Roland Barthes states the different ways food is used in the eyes of psychosociologists and historians, not just economic. It starts out by looking at sugar. Why doest he U.S. consume twice as much sugar as the French? Psychosociologists would look at the relation between the standard of living and sugar consumption. Where as historians would want to know how sugar has evolved into the American culture. M. Perrot has also found that changes in taste have had more of a change in the middle-class food habits then economic factors. It has also been found that what makes food exclusive are not necessarily the costs, but mostly how it can be used and the result after preparation. Taste, and not money, also contributes to whether the food is in a certain social group. For example, lower-income persons like sweet where as upper class prefer bitter.
Barthes claims that our entire world is involved around food. Advertising plays a major role in what we eat with three themes. First, each food has a function. Second, there are feelings of inferiority are attached to certain foods so people try to stay away from them. And third, how healthy the food is, based on modern nutritional science. Food is also a way to show power, what you eat has a significant effect on your social status. Food is no longer just for nutritional value; Barthes believes that it will soon have more and more functions.
Summary Redone:
ReplyDeleteRoland Barthes argues the different ways in which food is used. He shows that the food market is not only important to economists, but to psychologists and historians as well. Psychologists may want to find the relation between the standard of living and sugar consumption. While historians may wonder when and why sugar was involved into American culture. Barthes also brings up an interesting point when he brings up being “faithful” to a certain brand for numerous reasons when in reality there is little difference between that brand and one of its competitors. Food also serves as a social status for those in society. Bread for example, it is obvious that wheat bread is for the more elite because it has been transformed from white bread. It is the transformation then, rather then the food itself that makes it more exclusive, how the food is ultimately prepared.
Barthes explains how certain “tastes” can also show the difference in income levels. For example, he argues that low-income households prefer sweet while the upper class prefer bitter. Whether it be dealing with their food preference or even their perfume. He brings to point that the entire world is signified by food and that advertising provides us with a way of thinking of certain foods. He then gives food three themes. The first assigns a food a function, second he claims that food has certain attachments and to it, such as masculine and feminine, thanks to advertising, third, is the relationship between and food we it and its health value.
What we eat, he explains, is a representation of our different lifestyles. Our work, sports, effort, celebration, all reflects on the type of diet we have. He fights that food has two values. Not only for it’s nutritional value but also for it’s protocol,