Food as a Social Connector

In American culture, we tend to see food as something related to the individual and her personal health. Food nourishes the body and perhaps even the mind. Food choice and taste in foods is very personal, with each person expected to have individual preferences rather than having tastes that reflect the entire culture. Similarly, in the Verma article, many of the Indian participants saw food as very individual, believing that individuals’ bodies could tolerate and accept different foods than those around them. People should listen to their bodies, then, when choosing food because the body will direct the mind to proper nutrients and foods that are digested well in their bodies.

Food can have more dimensions than the personal, however. In American culture, this certainly shows up when going out to eat. As noted in the Kniazeva and Venkatesh article, few people choose to go to restaurants alone, simply to eat the delicious food. However, in some cultures, the social dimension of food becomes so highlighted that it seems to surpass the individual dimension. In Williams’ article on migrant workers, he presents food, particularly tamales, as a social connector and negotiator, used to create networks of people on whom families can rely in times of need. Food, then, becomes more than just a source of nutrients, more than just a source of pleasure. The preparing and giving of food becomes a means for longtime survival and security more than immediate source of health. A family that gives tamales will receive something in return. Furthermore, the food culture is based more around particular foods than is represented in either American or Indian culture. While Americans eat a huge variety of foods, the Indians too accepted that individuals should have diets particular to their bodies. In this migrant culture, however, the rule was tamales for special occasions, tortillas for emergencies, and a fairly stable diet in between. Food here becomes not individual expression but social expression.

What place does this assign to the women, then, who make that food? Their roles go beyond simply feeding the family into the realm of building social bonds. Surely, they have literal power in the family because their efforts allow the family to survive. Yet their husbands do not seem to show much appreciation for the efforts, interpreting the food preparation as the duty of the women rather than a choice they make to help support the family. This attitude can be seen by the fact that a husband will divorce his wife for not making him tamales (and the women in the community supporting the husband in this situation). Nor do the husbands ever participate in the efforts to prepare the food, even though both the migrant men and women work long hours in the field. So does this food preparation actually signify an elevated role of women in the family or simply an exploitation of their labor? Do you think that their role in food preparation gives them prestige in the community and in their own families, despite the expressed attitudes? Could this possibly be seen as a position of power when women are essentially forced into the role of food-maker by social expectations?