the ‘nature’ to whose laws we are always subject, even as we harness
them to human purposes, and whose processes we can neither escape nor destroy.
This is the ‘nature’ that cannot be said to be ‘ending’ whatever we do to the planet
Earth (Soper 2009, p.226).
As sociologists studying nature it is necessary to acknowledge that the physical properties
of nature limit what we are able to do, but we still have choices to make about what we
believe is beneficial within these restrictions (Soper 2009, p.226). Eder argues that ‘if we
wish to make possible the learning processes that can overcome the destructive relationship
to nature, we must again become aware of the symbolic foundations of that relationship’
(1996 [1988], p.viii).
However as the eating of food is a biological requirement for human life, an environmental
sociology of food must go beyond the dominant idea that sociology can only examine the
social and the cultural in contrast to the natural (Carter & Charles 2009, p.18). In this way
food must be simultaneously conceptualised and understood as symbolic and physical, a
subject and an object, both natural and cultural, such that ‘food’ can be a bridge between
nature and society. Murcott confirms this idea when she explains ‘eating marks the
characteristic way people are simultaneously biological and social; at once animal, but not
like other animals. Human beings belong to the worlds of both nature and culture…[it] has
both material and symbolic significance’ (Murcott 1982, p.204). Furthermore food has
practical merit because unlike other broad and distanced environmental issues, the
consumption of food is something that all humans engage in everyday, and this daily
interaction makes environmental problems more relevant and accessible. For this reason
94
this thesis agrees with Macnaghten and Urry’s notion, to recall the literature review, that
sociologists should focus on ‘embedded social practices’ (1998, p.2). However this thesis
argues, like Eder, that our daily physical interaction with food is the ‘most elementary and
simultaneously the most ‘social’ level of interaction with nature’ (Eder 1996 [1988], p.viii),
thus we must examine the social category and cultural meanings of food.
Civilisation and Kultur
The present thesis argues that underlying Lévi-Strauss and Eder’s understandings of nature
and culture are notions of civilised and uncivilised. However their respective
interpretations are distinct, and so this thesis will now consider their perspectives with
reference to Norbert Elias’s (2000 [1939]) discussion on the difference between ‘culture’
and ‘civilisation’ in French and German contexts1. Elias investigated how people from
Western society have not always conducted themselves in our present understanding of
‘civilised’ (Elias 2000 [1939], p.viiii). He explains that concepts of ‘civilisation’ denote an
array of facts including, technology, manners, scientific knowledge, religious ideas and
customs, and even ‘the way in which food is prepared’ (Elias 2000 [1939], p.5). However
Elias noticed that ‘civilisation’ means different things to various Western nations, in
particular, he identified a great difference between the French and German uses of the term.
Elias describes this difference as a ‘peculiar phenomenon’ because although the concepts
civilisation (French) and Kultur (German) are straightforward in their respective contexts,
he explains:
The way in which a piece of the world is bound up in them, the manner in
which they include certain areas and exclude others as a matter of course,
the hidden evaluations which they implicitly bring with them, all this makes
95
them difficult to define for any outsider (Elias 2000 [1939], p.6).
In essence the French concept of civilisation refers to the political or economic, technical or
religious, moral or social facts (Elias 2000 [1939], p.6). Civilisation downplays the
difference between people and accentuates the commonalities of all human beings, or as
Elias indicates, the commonalities ‘in the view of the bearers’ (2000 [1939], p.6).
Furthermore a central notion of civilisation is that it operates towards constant expansion
and colonisation. The German concept of Kultur, in contrast, denotes intellectual, artistic,
and religious facts, but is inclined to isolate these facts from political, economic, and social
facts (Elias 2000 [1939], p.6). A significant feature of Kultur is that it does not seek to
expand and colonise people, rather the ‘concept of Kultur delimits’ and emphasises national
diversity and the separate identity of groups.
Elias notes that the national self-images represented by the terms civilisation and Kultur
‘take very different forms. But however different the self-image...they all regard it as
completely self-evident that theirs is the way in which the world of humans in general
wants to be viewed and judged’ (Elias 2000 [1939], p.7). Elias shows that however
reasonable and rational civilisation and Kultur may seem in their respective French and
German context, they have developed from a set of historical situations and different social
conditions of intellectual life in both countries (Goudsblom & Mennell 1998, p.47). In
France the concept of civilisation arose because the bourgeois intellectuals were included in
court society, which brought greater political activity than in other nations (Elias 2000
[1939], p.32). In Germany the social walls between middle class and aristocracy were
much stricter, and so aspiring middle class intellectuals remained politically
disenfranchised, but developed their own culture and expression (Elias 2000 [1939], p.32).
96
The present thesis will now argue that underlying Lévi-Strauss and Eder’s understandings
of the nature/culture divide are notions of civilised and uncivilised that can be situated
within their respective French and German contexts. In Lévi-Strauss’s RC and CT he
proposed that cooking is a medium that reveals the unconscious binary of nature/culture in
the human mind. It is evident that this idea stems from the French notion of civilisation,
which sought to accentuate the commonalities of all human beings, or to recall Elias’s
perspective, the commonalities ‘in view of the bearers’ (2000 [1939], p.6). In a similar
vein, Lévi-Strauss’s trans-historical concept that ‘nature progresses to culture’ (1966a,
p.587) can be situated into the broader understanding of civilisation in the French context,
because the French believed that civilisation was a process that needs to be applied to all
societies, but is not yet finished (Elias 2000 [1939], p.40). In Germany the middle class
intellectuals were politically impotent, but intellectually radical and were critical of the
notion of civilisation because they believed it resulted from capitalism (Elias 2000 [1939]).
In this way Eder’s understanding that human’s have remained ‘culturally naïve
‘Philistines’’ in their interaction with nature’ (1996 [1988], p.viii) resulted from the
German perspective of ‘civilisation’ as opposed to their notion Kultur.
It is evident from this comparison that Lévi-Strauss and Eder’s diverse understandings of
the nature/culture divide were influenced by their respective concepts of ‘civilisation’ in
French and German contexts. This comparison indicates that our interaction with food
becomes a metaphor of the civilised and uncivilised. This thesis set out to problematise the
nature/culture divide in modern society with the social category and cultural meanings of
food as a central lens. However it discovered through the hermeneutical reconstruction of
Lévi-Strauss and Eder’s selected works that underlying the nature/culture divide is a
discourse about civilisation. The present thesis argues that food is a privileged way of
97
examining the nature/culture divide in modern society, because food is simultaneously
natural and cultural, and it intersects the broader industrial sphere and our everyday lives.
