You are here: RCHFD Home > Publications > Articles

Making a meal in the new Millennium

Abstract

The eve of a new millennium provides the impetus for people to pause and to take stock of their existence. To examine the triumphs and tragedies of history, to prophesise the future and to seek the reason for existence. Gastronomers are no different. The theme of this Symposium provides the necessary evidence. This paper picks up this theme and begins by examining the rise and current decline of centuries old food habits. Practices forged by an agrarian ancestry, eating tied to the seasons influenced by terroir and the product of localised effort. Later modified by the industrial revolution our food habits have remained relatively constant until the end of World War II.

In the last half of the final century of the millennium the pace of change began accelerating. Food habits that had stood the test of time began to breakdown to fit a post modem and post-Fordism world. Multi-national companies shape the new dining experience, a global cuisine for a global economy. A New World order is emerging disconnected with the past focused on the individual and their self-constructed identity. But despite the rate of apparent change our eating habits are still constrained by biological necessity and social construct. The omnivores paradox still underlies our eating behaviour. This balancing act is explored. Postmodern forces that shape our eating habits are analysed against the backdrop of the seemingly unconnected past. The paper will argue that each meal in the new millennium is the product of all preceding meals.

Making a meal in the new Millennium

One reoccuring theme at the tum of any year, decade, century or millennium is the desire to stand back and take stock, to locate oneself in the past, and gaze into the future. The theme of this symposium "The Pursuit of Happiness - from Colony to Republic" demonstrates that gastronomers are no different, they too desire the opportunity to stand back and reflect on the deeper meaning of life.

In an effort to move towards the conference goal of understanding Brillat-Savarin's third aphorism, "The fate of nations depends on the way they eat", an understanding of 'why we eat what we eat' in more general terms is warranted.

Beardsworth and Keil (1997) in their introductory text Sociology on the Menu start with the basic concept that humans in both biological and behavioural terms can be classed as omnivores drawing the required nutrients (carbohydrates, fats, proteins, minerals and vitamins) from both animal and plant sources. To date, this eating strategy has been so successful that humans have managed to colonise virtually every available habitat on the planet. This would not be possible for a species with a more specialised feeding requirement. Lyall Watson (1971) uses a colourful sporting metaphor to describe this survival strategy. For 2 billion years there has been a game conducted on Earth. The rules are simple:

"Teams are permitted to introduce any innovation that might give them a selective advantage over their rivals. They usually do this by getting one of their players to try out the new move or the new food first. If it works, the whole team will use it. But if it fails, only the individual player is penalised by being sent off the field. He is immediately replaced by a member of the opposing team. Cautious teams which refrain from making plays can profit from their opponent's mistakes in this way, but they can equally well lose by default and die of starvation. A season of competition may last a very long time, so in the end only the fittest team survive to eat at the top of the league table. There is no end to the game and no question of retirement. Champions enjoy the best foods and the title of top species, but they have to defend their table and their title all the time."

This game highlights the eating paradox we have to face to maintain a safe familiar diet, yet safely explore new food experiences. This phenomenon has been labelled by Claude Fischler (1980) as the omnivore's paradox. Beardsworth and Keil (1997) describe it as "the tension between neophilia, the drive to seek out novel food items, and neophobia, the fear that novel items may be harmful (Rozin 1976; Fischler 1980). Thus omnivores must successfully balance curiosity and caution". Many people, especially adults, are conservative in their approach to food, their choices governed by the prevailing cultural patterns and an individual's personal food experiences. Choices are narrowed down and finally they "lock in" to a set of expectations about what to eat and what to refuse.

It is at this point that the concept of a theoretical framework for analysing the factors which influence food choice is usually introduced into the debate.

Writers such as Murcott (1988), Symons (1991), Wood (1995) and Beardsworth and Keil (1997) provide helpful summaries of the numerous authors and their theoretical perspectives. The debate is often reduced to the simplistic Structuralism versus Materialism argument. Structuralists seek to look below the surface linkages into 'deep structures' to explain ho-v societies, social institutions and social action work. Usually the analogy is drawn between the examination of cultural phenomena and language, where a pattern of signs, symbols or codes underlie the surface meaning. It is the patterning of these that concern the structualists. Wood (1995) suggests that the problem with structuralists is that they:

"are too concerned with the 'here and now' and their analyses usually castigated for being incomplete and largely idealist, ignoring the biological imperatives underlying food habits (the need to eat to live) and the array of biological, geographical and technological factors that influence food supply, understanding of which is seen as necessary to any analysis of abstract 'symbolic' associations attached to food within a given social context".

