Читать книгу Evolution of Social Ties around New Food Practices - Группа авторов - Страница 13

Gilles SÉRÉ DE LANAUZE

MRM Laboratory, University of Montpellier, France

Can we still eat together? The question posed by this book may come as a surprise, especially in France, where the food model is still overwhelmingly based on a traditional organization of three daily meals, as well as on sharing meals with other diners, at 84% for dinner and 75% for lunch. However, while Rozin (1994) has shown that in the imagination of individuals, eating means sharing with others, around a table; this seems more difficult today, and we observe that for the last 20 years, the number of people eating alone is increasing, as well as the number of people eating outside the home¹. Sharing the same meal around a table is becoming complex because of distance and the different agendas, concerns and paces of life of people who are close. Societal developments such as the rise of individualism, the break-up of families, or nomadism generated by the constraints of active life, weaken the traditional links that used to be formed around meals. Several ways of not “eating together” are thus revealed: eating alone of course, as well as not eating the same thing, not eating in the same place, eating within a different and chosen community. Thus, beyond the fact that we increasingly eat alone, many other fault lines seem to appear in the practices and social perimeters of food consumption. At the same time, other links are being re-formed within new communities of practice or belief, and the implementation of the shared meal depends on new forms of daily organization. And if we do not eat together as much as we used to, we may eat more connected to others, and with more conviction.

Sharing the same meal around a table also becomes complicated when food choices tend to be individualized. Exclusionary diets (gluten-free, lactose-free, meat-free, etc.) are multiplying. The development of intolerances and allergies to certain food products leads to a departure from the traditional patterns of gastronomy and conviviality. At the same time, growing concerns for health and the environment are generating new practices, new product offerings and new forms of market segmentation. Some practices are even more committed, such as veganism which, beyond the refusal of any consumption involving animal exploitation, often takes a stance of both societal disruption and proselytism. Thus, multiple factors are likely to generate differences, antagonisms or frictions in the relations and practices related to food. The development of particular diets, motivated by health, environmental or ethical concerns or imperatives, seems to generate new barriers to eating together.

Religious prohibitions are also at the origin of withdrawal into particular ethnic or community regimes. We also note that the religious issue has led to the appearance of a wide range of new products on the market (numerous halal and kosher product lines), which find their clientele in the corresponding community, as well as among other consumer segments in accordance with trends observed towards ethnic or cross-cultural products.

These changes in terms of relationships with others, conviviality and sharing go beyond the simple perimeter of the meals themselves and also characterize the practices associated both upstream and downstream from the meal. Upstream, we can mention shared supplies, either between consumers (grouped purchases) or between consumers and producers (AMAP², organic baskets), or the development of “cooking together” practices (courses, tastings, tutorials, reality shows, chefs’ blogs). Downstream, we can observe the growing inclusion of gastronomy and commensality within other forms of sharing: meals are then offered not in classic and commercial places like restaurants, but in new alternative, tourist, campaigner or artistic contexts that rely on food to enrich other types of experiences. Commensality is then a pretext for sharing new experiences, emotions or convictions that go beyond their sole nutritional and hedonic objectives.

Sharing values rather than a meal: in an often anxiety-provoking context, consumers are looking for answers to the many economic, social, health and environmental issues linked to our consumption patterns; as a consequence, they are questioning the models of food consumption in order to take greater responsibility. Food takes on the dimension of supporting values. Societal or environmental convictions lead to the critique of certain categories of products deemed harmful because of their ecological footprint or their consequences on public health (meat, processed products, etc.). This favors particular modes of consumption, increased social pressure on what is good or bad to consume and retreating into communities of practice around new principles (organic consumption, local consumption, direct distribution, responsible consumption, etc.). Are these communities the new form of socialization around food that, in many cases, would replace the traditional family and social sharing?

While food is a means of supporting individual and social identities, it is at the heart of the relationships that we share with others. Food practices and convictions result in a chosen membership of groups, to which we identify or refer to, or on the contrary, from which we distinguish ourselves. These groups are an important element of the individual’s social environment, whether physical or virtual, made up of relatives or strangers. They influence behavior and consumption practices and structure our identity. They play a role in the construction of the self, through adherence to and identification with models, or even communities of adoption, while at the same time, relationships outside of groups allow us to assert our own difference within society. Such communities are developing; they are sharing communities (Internet communities, religious or local communities) that are structured fully or incidentally around food. What are the mechanisms of adhesion to these communities, what returns do individuals expect from them and how does the community itself influence food behaviors? This question of social influences and intra- and extra-group relations on food is at the heart of this book.

