For context on my comments to follow, read the article....
I am strongly convicted by this article. I try my best not to sell out to contemporary trends or dogmas, but it seems I have incrementally and blindly fallen into the snobbish ways of the foodies. I recently heard Christian Lander, author of Stuff White People Like, speak in Boulder. He suggested that the premise of his media concept is that classes remain divided and one's class is designated by that which he consumes. In congruence with this notion food is, above all, a designation of one's lifestyle, education, and community. Do you eat small or large portions? Do you eat organic? Do you eat local? Do you eat often? Do you sit down to eat or eat on-the-go? Each answer connotes something different and ultimately serves to classify the individual.
We have fashioned an entire moral code based on our food consumption and bought into it with such diligence and fervor that we are completely unaware of it. I, for one, have recently fallen hard for it. Last summer, a couple friends and I participated in a community supported agriculture (CSA) program. We did it to learn how to cook vegetables and to save money on produce for the summer. Little did we know we had actually bought our ticket into a whole new social class where "proper" consumption of food (local, organic, etc) was the superior moral behavior. I found myself mentioning this little tidbit in random places to test how widely we might receive affirmation for our good behavior. In church, on the bus, at the grocery store, at parties, the conversation would come up (or rather, I would force it up) that we "had to pick up our food share this weekend" and people everywhere gave us deep nods of approval and pats on the back. It was the most socially acceptable and progressive activity I participated in all year. We were also introduced to a whole new world of like-minded people, where good food consumption is like superior morale behavior; understanding of food and all its nutrients and chemical components is like understanding theology; organic farmers are like high priests; and a good chef like an archdiocese. It is a sub-culture, a marketing scheme, a code to which one subscribes, a manufactured lifestyle, a techne, truly no different than any other throughout all of human hsitory. As such, any techne can be broken down and classified into its various parts, so let us analyze the food techne of Boulder by identifying its terminology:
Organic
Local
Natural
Food blogs
Fresh ingredients
Omega-3
Raw Food
Healthy
Progressive
Whole
Hearty
Seasonal
I studied my new techne, and put it into practice. Food blogs, cooking, eating out, talking about food, diagnosing ailments according to what I ate, essentially making food a definitive part of my entire existence. My superior food lifestyle provided me a better position to make mistakes, criticize others, and preach a dogma.
But here is the scariest part about this societal techne over others. It is disguised. The foodie does not believe he is subscribing to a code or marketing ploy. In fact, of all lifestyles, this appears the least commercialized, but for this reason it is the most sneaky. My own excitement with good food is one very much manifested out of a shameful Food History. My family, in our great struggle for resources, relied exclusively upon WIC when I was a child, and of course none of the above-listed terminology made it into our vocabulary. Our lack of resources and education, aka our social class, is that which prevented participation in the foodie club. Now, with my participation in this exclusive new food club, I feel I have taken a step forward from my WIC days.
But this must stop. Immediately. I, along with foodies everywhere, have entered a place that does not lead to better individual health and a better society, but to snobbery, leading only to division and classism.
We can argue that society drew awareness to our consumption of food in order to address the adverse health effects of obesity, etc, but now we are left with just another canon, and one which continues to leave significant populations marginalized. Can every person, with all the diversity of lifestyles and varying access to resources, reasonably be expected to adhere to this moral food code? Absolutely not. We must criticize and deconstruct the discourse in order to understand the ways it may be hurting, rather than helping us. Food is, and always should be, sustenance, not a social symbol.
The author's parallel between sex and food is quite pointed. Both food and sex provide varying degrees of sensuality, depending on the person/food consumed, and both can become "dangerous" when consumed or engaged in irresponsibly. But above all, food has replaced sex in its ability to outcast and marginalize unconventional use of it. Anyone who has read The Scarlet Letter understands the risk associated with marginalizing those who do not comply with a community's social norms, even if those norms are framed as the best interest of all. Boulder (and I above all) must heed this warning. We must tread carefully as we build a food philosophy that risks resulting in less, rather than more, freedom.
Bon apetit!
