I guess this is on my mind because I keep seeing news reports about people in Haiti resorting to eating "mud cakes", and even photos of them being sun-baked in large batches. But most of these articles (apart from one in the Guardian in the UK) fail to give any context for this, such as the neoliberal policies, the flood of temporarily cheap food from the USA, and the earlier eradication of creole pigs, that season-by-season destroyed Haiti's self-provisioning agricultural sector. So when I think of "rounded people" (and the simultaneity of production and consumption) the image that jumps to mind is children with distended bellies from malnutrition. Shouldn't food studies help us get beyond the feel-good "feed-the-world" jingles of world food aid programmes? Maybe the problem is not so much "eating the other" (in the sense of spicing things up with exotic food -- and I have some more thoughts on ian's piece on mixing, which I'll post later -- but "eating each other": a.k.a. eating the food right out of other people's mouths, leaving them with nothing.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Rounded (and not so rounded) people
I have some thoughts about getting beyond the producer/consumer dichotomy and thinking in terms of "rounded people", as Ian puts it. I think it would be good if food studies paid more attention to the self-provisioning practices of "producers" (who are also always of necessity consumers of food). I always think of Haitian anthropologist Michel-Rolph Trouillot's book Peasants and Capital (1988), which is a study of banana farmers in Dominica (in the British West Indies). The farmers told him that when times were hard at least they could eat their crop ("I can always eat my fig") -- unlike other crops like sugar or coffee. And that keeps reminding me that we need to think more about the economies and cultures of consumption of people at the production-end of food systems. Maybe the St. Lucia farmers in the artwork Ian helped with also talked about what they eat and where they get their food?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I saw this post only after I submitted my own comments above; however, much of this speaks to the concerns I raise, I think. Reading your comments I am reminded of Pierre Spitz's characterisation of the contemporary food regime as a war between "forces of extraction" (taxes, land consolidation, expensive farming inputs like chemical fertilisers etc) against "forces of retention" (moral economies, cooperative farming, self provisioning etc). This seems to me an accurate account of the major forces affecting peasant livelihoods from a provisioning perspective. David Harvey's recent comments on neoliberal empire and "accumulation by dispossession" are also relevant to the food drain from the developing world.
"Shouldn't food studies help us get beyond the feel-good "feed-the-world" jingles of world food aid programmes? Maybe the problem is not so much "eating the other" (in the sense of spicing things up with exotic food ... but "eating each other": a.k.a. eating the food right out of other people's mouths, leaving them with nothing."
Exactly so.
Incidentally "eating the other" has a long metaphorical history. Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (1729), for example, suggests solving Ireland's poverty by selling poor children as food to wealthy families...
Yes, David, I agree – and Swift’s brilliant satire feeds into (maybe initiates?) a long history of critiques of consumer cannibalism, like the anti-slavery sugar boycott campaigns of the late 18th and early to mid-9th centuries (which I discussed in my book Consuming the Caribbean), who imagined sugar as dripping with human blood. So if the basic underlying issue is accumulation by dispossession and other forms of coercive extraction and primitive accumulation, our questions seems to be: are ethical consumption movements an effective path towards social change? Are markets really capable of challenging market failures? Or do we need to step outside the mechanisms of the market to address fundamental social injustices?
Sheller, Mimi (2003) Consuming the Caribbean: From Arawaks to Zombies, London and New York: Routledge.
Dear Mimi
"Consumer cannibalism" is a great phrase. I cannot be sure if the analogy begins with Swift but it seems to gain a new orthodoxy from this point on. Interestingly in the context of famine the analogy was sometimes reversed. During a visit to Ireland in the late 1840s, for example, the Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle wrote:
"No rents; little or no stock left, little cultivation, docks, thistles; landlord sits in his mansion, for reasons, except on Sunday: we hear of them 'living on the rabbits of their own park.' Society is at an end here, with the land uncultivated, and every second soul a pauper. – 'Society' here would have to eat itself, and end by cannibalism in a week, if it were not held up by the rest of our empire still standing afoot!
Regarding the anti-slavery boycott: I recently came across a reference to a 19th century sugar bowl (now on display in the Museum of Docklands) bearing the inscription
“East India sugar not made By Slaves. By Six Families using East India instead of West India Sugar, one less slave is required.”
I discovered this fascinating reference in Felicity Lawrence’s book (cited above, p. 177), who adds “Like so much about ‘ethical consumption’, it exposes its own limitations. If the system is wrong, you have to change the system, and although the way to shop can send powerful messages, it cannot on its own undo the wrong.”
