Tate and Sugar as a Social Construction

    Taste as something socially constructed, is a topic we previously began to touch on in class, and one which we haven’t reached much of a conclusion on. On one hand, many of us find it strange to think of something with a “taste”, or a sensation we biologically react to, as possible to be constructed. On the other, there were those of us in class who gave example of how certain taste either grew on them as they aged, or the opposite, and they lost taste for a certain item, both associated with factors such as maturity or a social association such as turning 21.  In Sweetness and Power pg 79 and 80, Mintz points out that sugar was originally grouped in with spices, and that its corresponding taste was not associated with sweetening. He argues that there was shift in the conceptualization of sugar from spice to sweeter, and that much of this had to do with the availability and uses of sugar. As a spice, it was used sparingly for seasoning as were other spices and it held great value among the wealthy. Long before, it was used in medicine by physicians, and out of medical use it was turned into a decorative form. Each form required sugar to be viewed and processed in a different manner, thus giving a new meaning and purpose. As sugars use as a spice peaked in the sixteenth century and it became more abundant, and people of other socio-economic levels began to experiment with it. I believe one point which is important to remember is that everything has its own socio cultural context, even something biological like taste. You could largely attribute this to sugar being such a versatile object, and if you follow Mintz progression of the uses of sugar, it seems that it took a long time before the taste of sugar was thought of as it is today.