Food Culture & Economic Status

In 1978, Max Weber coined the term “social class” to explain the idea that hierarchical social status is expressed through specific “styles of like” that vary in their honorific values (Holt, 1998: 213). Societies tend to separate into groups as people share the same morals, culture and interaction with their social status peers. Food is not only to eat, but can express one’s social status in society. Writing on aesthetic sense and culture, author Pierre Bourdieu classifies people into three aesthetic groups: (1) highbrow culture which would consist of high-cultured foods such as gourmet, organic or rare products; (2) middlebrow culture which is neither high nor low culture; (3) and lowbrow culture which would consist of inexpensive foods such as highly processed or fast-preparation products (Bourdieu, 1984). The types of food a customer purchases represents their aesthetic culture as it encompasses their class, race and gender.

Sobeys appeals to all social status levels by carrying a wide variety of foods which cater to all economic and social groups. To demonstrate, Sobeys has two sections for cheese; the one at the back of the store with the general dairy products, and the other being a gourmet cheese island located near the front of the store (see Store Layout illustration below). Sobeys designed it this way to encourage the purchase of the gourmet cheese because it is placed in a more convenient location than being located at the farthest corner in the back of the store with the other dairy products. At times, one may feel inclined to simply choose the gourmet cheese because they do not have the time to go all the way to the back of the store to take hold of the

generic brand. Pierre Bourdieu says that “dispositions are produced by certain signifiers associated with specific classes, causing people to identify with one group and in turn distancing themselves from another group” (1984).

Dispositions are influenced by one’s economic class, but not all are economically capable of fulfilling desires for this highbrow culture. As a result, people are united because everyone eats cheese, but separated from those with different taste for specific cheese types (Bourdieu, 1984). These specific tastes in food determine the way people classify themselves, as well as how they are classified by others. Sobeys knows economic classes exist and offers a wide variety of highbrow, middlebrow and lowbrow foods to help accommodate. Pierre Bourdieu would say that through aesthetic expression, people are able to show off their class depending on the types of foods they buy, therefore portraying their social positioning to others (Bourdieu, 1984). As a researcher on cultural capital and American consumption, author Douglas B. Holt suggests that using Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital and social hierarchy, he explains that ‘acculaturation’, or one’s upbringing into a certain social class, leads to a style of consumption, and thus reproduces the ideology of that social class and leads to the development of specific tastes (Holt, 2000). Holt would suggest that our tastes in food correlate to those that we are brought up consuming as children. Foods therefore are suddenly not only for eating, but for conveying one’s economic status. Writing on consumption and class, author Tom Slee shows how

companies exploit their consumers by turning a “purely functional item into a conveyer of status” (75). For example, when purchasing eggs, one can choose to purchase organic, free-range, locally grown eggs, or they can purchase any generic egg brand. It can be argued that although the first may be a healthier choice, they would also represent status as they are much more expensive than the generic egg brand. To others, one will appear as if they not only care about their health, but they have the money available to take the extra financial steps to do so. By pursuing these materialistic items so addictively, one keeps competing with others, running in what Tom Slee calls the “arms race”, in which a particular person and their position relative to others is in constant observation (Slee, 2006: 65). This “aesthetic culture” one would obtain based on their choice of egg purchase would be a common example of a positional outcome in the “arms race”. This pursuit of happiness by means of wealth is a competition of status with not only other shoppers in the store, but with guests the customer will entertain and feed in their homes (Slee, 2006: 66).

Sociologist, Karl Marx, carried out excessive study on class and commodity position. One of his objectives was to illustrate that social relationships in society are defined through the values that are arbitrarily given to commodities, or in this case food. Using the terms “use-value” and “exchange value”, he explains why we assign powers to items such as food, beyond their physical nature (Marx, 1867). Marx would look at two pieces of steak and classify them not by their price and prestige, but by their consumption and properties of feeding hunger. Rather than understanding food as nourishing the body, food has come to represent what Marx calls “commodity fetishism” as we have attached special “powers” to food products which represent our wealth and status in exchange, rather then seeing it for its simple use value of eating. To some, food is food. To others, food represents class and social status.