Materialists who have been more widely accepted, on the other hand are more concerned with the historical evolution of food practices and preferences. This approach is in keeping with the biological imperative expressed in the omnivores paradox.

The debate however is more complex and interesting than this. The relative positions of the main authors are plotted by Wood (1995) and shown below.

Figure 1. Relative positions of radical and pragmatist contributors to the sociological analysis of food and eating by theoretical orientation.

For the purpose of this paper, however, the approach recommended by Goode (1998) will be followed.

"The tendencies to polarise social theory are among the profound dangers of any analysis. Hypotheses need to be elaborated in ways that are sensitive to research and not dominated, though they may be suggested, by the a priori demands of general theories elaborated in other contexts of social action. Any such approach as this runs the risk of being stigmatised as an unhappy academic compromise (Sahluns 1976) or as eclectic (Harris 1938; Sangren 1989). I find neither characterisation uncomfortable; the point is to make more sense of the universe in which we live. In any case I do not believe that in the end either utilitarian/materialists or culturists/symbolists can exclude factors that are exogenous to their initial precept." His suggestion to "set aside binary 'theoretical' statements" and examine food in a more particularistic form has merit here.

While the materialists credit the role of history, the evidence is that food habits remain relatively stagnant over time. This stagnation is evident from the development of identifiable cuisines. These cuisines are products of repetition of food use and cooking techniques that are tied to a sense of place. And despite the actual difficulty in defining a cuisine, Santich (1996) argues "like a soul, cuisine is not easily pinned down, defined and clarified". Rozin (1982) however, in her 'The Structure of Cuisine', does provide a useful analysis of the components of a cuisine:

"Culinary behaviour, or what we more commonly call cooking, is practiced not just occasionally or under special limited conditions, but with a frequency and a regularity that are true of few other activities. Yet, while all people do it, they all do it differently. Within the broad universal practice we call cooking, there is an almost limitless set of individual practices. People who define themselves as a group express or interpret the general human practice in their own individual terms, and it is this individual style or expression of universal culinary activity that we call cuisine. Every culture cooks, but each is intimately bound to its own unique and individual culinary practice. In order to assess the nature of the relationship between a culture and its cuisine, we must attempt to determine, if only at first in very broad terms, the specific acts and processes that comprise the activity of cooking, and to describe the salient choices of foods and manipulations involved in the formation of a cuisine. It is hoped that these seemingly simple descriptive elements will provide us with a preliminary framework of analysis for an extraordinarily rich and complex area of human behaviour".

What is important here is not the nuances of the debate of defining a cuisine but to recognise their existence. So how does a cuisine develop? The traditional approach is for food patterns to grow out of a peasant culture connected to the land. Where there is an ongoing struggle to overcome the seasonal cycle of feast and famine. The terroir shapes their food and the culinary practices. These practices can then be built on and modified as additional resources are brought to bear. However, as Revel observed, it must be the readily identifiable routine of the geographical region. This model of development of a food system is reliant on a "semi closed system" approach that has been the dominant model for most of history. With this reliance on people and their ideas being relatively stationary the sphere of external influence is thus relatively small. But even within this model food habits are modified and result in change not only with the cuisine but the development of others cuisines.

Within a culture cuisine is not homogeneous. Curnonsky, the French gastronome, recognised four distinctive types of cuisine to be found in France. There was the haute cuisine of the top chefs; the home-style cuisine bourgeoisie; the specialties of regional cuisines; and cuisine paysanne, peasant or impromptu cuisine (Santich 1996). Revel (1984) suggests that there are only two types of cuisine. Firstly an international cuisine that transcends national boundaries, driven by curiosity as its motivating force and appropriating dishes and techniques as necessary. Secondly, we have regional cuisine that is tied to a geographical place but is "obliged to remain routine and exclusive, finding its salvation purely and simply in the refusal to take into consideration any other register of flavours other than its own."

The major forces that shape the change in cuisines and food habits have been addressed by numerous authors from the various theoretical perspectives.

