FOOD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY

75

boundaries. In contrast, drinks can be shared much more widely. As Douglas herself puts it:

Drinks are for strangers, acquaintances, workmen and family. Meals are for family, close
friends, honoured guests. (Douglas 1975:66)

Of course, Douglass analysis does have its limitations. It refers to the practices of just one
upper-middle-class English family and so we must be very cautious about attempting to
generalize its arguments. A study based on participant observation of four English industrial
working-class families (Nicod 1980) found that the four families in question each had rather
different ways of drawing the boundaries of the family unit in nutritional terms. Looking at
three staple food items (potato, bread and biscuit), the relationship between intimacy and the
foods shared varied considerably from family to family. These findings suggest that while
families do draw boundaries with food; there is considerable leeway for each to establish its
own ways of expressing inclusion and exclusion. Moreover, as Lalonde (1992) points out,
Douglass structuralist analysis, by its very nature, is concerned primarily with describing the
structure of the meal-as-object. However, he reminds us that it is not simply the meals
structure which expresses its symbolic significance. The meal-as-event (as he calls it) is a lived
experience which draws its meanings from a complex array of sensory and cognitive factors,
factors which a structuralist account tends to neglect. Of course, while food consumption
patterns can be seen as highlighting the boundaries of the nuclear family, food and eating can
also act as linkages between the nuclear family and the extended family and, indeed, between
the nuclear family and the wider community. The use of food to articulate such linkages is
neatly demonstrated by an intensive study of two Italian-American families in an industrial
suburb of Philadelphia (Theopano and Curtis 1991). Through the use of participant observation
techniques the researchers were able to uncover the ways in which elements of Italian and
American cuisine were combined in this close-knit community, which they referred to by the
pseudonym Maryton. Their findings make it very clear that women bear the main
responsibility for sustaining domestic and social life and maintaining social networks. This is
borne out by the fact that, although over 80 per cent of the women observed were in full- or
part-time employment, they essentially held jobs rather than pursued careers, and their
main preoccupations were still marriage, maternity and domestic responsibilities. The authors
set out to show the ways in which the bonds of family and community are expressed through
food exchange by focusing attention on two particular women, whom they refer to as
Marcella and Anne. Marcellas social life revolves around an extensive network of relatives
and friends. She exchanges food and hospitality with, for example, her two sisters and her
brother (and his wife), with her three daughters and with certain intimate friends. The authors
describe a series of exchange events, including a buffet dinner for thirty people, the invitation
of her daughters fianc to dinner, the shared preparation of dishes with her sisters and, on
Easter Sunday, the serving of breakfastFOOD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY

75

boundaries. In contrast, drinks can be shared much more widely. As Douglas herself puts it:

Drinks are for strangers, acquaintances, workmen and family. Meals are for family, close
friends, honoured guests. (Douglas 1975:66)