This thesis proposes that a future environmental sociology of food needs to examine ‘food’
as an ‘elementary form’ because it is ‘an essential and permanent aspect of humanity’
(Durkheim 1995 [1912], p.13). As Hogan (et al.) explain ‘Nature is the condition of our
material existence, culture is our only means of encountering and re-forming nature’ (2010,
p.337). For this reason an environmental sociology of food must take into account the
underlying constitutions of meanings concerning food that inform our changing social
practices at a core level.
It is clear that the hermeneutical reconstruction of Lévi-Strauss and Eder’s texts have
provided insight to show how the social category and cultural meanings of food are helpful
to problematise the nature/culture divide in modern society. This was the first step of a
larger research programme towards the development of a theoretical framework that will be
more adequate to the task of elaborating an environmental sociology of food. An
environmental sociology of food will go beyond the ‘add and stir’ approach, that is to say,
one where the meanings of ‘food’ hold a privileged place in problematising the
culture/nature divide across cultures, histories, and modernities. This project, as the
preliminary step in a long-term research agenda, has sought to establish the centrality of
food in rethinking the culture/nature divide. However the current thesis does not seek to
overcome the nature/culture divide per se, rather it argues that the social category of food
problematises this divide in a new way, and through this renewed problematisation, new
insights into the human condition in modernity (and beyond) can emerge. In this approach
the nature/culture divide becomes less of a dichotomy and more of an interplay that can
98
engage in both social constructionist and critical realist perspectives, with consequences for
both theory and practice in modern society.
The global production and consumption of food is a major factor in environmental
problems (Ericksen 2008; Dowler et al. 2009; Garnett 2008; Leahy 2008; Pretty et al.
2005). It is important for sociologists, policymakers, and the broader public to think
critically about the taken-for-granted cultural meanings and assumptions about food, and to
examine how they influence our daily food practices, which may lead to richer
understandings of the nature/culture divide in modern society. The development of an
environmental sociology of food is a necessary part of an overall response to ‘one of the
most urgent problems facing humankind’ (Carter & Charles 2009, p.18). As Zygmunt
Bauman writes, 'the world full of possibilities is like a buffet table set with mouth-watering
dishes' (2000, p.63), but this is no 'free lunch' (Bauman 1997, p.4).
1 Elias makes a distinction between the civilisation of French and British contexts and Kultur of Germany. However for the purposes of this thesis (i.e. Lévi-Strauss and Eder originate from France and Germany respectively), the present thesis will purely refer to the difference between French and German meanings of ‘civilisation’.
99
BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, S. 2011, Castoriadis’s Ontology: Being and Creating, Fordham University
Press, United States of America. Adams, S., Smith, K. E. & Vlahov, G. 2011, ‘Introduction to Arnason’s social theory’,
European Journal of Social Theory (online), vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 3-8. Available: http://est.sagepub.com/content/14/1/3.extract (20 April 2012).
Adorno, T. W. & Horkheimer, M. 2002 [1944], Dialectic of Enlightenment:
Philosophical Fragments, ed. G. S. Noerr, trans. E. Jephcott, Stamford University Press, Stamford.
Albala, K. 2002, Eating Right in the Renaissance, University of California Press,
Berkeley. Alexander, J. C. 2003, The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology, Oxford
University Press, New York. ________ 2007, ‘The meaningful construction of inequality and the struggles against it: A
‘Strong Program’ approach to how social boundaries change’, Cultural Sociology (online), vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 23-30. Available: http://cus.sagepub.com/cg i/content/abstract/1/1/23 (30 January 2012).
Alexander, J. & Smith, P. 2001, ‘The strong program in cultural theory: Elements of a
structural hermeneutics’, in Handbook of Sociological Theory, ed. J.H. Turner, Springer, United States of America.
Alexander, J. C. & Sztompka, P. 1990, ‘Introduction’, in Rethinking Progress:
Movements, Forces, and Ideas at the End of the 20th Century, ed. J. C. Alexander & P. Sztompka, Unwin Hyman, Boston.
Anderson, E. N. 2005, Everyone Eats: Understanding Food and Culture, New York
University Press, New York. Anderson, J. 2011, ‘Situating Axel Honneth in the Frankfurt School Tradition’, in Axel
Honneth: Critical Essays: With a reply by Axel Honneth, ed. D. Petherbridge, Brill, Boston.
Arnason, J. P. 1988, Praxis und Interpretation: Sozialphilosophische Studien, Suhrkamp
Verlag, Frankfurt am Main. ________ 1991 [1984], ‘Modernity as Project and as Field of Tensions’, Communicative
Action: Essays on Jurgen Habermas’s The Theory of Communicative Action, ed. A Honneth & H. Joas, trans. J. Gaines & D. L. Jones, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
________ 2010, ‘The cultural turn and the civilizational approach’, European Journal of
Social Theory (online), vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 67-81. Available: http://est.sagepub.co m/content/13/1/67 (20 January 2012).
100
Ashley, B., Hollows, J., Jones, S., & Taylor, B. 2004, ‘The raw and the cooked, Food and Cultural Studies, Routledge, London.
Atkins, P. J. & Bowler, I. R. 2001, Food in Society: Economy, Culture, Geography,
Arnold, London. Atkinson, P. 1980, ‘The symbolic significance of health foods’, in Nutrition and
Lifestyles, ed. M. Turner, Applied Science Publishers, London. Austin, J. E. & Zeitlin, M. F. 1981, Nutrition Intervention in Developing Countries,
Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain Publishers, Cambridge, Mass. Barndt, D. 2002, Tangled Routes: Women, Work, and Globalization on the Tomato
Trail, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham. Barthes, R. 1972, Mythologies, trans. A. Lavers, Hill and Wang, New York. ________ 1997, ‘Toward a Psychosociology of Contemporary Food Consumption, in Food
and Culture: A Reader, ed. C. Counihan & R. Van Esterik, Routledge, New York.
Bauman, Z. 1978, Hermeneutics and Social Science Approaches to Understanding,
Hutchinson, London. ________ 1989, Modernity and the Holocaust, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. ________ 1997, Postmodernity and its discontents, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. ________ 2000, Liquid Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Beardsworth, A. & Keil, T. 1997, Sociology on the Menu, Routledge, New York.
