SOS: ComAlt. Sarah Williams.
Seminar Response Paper. Wk 2.
Zoe Wright. 1/15/17.
Racial Indigestion and The Secret Financial Life of Food.
“However, in Racial Indigestion eating culture is also understood as a privileged site for the representation of, and fascination with, those bodies that carry the burdens of difference and materiality, that are understood as less social, less intellectual, and, at times, less sentient: racially minoritized subjects, children, women, and, at times, animals. Often referred to as ‘hyperembodied’ in this book, racially minoritized – mostly black and sometimes Asian – subjects are at times closely aligned with what we might think of as the bottom of the food chain.” (Tompkins, pg 8)
“I thought of the BLTs and cartons of Tropicana orange juice I’d consumed over the years. Although I had a vague notion of the agriculture and manufacturing associated with bringing food to the table, never before had I contemplated the secret financial life of my meals.” (Newman, pg 1)
“This is not a book on how to trade commodities; it is a book about culinary history and the role that the commodities market has played in shaping culinary history.” (Newman, pg 5)
“Panera Bread Co. has achieved a “no no list” goal first announced in May 2015 as its entire U.S. food menu and portfolio of Panera at Home products are now free from all artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners and colors from artificial sources, the company said Jan. 13. To achieve its goal, Panera reviewed more than 450 ingredients, delving several levels into the supply chain.” (Gelski)
I chose the lines from Racial Indigestion about ‘bodies that carry the burden of difference and materiality’ because in part of the words it used to describe the expectations put on those bodies by society, and because it seemed to be a good piece of foundation for connections to other thoughts on commodification and political economy. The words that I found interesting were hyperembodied and minoritized. I heard the word minoritized used by a speaker at the 2015 Diversity Conference at Olympic College. I don’t remember the content of the lecture exactly, though I’m sure some of the analysis and thoughts have stuck with me, but the word minoritized has stuck with me because of the richness implied in the word. It doesn’t feel like the description is static and unmoving, like saying that a person is a minority. It speaks to social and structural factors that keep people belonging to target identities from having the same advantage that a straight white cis male would have. The word hyperembodied was interesting to me because it made a lot of connections to sexism and media representation and the way people in the media are shown existing in their bodies.
I chose these two short sentences from The Secret Financial Life of Food because I thought they fit together really well and set up some interesting connections to think about. The connections I made in my mind to these quote have a lot to do with the discussions I’ve had with my family about food. There is a lot to be learned about which foods are seen in which way in the public eye by looking at the financial backgrounds of that food. Which foods are considered healthy at what time is heavily influenced by who is doing the research on those foods, who’s paying for that research, and how that research is being shifted into advertising. (Things like olive oil or milk are some things that have been heavily influenced those pathways.) Further, when the media attention a food receives moves from direct advertisement to product placement to popular culture. It becomes entirely ingrained into the culture of life, becomes taken for granted, and the validity of that value and placement is never questioned. This fits very well in with the type of analysis that is being advocated for in Racial Indigestion.
I attended a speech by Angela Davis several nights ago. There were several moments where she encouraged the audience to critically think about and question the things we take for granted most. Where she advocated the kind of education that stems from those inquiries into items we most take for granted. This relatively small note of her speech is very powerful when juxtaposed with the topics we’re beginning to study in this course.
I chose these lines from this media article about Panera because of its connections to this questioning of things taken for granted, and also the examination of what happens to food at various levels of production and why and what affect that has on the food itself and its nutritional and monetary value.
References:
Newman, K. (2013). The secret financial life of food: from commodities markets to supermarkets. New York: Columbia University Press.
Panera achieves “no no list” goal. (n.d.). Retrieved January 16, 2017, from http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Business_News/2017/01/Panera_achieves_no_no_list_goa.aspx?ID={EEE484BD-6D60-4EE3-900F-FBB4C719EE12}&cck=1
Tompkins, K. W. (2012). Racial indigestion: eating bodies in the nineteenth century. New York: New York University Press.
Hey Zoe, Shani here
I’ll preface with, I didn’t do the seminar assignment. However I do want to add to what you’ve shared.
“Bodies carrying the burden of difference and materiality”- I think it might be worth your time to read “Labor and the Locavore” by Margaret Gray. There she talks about the societal trend to externalize the true cost of food onto the food producers, and how this has been the case with American agriculture ever since European Agriculture was brought to the U.S.
I have five suggestions to Agriculture at large. One of them is a two-year compulsory service on a farm for U.S citizens doing whatever is appropriate for the person’s physicality. Maybe if people understood the true cost, including labor, of producing food, they’d be more inclined to pay a decent price for it. Compare shopping habits in America vs other countries in the world who spend upwards of 1/3 of their income on food, and you’ll start questioning America’s priorities. However making food more expensive to reflect the cost of labor, the external costs of transport and soil maintenance and shunting that true price onto consumers is not the answer- too many people would starve. Maybe it’s part of the answer, but what’s the rest of it?
Secondly, I want to address the “What foods are considered healthy” portion of what you’ve shared. Of course there’s the obviously unhealthy empty calories of monocropped corn- that’s an easy one. But what about food which attends to people’s cultural needs? You should read “Food, Genes, and Culture” by Nabhan- there he talks about the health problems that arise when groups of people don’t eat what they’ve evolved to eat, and how what they’ve evolved to eat is shaped by place and culture. The evolution of food and people correlate to the desired genotypes of both parties. For example, certain Native American groups are more susceptible to alcohol poisoning than their Euro counterparts because the Euros evolved with the alcohol, which during multiple stints in history, was cleaner than drinking water, so euros evolved a tolerance to large quantities of alcohol.
This all goes back to foods and what exactly dominates the food system. Who gets to decide what everybody should default to eating when they can’t afford something more appropriate? Should agencies be put in place to ensure people get culturally appropriate foods (as we’re seeing in the slow foods movement)? How do we pay for, or otherwise subsidize these efforts? Many things to think about.
Thanks for sharing.
Shani A
Thanks for those book suggestions, I’ll definitely look into them.
There really are many things to think about.