Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are.

It is not uncommon to connect healthiness to what you eat. This is commonsensical, of course, and not unlike what you might hear from your healthcare provider or diet book author. Whether warning the perils of unhealthy eating or lauding the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids, “you are what you eat.” Beyond health, I’ve anecdotally noted research-driven correlations between diet and academic performance, socioeconomic status, mental health, age, and gender. With this in mind, we could just as likely say, “tell me what you eat, and I will tell you where you are.” Recently, I have been reconsidering what I eat. In doing so, I’ve realized how much the food on my plate influences my interactions with and perceptions of the world. These reconsiderations (and corresponding actions) have been met with a variety of interesting exchanges about food, identity, and broader social issues.

It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind. Albert Einstein - Letter to 'Vegetarian Watch-Tower', 27 December 1930.

Food is material that when consumed results in an objective physiological response -- after I eat food I will digest it. Yet, food is not socially neutral and when the object of discourse is socially constructed. In reflecting on the construction of the social world, Potter and Wetherell (1987) consider the researchers job as the “investigation of how description and explanation are meshed together and how different kinds of explanations assume different kinds of objects or supply the social world with varying objects” (p. 52). I find this to be very apt when considering the role of food in our day-to-day practices and how these practices are fundamental to the construction of conflicting social and ethical realities.

Wiggins et al. (2001) provide a basis for how eating behaviors are achieved in interaction and “do” something to negotiate social positions related to health, body image, and preference. For example, rather than treating body image as fixed, individual, and cognitive, it is variably and discursively constructed during mealtimes. Methodologically, this work begins to move away from “objective” or “experimental” analyses of taste or preference via surveys or questionnaires. This work is helpful in building a solid foundation for my interests in food identity and ideology.

At this point, I hope to explore the connections between morality, ethics, logic, and food. Building on Wiggins and her colleagues, I conceptualize food choice as an integral construct of identity. For example, veganism is a lifestyle and ideology in which food choice is a primary identity marker. Outwardly, veganism is the avoidance of a particularly activity (i.e., the use of animal products). However, discursively veganism has a variety of other implicit associations both positive (e.g., animal rights, reduced carbon footprint) and stigmatic (e.g., physical weakness, morally judgmental). I am particularly interested in how these associations are used in conversation to rationalize implications of food choice.

This might be difficult data to gather naturally and in situ, as: a) individuals eating together are likely have broadly similar preferences and b) if not are unlikely to engage in ideological discussions about food choice. Snejider and Te Molder (2005) use discursive psychology to investigate moral logic used by participants on vegan discussion forms (disclaimer: I have only skimmed this article). By collecting online data, Snejider and Te Molder are able to investigate discourse around a particular ideological food choice. Yet, this work centers on the discursive practices of vegans or those interested in veganism. The next step in this work may be to investigate food choice talk between vegans and non-vegans. In such a context, participants may use different discursive resources than during in-group conversation. Moreover, I expect that the discursive performance of vegan and non-vegan, especially in relation to each other, will be politically, ethically, and socially motivated. I view one potential source for this data to be YouTube comments on polarizing videos about or relating to veganism. While considerations of theory and method in online data collection and use is for later, I see comments on YouTube videos as a potential source of naturally occurring asynchronous discussion in reaction to a specific ideological position. Just food for thought...

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage.

Sneijder, P., & Te Molder, H. F. (2005). Moral logic and logical morality: Attributions of responsibility and blame in online discourse on veganism. Discourse & Society, 16(5), 675-696. 

Wiggins, S., Potter, J., & Wildsmith, A. (2001). Eating your words: Discursive psychology and the reconstruction of eating practices. Journal of Health Psychology, 6(1), 5-15.