Beck, U. 1991, Ecological Enlightenment: Essays on the Politics of Risk Society, Humanities Press, New Jersey.
________ 1992, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage Publications, New York. ________ 1995, Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. ________ 1996, World risk society as a cosmopolitan society: ‘Ecological questions in a
framework of manufactured uncertainties’, Theory, Culture and Society (online), vol. 13, no. 4. Available: http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/13/4/1 (12 May 2011).
________ 1999, World Risk Society, Polity Press, Malden. Belasco, W. 2002, ‘Food Matters: Perspectives on an Emerging Field’ in Food Nations:
Selling Taste in Consumer Societies, ed. W. Belasco & P. Scranton, Routledge, New York.
Bentley, A. 2005, ‘Men on Atkins: Dieting, Meat and Masculinity’ in The Atkins Diet
and Philosophy: Chewing the Fat with Kant and Nietzsche, ed. L. Heldke, K. Mommer, & C. Pineo, Open Court, Chicago.
101
Benton, T. 1993, Natural Relations: Ecology, Animal Rights and Social Justice, Verso, London.
Bird, E. A. 1987, ‘Social constructions of nature’, Environmental Review (online), vol.
11, no. 2, pp. 255-264. Available: http://envihistrevi.oxfordjournals.ezproxy.flin ders.edu.au/content/11/4/255.extract (10 October 2011).
Blanford, D., Carter, C. A. & Piggott, R. 1993, North-South Grain Markets and Trade
Policies, ed. D. Blanford, C. A. Carter & R. Pigott, Westview Press, Boulder. Blank, G. 2007, ‘Consumption, Food, and Cultural’, Blackwell Encyclopedia of
Sociology (online). Available: http://www.blackwell.reference.com/subscriber/to cnode? Id=g9781405124331_chunk_ g97814051243319_ss1_110 (8 June 2011).
Boisard, P. 2003, Camembert: A National Myth, trans. R. Miller, University of
California Press, Berkeley. Bourdieu, P. 1990, The Logic of Practice, trans. R. Nice, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Bourke, J. G. 1920 [1881], The Urine Dance of the Zuni Indians of New Mexico,
University of California, California. Bowler, I. R. 1992, The Geography of Agriculture in developed market economies, ed. I.
R. Bowler, Wiley, New York. Burningham, K. & Cooper, G. 1999, ‘Being constructive: Social constructionism and the
environment’, Sociology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 297-316. Burns, J., McInerney, J., & Swinbank, A. 1983, The Food Industry: Economics and
Policies, Heinemann, London. Buttel, F. H. 1987, ‘New directions in environmental sociology’, Annual Review of
Sociology (online), vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 465-488. Available: http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2083257 (20 April 2011).
Calhoun, C. 1995, Critical Social Theory: Culture History, and the Challenge of
Difference, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Mass. Caplan, P. 1997, Food, Health, Identity, Routledge, New York Carr, A. 2000, ‘Critical theory and the management of change in organizations’, Journal
of Organizational Change Management, (online), vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 208-220. Available: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/docview/1976310 68?accountid=10910 (2 February 2012).
Carter, B. & Charles, N. 2009, ‘Society, nature and sociology’, The Sociology Review
(online), vol. 57, no. s2, pp. 1-20. Available: nttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.2010.01883.x (5 December 2011).
Cassier, E. 1953, Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, trans. R. Manheim, Yale University
Press, New Haven.
102
Castoriadis, C. 1981, ‘From Ecology To Autonomy’, Thesis Eleven (online), vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 8-22. Available: http://the.sagepub.com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/search/res ults (3 August 2011).
________ 1985, ‘Reflections on 'Rationality' and 'Development'’, Thesis Eleven (online),
vol. 10-11, no. 1, pp. 18-36. Available: http://sagepub.co m/content/10-11/1/18 (3 January 2012).
Castree, N. 1997, ‘The Social Construction of Nature by Klaus Eder’, Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers, (online), vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 267-269. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/622317 (22 March 2012).
Castree, N. & Braun, B. 2001, Social Nature: Theory, Practice and Politics, ed. N.
Castree & B. Braun, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Mass. Catton, W. R. & Dunlap, R. E. 1978, ‘Environmental sociology: A new paradigm’, The
American Sociologist, (online), vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 41-49. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27702311 (3 August 2011).
Clarke, S. 1981, The Foundations of Structuralism: A Critique of Lévi-Strauss and the
Structuralist Movement, Harvester Press, Brighton. Coates, P. 1998, Nature: Western Attitudes Since Ancient Times, Polity Press,
Cambridge, UK. Counihan, C. & Van Esterik, P. 1997, ‘Introduction’, in Food and Culture: A Reader,
ed. C. Counihan & P. Van Esterik, Routledge, New York. Cudworth, E. 2003, Environment and Society, Routledge, London. Curtin, D. & Heldke, L. 1992, ‘Introduction’ in Cooking, Eating, Thinking:
Transformative Philosophies of Food, ed. D. Curtin &L. Heldke, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Daly, M. 1979, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, The Women’s
Press, London. Derrida, J. 1978, Writing and Difference, trans. A. Bass, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2010, Australia Food Statistics 2010-
11, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. Dickens, P. 1996, ‘Realism, social constructionism and the problem of ‘nature’ , in
Reconstructing Nature: Alienation, Emancipation and the Division of Labour, Routledge, London.
Dilthey, W. 1989, Introduction to the Human Sciences, ed. R. A. Makkrell & F. Rodi,
Princeton University Press, Princeton. Douglas, M. 1978 [1975], Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology, Routledge &
Kegan Paul, London.
103
________ 1984, Food in the Social Order: Studies of Food and Festivities in Three American Communities, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
________ 2002 [1966], Purity and Danger An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo,
Routledge, London. Dowler, E., Kneafsey, M., Cox, R. & Holloway, L. 2009, ‘ ‘Doing food differently’:
Reconnecting biological and social relationships through care for food’, The Sociological Review (online), vol. 57, no. s2, pp. 200-219. Available: http://dx.d oi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.2010.01893.x (5 December 2011).
DuPuis, E. M. & Goodman, D. 2005, ‘Should we go “home” to eat? Towards a reflexive
politics of localism’, Journal of Rural Studies (online), vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 329-371. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S07430167050
0046X (3 May 2011). Durkheim, E. 1984 [1893], The Division of Labour in Society, trans. W. D. Halls,
Macmillan, London. ________ 1995 [1912], The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, trans. K. E. Fields, The
Free Press, New York. ________ 2002 [1895], Suicide: A Study in Sociology, ed. G. Simpson, trans. J. A.