Finally, these consumer trends are obviously reflected at the level of supply. Product innovation, distribution structures and the very organization of markets and chains of actors are accompanying these changes and new ways of eating. This is the case, for example, of the halal meat production chain, which has benefited from a complete reorganization of the production, control and distribution chains, with the emergence of new players and the development of an offer that takes into account both market expansion and identity support. Another illustration is the market for vegetarian products and services (catering, advice and support, literature), which is committed to the management of facilitated relations between followers and non-adherents. And we find new ways of consuming, as well as of producing and living together at the local level around food, with the re-enchantment of the terroir³ as a place of sharing and conviction.

Between social influences, norms, communities and questions of identity, the objective of this book is to bring a reflection on the current evolution of social phenomena around food and their influences on the evolution of these markets. This reflection is articulated through six chapters briefly summarized as follows.

The recognition of the benefits of “eating together” is such that it has led to official recommendations from public authorities. This is the subject of Chapter 1, “Eating Together”, a PNNS Recommendation. How Can it be Put Into Practice? In order to promote a balanced diet on a daily basis, the French National Nutrition and Health Plan (Plan National Nutrition Santé, PNNS) is based on the social aspects of eating: eating together on a daily basis would be a guarantee of a more nutritional diet, because we would take more time to eat, we would cook more recommended products such as fruits and vegetables, and this would limit snacking. However, as with other recommendations made by public authorities (five fruits and vegetables a day), if consumers seem to know the recommendation to “eat in company”, its application is not satisfactory. It is therefore with the aim of overcoming this lack of application that this chapter focuses on the implementation of the “eat with company” recommendation. Data were collected using a qualitative study of food practices combining a projective collage method with individual interviews and observations. The results show that eating in company implies taking on a social role during meals and that culinary knowledge is used to satisfy the guests. The results also show that it is necessary to articulate our activities and those of others in time and space in order to meet around a meal.

Eating together thus implies grouping together around common practices, concerns and objectives, in particular by taking advantage of the opportunities for sharing and exchange provided by the Internet and social networks. The objective of Chapter 2, “Eating Together” Through the Internet: The Case of Online Weight Loss Support Communities” is to show how users of online communities “eat together” by sharing recipes, photos of the dishes they have made or even tips and advice on nutrition. This sharing contributes to the diversification of their diet. The study particularly explores online weight loss support communities such as Weight Watchers or forums on Doctissimo and Aufeminin in which diet is at the heart of discussions. Bagozzi and Dholakia (2002, p. 3) define online communities as “social spaces in the digital environment that allow groups to form and be maintained primarily through ongoing communication processes”. The chapter focuses on the phenomena of social influences that take place in these communities (How do individuals see their food choices influenced by others?) based on rich and varied collected material. We analyze excerpts from discussions within communities, screen captures that highlight these exchanges, as well as individual interviews, partly conducted with nutrition experts (23) and partly with users of online weight loss support communities (25).

What are the psychological mechanisms that encourage sharing values rather than meals? Concern for the future consequences of our diet is one possible explanation, for example, in the case of individuals on diets. Chapter 3, “Eating Together”: With or Without the Dietary Constraints of Others? shows how forced or chosen dietary restrictions can constrain “eating together”. Firstly, the study highlights the distinction between the chronically ill and the healthy, and the perceived consequences of an unbalanced diet which are very different in these two cases. As a result, a diet constrained by a chronic illness may lead to difficulties in eating with people who do not have these constraints. This first section identifies the variables that explain these difficulties in “eating together” as well as the consequences on eating behaviors when meals are taken together. In a second step, the analysis is extended to “chosen” eating, through the notion of consideration of future consequences. Consideration of future consequences (CFC) is defined as an individual’s consideration of the potential and distant consequences of his or her current behaviors and the fact that these behaviors are influenced by the very anticipation of these potential consequences (Strathman et al. 1994). In the case of eating, these are individuals who impose “dietary constraints” on themselves because they are aware of the consequences their eating may have on them or others. This results in food restriction behaviors on their part that depend on the consequences they take into account (e.g. veganism, organic food, weight loss diet). Based on these observations, why and how does a person go against his or her dietary principles in a situation where he or she has to eat with others? Similarly, to what extent will a person who does not impose dietary restrictions on himself/herself bend to the dietary constraints of others when eating together? What about the perceived tolerance of the other towards ourselves? Through illustrations drawn from three focus groups, made up of about 30 people with diversified diets, this chapter provides some answers to these questions.

We thus witness a reconfiguration of the social environment of the food practice and adopting or retreating into the sharing community. This is particularly observable in vegetarianism and veganism, where social influences play an important role. Chapter 4, Eating Together, Yes, But Without Meat! Social Influences Related to Vegetarianism and Veganism analyzes this strong trend of vegetarianism today. This restrictive diet in a society that is still predominantly meat-based generally breaks with previous habits, with the probable consequence of generating numerous psychological and relational tensions for the people who adopt it. Beyond the practices and motivations that have already been widely documented, the purpose of this research is to identify the multiple influences leading to the adoption and maintenance of this diet and to better understand the relationships that surround them and the new adopted community. An exploratory study was conducted through individual interviews with 25 young adult vegetarians. The results show that relationships with the community may have more effect in maintaining behavior than in the original adoption process and only indirectly facilitate relationships with the environment. This could have implications in terms of support, supply and communication regarding these practices.