Class Distinction & Food Choice – New Consumerism

Buying into one’s class choice of foods has an important impact on the grocery store. Over the past few decades, we have seen a change in the way people consume. Writing on consumer’s buying habits; Juliet B. Schor and Douglas B. Holt introduce the theory of ‘new consumerism”. New consumerism includes “an up scaling of lifestyle norms, the pervasiveness of conspicuous, status goods and of competition acquiring them’ and the growing disconnect between consumer desires and income” (Schor and Holt, 1999: 448). This social comparison to others feeds our growing need to keep up with the social norms with

which one identifies with – or their “reference group”. In relation to foods, the groceries one selects can have a vast impact on their relation to class and status. Schor and Holt suggest that the reference groups we identify with today are very different then they once were, ultimately contributing to the focus on food as luxury rather than food for survival (Schor and Holt, 1999: 449). We are no longer purchasing food for consumption, but also to show off our class status in relation to our reference group.

As a result of mass visual communication like television or the internet, shoppers are more

aware of economic class and identity the brands associated with them. Instead of simply providing groceries for survival, shoppers are buying into select food brands and gourmet food choices. This leads us also to question the introduction of speciality grocers and gourmet shops catering to the higher and more selective social class of consumers. This is jeopardizing the quality of life for many because there is such vast pressure to “keep up” with one’s social classes and impress others whom they entertain or group with on a regular basis (Schor and Holt, 1999: 450).

Placement Height

Layout and positioning of foods is vital to its sales. Customers know that marketers want to make the sale even if it may not be in the their best interest (Haim, 1997: 21). Let’s take the example of looking at children and shopping

patterns. Many shoppers bring children with them during their grocery trips. Grocers make light of this by placing foods which appeal to children at a very low level that matches their average viewing height. The child’s choice therefore is indirectly affected by what they can see in accordance to their height, influencing their choices for often unhealthy, fat or sugared-coated eatables. When walking down the cereal aisle of Sobeys, we will notice many of the sugary “child cereals” are located at the child’s eye level. It is rare to find a healthy child cereal placed at a two to three foot level. Healthier options will be placed at an adults viewing level, because they are the ones who

will be making the final decision in purchasing cereal for their young children. If children’s options are blocked, due in this case to their visible height, they merely make choices in accordance to what is offered to them (Schor, 1999: 459). Unhealthy children’s cereals are also highly bright and colourful, fun and advertised everywhere. The colours and packaging designs as well as the cereal box images and characters are recognizable to children within seconds. In these regards, we agree that children grow up making unhealthy food choices because they are simply comfortable making food selections and eating choices that are offered to them.

Advertising & the Word-of-Mouth Experience

It could be argued that advertising works somewhat differently in the food and beverage industry. Word-of-mouth advertising between members of social and economic status groups quickly spreads consumption choices. Since many smaller or independent producers of foods and beverages are lacking money to invest in heavy advertising budgets, we would

assume their sales would be lower. However, it seems that “word-of-mouth” advertising fills this void and actually can work towards the goal increase sales. For example, a shopper may purchase Sobeys independent label ‘Compliments’ brand of macaroni and cheese instead of the ‘Kraft’ dinner brand simply because through “word-of-mouth”

communication has suggested it be equivalent or even more enjoyable. Other shoppers ignore this type of advertising most likely because of the low-information society we live in. We feel our best choice is to choose the brand-name products upfront.