Spaulding, Routledge Classics, Oxfordshire. Durkheim, E. & Mauss, M. 1963 [1903], Primitive Classifications, trans. R. Needham,
Cohen & West Ltd, London. Eder, K. 1976, Die Entstehung Staatlich Organisierter Gesellschaften: Ein Beitrag zu
einer Theorie Sozialer Evolution, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. ________ 1988, Die Vergesellschaftung der Natur: Studien zur sozialen Evolution der
praktischen Vernunft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. ________ 1990a, ‘The cultural code of modernity and the problem of nature: A critique of
the naturalistic notion of progress’, in Rethinking Progress: Movements, Forces, and Ideas at the End of the 20th Century, ed. J. C. Alexander & P. Sztompka, Unwin Hyman, Boston.
________ 1990b, ‘The rise of counter-culture movements against modernity: Nature as a
new field of class struggle’, Theory, Culture and Society (online), vol. 7, no. 21, pp. 21-47. Available: http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/7/4/21 (26 March 2012).
________ 1991 [1985], Geschichte als Lernprozess?:Zur Pathogenese Politischer Modenitä
in Deutschland, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. ________ 1993, The New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in
Advanced Societies, Sage Publications, London. ________ 1995, ‘Rationality in environmental discourse: A cultural approach’, in Green
Politics Three, ed. W. Rüdig, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 9-37.
104
________ 1996 [1988], The Social Construction of Nature: A Sociology of Ecological Enlightenment, trans. M. Ritter, Sage Publications, London.
________ 1999, ‘Societies learn and yet the world is hard to change’, European Journal of
Social Theory (online), vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 95-215. Available: http://est.sagepub.c om.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/content/2/2/195.short (12 April 2012).
________ 2001, European Citizenship: Between National Legacies and Transnational
Projects, ed. K. Eder, & B. Giesen, Oxford University Press, New York. ________ 2002, Collective Identities in Action: A Sociological Approach to Ethnicity, ed.
K. Eder, Ashgate, Burlington. ________ 2006, The Public Sphere, Theory, Culture & Society (online), vol. 23, no, 2-3, pp.
607-611. Available: http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/23/2-3/607 (12 April 2012). Eder, K. & Kousis, M. 2001, Environmental Politics in Southern Europe: Actors,
Institutions and Discourses in a European Society, ed. K. Eder & M. Kousis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
Eisenstadt, S.N. 2002, Multiple Modernities, Transaction, New Brunswick. Elias, N. 1978, What is Sociology?, trans. S. Mennell & G. Morrissey, Columbia
University Press, New York. ________2000 [1939], The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic
Investigations, trans. E. Jephcott, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Elliott, A. 2009, Contemporary Social Theory: an Introduction, Routledge, Abingdon. ________ 2010, ‘Editors Introduction’, in The Routledge Companion to Social Theory, ed.
A. Elliott, Routledge, New York. Epicurus, n.d. Great-Quotes.com (online). Available: http://www.greatquotes.com/quot
e/331688 (24 February 2011). Ericksen, P. 2008, ‘Global environmental change and food insecurity’, Global Change
NewsLetter (online), vol. n/a, no. 71, pp. 15-16. Available: http://scholar.google. com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/scholar?cluster=9241554083574116632&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 (16 September 2011).
Everdeen, N. L. 1992, The Social Creation of Nature, John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore. ________ 1993, The Natural Alien: Humankind and Environment, 2nd edn, University of
Toronto Press, Toronto. Ferguson, P. P. 2004, Accounting for Taste: The Triumph of French Cuisine, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
105
________ 2005, ‘Eating Orders: Markets, Menus, and Meals’, The Journal of Modern History (online), vol. 77, no. 3. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/4 97720 (16 April 2011).
Ferguson, P. P. & Zukin, S. 1995, ‘What’s Cooking?’, Theory and Society (online), vol.
24, no. 2. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/658097 (16 April 2011). Ferrières, M. 2006, Sacred Cow, Mad Cow: A History of Food Fears, Columbia
University Press, New York. Ferry, J. 2003, Food in Film: A Culinary Performance of Communication, Routledge,
New York. Finlayson, J. G. 2005, Habermas: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press,
Oxford. Firth, R. 1934, ‘The sociological study of native diet’, Africa: Journal of the
International African Institute (online), vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 401-414. Available: htt p://www.jstor.org/stable/1155875 (2 April 2011).
Fischler, C. 1980, ‘Food habits, social change and the nature/culture dilemma’, Social
Science Information (online), vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 937-953. Available: http://ssi. sagepub.com/content/19/6/937 (20 June 2011).
Foucault, M. 1994, ‘Two Lectures’, in Culture/Power/History: A Reader in
Contemporary Social Theory, ed. N. B. Dirks, G. Eley, & S. B. Ortner, Princeton University, Princeton.
Fortes, M. & Fortes, S. L. 1936, ‘Food in the domestic economy of The Tallensi, Africa:
Journal of the International African Institute (online), vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 237-276. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1155627 (2 April 2011).
Franklin, A. 1999, Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human-Animal
Relations in Modernity, Sage Publications, London. ________ 2002, Nature and Social Theory, Sage Publications, London. Freudenberg, W. R., Frickel, S. & Gramling, R. 1995, ‘Beyond the nature/society
divide: learning to think about a mountain’, Sociological Forum (online), vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 361-392. Available: http//www.jstor.org/stable/684781 (3 August 2011).
Friedman, H. 1993, ‘The political economy of food: A global crisis’, New Left Review
(online), vol. 197, no. 1, pp. 29-57. Available: http://www.newleftreview.org/?vi ew=1699 (24 February 2011).
Fuchs, D. A. & Lorek, S. 2005, ‘Sustainable consumption governance: A history of
promises and failures’, Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 261-288. Gaard, G. 1993, Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature, Temple University Press,
Philadelphia.
106
Gadamer, H. G. 1976, Philosophical Hermeneutics, ed. D. E. Linge, University of California Press, Berkeley.
________ 1979a, Truth and Method, trans. W. Glen-Doepel, 2nd edn, Sheed and Wand,
London. ________ 1979b, ‘The Problem of historical consciousness’, in Interpretive School of
Science: A Reader, ed. P. Rabinow & W. M. Sullivan, University of California Press, Berkeley.