This leads me to your question about “effective path[s] towards social change.” I agree with Lawrence that “ethical consumption” on its own cannot address broader issues of “structural violence” (the phrase is Paul Farmers). However, I do not see this as an argument against ethical consumption per se, nor is it an argument for proletarian revolution as the only way of solving socioeconomic inequalities born of corporate capitalism. Instead I think we can build a progressive food movement on the back of projects (past and present) that have flourished and brought genuine social change. In other words I think it is crucial that we learn more about the successes of various elements in the food movement (hence the call at the end of my first post)
We already know a good deal about Fair Trade, the organic movement and the Slow Foods Movement. But we could also study other initiatives like ‘The School Foods Movement’ and ‘The Stop-Marketing-Foods-to-Kids Movement’ – both mentioned briefly in Marion Nestle’s recent book Food Politics. We might also learn from national policies like Brazil’s ‘Zero Hunger’ programme. This would be one practical way of opening up what David Harvey calls ‘spaces of hope.’
David Nally
Paul Farmer. "An Anthropology of Structural Violence." Cultural Anthropology 45(3) 2001: 305-325.
David Harvey. Spaces of Hope. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2000.
David Nally. "'Eternity's commissioner': Thomas Carlyle, the Great Irish Famine and the Geopolitics of Travel." Journal of Historical Geography 32(2) 2006: 313-335.
Marion Nestle. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2007.
Just another thought. Your final remark that "eating each other" might suggest something else, not covered in Ian's report viz., "eating the food right out of other people's mouths, leaving them with nothing."
If we follow the logic of this insight does it not suggest that obesity in the western world (and indeed pockets of the developing world) is actually a form of theft?
David Nally
Funny you should mention the 'East India Sugar Not Made by Slaves' bowls -- I mention those and reproduce a picture of an ad for them in my book too. They offer a really interesting example of a social movement innovating on how to get its message across, in this case emblazoned right onto the serving dishes on the table. But what is important to note is that along side purchasing such bowls, displaying lapel buttons, wearing cotton not made my slaves, opening free-trade shops with no slave produce, etc., some of the people involved in these projects also got involved in trying to set up alternative chains of food production in the 1830s -- the Quaker Joseph Sturge, for example, bought former sugar plantation land, emancipated the slaves, and tried to set up a lime and lemon export business; in the 1840s Baptists were involved in the free village movement in Jamaica, dividing up land into small plots that could be farmed by the recently emancipated; others tried to set up agricultural export schemes with small holders pooling their produce and running their own shipping lines; etc. So there was a broad vision of what needed to be done, that went beyond the sugar or the bowl it was served in. Today's fair trade and local food movement are, I think, also in many cases trying to hook up with other initiatives like those you mention, partnering with groups at all ends of the foodspace, and intervening at many different levels. The attention to what we put in our stomachs is just one way to draw in new participants and leverage the intimate politics of the body into a global politics. (In that sense I would not argue that obesity is theft, but that collective societal over-consumption and waste of food does have impact on other parts of the world -- George Bataille's work on the "accursed share" is one way to think about the excess that capitalism consumes in forms of opulent waste and destruction).
I just bought your book! I am looking forward to reading more about the progressive initiatives mentioned in your post. I think this raises an important point about restoring a broad vision of the possible. Too much of history writing projects the past seamlessly into the present (teleogical), thereby assuming the present is without an alternative. For example, I have read more than one historian of the nineteenth century suggest “to believe it [government] could have interfered with private markets is simply anachronistic.” This reading is only tenable, however, if one ignores a vast body of evidence demonstrating very direct market interference in favour of private property, thus stripping populations of collective food rights etc. Contrary to neoclassical theories markets do not operate outside power and politics; they are made and therefore have histories (and geographies). I am glad you post about "alternative chains of food production in the 1830s." It reminds us that different worlds are possible, that the present and future are not cast in iron, that as in the past moral outrage can be a force for progressive change...
I feel uncomfortable when I hear the idea of obesity as theft because when I think of the type of food that is contributing to the obesity epidemic, namely, the cheap availability of highly processed sugary and fatty foodstuffs my thoughts are turned to how and why these types of food have become so widely available cheaply; this is not wholly the responsibility of those people eating them. The way I see the situation having studied the meat retail and meat processing industry is that there is always the hunt by food manufacturers to try to find a commercial home for every single thing that is ‘grown’ whether plant or animal. Different parts of the body grown by food producers attain different value status. The cheapest parts are sold to be processed, i.e. they cost nothing to buy and when processed become something very unhealthy and are sold very cheaply. The biggest brands in the world Nestle, McDonalds are food processors. Food branding is incredibly influential in luring consumers to buying into particular identities by their food purchasing and consumption practices. I would also add that these brands are very skilled at creating and designing products that through the affect of colour, taste, smell are very enticing to children and adults alike. As I have argued in Roe 2006a and 2006b people do not always do what they say they do and despite a discourse about unhealthy eating, unhealthy food is still eaten. The geographies of food need to develop research agendas that expose how foods are developed that exploit the sensibilities of people whose longterm health interests may not be to eat certain types of food. Everyday consumption practices are strongly shaped by the marketing, advertising and aesthetic might of global food brands; and importantly these brands also have enormous potential to improve where exploitation exists throughout all sites in the food industry as the farm animal welfare example illustrates.
