Eating on the Edge

Horwitz idea of “eating on the edge” is basically describing how traditional food customs are changing, things such eating three meals a day, where we are eating, and how these are changing over time and from country to country. For example, Horwitz uses soup and explains, “What was once an archetype of the commensal is now widely available in a variety of single-serving .” Horwitz is showing here how back in the day, soup was something that people would eat together, like at a family dinner, and how now soup is something that people eat alone on-the-go. Over time it has changed from a sit down group meal to a solo on-the-go meal. He also explains how the uses of things in situations change over time. Horwitz uses the example of the student eating in his class, he notes, “To the students’ utter astonishment, I told them that during my graduate school days students and teachers regularly smoked in class.” Back in his time, smoking was the thing that people would do in class not eating. But with time it has changed to people eating in class and not smoking.

I can relate to this through eating with my family. Whenever we are with my grandparents, it is a very formal meal. There are a couple courses and we all dress up for the occasion. We do this because this is how my grandparents were raised and how they eat throughout their entire life. My parents tell stories about how they would ware a suit and a dress to dinner, not because it was a fancy meal but that was what was expected of them to ware. Now, when we have dinner without my grandparents it is a very informal meal. We grab our own portions, have the TV on, and do not have to wait for the Lady of the house to lift her fork in order to start eating. In just one generation we have changed the way that we eat dramatically and are following the idea of “eating on the edge”.

SE3: The Language of Food

Bill Schaff

Professor Leake

Writ 1133

April 14, 2013

The Language of Food

            Food is used in our society in so many different ways that most individuals never even notice. People will go their whole life without making these connections that food has to the people around them and to the culture that they live in. There is clearly the obvious way that we use food, to be eaten, but it can provide us with so much more: things like a topic of discussion, setting the atmosphere of the room, determining how fancy a restaurant is, and most importantly is the language of the food. In the words of Massino Montanari, who write the book “Food is Culture”, to describe what the language of food means, “The language of food, unlike verbal language, cannot be left out of the concreteness of the object, nor of the intrinsic, in some way predetermined, semantic value of the means of communication.” Food is essentially a means of conversation that cannot change. Each food has its own specific trait and meaning that goes along with it that cannot be changed.

            At a restaurant called Moe’s Original BBQ, this theory that food has a specific meaning is clearly proven. Moe’s is a small BBQ restaurant and bar on Broadway St. It is a unique little restaurant that is divided up into two parts: a bar area and a leisure area. In the bar area there is basically a very long bar with one row of table behind it, dark walls with few pictures, and the lighting is fairly dim. One the leisure side there is a bowling alley, pool tables, a few dining table, blue walls, and it is fairly well lit. Looking at the bar side, everything going on was revolved around the food and drinks. Most people in the bar area looked like they had recently gotten out of work but were still dressed in the work attire. The only thing that they all had in common was that they were all eating either a pulled pork sandwich or ribs.

 These individuals were also sharing amongst each other what they were eating. BBQ food at this restaurant is associated with time that is used for friends and not home life or work life. Montanari has a good way to help understand this, “For example, coffee, a stimulant, can take on an antithetical social value when linked to the practice of relaxation, as with the pause for the ‘coffee break’ between two periods of work.” In her example coffee is associated with “break time” for these individuals whereas on the bar side of Moe’s, BBQ food is associated with “social time”. This language that BBQ food has is specific to BBQ food and is almost always used in this way.

            What really made this connection that food has with culture at Moe’s Original was when you compare the bar side and the social side. In both sides of the restaurant, food is used as a way for individuals to communicate with each other. Food at both the bar and leisure side of Moe’s Original was being used for “social time”. They both were using this BBQ food and interacting around it, both sides were sharing the food with the people around them. In one period of time in the leisure side there was a birthday party happening and food was being used as a way for everyone to communicate with. Everyone would take their turn bowling but would then return to the table in which the BBQ food was sitting at. Both sides used this BBQ food differently but also in the same manner, it was the BBQ food that was allowing this kind of social interaction to take place. The BBQ food is used for this kind of an interaction. If you look at the example with coffee, coffee is associated with “break time” not another king of drink. This trait is one that coffee mainly uses, the business man would not be having “break time” with milk because milk is associated with breakfast or family. This is very true with what is going on at Moe’s, the BBQ food is what is allowing this “social time” to be possible. For example, if Moe’s offered steak instead of BBQ, the same interaction would not be possible. People would not casually sit around a steak and share it with eat other the same way that you could with BBQ food. It is the traits of the food that determine what kind of an interaction will take place around it, each different food has a different type of interaction associated with it.

            All in all, food has far to many different uses and meaning to bring forward in such a short writing. But the most prevalent way that food is used is through its determined traits. Naturally, food that you can pick at like BBQ, fries, and chips will be associated more with “social time”. Coffee is associated with “break time”. Cereal is associated with “breakfast time”. Every food has a different but unique trait or quality that goes along with it that will determine the kind of interaction that people have with that food. It is the food that is creating the type of interaction between the people.

Works Cites

Montanari, Massimo; Sonnenfeld, Albert (Translated by). Food Is Culture.

New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press, 2006. p 93-97.