Stephen Mennell (1985) who draws his theoretical framework from the writings of Elias (1978) whose most significant contribution to food studies is the sociological comparative study of eating and taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the present. The central tenant of Elias's work is the concept that an extensive and protracted process of civilizing has been underway in Western societies for several centuries. One effect of this process has been the progressive movement in constraints on the individual. Initially external, the individual has moved towards the internalisation of these constraints. Mennell draws on this and labels the eating practice a 'civilizing of the appetite' and concludes that this process is responsible for 'diminishing contrasts and increasing varieties'.

Raymond Sokolov (1991) suggests that the explorer Christopher Columbus is the most important figure in the history of food. Responsible for opening up the New World beginning the trans-Atlantic exchange of foods and culinary practice. This bringing together of two hemispheres to the one table was a period of substantial change to eating practice. The extent of this cross fertilization is generally portrayed in the statement "Imagine Italy without the tomato". Dramatic as this particular change may have been, it is worth remembering exploration and trade has longer histories as a major influence of food habits.

John Fitzpatrick (1994) has picked up this thread of travel, trade and commerce at past symposia with the instance of developments in imperial Rome's food economy. Central to his argument is the complexity of the network of economic and cultural interchange tempered by the constraints of regional ecological determinants. Despite the complexity of these commercial influences they have endured as force in shaping foodways. Witness the following quote by Goode (1998) in his examination of French domination of English cuisine.

"Most of the accounts of French social dominance, whether in England or elsewhere, take their starting point as the Renaissance, or the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when French culture spread throughout Europe. But England had been influenced by France long before. When they invaded from the East, the Normans established a French-speaking aristocracy who supplied a model for the class behaviour. France provided a major route to the Mediterranean, the Ancient World, the Middle East and Asia generally. But in fact, Mediterranean products and influences did reach England direct; her ships went to trade for sugar in Sicily and later brought port from Portugal. In Flandrin's opinion, medieval English cooking was more influenced by Arab cuisine than was the French."

While there have been continuing changes in food habits these have been relatively gradual, although the sixteenth century saw substantial change. The pace began to quicken this century accelerating rapidly post World War II.

The triumph of the other opposing attitude to food neophilia "love of the new" is very recent and dates predominantly since World War II. While an essential strategy in Watson's (1971) game of life, Camporesi (1989) viewed neophilia as a relatively weak force within food habits which have always been subject to long cycles of slow change. An example of this can be seen in the acceptance of foods from the New World after the discovery of America.

The spurt of change Camporesi (1989) identified in the Italian culinary scene of Emilia and Romagna can be extrapolated to other areas.

"The causes lie in a vast range of diverse historical processes: progressive depopulation of the countryside, chaotic and hypertrophic development of the cities, profound social and economic transformations, immigration and ethnic mingling, new types and rhythms of labour, the disappearance of ancient trades, influences of industrial advertising and the mass media -- together with progressive modifications and alterations of the agrarian landscape and crops, and changes in the relationships between land and cultivation, soil and diet."

The world had changed dramatically from a series of "semi open" almost self-contained systems to a larger (global) open system. The effect and individual causes are explored by a number of writers. Comparesi cites the publishing of cookbooks as a method of unifying, codifying and homogenising what is eaten, especially amongst the bourgeoisie. Half a world away Appadirac (1988) documents the codifying of Indian cuisine in cookbooks aimed at the middle classes and the impact these texts have had in breaking down aspects of the traditional and complex food system.

These examples of the publishing media influencing food habits helps illustrate that the modem village is a global village. We live in a world driven by global capital, international markets, information technology, consumer culture and mass travel. Food habits are now shaped by the process of globalisation. Here Hall (1999) defines the concept of "contemporary globalisation 'refers both to the compression of the world and to the intensification of the consciousness of the world as a whole' (Robertson 1992), or 'time - space compression" as Harvey (1989) described it." While the process may have accelerated it has a long history. But how does this process influence our eating culture?

Hall (1999) identifies five components:
Globalisation and culture, Food and the Global-Local tension, Homogenisation or Differentiation, Traditions and Identities: Producing Difference and Changing Places / Changing Cuisines.