Emma Roe, University of Southampton
2006a 'Things becoming food and the embodied, material practices of an organic food consumer'. Sociologia Ruralis 46 (2), 104-121
2006b 'Material connectivity, the immaterial and the aesthetic of eating practices: an argument for how genetically-modified foodstuff becomes inedible. Environment and planning A. vol. 38(3), pages 465-481. Special Issue on Geographies of Biotechnology (edited Emma Roe and Beth Greenhough)
I agree Emma. I mentioned 'obesity as theft' as it is is something I come across quite frequently in the literature. I also wanted Mimi to clarify her original comment about eating food out of other people's mouths (which she provides above).
You are also quite right to point to the addition of cheap "bulk" such as sugar which is also a "hidden fat" in our industrialised diets. So many of our products contain the same ingredients usually decided by marketing criteria (so-called health additions in yogurts, for example) and government subsidies (soya and sugar for instance). The increased addition of water in our meat is another example - and not just "processed meats" like reformed ham! The more I read about industrial food the more I feel we are (mostly) unknowing participants in a giant social experiment ...
You write: "geographies of food need to develop research agendas that expose how foods are developed that exploit the sensibilities of people whose longterm health interests may not be to eat certain types of food."
Again I couldn't agree more. Advertising, lobbying, and the raising of food safety thresholds by regulatory bodies are some of the key factors. I think corporate marketing strategies are particularly worrying, especially technological developments such as "neuromarketing" that directly target the non-rational side of our brain (i.e our feelings). The largest corporations are spending vast amounts of money on these frontier technologies and are generally years ahead of the best psychology departments. Those interested in "geographies of affect" could contribute meaningfully here...
David and Emma, your conversation reminded me of a front page article in the Guardian from a few years back by Felicity Lawrence. I've just found it... and pasted some key paras below...
"Methods used by the food industry to target children, bypassing parents and deploying 'viral marketing' an' 'underground communication" have been uncovered by the Guardian on the day MPs publish a damning account of the government's 'woefully inadequate' response to obesity.
Documents obtained by the Guardian show that the industry is exploiting sophisticated techniques to market to children without their parents' knowledge.
A detailed submission by advertising agency Leo Burnett to the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising for one of its 'effectiveness awards' in 2002 explains how its campaign for Kellogg's Real Fruit Winders 'entered the world of kids in a way never done before', and managed to 'not let mum in on the act'. Sugars make up over a third of the product, which won a 'Tooth Rot' award in 2002. ...
The lengths to which products are specifically marketed at children are revealed by the campaign for Kellogg's Real Fruit Winders. Using "mutant fruit characters" the agency says it "spread the word about the brand virally" - by word of mouth - following an "initial underground communication" campaign.
It managed to "seed" the characters and a secret language at concerts, in magazines and cinemas. It also used clothing to place the charac ters with children's celebrities, gaining exposure on TV shows and music channels popular with children.
'We have a clear indication that it infiltrated kids' conversations,' the ad agency's submission boasts. It quotes typical responses from children in its research: 'It's cool' and 'It is more secret than text messaging - my mum wouldn't know what was going on.'
The Kellogg's Fruit Winder campaign also encouraged children to interact with it on websites or while retrieving emails. New microsites were created on websites popular with children.
The advertising agency says it managed to reach nearly 60% of children with only PR and web activity. It was only after this that it started TV advertising to reach mothers who are seen as the main purchasers. "Kids were our main advocates, but mums became willing accomplices once they knew about the fruit content and the Kellogg's branding."
Reference:
Lawrence, F. (2004) Revealed: how food firms target children. The Guardian, May 27 2004 (link in references)
Ian et al (in every sense of that!):
The most recent incarnation of subtle marketer influence comes in so-called "advergames": web-based games with advertising messages embedded within the game or surrounding the game, pitched quite deliberately at children. See for example Wrigley's "Candystand" at candystand.com. At the bottom of every screen is the invitation to "check out these Wrigley brands".
For academic takes on this, see Dahl S, Eagle LC, Baez C. (2006). Analysing Advergames: Active Diversions or Actually Deception.
SSRN Working Paper (http://ssrn.com/abstract=907841); and
Moore ES (2006). It's Child's Play: Advergaming and the Online Marketing of Food to Children. Kaiser Family Foundation report. (http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/7536.pdf)
There are advergames aimed at adults, too, sometimes for more progressive purposes One example is Sungevity's Solar SFUN (solarsfun.com) in which the gamer attempts to cover a roof with solar panels in a Tetris-like puzzle. Successful gamers in California can earn discounts towards solar installations from Sungevity; those outside the state can make donations to environmental nonprofit organisations.
I first came across references to "neuromarketing" in Dan Gardner. Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear. Virgin Books, 2008. I've read Lawrence's recent books, but missed the Guardian article. Thanks v. much for posting this Ian.
Post a Comment