Mindful Eating: You Are What You Consume

Introduction

People say “you are what you eat” meaning that dietary patterns do determine the strength of health and quality of life in general. However, this phrase can also be an indirect indicator of one’s socioeconomic status since nutritional practices always reflect social inequalities and sociocultural differences. It often happens that people eat not what they want to, but what they can afford, and mostly, it is low-quality and low-nutritious food. This you are what you eat essay analyzes the impact of economic inequality on people’s nutrition practices. As well as the differences in the history of the formation of social groups and their eating habits. The approach of P. Bourdieu is used as the technical basis of the research. According to Bourdieu, the choice of nutritional practice depends not only on the person's taste and preferences but also on his social status and culture. In the field of social differences, nutritional practices form status and group identities that remain stable for a long time.

Social Differentiation and Classification of Nutrition Practices

Ancient medical and philosophical texts linked some eating habits to people belonging to different social categories, and this correspondence was considered so fundamental that eating “unfamiliar” food was interpreted as a threat to health.

In following social thought, the idea that 'man is what he eats' gained a social and cultural meaning. People began to be see nutritional practices as a degree of civilization, and therefore, the use of 'barbaric' or just wrong food was associated with the particular social characteristics. Then poor quality food consumed by the lower classes began to be considered as one of the reasons for their slow physical and mental development, leading to the acquisition of low status.

Sociology is far from making direct connections between social status, wealth, nutrition and eating habits but at the same time, these connections are definitely not denied. They are analysed carefully, because they are complex and open to different interpretations. In the well-known study “Distinction: Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste”, the famous French sociologist P. Bourdieu showed that food consumption and nutrition practices themselves are indirectly determined by material status as by the group’s habitus. Habitus can be explained as a system that reflects the formation history of some particular preferences : “Due to the fact that different conditions of existence give rise to different habits (…) practices generated by different habits appear as organized configurations properties expressing differences that are objectively inscribed in the conditions of existence in the form of schemes for differential divergence”.

Habitus form tastes that play a role as a guide when differentiating people. Therefore, the eating habits of groups that have different positions in the social environment reflect their preferences determined by their material capabilities, lifestyles and level of culture. Hence, it is safe to say that nutritional practices become symbolic markers of social positions.

The effect of habitus could be explained by the fact that nutrition practices are determined not only by rational choice but also by unconscious 'taste'. Due to the taste formed by the habitus of the group, the accessible feeding practices can be separated from the unacceptable ones at the level of the unconscious choice of what is “for me” and what is not. Similar practices, defined by similar tastes form a group identity and the distinction between 'one's own' and 'someone else’s'.

The cheap products are usually low in quality, nutrition, and purity but rich in harmful food additives and calories. The food options from stores that focus on low-income groups are not only cheap and low quality but also narrow in terms of range. For example, instead of fresh meat and fish, economy class stores offer these foods frozen and canned.

It is the poor social groups that maintain and preserve their habitus, because of the need to satisfy their saturation with cheap but high-calorie foods. Thus, since quality and healthy food often remains too expensive, low-income social groups have to consume what is affordable to them, and usually, the quality of such food is unsatisfactory.

For wealthy social groups, habitus is formed with economic opportunities and growing product ranges of high prices and quality levels, offered by the stores that target these groups. It is the quality of the products, their naturalness and purity, that becomes the main guide when distinguishing the eating habits of wealthy groups. Wealthy groups pay close attention to the components of the product, especially the presence of dyes, preservatives, other additives and GMOs. Rich people prefer to buy products that are grown organically and environmentally friendly. They even find and buy foreign products in order to eat good. Overall, wealthy groups value the access to clean and natural products which can not harm their health; thus, they choose the habitus following these principles.

It is among the wealthy groups that the “medicalization” of nutrition practices has developed the most. For these groups, nutrition should be “healthy,” in order to promote the preservation of energy and good body shape, which has turned not only into an aesthetic ideal but also into an important marker of social viability.

