1: The Social Construction Of Taste
It has been argued that taste is socially constructed. While man is capable of eating many things he nonetheless adheres to cultural rules that instruct him in what to eat, how food is prepared, times and places in which eating is accepted, and even the way in which he must consume food to meet the norms of society.
"Society" however is a broad amalgam of culture, religion, class, gender, and other factors that define an individual in its context, and taste and preferences can be different even within members of a family. But in general, an individual's choices are constrained by society, in both direct and indirect methods of influence. However, this author intends to focus specifically on arguments concerning the influence of social class.
Bourdieu and the social construction of taste
Pierre Bourdieu, a French sociologist, took interest in the way in which food factors into social distinction - the attempt of an individual to behave in a way that causes others of a given class to accept him as one of their own, and the way in which a class consciously tailors its consumptive habits to differentiate themselves from others.
For Bourdieu, taste is not a matter of mere preference or natural inclination, nor the effect of supply and demand, nor even a consideration of economics or functionality, but a complex interplay of multiple factors.
Habitus
In the context of sociology, "habitus" refers to the lifestyle of a distinct group of people that are demonstrated in the routine activities of daily life, adherence to which defines an individual's affiliations in the social world. In particular, it pertains to natural behaviors rather than affectations, though there can be some argument that a behavior must be effected for some time before it becomes natural.
Bourdieu's concept of habitus is entirely lacking the notion of self-conscious and tends to ignore that habits may be affected or purposefully adopted by an individual. Instead, his conception is that habitus is acquired through being immersed in social activity - it is taught by parents, learned by peers, and otherwise inflicted on the individual from outside.
Habitus is in that way the natural way of acting, from which we may deviate in certain situations, to which a person is predisposed to make certain choices. It is not a matter of deliberation or compulsion, but merely choosing to do what seems obvious and reasonable under normal conditions.
One of the main factors in the development of habitus is social class, and the associations to others within a closed group - as such it is not impossible that a common laborer may develop a taste for caviar, but it is not something he is likely to encounter in interacting within his own social circles because it is not available to those of his income level.
There is also some reference to Marx and Weber, whose perception of class struggle requires an individual to model behaviors appropriate to his class and revile those that are characteristic of other social classes. Going back to the laborer, it is not appropriate to his class to consume caviar - such that it would not occur to him that he should try it, and nor would his class-inappropriate behavior be well-tolerated by his fellows.
Non-economic capital
(EN: I'm not entirely comfortable with the way in which the author bandies about the term "capital" in this passage - he has the vague sense that the term pertains to something valuable or important to an individual, but it's clear he doesn't quite understand what the word means, particularly in its economic implications. My sense is that he has a valid point, but uses the wrong terms to articulate it.)
When "capital" is considered in an economic sense, it pertains to things that have a monetary value, a worth that can be converted into cash for the purposes of trade. But an individual places value on things that are important to him, in terms of his emotion and self-esteem, that are not fungible.
Cultural Capital
"Cultural capital" pertains to the individuals knowledge and familiarity with a given culture, as well as their possession and consumption of cultural products. That is to say that an individual who is able to appreciate fine art, opera, and wine finds value not only in the experience of those objects, but his own ability to appreciate and use them appropriately - and this quality of his character contributes to his self-esteem as well as the way he believes himself to be regarded by others.
In this sense, "culture" is generally considered to be the tastes and habits of wealthy social classes - but individuals also place value on their conformity to the culture of the lower classes. (EN: Consider the taste for country-western music - it is not highbrow and is often contemptuous of the wealthier classes - however a person who listens to this genre, or is seen by others to be a fan of the genre, enjoys associating and being associated to the rural working class.)
There's an aside that considers how culture is cultivated - a person is not born with specific tastes and preferences but learns them over time. He may gain these proclivities by happenstance of his environment and acquaintances (the parents of a middle-class child instill their child with values appropriate to their class) or he may seek to acculturate himself by learning to appreciate things that are indicative of a class to which he wishes to project, whether or not he has attained it (consider "art appreciation" classes in college teach base-born individuals to adopt the tastes of the social or intellectual elite).
A person who is cultivated often considers this distinction to be natural, a virtue of their social class - which feeds into the mentality that suggests that the wealthy are innately better than the working classes by their nature rather than nurture. The lower classes of society "lack the necessary nature" to appreciate the finer things in life.
Symbolic Capital
"Symbolic Capital" refers to the function of culture as a means to exhibit social class - that is, whereas cultural capital pertains to the individual's appreciation of culture, symbolic pertains to the way in which that appreciation sends a signal to others. When a person is seen to exhibit tastes and preferences - others see the car they drive, the clothes they wear, the things they eat, the places they go, etc. - their possession and consumption of cultural products conveys an impression of their social class.