While these descriptors are beneficial, Warde's (1997) research (he inspected the food and recipe columns in women's magazines between 1968 and 1992 to determine change and direction in UK food habits since the 1960's) produced a more useful result: four antinomies of taste. "These oppositions - novelty and tradition, health and indulgence, economy and extravagance, care and convenience - are values which can legitimise choice between foodstuffs." These longstanding structural oppositions are useful not only Warde suggests, in relation to analysing food choice but equally in other spheres of consumption. "I maintain that these antinomies comprise the structural anxieties of our epoch: they are parameters of uncertainty, apt to induce feelings of guilt and unease."

It may be worth returning at this point to examine some ideas of the structuralists who, in their inquiry into the web of societal relationships and processes, tried to look below the surface linkages into the 'deep structures' which are thought to underpin them. The central figure of this approach in the realm of food is the French anthropologist Levi-Strauss. He set out to examine a wide range of anthropological material and ethnographic data in the hope that by understanding these surface structures a deeper underlying universal pattern could be found. Just as everyday speech is a culturally patterned communication system governed by an underlying system of rules, so too is food consumption. The best-known and most criticised example of Levi-Strauss's work is found in his culinary triangle. It seeks to explain in diagrammatic form the transition between nature and culture. But it is his earlier work on the comparison between English and French cooking that is important here. Viewing food as a system of communication similar to language, he saw that:

"Like language, it seems to me, the cuisine of a society may be analysed unto constituent elements, which in this case we might call "gustemes" and which may be organised according to certain structures of opposition and correlation. We might then distinguish English cooking from French cooking by means of three oppositions: endogenous / exogenous (that is, national versus exotic ingredients): central / peripheral (staple food versus accompaniments) marked / not marked (that is, savoury or bland). We should then be able to construct a chart with + and — signs corresponding to the pertinent or non-pertinent character of each opposition in the system under consideration."

This introduces "the word 'gusteme' as an analogy in the field of taste to the phonemes of language", (Mennell 1985). Building further on this concept the social anthropologist Mary Douglas believes that food can be treated as a code, and the message that it encodes are messages about social events and about social relations like hierarchy inclusion and exclusion boundaries and transaction across boundaries (Douglas 1975 in Beardsworth and Keil 1997). Using a scheme devised by Halliday (1961) one develops a framework of categories for describing eating.

Uppermost is the daily menu, below this the course, below this the helping and at the base, the mouthful. Beginning with a personal recount of her own family's food practices and what constitutes a "proper meal" she examines the complex application of Halliday's framework. In an effort to simplify the analysis Douglas contrasts two major food categories. Meals versus Drinks. While both are social events (she excludes here private eating) they are contrasting. "Meals contrast with drinks in the relationship between solids and liquids. Meals are a mixture of solid foods accompanied by liquids. With drinks the reverse holds," (Douglas 1975). Meals are more complex with names (Breakfast, Lunch) linked to the time of day, more structured and require more equipment (at least one mouth-entering utensil per head), table, chair etc.

There are also different levels of inclusion and exclusion. "Drinks are for strangers, acquaintances, workmen and family. Meals are for family, close friends, honoured guests", (Douglas 1975). These boundaries are made more complex by the factoring in of other elements. Place, temperature of food (cold food is less intimate than a hot meal) and time. The structure of the week provides diversity in the intensity of meaning, anchored in the social life of that week. Sunday lunch is the meal climax to the week, contrasted to weekday meals which have a simple one course tripartite structure of one stressed element (eg meat) and two or more unstressed elements (eg vegetables). The Sunday lunch picks up this structure and duplicates it across its two courses. Meals ordered on this tripartite structure can be extrapolated out across the week and year. (It is even worth noting a hamburger follows this structure.)

"The smallest, meanest meal metaphorically figures the structure of the grandest, and each unit of the grand meal figures again in the whole meal - or the meanest meal," (Douglas 1975). That is, each meal carries something of the meaning of other meals, a structured social event that structures other events in their own image.

In an effort to discover 'what we will eat in the new millennium' Douglas's notion of each meal carrying something of the meaning of other meals will be combined with Warde's four antinomies of taste.

As a vehicle for this investigation gastronomers have been selected as a population sample. Other population samples could have been similarly chosen to illustrate the principle. Four sample sets of texts representing four different time periods in the new and old worlds have been chosen. The sets are 1) the ancient world of classical Greece and Rome. 2) The world of Brillat-Saverin 3) 'Colonial' Australia 4) and contemporary Australia. The texts have then been subject to a content analysis in an attempt to record how 'gastronomers' responded to each antinomie. Criticism in relationship to methodology should be in context that this is only a pilot study aimed at exploring the possible relationships.