Nutrition and Social Classes

The process of social differentiation in the process of nutrition in the modern world is associated not only and not so much with class differentiation and economic inequality, but also with cultural inequality. Pierre Bourdieu describes how food space is divided depending on the amount of economic and cultural capital. He emphasizes that with an increase in incomes of the working classes (the so-called working aristocracy), their tastes and preferences do not change, they eat the same way as before. However, those who have a large stock of cultural capital with relatively low incomes, form completely different dietary preferences. For example, with the growth of economic capital, the movement in this “food space” (as Bourdieu calls it) goes from the complex “salty-fatty-heavy-strong-stewed” to “delicate-lean-light,” from bread and cereals to meat and fish. However, with the growth of cultural capital, in other words the level of culture, preference is given to “cultural consumption” - dishes of ethnic cuisine, so-called healthy products (fresh vegetables, fruits, juices, yogurt). From meat, preference is given to beef and mutton, in contrast to pork and chicken, which is preferred by working classes. The way of cooking is also changing - from stewed to grilled (which Claude Levi-Strauss called the noble way of cooking as opposed to the plebeian). Seafood and other delicacies are added to the fish. With the simultaneous growth of cultural and economic capital, food choice is transferred to the sphere of expensive restaurants (Michelin star owners), so-called healthy food, various rare and expensive products. 

The sociologists point out the food today is increasingly becoming a method of communication. It is said that in the earlier times, food only satisfied the biological need for nutrition, and now it is more about consumption of 'signs' pointing on the place in the social hierarchy. However, this is not the case: as before, even in the primitive world, food always meant something for people and society. Before people could be respected in the society if they eat the meat of dangerous carnivores as they believed that the courage and bravery of such animal are transferred to them. However, today people do not believe such nutrition-related myths; yet, they invented a set of new ideas about food and its ability to move them higher in society. Today’s 'respected' people belonging to higher classes, who pay close attention to proper and healthy nutrition, are concerned about the presence of chemicals and preservatives in foods. They also try not to exceed the allowed calorie intake to prevent overeating, which is known to be harmful. So even though the myths themselves are changing about food and nutrition, but their nature of being signs and symbols remains the same.

The modern world is full of food taboos which are related to numerous factors such as religion, science, and medicine. A significant shift in the religious attitude to food as a symbol occurred during the transition to Christianity: food suddenly started to play the role of sacrifice to the gods. However, science very quickly replaced the role of religion in food relations. New ideas started to arise about proper nutrition and diets (the so-called Mediterranean diet was widely advocated, which reflects the long-standing controversy over the food of the Romans and barbarians — butter vs. olive; pork vs. beef and fish; beer versus wine; “heavy” vegetables against greens). Eating became a scientifically based procedure in which medicine played a critical role: it proved the importance of counting calories, pointed out the right combination of products and their usefulness for health; compared cooking methods (boiled or steam vs. fried or baked). Therefore, religion, science, and medicine caused a huge impact on the formation of food taboos, convincing people to follow particular diet patterns and develop certain attitudes to some products.

Conclusion

Overall, the saying “you are what you eat” can not only be about eating habits determining the health and life style of a person. The saying should also be linked to one’s place in the social hierarchy since eating practices and social inequalities and sociocultural contrasts always go hand in hand. Also, the classification of nutrition practices based on economic inequality must be complemented by a complex differentiation of these practices based on different habits. Habits that formed the preferences of different groups and reflect the conditions of their formation and social being. These preferences are very stable and are reproduced even when the situations change. Bourdieu’s research has shown that with increasing wealth among representatives of the working class and the bourgeoisie, the nature of food does not change but its cost does, which reflects an increase in the quantity and quality of food consumed while preserving the same tastes and habits.

References

• Bourdieu, P 1984, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
• Gordon, D & Shaw, M 1999, Inequalities in Health: The Evidence Presented to the Independent Inquiry Into Inequalities in Health, Chaired by Sir Donald Acheson. Bristol, England: Policy Press. 
• Hupkens, C 1998, Social Class Differences in Eating and Drinking Behaviour: An International Study. Eburon Academic Publishers. 
• Hupkens, C 2000, Social class differences in food consumption. The explanatory value of permissiveness and health and cost considerations. The European Journal of Public Health, 10(2), 108-113. doi:10.1093/eurpub/10.2.108
• Maguire, JS 2017, Food Practices and Social Inequality: Looking at Food Practices and Taste across the Class Divide. London, England: Routledge. 
• Mahoney, C 2015, Health, Food and Social Inequality: Critical Perspectives on the Supply and Marketing of Food. London, England: Routledge.  
• Poulain, J 2017, The Sociology of Food: Eating and the Place of Food in Society. London, England: Bloomsbury Publishing. 
• Xu, Z & Zhang, W 2017, The Changing Pattern of Nutrition Intake by Social Class in Contemporary China, 1991–2011. American Journal of Public Health, 107(11), 1809-1811. doi:10.2105/ajph.2017.304001