Demographics & Choice

Canada is composed of a variety of races and cultures and therefore our grocery stores carry many ethnic food choices. Researching statistics across Canada, StatsCan suggests that immigrants made up the vast majority of the 1.6 million new Canadians between 2001 and 2006, giving the country the highest population growth rate among G8 countries (CBC, 2007). With the vast cross race and

cultural makeup, choices in food selection will reflect the ethnic makeup of communities. In focusing on Waterloo, Ontario’s Sobeys locations, it was found that the location effectively carries food and beverages representative of the area. For example, for the 478,121 people categorized in visible minority status groups, 16,415 of them are South Asian, 9,200 Chinese, 6,210 Southeast Asian, 2,725

West Asian, 1,705 Korean and 670 Japanese (Statistics Canada, 2008). I argue that as a reflection of this, Sobeys offers a wide variety of foods throughout their grocery chains that would appeal to the visible minority population characteristics. Throughout their weekly flyer, many of these food products are readily advertised which leads to drawing in the visible minority culture in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Otherness of Food

It seems that eating ethnic foods has become a highbrow activity within the upper-consumerism class. Writing on the segregation of visibly minority groups, author Bell Hooks uses a metaphor of ‘Eating the Other’ to illustrate the commodification of Otherness (2000). Hooks notes that “culture, ethnic and racial differences

will be continually commodified and offered up as new dishes to enhance the white palate – that the ‘Other’ will be eaten, consumed, and forgotten (Hooks, 2000: 359). By consuming the ‘Other’, or in this case food of the ‘Other’, one will feel more alive and will have experienced sensual and spiritual renewal,

says Hooks. She continues to explore the role of various media such as music, movies, and television to analyze how racial and ethnic differences are continually commodified, indirectly leading to the choice and consumption of foods of the ‘Other’ as a highbrow activity.

Sales & Demand

Product demand and weekly store sales seem to correlate to each other. Following field observation, it seems that the products we purchase most often also seem to go on sale most often. Sales occur primarily to pull shoppers into the store and make them spend as much time as possible browsing for their needed goods. For example, if a select apple type is on sale, a shopper may go to purchase

just apples, but will most likely purchase other items while they are there. Since a large proportion of people buy apples, the sale appeals to most people, unlike an organic or speciality food sale like a wheat-free bread which only appeals to a select few. These organic or speciality foods rarely go on sale because they are less popular but also more expensive to the masses and will not draw in

the large crowds brought in by the specific type of apples (Fader, 2005). Our choices tend to be shaped by the sales and discounts which occur in stores. Many of us, although attempting to buy a high class food selection, will often choose to purchase food which is on sale simply to save money. If the organic or speciality choices do not go on sale, then we are less likely to purchase them on a regular shopping trip. Since these speciality foods are more expensive to stock, a grocer often cannot afford to put them on regular sales because they are threatened to loosing money on their hefty stocking fees. It would only benefit Sobeys to put organic foods on large sales if they appealed to the masses. There is not enough demand for these speciality types of foods to validate their sale, limiting a shopper’s choice even further.

The More Demand for One, the Less Selection for the Other

For those of us who want to purchase products that are not high in demand, our choices are very limited as to which grocers will even stock the foods we eat. For example, if a shopper tends to purchase wheat-free organic foods, they have to use the larger grocers such as Sobeys that often carry these uncommon

selections, even if they want to support the smaller stores. Smaller grocers often do not carry the specialty foods, because as explained above, they choose to carry items most in demand such as generic bread, which appeals to a larger variety of shoppers. One’s free choice in foods therefore is limited as they

travel to select locations depending which stores carry the foods they desire. If there are not enough consumers in one’s local to warrant the stocking of a select rare food product, choice will be limited to the few grocers who choose to carry them.

Market for Lemons

As a researcher on corporate dominances and freedom of choice, author Tom Slee introduces what he calls the “market for lemons”. This phrase explains how the market is dominated by large businesses restricting our freedom of choice to only what these businesses will provide” (2006). These choices much like described above, make up a shopper’s mind for them in terms of where they will choose to shop, as the foods which they choose to purchase are only available at select retailers. It is however; fair to say that many grocers offer alternative choices. The problem occurs when the alternative choices are suppressed in

information and presentation, which directly cause individuals uncertainty about the quality of the alternative choices. For example, between a generic brand of food wrap and Ziplock brand food wrap, once a shopper is familiar with what is offered in a certain brand, they will often choose the same initial product each shopping trip. For companies who want to introduce foods which rival against the big-box brands, the suppressed lack of information and presentation can cause these independent foods to fail because individuals often continue choosing what others choose, as it carries a quality reputation (Slee, 2006). In turn, this increases power to the larger businesses since they have the most influence on their consumer choice of food selection.