Presented below is a summary of the findings.

Novelty and Tradition

Novelty

Tradition

Health and Indulgence - Disciplining the body and pampering the soul.

Health

Indulgence

Economy and Extravagance

Economy

Extravagance

Care and Convenience

Care

Convenience as a theme does not rate a mention in the texts examined.

While each set of texts dealt with a different society the underlying values across two millennium that shape the gastronomers' eating are remarkably similar.

In choosing between novelty and tradition gastronomers actively seek out new foods, the cuisines of the other, they understand food habits are not static but agree not all change is favourable, history and tradition are important for without tradition we would not have developed regional cuisines and the range of quality regional produce.

The guiding values on the health or indulgence axis are easily summarised by reference to Brillat-Savarin's second and tenth aphorisms.
2nd "Animals feed: man eats: only the man of intellect knows how to eat".
10th "Drunkards and victims of indigestion do not know how to eat or drink".
One other aspect worth commenting on is the maintenance of a view by sectors of the community that a strong interest in food is in itself an indulgence (despite the quantity actually eaten).

A strong interest in food may be viewed as both an indulgence and extravagance but gastronomers seem to agree that good food does not have to be expensive. With knowledge and care you can eat well within your means. Eating cheap is not as important as eating well using quality seasonal ingredients that are full of flavour. You may pay a little more but the result is worth it. This message is one that is also commonly preached to others especially connected to a health message. Food is important; you must care about the food you eat. You owe it to yourself to think about ingredients - their quality, seasonally, place of origin. Prepared with thoughtful care food offers one of the essential pleasures of life. Gastronomers do not seem to care about convenience; they care about the thoughtful pleasure of table.

The concept put forward by Douglas that each meal carries forward something of the meaning of other meals seems justified. The plotting of decisions by one population (gastronomers) on Warde's four antinomies of taste made over two millennia help demonstrate that a deeper more constant value system is in place. The perceived pace of change and disconnectedness evident in our post-modem society does not develop as fully as may have been expected. Warde (1997) notes that:

"Commodity culture itself creates an illusion of rapid change because of its preoccupation with new products, which by their nature tend to be, in the field of food, either specific ingredients or composed dishes. In this respect there is much flux, but that should be viewed in the context of more profound continuity in other areas of food behaviour. Items purchased and dishes preferred have been subject to greater change than have the structure of meals, the rituals of the table, the social meaning of companionship, the allocation of domestic food tasks, or the social classification of what it is appropriate to eat. Some, especially the social practices in the field of food are more resistant to change than others."

Change itself has been a constant part of our foodways and gastronomers have played their part in facilitating change. Their contributions also help illustrate the paradoxes that influence foodways. The sense of tradition and maintenance of craft skills contributes to the preservation of regional cuisines but the neophilia aids travel towards globalisation and the development of a global cuisine. The push to both experience the 'new or the other' themselves and then to disseminate that experience contributes to the process identified by Mennell of "diminishing contrasts and increased variety." Food writing helps illustrate this point. At one level the writing opens up a wider range of food experiences for the individual consumer, while according to Camporesi (1989) and Appadirac (1988), unifying, codifying and homogenising what is eaten by the wider community. The semi-open system that once produced slow change in regional cuisines has expanded to encompass a brave new world.

A world that at the end of the millennium is post-modern and post-Fordist seemingly disconnected from the past is still concerned with the question 'what will we eat'? There is no use trying to step back and predict what will be served on the plate of the future. Especially in a world that worships the new. What is certain is despite the rapid appearance of change our eating will still be constrained by biological necessity and social construct. The omnivores paradox will remain, social constructs will remain shaped by the same core values expressed over the last two millennia. Each meal in the new millennium will be a product of all preceding meals carrying forward structure and meaning. Gastronomers will continue to indulge 'The Pursuit of Happiness' and find at least part of the answer at table.

Alexander, Stephanie, (1988) Stephanie's Feasts and Stories, A Susan Haynes Book Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Alexander, Stephanie, (1993) Stephanie's Menus for Food Lovers, Mandarin, Melbourne.