________ 2006 [1970] ‘Language and Understanding’, Theory, Culture and Society
(online), vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 13-27. Available: http//tcs.sagepub.com/content/23/1 /13 (15 April 2002).
Gare, A. E. 1995, Post Modernism and the Environmental Crisis, Routledge, London. Garnett, T. 2008, Cooking up a Storm: Food, greenhouse gas emissions and our
changing climate, University of Surrey: Food Climate Research Network (online). Available: http://www.fcrn.org.uk/fcrn/publications/cooking-up-a-storm (12 September 2011).
Germov, J. & Williams, L. 2008, A Sociology of Food and Nutrition: The Social
Appetite, 3rd edn, ed. J. Germov & L Williams, Oxford University Press, Victoria.
Geuss, R. 1981, The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Giddens, A. 2009, The Politics of Climate Change, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Goldblatt, D. 1996, Social Theory and the Environment, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Goldman, M. & Schurman, R. A. 2000, ‘Closing the “Great Divide”: New Social
Theory on society and nature’, Annual Review of Sociology (online), vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 563-584. Available: http//www.jstor.org/stable/223457 (3 August 2011).
Goodman, D. 1999, ‘Agro-food studies in the ‘Age of Ecology’, Nature, corporeality,
and biopolitics’, Sociologia Ruralis (online), vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 17-38. Available :dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00129 (3 December 2011).
Goodman, D. & Redclift, M. R. 1991, Refashioning Nature: Food, Ecology, and
Culture, Routledge, London. Goody, J. 1982, Cooking, Cuisine and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Goudsblom, J. & Mennell, S. 1998, The Norbert Elias Reader, ed. J. Goudsblom & S.
Mennell, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Griffin, S. 1980, Women and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her, Harper and Row, New
York.
107
Guthman, J. 2003, ‘Fast food/organic food: Reflexive tastes and the making of “yuppie chow”’, Social and Cultural Geography (online), vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45-58. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1464936032000049306 (3 May 2011).
Habermas, J. 1978, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans. J. J. Shapiro, 2nd edn,
Heinemann Educational, London.
________ 1984 [1981], The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. T. McCarthy, Beacon Press, Boston, Mass.
________ 1987 [1981], The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. T. McCarthy, Beacon Press, Boston.
________ 1989, The Structural Transformation of Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a
Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. T. Burger & F. Lawrence, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
________1996 [1981], ‘Modernity: An unfinished project’, in Habermas and the
Unfinished Project of Modernity: Critical Essays on The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, M.P. d’Enteres & S. Benhabib, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK>
Hage, P. 1979, ‘Symbolic culinary mediation: A group model’, Royal Anthropological
Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (online), vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 81-92. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2801642 (27 April 2012).
Hannigan, J. 2006, Environmental Sociology, 2nd edn, Routledge, Oxon. Haraway, D. J. 1991, Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention on Nature, Free
Association, London. Harper, C.L. 2001, Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on Environmental
Issues, 2nd edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. Harris, D. R. 1969, ‘Agricultural systems, ecosystems and the origins of agriculture’, in
the Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, ed. P. J. Ucko & G. W. Dimbleby, Duckworth, London.
Harris, M. & Ross, E.B. 1987, Food and Evolution: Towards a Theory of Human Food
Habits, ed. M. Harris & E. B. Ross, Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Harriss, J. 2000, ‘The second great transformation? Capitalism at the end of the
Twentieth Century’, in Poverty and Development in the 21st Century, ed. T. Allen & A Thomas, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Harvey, L. J. & Myers, M. D. 1995, ‘Scholarship and practice: The contribution of
ethnographic research methods to bridging the gap, Information Technology and People, (online), vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 13-27. Available: http://search.proquest.com.e zproxy.flinders.edu.au/docview/222430910?accountid=10910 (5 December 2011).
108
Heidegger, M. 1999, Ontology: The Hermeneutics of Facticity, trans. J. van Buren, Indiana University Press, Amersham.
Hénaff, M. 1998, Claude Lévi-Strauss and the Making of Structural Anthropology, trans.
M. Baker, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Hinton, E. & Goodman, M. K. 2010, ‘Sustainable consumption: Developments,
considerations and new directions, in The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, 2nd edn, ed. M. R. Redclift & G. Woodgate, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Hitchcock, M. J. 1980, Foodservice Systems Administration, Macmillan, New York. Hogan, T., Anand, D., & Henderson, K. 2010, ‘Environment and Culture’, in Handbook
of Cultural Sociology, ed. J. R. Hall, L. Grindstaff, & M. Lo, Routledge, Oxon. Horrigan, S. 1988, Nature and Culture in Western Discourses, Routledge, London. Inglis, D. & Bone, J. 2006, ‘Boundary maintenance, border crossing and the
nature/culture divide’, European Journal of Social Theory (online), vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 272-287. Available: http://est.sagepub.com/content/9/2/272 (3 August 2011).
Inness, S. A. 2001, Kitchen Culture in America: Popular Representations of Food,
Gender, and Race, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Irwin, A. 2001, Sociology and the Environment: A Critical Introduction to Society,
Nature, and Knowledge, Polity Press, Malden. Israel, J. I. 2001, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity,
1650-1750, Oxford University Press, Oxford. ________ 2010, A Revolution of the Mind: Radical Enlightenment and the Intellectual
origins of modern democracy, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Jakobson, R. & Halle, M. 1956, Fundamentals of Language, The Hauge, Mouton. Johnston, J. 2008, ‘The citizen-consumer hybrid: Ideological tensions and the case of
Whole Foods Market’, Theory and Society (online), vol. 37, no 3, pp. 229-270. Available: http://search.proquest.com.ezyproxy.flinders.edu.au/docview/616646 15?accountid=10910 (3 May 2011).
Johnston, J. & Baumann, S. 2010, Foodies: Democracy and Distinction in the Gourmet
Foodscape, Routledge, New York. Johnston, J. & Szabo, M. 2010, ‘Reflexivity and the Whole Foods Market consumer: the
lived experience of shopping for change’, Agriculture and Human Values (online), Available: Springer Science+Business Media (12 March 2011).
Kim, C. K. & Curry, J. 1993, ‘Fordism, flexible specialization and agri-industrial
restructuring: The case of the US broiler industry’, Sociologia Ruralis (online), vol. 33, no. 1, Available: http://dxdoi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.1993.tb00947.x (3 August 2011).