Of course, Douglass analysis does have its limitations. It refers to the practices of just one
upper-middle-class English family and so we must be very cautious about attempting to
generalize its arguments. A study based on participant observation of four English industrial
working-class families (Nicod 1980) found that the four families in question each had rather
different ways of drawing the boundaries of the family unit in nutritional terms. Looking at
three staple food items (potato, bread and biscuit), the relationship between intimacy and the
foods shared varied considerably from family to family. These findings suggest that while
families do draw boundaries with food; there is considerable leeway for each to establish its
own ways of expressing inclusion and exclusion. Moreover, as Lalonde (1992) points out,
Douglass structuralist analysis, by its very nature, is concerned primarily with describing the
structure of the meal-as-object. However, he reminds us that it is not simply the meals
structure which expresses its symbolic significance. The meal-as-event (as he calls it) is a lived
experience which draws its meanings from a complex array of sensory and cognitive factors,
factors which a structuralist account tends to neglect. Of course, while food consumption
patterns can be seen as highlighting the boundaries of the nuclear family, food and eating can
also act as linkages between the nuclear family and the extended family and, indeed, between
the nuclear family and the wider community. The use of food to articulate such linkages is
neatly demonstrated by an intensive study of two Italian-American families in an industrial
suburb of Philadelphia (Theopano and Curtis 1991). Through the use of participant observation
techniques the researchers were able to uncover the ways in which elements of Italian and
American cuisine were combined in this close-knit community, which they referred to by the
pseudonym Maryton. Their findings make it very clear that women bear the main
responsibility for sustaining domestic and social life and maintaining social networks. This is
borne out by the fact that, although over 80 per cent of the women observed were in full- or
part-time employment, they essentially held jobs rather than pursued careers, and their
main preoccupations were still marriage, maternity and domestic responsibilities. The authors
set out to show the ways in which the bonds of family and community are expressed through
food exchange by focusing attention on two particular women, whom they refer to as
Marcella and Anne. Marcellas social life revolves around an extensive network of relatives
and friends. She exchanges food and hospitality with, for example, her two sisters and her
brother (and his wife), with her three daughters and with certain intimate friends. The authors
describe a series of exchange events, including a buffet dinner for thirty people, the invitation
of her daughters fianc to dinner, the shared preparation of dishes with her sisters and, on
Easter Sunday, the serving of breakfast.

THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF EATING

76

to daughters, grandson, daughters fianc and the serving of dinner to nine people. Annes
social network is described as more limited than Marcellas, with a strong emphasis on ties with
her two sisters, her two sons (one married) and her one daughter. She is also a close friend of
Marcella. Examples of food exchanges documented include participating in a celebratory meal
at her cousins home, taking dinner at her daughter-in-laws home, eating out (dinner) with
Marcella and inviting twelve people to her own home for Sunday dinner, including her son and
his family, two friends (Marcella and Andrea) and her daughters boyfriend (plus the two
participating and observing researchers, with one spouse and one child). The authors describe
the various forms of exchange which are being employed in such settings:

the exchange of hospitality (inviting guests and being invited); the sharing of non-mealtime
eating (snacks, etc.); the exchange of raw foodstuffs or cooked dishes (e.g., desserts);
payment for services with food, often in the form of the specialities of the giver; co-
operative provisioning and preparation of family dinners, celebratory meals, etc.

The reciprocity involved in these exchanges varies according to whether the relationship is
symmetrical (between social equals and members of the same generation) or asymmetrical
(where there are differences in status or generation) and according to the relationships level of
intimacy. It is also affected by the nature of the occasion, i.e., whether it is a recurrent event
(festivals, birthdays, etc.) or a milestone event (weddings, graduations, etc.). According to the
combination of these factors, the expectation may be for immediate reciprocity, long-term
reciprocity or there may actually be no expectation of reciprocity at all (see Figure 4.1). The
sheer volume of food exchange taking place in such close-knit communities is illustrated by the
fact that, in the course of the two-month period of observation,

FOOD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY

77

guests were present at food events on more than 100 occasions in Marcellas household. Over
the same period, Anne participated in sixteen food exchanges and had guests for thirty food
events. All this took place within a system of cuisine that was far from rigid, since what the
authors term menu negotiation produced variation from family to family and from year to
year. Thus, even in a community with a relatively distinctive cultural identity, reciprocity based
on food exchange does not necessarily rely entirely upon the persistence of a conservative,
ethnically marked cuisine. Even in the face of change and variability food exchange can play a
crucial articulating role. As the authors themselves put it:

Through the food system, women express and maintain their social positions in the
communityExchanging food in Maryton is a token of social bonding and integral to all social
interaction. (Theopano and Curtis 1991:171)