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/udenver/Doc?id=10183599&ppg=107

Copyright © 2006. Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

SE3 Sources

1) Is a journal called "Food, Culture, Society". This journal is a continuous journal that hits on a number of different topics on how food relates to a society. The part The I will use is the journal on gender and the food system. It talks about how men and women tend to order different things when eating and interact differently when eating.

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/journal/food-culture-and-society

Food's Different Meanings

From reading these two articles and knowing what role food plays in my life, I realized how differently across the country and world the roles of food is. For me food is a social time but after reading these articles I realize that food has so many more meanings to it. For example, as Cate mentions in her article, inmates in prison use food in a much different way than you and me would because they turn it into a spread. “Spread,” the generic term for these creations, describes the inmate-created foods most often built around a single ingredient, instant ramen noodles,” notes Cate. Inmates use spreads to recreate foods or foods textures that they do not get in prison. This is very different than the way O’Donnell explains how food is used in a Chinese society. O’Donnell explains that, “Shared meals deepened friendships, greased business deals, and reaffirmed hometown identities.” Food in this Chinese society can be used more as a way to interact with people in the community and in a sense can be used as a business tool.

What I found most interesting in the articles was how inmates in prison uses the spreads that they make. I would assume that they are making these spreads as a way to eat something different. I have personally learned from eating at Sodexo in the dining halls, which is the same food provider that many prisons have, that some days… well most days the food is not eatable. Most days I find myself trying to scavenge together the few things in the dining hall that look appetizing to have a meal. I assumed that this was the main reason that people in prisons did it as well but I was wrong. Cate explains that, “sometimes he simply doesn’t want to eat alone.” Inmates will make a spread and share it in order to talk to people, meet people, and simply so that they do not have to eat alone. 

Food Advertisements

Bill Schaff

Professor Leake

Writ 1133

April 5, 2013

Food Advertisements

            Food advertisements work in many different ways with many different meanings but every company uses advertisements to make their product look the best.Companies can do this by comparing their products to another companies to make theirs look better, talk about the amazing features in their products, and for food especially, companies portray how healthy their product is. A great company to look at the different kinds of advertisements, ones that work for and against them, is Burger King. Burger King portrays their food as cheep, great tasting, and high quality whereas many advertisements against Burger Kind show their food to be the complete opposite.

            Starting with an advertisement that Burger King made to positively show the Whopper.

First off, this advertisement is extremely simple. It is made to have your eye drawn directly to the center of the advertisement where the food is and where the writing is. As soon as you look at this add you see that the burger does not fit into the box and you see the text below it. The food and text are basically the only two things on the advertisement so people can quickly get the entire meaning out of it. Next is how this advertisement plays into gender roles. Typically an advertisement trying to focus on women will be light colored and have some sort of health related thing on the advertisement. This is doing the complete opposite. The black background with contrasting colors is playing to the roles of men. Typically men are not concerned with health qualities but rather a bigger bang for their buck. This advertisement is doing just that; it is showing men that by buying a Whopper they are getting more than if they would buy a Big Mac. The last main feature in the advertisement is how Burger King is putting them selves as better than McDonalds. By Burger King putting their iconic burger in McDonalds iconic burger box and showing that it does not fit really show how they are making their burger seem better. They are not directly saying that they are better than McDonalds but it is implied in the way that they have made this advertisement.

The next food advertisement is one that is playing against Burger King.

This advertisement is actually an online advertisement that is showing the actual verses advertised Whopper. This advertisement is a bit more complex than the last one but uses many of the same features. The first feature in this advertisement is what your eye is drawn to. Initially when looking at this your eye is drawn to the images of the burgers. Without any context you immediately think that the burger on the left looks much more appetizing than the two on the right. Then people will read the writing above the burgers and see that the burger on the left is the advertisement Whopper burger whereas the two on the right are what one individuals actual burger looks like. This advertisement is designed for mainly a shock and awe purpose. People are supposed to look at this advertisement and not want to eat at Burger King. The audience for this advertisement is basically anyone who eats at Burger King. It is out there to show everyone what Burger King is really like and why he or she should not eat there.

            Looking at both of these advertisements one thing clearly jumps out about food cultures and values in our society. This is the importance of pictures in advertisement. In both the advertisements for and against Burger King, pictures are mainly telling the whole story. They are what people look at first and they are what people will remember about that advertisement. If advertisements did not have pictures than they would not be as memorable or meaningful to their audiences. Imagine the second advertisement, the one against Burger King, with no pictures. The way that they would make the advertisements would be only with words. Words can paint a powerful meaning but it is not as lasting as a picture is. This advertisement would now sound something like, Burger Kings advertised Whopper: Large, Juicy, Fresh, Mouth Watering, and something that no American can live without. On the other side of the advertisement would say something like: Reality. Dry, Week Old Ingredient, Small, Appalling, Might Kill You. I have made an amateur sketch of what I think it would look like.

With out any pictures people cannot really get the full understanding of what the advertisement is trying to portray.

            All in all, food advertisements are something that we see on a regular basis. They are something that we interact with regularly and do persuade us on how we feel about that specific food. The main problem with food advertisements in today’s society is the advertisement versus reality. It seems like more and more these two do not match.