(EN: And in that way conspicuous consumerism is an intent to communicate to others by way of consumption - and again, it may be commonly perceived as projecting an image of "better than you are" it is also possible to project an image of "such as you are" or even "worse than you are.")
The value of symbolic capital, as with the value of anything, is subjective. An individual habitually consumes the cultural products he feels are of value, and when his consumption is conspicuous, he presumes that his audience recognizes their value as well and grants him esteem for his consumption of them. But whether he is successful in gaining that esteem depends on whether his presumption is correct. Symbolic value is gained in a similar way by the affected, rather than natural, consumption of cultural products to gain a desired level of esteem.
(EN: Here, my mind turns to Sartre's notion of "bad faith" in which a person adopts a posture because of his assumptions of the perception that others will have. This is most obvious when a working-class individual exhibits the manners of the social elite, but it is also true when the social elite exhibit the manners of the social elite, putting effort into being perceived as they actually are by means of doing the things that someone of their class ought to do.)
(EN: Another thing that occurs to me is that posturing is often considered solely as ambition - the lower classes posing as members of the upper class. But it is also possible, and not entirely uncommon, for a member of the upper class to pose as a member of the lower class to make himself accessible and acceptable to the hoi polloi. Much in the way that you would not wear a tuxedo to a bowling alley, you would not attempt to discuss philosophy or opera with a group of working-class individuals.)
Exchange Value of Capital
The author recognizes that capital has exchange value. In the economic sense, an item has an intrinsic and nonmonetary value to the individual who possesses it and enjoys its use, but also a value in terms of its ability to be exchanged for other items.
The author suggests that cultural, symbolic, and economic values are interchangeable. The ability to spend economic capital to purchase artifacts that grant a person cultural and symbolic value is straightforward enough - a person can purchase a suit of clothes and a vehicle that grant them esteem in the eyes of others, or a person can pay to take a class to teach them to appreciate cultural products.
The exchange of symbolic or cultural capital for economic is far more vague and tenuous. A person who projects themselves as being higher class gains greater trust and goodwill with members of that class, and arguable better access to potential for economic gain (better consideration for employment, better changes of entering into economic exchanges such as selling products to the members of a given class).
(EN: This is likely where I have difficulty accepting cultural and symbolic values as being "capital" - my sense is that it is more in the nature of packaging than product. The esteem a person is granted by virtue of their perceived social class facilitates transactions, but is entirely peripheral to the transaction. You do not trade the fact that you enjoy playing golf, but the fact that you seem to enjoy golf makes it more likely that the country-club crowd will be willing to talk business with you. And in that sense, you get the same access to lower classes by pretending to appreciate the things they value.)
Strategies of distinction
Consumptive habits are this a method of social distinction, with some of the fiercest conflicts occurring among groups that border one another. Tastes are socially constructed - an individual choose to consume that which pleases only himself in a private setting, but in public he is pressured to conform to the social group to which he belongs. Those who wish to control society seek to control the tastes of others.
(EN: I've also observed the psychological need for validation - that a person becomes uncomfortable when people do not like the same things he likes. Consider the conflict among religions, and the inability of some religious groups to tolerate the notion that anyone would have different beliefs. It is as if to say "my way is best, but in order for me to be secure in that conclusion, you must also demonstrate that you also value my way by not being different.")
It is suggested that the lower classes do not have the capital resources to take part in these struggles - they cannot afford to use consumption to posture, but make the choices that they make out of economic necessity. "Vulgarity" is by definition the tastes of the working class, which are indiscriminate.
Bourdieu reserves a particular contempt for the middle classes for their lack of cultural authenticity. That is, the rich and the poor develop their habits by virtue of their experience and their signals are genuine expressions of themselves, whereas the bourgeoisie are more disingenuous in the way they adopt or model cultural tastes to differentiate themselves from the lower classes and gain some semblance of the upper, ever conscious of their rank within society, and never at ease with being such as they are.
The phenomenon of dining out is particularly demonstrative of this: the middle classes routinely avoid being seen in low-class eateries, but aspire to copy the choices and behaviors of the upper classes to the extent that their limited resources will allow - even though they may be uncomfortable with the table manners and struggle to enjoy the food.
The lack of economic capital also means that dining out is an activity they can enjoy only occasionally, and are likely to save their capital or take on debt in order to dine in a "better" restaurant on special occasions or when there is a psychological need to feel better about themselves. This is different to the kind of dining experience they seek for themselves, out of genuine motives, on a regular basis, in which their behavior in consuming food is more utilitarian and economic in its motivations.
The wealthiest classes, by contrast, have the capital to enjoy the better things in life. A meal in a restaurant that is only occasionally possible for the middle class and utterly impossible for the lower class is of little financial consequence to them, and they may dine at an upscale restaurant out of convenience because the price is negligible. It is not significant either as an expense or as an event to do so.