109
King, F. S. & Burgess, A. 1993, Nutrition for Developing Countries, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, New York.
Klausner, S. Z. 1971, On Man in his Environment, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Kneen, B. 1989, From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System, NC Press,
Toronto. Kompridis, N. 2000, ‘So we need something else for reason to mean’, International
Journal of Philosophical Studies (online), vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 271-295. Available: www.tandfonline.com.doi/abs/10.1080/096725500750039282 (30 April 2012).
Kousis, M. 2010, ‘New Challenges for twenty-first century environmental movements:
Agricultural biotechnology and nanotechnology’, in The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, 2nd edn, ed. M. R. Redclift & G. Woodgate, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Kramer, A. 1973, Food and the Consumer, Avi Publishing, Westport. Kuper, J. 1997, The Anthropologists’ Cookbook, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Lash, S. & Urry, J. 1994, Economics of Science and Space, Sage Publications, New
York. Leach, E. 1996 [1970], Lévi-Strauss, 4th edn, Haper Collins Publishers, London. Leahy, T., 2008, ‘Chapter 3: Unsustainable food production: Its social origins and
alternatives’, in A Sociology of Food and Nutrition: The Social Appetite, 3rd edn, ed. J. Germov & L. Williams, Oxford University Press, Victoria.
Lechte, J. 2008, Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers: From Structuralism to Post-
humanism, 2nd edn, Routledge, Oxon. Lehrer, A. 1972, ‘Cooking vocabularies and the culinary triangle of Lévi-Strauss’,
Anthropological Linguistics (online), vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 155-171. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30029315 (3 May 2012).
Lemert, C. 2010, ‘Thinking the unthinkable/global realities: Eleven Theses on Marx’s
Eleventh Thesis’, Sociological Inquiry (online), vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 283-295. Available: http://www:mendely.com/research/thinking-unthinkableglobal-realitie s -eleven-theses-marxs-eleventh-thesis/ (20 April 2012).
Lever-Tracy, C. 2008, ‘Global Warming and Sociology’, Current Sociology, vol. 56, no.
3, pp. 415-466. Lever-Tracy, C. & Pittock, B. 2010, ‘Climate change and society: An introduction in
Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society, ed. C. Lever-Tracy, Routledge, Oxon.
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1963, [1958], Structural Anthropology, trans C. Jacobson & B. G.
Schoepf, Allen Lane the Penguin Press, London.
110
________ 1966a, ‘The culinary triangle’, Partisian Review, trans. P. Brooks, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 586-595.
________ 1966b, ‘The Savage Mind, Weindenfeld & Nicolson, London. _______ 1969 [1949], The Elementary Structures of Kinship, ed. R, Needham, trans. J. H.
Bell & J. R. Von Sturmer, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London. ________ 1969 [1962], Totemism, trans. R. Needham, Penguin, Harmondsworth. ________ 1970 [1964], The Raw and the Cooked: Introduction to a Science of Mythology:
1, trans. J. Weightman & D. Weightman, Harper and Row, London. ________ 1973 [1955], Tristes Tropiques, trans. J. Weightman & D. Weightman, Cape,
London.
________ 1973 [1966], From Honey to Ashes: Introduction to a Science of Mythology: 2, trans. J. Weightman & D. Weightman, Harper and Row, London.
________ 1978 [1968], The Origin of Table Manners: Introduction to a Science of
Mythology: 3, trans. J. Weightman & D. Weightman, Harper and Row, New York.
________ 1987, Introduction to the Work of Marcel Mauss, trans. F. Baker, Routledge &
Kegan Paul, London. ________ 1990, [1971], The Naked Man: Introduction to a Science of Mythology: 4, trans.
J. Weightman & D. Weightman, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lezaun, J. 2004, ‘Genetically modified food and consumer mobilization in the UK’,
Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, vol. 3, no. 13, pp. 49-56. Macnaghten, P. & Urry, J. 1995, ‘Towards a sociology of nature’, Sociology (online),
vol. 29, no.2, pp. 203-220. Available: http//soc.sagepub.com/content/29/2/203 (3 August 2011).
________ 1998, Contested Natures, Sage Publications London. Mäkelä, J. 2000, ‘Cultural definitions of the meal’, in Dimension of the Meal: The
Science, Culture, Business, and Art of Eating, ed. H. L. Meiselman, Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg.
Malinowski, B. 1935, Coral Garden and their Magic: A Study of the Methods of Tilling
the Soil and of Agricultural Rites in the Trobriand Islands, Allen & Unwin, London.
Marcuse, H. 1964, One-Dimensional Man, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Marion, B. W. 1986, The Organization and Performance of the U.S. food system,
Lexington Books, Lexington.
111
Marsden, T. 2000, ‘Food matters and the matter of food: Towards a new food governance?’, Sociologia Ruralis (online), vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 20-29. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00129 (3 December 2011).
Marx, K. 1954 [1893], Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, ed. F. Engels,
Lawrence and Wishart, Moscow. Marx, K. & Engels, F. 1970 [1845], The German Ideology, 2nd edn, ed. R. Pascal,
International Publishers, New York. Mauss, M. 1970 [1969], The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic
Societies, trans. I. Cunnison, Cohen and West, London. McCarthy, T. 1978, The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Hutchinson, London. McGee, R. J. & Warms, R. L. 2012, Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History,
5th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York. Mennell, S. 1996 [1985], All Manners of Food: Eating and Taste in England and
France from the Middle Ages to the Present, Basil Blackwell, New York. Mennell, S., Murcott, A., & van Otterloo, A. H. 1992, The Sociology of Food: Eating,
Diet, and Culture, Sage Publications, London. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1960, ‘From Mauss to Claude Lévi-Strauss’, in Signs, Northwestern
University Press, Illinois. Millgram, E. 2001, Varieties of Practical Reasoning, ed. E. Millgram, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass. Mintz, S. 1985, Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History, Penguin
Books, New York. ________ 2002, ‘Food and Eating: Some Persisting Questions’ in Food Nations: Selling
Taste in Consumer Societies, ed. W. Belasco & P. Scranton, Routledge, New York.
________ 2008, ‘Food, culture and energy’, in Food and Globalization: Consumption,
Markets and Politics in the Modern World, ed. A. Nuetzenadel & F. Trentmann, Berg, Oxford, pp. 21-35.