This can also be studied at the level of religious communities for which community, socialization and food have always gone hand in hand. Chapter 5, Eating Together and Differently: Halal Between Standardization and Segmentation paints a picture of the production and consumption of halal meat in France by examining the dynamics of differentiation and standardization. The significant development of this market over the last two decades has led to important transformations in terms of production systems, logistics, communication and distribution. The involvement of the main actors of the food system and the emergence of specialized companies account for the coexistence of these two strategic dynamics of standardization and differentiation of supply, and respond to an increasingly complex demand. Based on the exploitation of secondary data and those from recent surveys on this sector, the aim here is to present the specificities of the halal meat market based on an analysis of slaughtering and processing practices upstream and distribution and consumption downstream. Assuming a hyper-segmentation of supply, the issues related to the ritual slaughter of animals and the different systems guaranteeing the “halal” character of meat are discussed, as well as the way in which the production stage is structured and organized between the main actors. The study of standardization–segmentation phenomena then highlights the economic, regulatory and production issues underlying the “transformation” of the living animal into a halal meat product identifiable by consumers. The perceptions of the latter as to the credibility of the certifications or the “halal” character of the products make it possible to identify the link between the two levels of analysis (Upstream–Downstream). Finally, this question of standardization/differentiation of supply is studied from the point of view of demand, its characteristics, its evolution and the way it is articulated with supply.

Finally, another dimension of socialization around food, geography, through the valorization of proximity and terroir, reveals another social perimeter, that of communities at the local level. Chapter 6, From “Eating Together” to “Living Together Better”, the Case of Local Products addresses these links between local products and the local area, close links that are claimed as such, within a perimeter of sharing, and around signs of quality and values linked to the terroir, but which beyond that also qualify the territory. If the links between local products and territory illustrate the evolution of the values and representations attributed to these spaces for more than half a century, we cannot help but notice today the prevalence of local consumption, more convivial, more ethical, more responsible, more committed to the territories. The multiplication of short channels, “local” brands, “terroir” brands and territorial brands attest to this search for territorial anchoring in terms of proximity, territorial identity, belonging and attachment to the territory, often with the argument of better eating and health. If food plays a major role as a support for the construction and expression of identity, eating local food symbolizes belonging to a common cultural space, marking territorial roots, and in fine a form of living together better. Is this not the objective of the glocalized eater who is trying to achieve two complementary movements that modernization had made contradictory: to be attached to terroir, on the one hand, and to become globalized, on the other hand? In other words, the networked local and the conviviality of the terroir that favors the links between the place and the body. “I am what I eat” (Fischler 1990), on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the commitment of the digital consumer using global trends, which is expressed in their desire to give meaning to their consumption and the importance of doing something for ourselves, “I eat what is good for the body and the mind”, promoting the convergence of the values of the collaborative economy and those of sustainable and local development towards a desire to consume differently and better, in search of meaning and authenticity. Small daily gestures that give the feeling of taking part in the changes, of being a “hummingbird consumer”, connected, demanding and more enlightened in search of transparency, who wishes to change things by infusing new behaviors. Isn’t the modern local entrepreneur a digitalized actor, and the post-modern client an informed consumer, rooted in the territory and connected to the world? Isn’t local a responsible commitment, a guarantee of quality and origin, of eating better and healthier for ourselves, others and the planet, of eating connected?

This local focus has suddenly been placed at the heart of current events, along with the strengthening of relational ties around meals and questions about food issues, with the Covid-19 health crisis and the experience of lockdown. Chapter 7, By Way of an Epilogue: “Eating Together” in the Time of Covid-19, sheds light on what this current period has changed and contributed to the book’s reflections and research conducted, for the most part, before the crisis broke out. Four main points structure what the health crisis has generated and revolutionized in our eating habits and in the social influences at play. This chapter first describes the main changes in our eating habits and practices. It shows how digital tools have allowed us to maintain the link and overcome the difficulties generated by physical confinement, as well as their limits. It explores the changes or reinforcements of convictions and principles of life following the awareness of health, societal and environmental issues provoked or reinforced by the crisis. Finally, it returns to the question of locality, social proximity and reinforced ties within groups or communities in response to the challenges imposed by the experiences of lockdown.

The Conclusion summarizes the contributions of the book in a cross-functional manner and proposes new avenues. The academic reflections and research presented aim to better understand the current evolution of socialization and the influence of communities on food practices, and to draw enlightening perspectives for the different actors, food companies or distributors, consumer associations and groups, or public authorities.