Final Edited Post- Food, Sociality, and Sugar

In chapter one of Sweetness and Power, the discussion highlights themes of global diversity and the similarity of humans based off elaborations of, not only the foods that people consume, but equally, the importance of how they are consumed. We are a species that thrives on cultural structures and developments. On page 4, Sidney Mintz mentions Robertson Smith who studied the social aspect of eating, bringing up this concept of ‘breaking bread.’ I found Lorna Marshall's description of the !Kung's eating style a strong example of the social side to eating. Marshall reports that the !Kung gave away their prized meat once they successfully hunted it,  making it seemingly more important to give back to their community before themselves. I think it is interesting to compare to our own society today and see in what ways social eating has developed. Marshall mentions that "the idea of eating alone and not sharing" made the !Kung "shriek with an uneasy laughter." In this hunter-gatherer community and lifestyle "breaking of bread" was wholly important, almost the fundamental purpose of eating besides nutritional survival itself. The !Kungs’ experience of sharing meat was “a natural occasion to discover who one was, how one was related to others, and what that entailed.” To some extent in the United States we have overcome that, food becoming about pleasure, through fats and sugars, and about survival- community relationships completely left behind.  

Sugar went from being an unknown substance to a common food of English nobility within about 700 years. Sugar soon became “nearly one-fifth of the calories in the English diet,” by the 20^th century. Mintz goes on to make the very valid point that “when unfamiliar substances are taken up by new users, they enter into pre-existing social and psychological contexts and acquire—or are give – contextual meanings by those who use them.” This statement argues that the consumption of sugar did not just relate to personal preference for the taste, but rather represented a greater social significance. Sugar is in this sense a perfect example of diet being a group quality not an individual one, once again tying consumption to a social experience. Sugar for the English fit itself into society through the common intake of tea and coffee, an already quite social practice. Once sugar was established as a product of the upper class, a foreign and exotic good, the demand began to spread and trickle downward to the lower classes with comparably plain diets.

The other part of this chapter that really stood out to me Audrey Richards account of the Southern Bantu people. The book points out the concept of a ‘preferred starch’ and the preference for Ubwali as the one main and traditional dish of the Bemba people, contributing to this idea of a consistently plain diet. This reminds me exactly of my experience with the Nepali people and their affinity for Dal Bhat. Just in the way that the Bemba feel as though they have not eaten without having eaten Ubwali, or "do not like to mix their foods" the Nepalese people do not like to mix up their diets, or go a day without Dal Bhat. Boiled or steamed white rice mounds plates in Nepal and is covered with a soupy lentil and vegetable mixture, acting similarly to the relish of the Bemba.

It is also interesting to put this in context of the Aggrandizer Hypothesis, where the entire foundation of food production rested on the social desire to "feast" and build relationship with surrounding community groups. While yes, eating alone has transformed through the industrial revolution and the emergence of full day jobs at the office, it is still viewed as awkward in many contexts. For example, just a few years back, I would often eat in the dining halls alone. I went whenever I had time and was hungry. Multiple times I received pitying looks, and on multiple occasions I was even invited to sit among a group of (to me) perfect strangers. In this way, I believe eating is still very much a social experience, just as the !Kung view it.  People expect people to share meals with family or friends, an aspect of society that simply isn’t a modern reality.

Back in the 1600’s, however, sugar lent itself perfectly to the promotion of a culture. The practice of social consumption only expanded with the commonality of sugar, and sugar was only economically demanded due to the preference and high intake. The English consumed more and more sugar at the rate that more and more Caribbean colonial empires could produce it. The taste for sweetness grew overtime in England, as sugar availability increased and dispersed across demographics. To some extent is is proven that there exists a human biological likeness for sweetness, and yet this can be complimented and reinforced through culture and society. When sugary dishes became standard in British celebrations and social events, they were encouraged more and more as a way to present the hosts as well off, further increasing this need for more and more of it, perhaps more to make a social statement than to assist the taste of a meal.

It is fascinating the nutritional as well as social role that a single food product can have on lives globally. With a "human liking for sweetness" humans have maneuvered violent and corrupt ways to ensure the regularity of this once delicacy. Was it only colonialism, and in turn slavery, that allowed sugar to become a global phenomenon or would our search for nutrition and a genetic predisposition from a survival standpoint have led us there eventually? Eating is a social act with preference and meaning, so the question here is- sugar: nature or nurture?