FOOD AND DIFFERENTIATION WITHIN THE FAMILY The quotation which rounded off the
preceding section emphasizes the positive aspects of womens relationships to food provision
and food exchange in domestic settings. There is, however, a more pessimistic view of such
relationships, which suggests that gender differentiation within the family in respect of food
preparation responsibilities and food consumption patterns can work to the disadvantage of
women. Indeed, it has been argued that in traditional societies there may exist significant
nutritional inequalities related to gender (and to age). An example of such inequality is
provided by a study of the foodways of the traditional peasant family in rural France by Delphy
(1979). Men, the author points out, customarily held a privileged position in relation to scarce
food resources, this applying particularly to male heads of households. Thus, butchers meat, a
relatively rare item on this traditional menu, was largely reserved for men or, if it was shared,
men were allocated the choice cuts. Indeed, traditional peasant culture characterized adult
men as needing such meat in a direct, physiological sense. In contrast women (plus the young
and the elderly) were not seen as having this need in the same way. What is more, men were
typically seen as requiring larger quantities of food than women, and one of the ways in which
this idea was justified was in terms of differences in energy expenditure. However, as Delphy
demonstrates, this notion did not rest on realistic calculations of energy expended in different
types of work but was, rather, related to the gendered nature of particular tasks. Thus, carrying
water (a task for women) was defined as light work, whereas carrying manure (a task for men)
was classed as heavy work. Interestingly, such attitudes were also applied to alcohol
consumption. Red wine was seen as making men strong, whereas a woman who drank this
beverage in quantity would be regarded with contempt (hence the saying, femme de vin,
femme de rien).

THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF EATING

78

These inequalities were woven into the very fabric of the rural culture. Thus, the young were
socialized into internalizing a whole range of food prohibitions and deprivations, such
socialization being backed up by a range of repressive measures and sanctions. Indeed, it was a
widespread cultural assumption that a chronic feeling of hunger was normal for children and
adolescents. Similarly, women were socialized into accepting the idea that they should
consume only meagre portions of the dishes they prepared, and into accepting that they had a
duty to provide the best food for others. Delphy contends that differentiation of this sort may
have produced significant nutritional deficiencies (especially of protein) in the diets of the
elderly and the very young, with consequent implications for general health. The impact on
adult women may have been compounded by the added burdens of pregnancy, and heightened
rates of infant and maternal mortality in rural areas appeared to support this contention
(Delphy 1979:223). The picture painted by Delphy is a bleak one, although she emphasizes that
the conditions she is analysing are specific to a particular historical period and a specific cultural
and economic setting. However, the question inevitably arises as to whether such inequalities
might be observed in more contemporary settings. Some significant insights into this issue are
provided by a comprehensive study of food and families carried out in the north of England
(Charles and Kerr 1988; Kerr and Charles 1986). The research project in question was based
upon a survey involving 200 women with pre-school children, and employed semistructured
interviews and entailed the completion of detailed food and drink diaries for a two-week
period. The studys aim was to examine a range of issues relating to food practices, but most
importantly to examine nutritional differentiation within the family based on gender and age.
As might be expected in this type of household (most were intact nuclear families with both
parents, and all had young children) the women had the main responsibility for buying,
preparing and serving food. Indeed, after the arrival of their first child, many had given up work
to devote their time to domestic tasks, and cooking skills, for example, were seen as crucial by
these respondents. A central finding of Charles and Kerrs study is the importance of the
concept of the proper meal. The proper meal, based upon freshly cooked meat supported by
potatoes and vegetables, was construed as fundamental to the identity of the family and to its
well-being. Indeed, the authors argue, the provision of proper meals (in their everyday or more
elaborate festive forms) was viewed by respondents as a key indicator of a proper family. This
underlying symbolic significance of the proper meal (readily described in terms of Douglass
A+2B formula) appeared to hold across social class divisions in the sample. Significantly, in
terms of our earlier discussion of Delphys arguments, Charles and Kerrs respondents reported
that mens tastes and preferences took priority over those of women and children. The
provision of proper meals, in line with the relatively conservative tastes of the husband, was
seen by wives as a way of showing affection, and as a device for retaining the husband as a
breadwinner and keeping