It's also notable that luxury, the demesne of the upper class, depends on rarity and exclusivity: an item is only a mark of distinction if it is unattainable by others. As such, when a good is available in greater quantity and at a lower price, it loses its value as a distinction.
(EN: Consider airline travel - particularly the sense a few decades ago that being among the "jet set" was a mark of social distinction, whereas in the modern world airline travel is affordable even to the lower classes and it has lost its prestige.)
(EN: It's also worth considering that this is a natural consequence of economics: if something is in high demand, someone will find a way to supply it even at a lower price, such that a good that was once expensive and difficult to obtain becomes available more broadly and cheaply and loses its prestige. It is not a matter of class warfare, but a profit motive that leads suppliers to make goods more accessible to more consumers. It is also recognition of this fact that leads luxury brands to refuse to produce in quantity or lower price in order to retain their cachet.)
Relating this to the restaurant industry: the appeal of a trendy, new restaurant is often its unavailability: it is hard to get reservations and the price of service is high - and as a result the middle and upper classes delight in being seen at such a place because it supports the notion of their social superiority to others who do not have the resources or guile to secure a reservation.
The construction of culinary taste
Bourdieu uses this theoretical framework to explain the ways in which culinary taste is socially constructed through habitus: that even in the absence of an established culture people in similar circumstances (economic and geographic, particularly) fall into similar patterns merely by doing what is convenient and sensible, and these patterns become norms that are culturally distinctive, shaped by the opportunities and constraints.
In terms of dining, patterns emerge by habitual behaviors. In the absence of culture: The selection of ingredients is guided by their availability in a given location, and its preparation and consumption is influenced by the space, particularly within the dwelling, as well as the habits of the people.
Consider that restaurant culture is distinctly urban and industrial in its origins: restaurants emerge because the premium on space leads to small dwellings that do not provide adequate facilities cooking and dining in the home, because people in an industrial culture cannot devote time to the act of cooking or to learn the skills to perform it, and foodstuffs are imported because there is no space to cultivate fields and gardens in an urban environment. And in cosmopolitan environments, the people who come to the cities bring with them the tastes and habits of their location of origin, and the price they will pay to import exotic goods (which are common goods in their point of origin) in general elevates the price of food.
However, some of the most distinctive differences in tastes of food have more to do with the tastes of luxury than the tastes of necessity. The tastes of necessity derive from practicality and efficiency - whatever is available on a regular basis to satisfy the basic need for nutrition - and this tends to fall into a regular and widespread practice, such that a grain such as rice becomes a common component of many cultures. People will occasionally pay a premium for an unusual experience, seek to experience it more often, and it will eventually become ingrained in the culture as an everyday item. It is these unusual tastes that are occasionally sought that form the most significant differences among cultures and economic strata of societies.
The author presents a list of factors that shape the taste for food and the ability of individuals to indulge their fancies:
- The availability of ingredients (meats versus grains, additives such as sugar and spices), including availability at given times (due to seasonality) and location (due to transportation and storage)
- The economic adorability of ingredients to a given person or class of people
- The knowledge of food options (e.g., a traveller knows of foodstuffs not typically consumed in the local area, a person who reads about other cultures becomes aware of these choices)
- The development of an individual's palate, and the degree to which he enjoys or dislikes specific tastes
- Genetic factors such as food allergies or the acuity of taste
- The time that can be devoted to preparing and consuming food, which impacts both the kind of foods that can feasibly be prepared (some foods take a long time to cook, some recipes are complicated, and a meal may consist of multiple courses only if the diner has time to consume them)
- The time devoted to learning the skills to prepare food
- The availability of facilities and equipment to prepare food
- The esteem or disapproval of others at the notion of consuming specific food, or dining in specific ways - including both secular and religious norms and taboos
- The psychological inclination to seek or avoid the unfamiliar
- The need for nutrition, subject to both physiological and cultural influences in determining what is necessary or adequate
Another illustration (Bordieu's "food space map") is presented that attempts to use a two-factor X-Y graph to depict six factors that influence food choices (cultural influence, economic ability, time available, status of consumption, etc.) (EN: The depiction is naturally incomprehensible, and does not seem to contribute anything that is not mentioned in the previous list.)
The overall message here is that an individual's choice in food is subject to a myriad of factors that may differ over time and by situation - hence we can make general observations but not adequately describe or accurately predict food choices in aggregate.
Alternative explanations
In recent years there has been criticism of the argument that class is a determinant of tastes, particularly in the egalitarian west where there is general resistance to the very notion of social hierarchy.
One set of arguments is that tastes have become standardized as a result of cultural communication, democratization, and industrialization. While it remains true that the economically disadvantaged cannot afford items of quite the same quantity and quality as the wealthier classes, they can obtain some facsimile - e.g. a poor man can purchase caviar once in a while and it may not be quite as good as that which a wealthy man enjoys more regularly, but the difference between cheap caviar and expensive caviar is negligible, especially considering that a century before the poor man could not get it at all.