Montanari, M. 1994, The Culture of Food, trans. C. Ipsen, Blackwell Publishers,
Oxford, UK. Moore, O. 2006, ‘Understanding postorganic fresh fruit and vegetable consumers at
participatory farmers’ markets in Ireland: Reflexivity, trust, and social movements’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 416-426. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006.00537.x (26 May 2011).
Morley, D. 1992, ‘Electronic communities and domestic rituals’, Cultural consumption
and the production of European cultural identities, in Media Cultures:
112
Reappraising Transnational Media, ed. M. Skoumand & K. C. Schroder, Routledge, London.
Morton, J. 1988, ‘Book Review: Claude Lévi-Strauss: The Raw and the Cooked:
Introduction to a science of mythology: 1, Canberra Anthropology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 100-103.
Mounin, G. 1974, ‘Lévi-Strauss’s use of Linguistics’, in The Unconscious in Culture:
The Structuralism of Claude Lévi-Strauss in Perspective, ed. I. Rosso, Dutton, New York.
Murch, A. W. 1971, ‘Public concern for environmental pollution’, The Public Opinion
Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 100-106. Murcott, A. 1982, ‘The cultural significance of food and eating’, Proceedings of the
Nutritional Society (online), vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 203-210. Available: journal.cambridge.org./article-S00296651820000342 (2 March 2011).
________1983, The Sociology of Food and Eating: Essays on the Sociological Significance
of Food, Gower, Aldershot. ________ 2011, ‘The BSA and the emergence of a ‘sociology of food’: A personal view’,
Sociological Research Online (online), vol. 16, no. 3. Available: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/3/14.html (12 January 2012).
Murphy, R. & Dunlap, R. E. 2011, ‘Beyond the society/nature divide: Building on the
sociology of William Freudenberg’, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 7-17.
Nath, J. 2011, ‘Gendered fare? A qualitative investigation of alternative food and
masculinities’, Journal of Sociology, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 1-18. Available: http://jos.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/01/27/1440783310386828 (29 May 2011).
Ney, S. 1998, ‘Book Review: The Social Construction of Nature. A Sociology of
Ecological Enlightenment’, American Journal of Sociology, (online), vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 1071-1073. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/231302 (4 February 2012).
Nordquist, J. 1986, Jürgen Habermas: A Bibliography, Reference and Research
Services, Santa Cruz, CA. Ortner, S. B. 2006, Anthropology and Social Theory, Duke University Press, Durham. Outhwaite, W. 1994, Habermas: A Critical Introduction, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Parasecoli, F. 2008, Bite Me: Food in Popular Culture, Berg, New York. Pepper, D. 1996, Modern Environmentalism: An Introduction, Routledge, London, UK.
113
Pickering, A. 1996, ‘Further beyond the society/nature divide.’ A comment on Freudenberg, Frickel, and Gramling’, Sociological Forum, (online) vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 153-159. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/684956 (3 August 2011).
Pimentel, D. & Pimentel, M. 2003, ‘Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets
and the environment, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (online), vol. 78, no. 3, Available: www.ajen.org/content/78/3/6605.abstract (23 June 2012).
Porter, R. 2001, The Enlightenment, 2nd edn, Palgrave, New York. Pretty, J., Ball, A.S., Lang, T., & Morrison, J.I.L. 2005, ‘Farm costs and food miles: An
assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket’, Food Policy (online), vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1-19. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.flinde rs.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0306919205000059 (12 September 2011).
Pussey, M. 1987, Jurgen Habermas, Tavistock Publications, New York. Radnitzky, G. 1970, Contemporary Schools of Metascience, 2nd edn,
Laromedelsforlaget, Goteborg. Ray, K. 2004, The Migrant’s Table: Meals and Memories in Bengali-American
Households, Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Richards, A. 1932, Hunger and Work in a Savage Tribe: A Functional Study of Nutrition
among the Southern Bantu, Routledge, London. Ricoeur, P. 1974, The Conflict of Interpretations, ed. D. Ihde, Northwestern University
Press, Evanston. ________ 1981, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, Press Syndicate of the University
of Cambridge, Cambridge, Mass. ________ 1991, [1986], From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics II, the Athlone Press,
London. Ricoeur, P. in Lévi-Strauss, C. 1970 [1963], ‘A Confrontation’, New Left Review,
(online), vol. 1, no. 62., pp. 57-74. Available: www.newleftreview.org.ezproxy. flinders.edu.au/1/62/claude-levi-strauss-a-confrontation (12 March 2012).
Ritzer, G. 2004, The McDonaldization of Society, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks. Ross, E. B. 1978, ‘Food Taboos, Diet, and Hunting Strategy: The Adaptation to Animals
in Amazon Cultural Ecology’, Current Anthropology (online), vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-36. Available: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/openurl?volume =19&date=1978&spage=1&issn=00113204&issue=1 (24 February 2012).
Rozin, P. 1999, ‘Food is Fundamental, fun, frightening, and far-reaching’, Social Research (online), vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 9-30. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stabl e/40971298 (3 June 2011).
114
Runciman, W. G. 1969, ‘What is Structuralism?’, The British Journal of Sociology (online), vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 253-265. Available: http://jstor.org/stable/588951 (20 April 2012).
Rundell, J. & Mennell, S. 1998, ‘Introduction: Civilization, culture and the human self-image’, in Classical Readings in Culture and Civilization, ed. J. Rundell & S. Mennell, Routledge, London.
Rutherford, S. 2007, ‘Greening govermentality: Insight and opportunities in the study of nature’s rule, Progress in Human Geography, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 291-307.
Sahlins, M. D. 1972, Stone Age Economics, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago.
________ 1976, Culture and Practical Reason, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Saussure, F. D. 1974 [1916], Course in General Linguistics, ed. C. Bally, A. Sechehaye, & A. Riedlinger, trans. W. Baskin, Fontana, London.
Schleiermacher, F. 1987, Friedrich Schleiermacher Pioneer of Modern Theology, Collins, San Francisco.
Scholosser, E. 2002, Fast Food Nation: What the All-American Meal is Doing to the World, Penguin Books, England.
Schurman, R. 2004, ‘Fighting “Frankenfoods”: Industry opportunity structures and the efficiency of the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe’, Social Problems, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 243-268.
Senauer, B. 1992, ‘Preparing students for careers in food distribution and marketing: An opportunity for colleges of agriculture’, Journal of Food Distribution Research (online), vol. 23, no.1. Available: http:purl.umn.edu.27192 (3 August 2011).
