Food, Health, and Nutrition Are Means of Control - But Then Again, What Isn't?

The year is 2016.

*At a Starbucks*

Customer: "May I have a chai-soy latte, with fresh almond milk, no preservatives, no extra fat, no calories from fat, light on the whipped cream, no gluten, and at a lukewarm temperature?"

Barista: *Death stare* Anything else?

Customer: Oh yeah, and a creme donut. Actually, make that six.

We all have the right to ask these questions in America -- it's called the First Ammendment for which my grandfathers died to protect, and we all should have the opportunity to use it. While we shouldn't further overwork individuals earning a minimum wage like Starbucks employees and consider it ethical, Robert Crawford can provide an excellent rebuttal to my slightly cynical example above. "... Health may be reasonably described as... a meaningfully and emotionally charged fixation -- both a goal and a source of anxiety... integral to identity, a state of being that is continually assessed and the organizing concept for a vast organization of social action." Though his writing is dense, we may make sense of it using "latte lady." Yes, she might like chai (who doesn't?), but what if she's asking for a soy latte because Dr. Oz told her whole milk is unhealthy? What if she heard almond milk doesn't have that whole milk-y aftertaste (even though the aftertaste is more akin to old grape nut cereal).

Regardless of her choices, she is acting much in the way Crawford puts forth. Latte lady is ordering her coffee with meaning and a fixation on making sure the order comes through to her idea of perfection. She is, of course, anxious that the barista may not make her order to her tastes. And as she walks out of the shop, she now has an identity of a "healthy" caffeine consumer, and furthers her other identity as a gluten-free, fat-free, almong-milking individual. And there is nothing wrong with this -- her social reference groups, news media, magazines and TV shows have most likely all influenced her into her decision to annoy baristas.

Paul Rozin would seem to agree with Crawford, especially (my) analogy of the Starbucks individual. He opines that in ancient and somewhat modern history, humans had to spend an enormous amount of energy hunting and foraging, so they needed to intake enough nutrition to stay healthy -- relatively large amounts. Now, the hardest part about obtaining food in the United States is finding parking in a grocery store. With that said, Rozin goes into further detail regarding the cultural, social value of food. Families get together at Christmas and Thanksgiving and bond over that honey-glazed turkey, that fattening stuffing, and who can forget the cranberry sauce? America is not the only place in which this food-facilitated bonding takes place -- Rozin uses the idea of elaborate Japanese food presentations and the restriction of certain parts of animals in India and Western Asia. Thus, it is rather impossible to say food is not just edible -- gosh, no -- it is intrinsically a social science, as food has become a social artifact.

He would also say food and food access is an aspect of Capitalism. (Everything comes back to capitalism, doesn't it?) The poor get food kitchens. The shrinking middle class on medicaid gets Kraft macaroni-and-cheese with hotdog slices for dinner. The weathy's plates are always full. As Red, the head chef of Netflix's original Orange is the New Black has said, "There's the people who serve the bread and the people who eat the bread." AKA, the proletariat and te bourgeoisie.

With all of the above said, analyzed, and examined, Cairns, Johnson and MacKendrick completely lose me. I am in full understanding this is the "opposing" reading of the week, but this article is more problematic than Trump's supporter numbers. The authors discuss a "sacrilization" of a child, and though they make it a point to assert the word is historial, they are using the word without metaphor. Almost off of the researchers on page 100 are steadfast in their beliefs, yet I challenge them with one simple metaphor (with research to back it up!): "It takes a village." Children who grow up in "hippie" communes with many women who play the role of the mother turn out to be happy, physically healthy, well-adjusted citizens. Their qualitiative sample was small in number, which is understandable, but I do not hold the opinion that this research can be generalized.

Last, and certainly not least, men can be "mothers" too. I'm not offended in the least bit, but c'mon, this is sociology.

#food #bread #crawford