It's also suggested that in the present society people are more individualistic and, instead of seeking to conform to the standards of a group (class, race, gender, or whatnot) instead seek to establish their own identity independent of these outdated categories. In effect, there is no longer a rigorous concept of what "a middle class" person should consume, so he makes his own choices. (EN: This corresponds to tendencies observed in Generation X, but the Millennial generation has reverted to placing primary concern on what others think and as such look to define themselves as members of a group and tailor their behavior accordingly.)
Standardization
In the present day, standardization of products is born of a desire for efficiency in mass-production, but prior to the Industrial Era it was a means of cultural control. It is with some irony that there is harsh criticism of standardization and the development of mass culture in the present day, when it is merely a continuation of previous practices, merely on a grander scale.
In effect, it is not an objection to standardization, merely a power struggle over which individuals set the standards. The effect of standardization, on any scale, is the removal of options for consumers. One cannot satisfy or express aesthetic values or demonstrate discriminating tastes if the options are limited to a few choices.
(EN: It is also worth noting that industrial and commercial standardization is done with the full consent and participating of consumers in the market. In choosing to accept a standardized product, rather than insisting upon and being willing to pay for something more suitable to their tastes, the consumers have given their consent to standardization.)
In the age of mass-production, distribution, and marketing the producers of goods and service benefit from the efficiency of producing uniform products that can be sold to a large number of people. It has been argued that this provides mass-producers with a competitive advantage over the manufacturers of customize goods, in that the additional margin grants them greater ability to underprice their competition, greater ability to increase the size of manufacturing operations, and greater ability to reproduce retail operations.
Taste is socially constructed, but through the options available to satisfy and express taste are said to be limited by suppliers of uniform food products and services. (EN: To my original point, this is supply-side economics which pointedly ignored that the customer is in control. Suppliers have no ability to force anyone to buy from them, and seek to cater to the desires of buyers. If there is any criticism to be leveled, it should be at consumers who sacrifice individuality to save on cost.)
There is particular consternation for the quick-service industry, chiefly McDonald's restaurants, for reducing cuisine to the lowest common denominator of standards in taste and quality. There is also some acknowledgement that many people, particularly among the lower classes, will accept a standardized product, and those who favor collectivism find that standardization fits their distorted view of egalitarianism.
This is not only true of McDonald's, nor only true of chain restaurants that strive for consistency. Because of their reliance on the same supply companies, many span and independent restaurants offer very similar fare. Particularly when independent restaurants rely on processed foods (sauces and vegetables that are heated and served) for efficiency, the fare they offer becomes distressingly commoditized.
Logistics are also mentioned: ingredients can often be purchased locally when they are in season, but when they are out of season many suppliers order from the same industrial farms in the southern hemisphere. It's also been suggested that reliance on industrial agriculture has led to fewer domestic suppliers as well, as the efficiency of mass-production underprice independent producers.
There's a brief mention of standardization in the home kitchen as well: there are generally only four or five brands for many major ingredients (such as canned tomatoes) and supermarkets are reporting higher sales of pre-prepared meals and processed ingredients.
Those customers who have the desire an means to seek a non-standardized food product have shown some interest in "expensively imported" ingredients, and there is a trend of some products to sell higher quality foods at elevated prices. But even so, supermarkets sell mostly the "leading" brands, and in terms of the exotics, they often provide premium brands from the same providers.
But strictly speaking, food has lost its locality and exclusivity in pursuit of the mass market, severely limiting the options that are available to the consumer.
In the United States there is currently a cultural fascination with food, with multiple television channels, magazines, and websites devoted to the subject - but it is arguable whether this is a means of escaping the doldrums of commoditization, or the act of commoditization itself into a limited number of categories. There is an increased demand for quality, but masses of people demanding the same quality merely elevates the standard, and does not reverse the process of standardization.
Globalization is also a factor of questionable influence. On one hand it makes available more culinary choices, but standardizes the choices themselves. Witness the spread of Chinese cuisine in the United States, which was once exotic but has by the present day become commonplace - and more, the menus of Chinese restaurants across the nation are highly standardized in terms of the selections offered and the quality of those selections: sweet-and-sour pork is available, and prepared much the same way, in thousands of independent restaurants.
Conclusion
All of this considered, there is some argument that even though culture and class was once influential factors in the distinction of taste, they have largely lost their relevance in contemporary society, as flavors are being standardized and commoditized, the taste of the people are also being eroded and their choices constrained to fewer and fewer options.
However, there is evidence that this is not the sole trend. There are countertrends that demand quality and variety, and a general sense that the desire for standardization is a fashion that, like any other, will wax and wane, such that standardization is unlikely to become or to permanently remain a dominant influence on the development of culinary taste.