Serventi, S. & Sabban, F. 2002, Pasta: The Story of a Universal Food, trans. A. Shugaar, Columbia University Press, New York.
Sessions, G. 1995, Deep Ecology for the Twenty-first Century, ed. G. Sessions, Random House, Boston.
Silverstein, B. 1984, Fed Up: The Food Forces that Make You Fat, Sick and Poor, South End Press, Boston.
Simmel, G. 1957, Bruke und Tür: Essays des Philosophen zur Geschichte, Religion, Kunst und Gesellschaft, Koehler, Stuttgart.
Simmons, I. G. 1993, Interpreting Nature: Cultural Constructions of the Environment, Routledge, London.
Smith, M. 1997, ‘What’s Natural? The socio-political (de)construction of nature’, Environmental Politics (online) vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 164-168. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644019708414334 (22 March 2012).
115
Smith, S. B. 2006, ‘The new face of the natural products consumer’, Natural Foods Merchandiser (online), vol. 27, no. 8. Available: http://search.proquest.com.epro xy.flinders.edu.au/docview/219647037 (16 April 2011).
Sobal, J., Khan, L. K., & Bisogni, C. 1998, ‘A conceptual model of the food and
nutrition system’, Social Science and Medicine (online), vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 853-863. Available: http//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795369800 104X (3 April 2011).
Soper, K. 1995, What is Nature?, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Mass. ________ 2009, ‘Unnatural times? The social imaginary and the future of nature’, The
Sociology Review (online), vol. 57, no. s2, pp. 222-235. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.2010.01894.x (5 December 2011).
Strydom, P. 1993, ‘Sociocultural evolution or the social evolution of practical reason?:
Eder’s critique of Habermas’, Praxis International, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 304-322. Sturrock, J. 1993, Structuralism, 2nd edn, Fontana, London. Sutton, P. W. 2004, Nature, Environment and Society, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire. Szerszynski, B. 2005, Nature, Technology and the Sacred, Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford, UK. Tansey, G. & Worsley, T. 1995, The Food System: A Guide, Earthscan, London, UK. Taylor, C. 1985, Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers 2,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. ________ 1995, ‘Explanation and Practical Reason’, in Philosophical Arguments, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Taylor, N. 2012, ‘Reversing meat-eating culture to combat climate change’, World
Preservation Foundation (online), pp.1-12. Available: http://www.worldpreserv ationfoundation.org/downloads.php (23 June 2012).
Tester, K. 1991, Animals and Society: The Humanity of Animal Rights, Routledge,
London. Thompson, J. B. 1981, Critical Hermeneutics: A Study in the thought of Paul Ricoeur
and Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Touraine, A. 1977, The Self-production of Society, trans. D. Coltman, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago. ________ 1981, The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements, trans. A. Duff,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Toussaint-Samat, M. 1992, A History of Food, Blackwell Reference, Cambridge, UK.
116
Tovey, H. 1997, ‘Food, environmentalism and rural Sociology: On the organic farming movement in Ireland’, for Sociologia Ruralis, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 21-37.
________ 2003, ‘Theorising nature and society in sociology: The invisibility of animals’,
Sociologia Ruralis (online), vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 196-215. Available: http//dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00241 (3 August 2011).
Trentmann, F. 2007, ‘Before “fair trade”: Empire, free trade, and the moral economies
of food in the modern world’, Environment and Planning, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1079-1102.
Tylor, E. B. 1878 [1865], Researches into the Early History of Mankind and the
Development of Civilization, 3rd edn, John Murray, London. Urry, J. 2010a, ‘Consuming the planet to excess’, Theory, Culture and Society (online),
vol. 27, no. 2-3, pp. 191-212. Available: http://tcs.sagepub.com.content/27/2-3/191 (12 August 2011).
________ 2010b, ‘Sociology and Climate change’, Sociological Review Monograph:
Nature, Society and Environmental Crisis, Sage Publications, London. ________2011, Climate Change and Society, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Wagner, P. 1999, ‘The resistance that modernity constantly provokes: Europe, America
and social theory’, Thesis Eleven (online), vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 35-58. Available: http://sag epub.com/content/5811/35 (3 March 2012).
Ward, P., Coveney, J., & Henderson, J. 2010, ‘Editorial’: A sociology of food and
eating: Why now?’, Journal of Sociology, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 347-351. Available: http://jos.sagepub.com/content/46/4/347 (3 December 2011).
Warde, A. 1997, Consumption, Food, and Taste: Culinary Antinomies and Commodity
Culture, Sage Publications, London. Warde, A. & Martens, L. 2000, Eating Out: Social Differentiation, Consumption, and
Pleasure, Cambridge University Press, New York. Weber, M. 1978, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, ed. G.
Roth & C. Wittich, trans. E. Fishoff, University of California Press, Berkeley. ________1985 [1930], The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Unwin
Paperbacks, London. Weismantel, M. J. 1988, Food, Gender and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes, Waveland
Press, Illinois. Wendell, B. 1981, The Gift of the Good Land, North Point Press, San Francisco. Wheaton, B. K. 1983, Savouring the Past: The French Kitchen and Table from 1300 to
1789, Chatto and Windus, London, UK.
117
White, S. K. 1995, The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, ed. S. K. White, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Whitebook, J. 1979, ‘The Problem of nature in Habermas’, Telos, vol. n/a, no. 40, pp.
41-69. Wilk, R. 2002, ‘Food Nationalism: The Origins of ‘Belizean Food’ in Food Nations:
Selling Taste in Consumer Societies, ed. W. Belasco & P. Scranton, Routledge, New York.
________ 2006, Home Cooking in the Global Village: Caribbean Food from Buccaneers to
Ecotourists, Berg, New York. Williams, R. 1972, ‘Ideas of nature’, in Ecology, the Shaping Enquiry: A Course Given
at the Institute of Contemporary Art, ed. J. Benthall, Longman, London. ________ 1976, Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Fontana, London. Williams-Forson, P.A. 2006, Building Houses Out of Chicken Legs: Black Women,
Food, and Power, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Wills, W. 2011, ‘Introduction to food: Representations and Meanings, Sociological
Research Online (online), vol. 16, no. 2, Available: http://www.socresonline.org. uk/16/2/16.html (3 June 2012).
Wiseman, B., Groves, J. & Appignanesi, R. 1997, Introducing Lévi-Strauss and
Structural Anthropology, Icon Books, Cambridge, UK. Wood, R. 1995, The Sociology of the Meal, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.