Addressing uncertainty during consumption, Tom Slee concludes “that corporations do not provide for our preferences, but make us prefer what they decide” to make us prefer (Slee, 2006). By organizing Sobeys in a way which offers smaller brand products near by

the well-known products, often uncertainty clouds our vision. When deciding between two products offered, unless we have had past experience with one of them, we will often choose the well-known brand name over the independent brand product.

One’s choice is heavily influenced by uncertainty in society. Sobeys reacts to this by organizing themselves into consumer groups to inform society about the quality of products. Tom Slee introduces the concept of ‘increasing returns’, noting that the popularity of a product will create a community-like feeling for those who invest in it, which in return make that product more desirable for others who want to join this community (Slee, 2006). They would rather pay more upfront for a product they are familiar with rather then be at risk of the independent products failure. Companies spend a lot of money creating a “connection between their brands and an image that is attractive to the target of advertising” (Slee, 2006: 166) to create the beginning of a trend.

Conclusion

Free choice within a capitalist society will always be constructed by exterior forces. As one feels they have choice to make decisions upon their own will, these decisions are highly influenced by many surrounding factors which include class, demographics and store layout.

Little published research has been done on grocery store marketing. One’s experience in a grocery store is not about free choice; it is about the options available to us as shoppers. Choice operates within a capitalist system of perceived power and dominance arranged by

the corporation. Shoppers are not the one’s who get to make the choices; corporations are simply there to provide shoppers with pre-selected options.

Bibliography

Works Cited:

Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Aesthetic Sense as the Sense of Distinction” (1979) from The Consumer Society Reader by Schor, Juliet B and Holt, Douglas (eds). New York, New York: The New Press, 2000

CBC Canada. “Immigration critical to Canadian Population Growth: Census”. CBC Canada Website: Top Stories. 12 March 2007. URL: No longer active

Fader, Peter S. “Tag Team”: Tracking the Patterns of Supermarket Shoppers with RFID”. Wharton School Publishing. 17 June, 2005. URL: No longer active

Haim, Alexander. Marketing for Dummies. New York, New York: Hungry Minds, Inc, 1997.

Holt, Douglas B. “Does Cultural Capital Structure American Consumption?” (2000) from The Consumer Society Reader by Schor, Juliet B and Holt, Douglas (eds). New York, New York: The New Press, 2000.

Slee, Tom. No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart: The Surprising Deceptions of Individual Choice. Toronto, Ontario: Between the Lines, 2006.

Sobeys. Sobeys Inc. “Sobeys: Building Sustainable Worth.” Sobeys Corporate Inc. 2008. 27 July 2008. URL: No longer active

Statistics Canada. Waterloo Regional Municipality, Ontario. 26 July 2008. URL: No longer active

Taylor, Betsy and Dave Tilford. “Why Consumption Matters” (2000) from The Consumer Society Reader by Schor, Juliet B and Holt, Douglas (eds). New York, New York: The New Press, 2000.

Zichermann, Sandra. “Sociology of Cultural Forms.” SY305. Wilfrid Laurier University. Waterloo, Ontario, September 08, 2006.

Works Consulted:

Lasn, Kalle. “New Critiques of Consumer Society: “Culture Jamming” (1999) from The Consumer Society Reader by Schor, Juliet B and Holt, Douglas (eds). New York, New York: The New Press, 2000.

Twitchell, James. “Two Cheers for Materialism” (1999) from The Consumer Society Reader by Schor, Juliet B and Holt, Douglas (eds). New York, New York: The New Press, 2000.