Search results

This introduction provides an overview of the discourse on alternative agrifood movements (AAMs) to (1) ascertain the degree of convergence and divergence around a common ethos of alterity and (2) context the chapters of the book. AAMs have increased in recent years in response to the growing legitimation crisis of the conventional agrifood system. Some agrifood researchers argue that AAMs represent the vanguard movement of our time, a formidable counter movement to global capitalism. Other authors note a pattern of blunting of the transformative qualities of AAMs due to conventionalization and mainstreaming in the market. The literature on AAMs is organized following a Four Questions in Agrifood Studies (Constance, 2008) framework. The section for each Question ends with a case study to better illustrate the historical dynamics of an AAM. The literature review ends with a summary of the discourse applied to the research question of the book: Are AAMs the vanguard social movement of our time? The last section of this introduction provides a short description of each contributing chapter of the book, which is divided into five sections: Introduction; Theoretical and Conceptual Framings; Food Sovereignty Movements; Alternative Movements in the Global North; and Conclusions.

The economic crisis has renewed public debate in Europe about food poverty, drawing attention to the insecurity suffered by some social groups that are not apparent in official surveys. The purpose of this paper is to examine how those affected deal with food poverty, along with their perceptions and assessments of being poor in the context of the economic crisis.

This paper is based on a qualitative study through 24 in-depth interviews with people seeking food aid from the Red Cross Non-Governmental Organization. The special focus here is comparison of two types of households: those affected for the first time by the economic crisis and new to seeking food aid and those who have claimed food aid since before the crisis.

The results show that, despite similarities of situation, the two groups deal with food poverty differently. The “old” group rely on skills derived from experience and have more complex survival strategies. The “new” group react by adjusting how they obtain food, but limited knowledge of the environment and inexperience in dealing with the situation restricts their options. Their different ways of dealing with deprivation are related to how they interpret the crisis and their perception of themselves as receivers of food aid.

These results underline the importance of food aid for both types of household presenting the State as a necessary safety net for them to cope successfully with crisis and rise from poverty.

This comparison offers a novel contribution to traditional studies of food poverty because it deepens knowledge of a little known group and enables us to advance some explanations of how the passage of time impacts food poverty.

The social anthropology of food and eating displays considerable diversity in theoretical approach, research strategy and substantive focus. Raises the question of whether this form of diversity is located within the discipline or whether it results from drawing on work from other disciplines. Compares selected works in social anthropology with works in sociology, a relative newcomer to the field. Reviews three “matched” pairs of studies; two each investigating attitudes between dietary complexity and socio‐economic aspects, two on gender and drink, both alcoholic and non‐alcoholic, and two on cuisines in comparative cultural and historical perspective. Proposes that the study of food and eating is an especially appropriate arena in which to develop systematically a more considerable cross‐disciplinary fertilization.

The important links between sociology, anthropology and the food industry are discussed in some detail. Lifestyles have seen many changes over the post‐war years, and these are reflected in numerous ways in consumption habits. Academic sociology, it is concluded, has much to offer food researchers, and they will ignore this at their peril.

This article offers a preliminary analysis of the relationships between the domestic and commercial provisioning of food relative to gender differences in society. Its central theme is that any understanding of patterns of food provision and consumption must not be based on marketing theory alone but take cognisance of the social processes that inform dietary behaviour, and in particular the extent to which such processes are mediated by the role of women both as preparers and consumers of food. In order to illustrate these arguments, comparisons are made of domestic and commercial “food systems” and the role of women relative to these.

Literature from across the social sciences and research evidence are used to highlight interdisciplinary and intersectional research approaches to food and family. Responsibilisation emerges as an important thematic thread, as family has (compared with the state and corporations) been increasingly made responsible for its members’ health and diet.

Three questions are addressed: first, to what extent food is fundamentally social, and integral to family identity, as reflected in the sociology of food; second, how debates about families and food are embedded in global, political and market systems; and third, how food work and caring became constructed as gendered.

Interest in food can be traced back to early explorations of class, political economy, the development of commodity culture and gender relations. Research across the social sciences and humanities draws on concepts that are implicitly sociological. Food production, mortality and dietary patterns are inextricably linked to the economic/social organisation of capitalist societies, including its gender-based divisions of domestic labour. DeVault’s (1991) groundbreaking work reveals the physical and emotional work of providing/feeding families, and highlights both its class and gendered dimensions. Family mealtime practices have come to play a key role in the emotional reinforcement of the idea of the nuclear family.

This study highlights the imperative to take pluri-disciplinary and intersectional approaches to researching food and family. In addition, this paper emphasises that feeding the family is an inherently political, moral, ethical, social and emotional process, frequently associated with gendered constructions.

Explains that current public health policy puts so much emphasis on food and nutrition because the single largest cause of death is nutrition‐related, and also because it is easier for a government to promote public health through nutrition than to address ailing health infrastructures or get to grips with adult literacy. Reports, however, the gaps in health equality between different socio‐economic and ethnic groups, and across gender and age. Discusses cultural expectations of a meal and the ideal body. Infers that the higher educational level a person has, the more likely they are to be thin and to occupy a higher place in a hierarchical social structure. Suggests that more food is consumed as snacks – a triumph for mass production, marketing and advertising. Defines what is meant and understood by diet, and evaluates good and bad food. Focuses briefly on traditional food exchanges in Western Samoa and on the use of olive oil in the traditional Mediterranean diet. Indicates that choice of food may be a result of production processes rather than consumer pressure. Explores also the social and cultural interactions of meal times and the role women’s emancipation has played in changing household food and meals. Points out that the lowest socioeconomic groups favour informal takeaways, while the highest socioeconomic groups prefer formal meals out, and, therefore, that the distribution of health and illness is shaped by cultural, social, economic and political forces.