Apicus (1997) Cookery and Dining in Imperial Rome, ed. & trans. Joseph Dommers Vehling, Dover Publications, New York.

Appadurai, Arjun 1988, 'How to make a National Cuisine' in Comparative Studies in Society & History Vol 30 Issue I p3-24.

Balsdon, J.P.V.D. (1969) Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome, The Bodley Head, London.

Beardsworth, A. & Keil, T. (1997) Sociology on the Menu, Routledge, London.

Beckett, Richard (1984) Convicted Tastes. Food in Australia, George Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Brillat-Saverin, Jean-Anthelme (1970) The philosopher in the Kitchen, trans Anne Drayton, Penguin, Middlesex, England.

Camporesi, Piero (1989) The Magic Harvest: Food, Folklore and Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Dalby, Andrew (1996) Siren Feasts. A history of food and gastronomy in Greece, Routledge, London.

Davidson, James (1997) Courtesans and Fishcakes: The consuming passions of classical Athens, HarperCollins Publishers, London.

Douglas, Mary (1975) 'Deciphering a meal' in Mary Douglas Implicit meanings. Essays in anthropology, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Elias, N. (1978) The Civilizing Process, Volume 1: The history of Manners, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Fahey, Warren (1992) When Mabel Laid the Table: The folklore of eating and drinking in Australia, State Library of New South Wales, Sydney.

Fischler, Claude (1980) 'Food habits, social change and the nature/culture dilemma', Social Science Information, 19(6): 937-953

Fitzapatrick, John (1994) 'Authenticity and sustainability in historical perspective: Rome, Islam and Mediterranean cuisines' paper to the Eighth Symposium of Australia Gastronomy, Adelaide.

Goody, Jack (1998) Food and Love A Cultural history of East and West, Verso, London.

Hall, C. Michael & Mitchell, Richard (1999) 'We are, What we Eat': Food, Tourism and Globalisation' Paper presented to the 9th CAUTHE National Research Conference, Adelaide.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1961) 'Categories of the Theory of Grammar' in Word Journal of the Linguistic circle of New York, Vol. 17, pp241-91.

Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales (1985), Colonial Food & Drink - 1788-1901, Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales

Mermell, S. (1985) All Manners of Food: Eating and taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the Present, Blackwell, Oxford.

Montanari, Massimo (1994) The Culture of Food, trans. Carl Ipsen, Blackwell, Oxford.

Murcott, A. (1988) 'Sociology and social anthropological approaches to food and eating' in Sociology and social anthropological significance to food and eating, Bourne, GH. Karger, Basel Switzerland.

Muskett, Philip E. 1987 (1893) The Art of Living in Australia, Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst NSW.

Palmer, Arnold (1984) Movable Feasts: Changes in English eating-habits, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Revel, Jean-Francois (1984) Culture and Cuisine. A Journey through the history of food, trans from the french by Helen R. Lane, Da Capo, New York.

Ripe, Cherry (1993) Goodbye Culinary Cringe, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, NSW, Australia

Rozin, Elisabeth ( 1982) 'The structure of cuisine' in Lewis M. Barker ed, The Psychobiology of Human Food selection, AVI Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.

Rozin, Paul (1976) 'Psychobiological and cultural determinates of food choice' in Trevor Silverstone, ed Appetite and Food Intake, Berlin: Abakon: 285-312.

Santich, Barbara (1996) Looking for Flavour, Wakefield Press, South Australia.

Saunders, Alan (1995) A is for Apple, William Heinemann Australia, Melbourne.

Sokolov, Raymond ( 1991) Why we eat What we eat: How the Encounter between the New World and the Old changed the way everyone on the planet eats, Summit Books, New York.

Swinglehurst, Edmund (1982) Cook's Tours The story of popular travel, Blandford Press, Poole Dorset.

Symons, Michael (1991) Eating into thinking. explorations in the sociology of cuisine, PhD thesis, Flinders University South Australia.

Walker, Robin & Roberts, Dave (1988) From Scarcity to Surfeit: A history of food and nutrition in New South Wales, New South Wales University Press, Kensington NSW.

Warde, Alan ( 1997) Consumption Food & Taste, Sage Publications, London.

Watson, Lyall (1971) Omnivore: Our evolution in the Eating Came, Souvenir Press, London.

Wood, Roy C. (1995) The Sociology of the Meal, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.