Culture & Media: Food Culture and Mainstream America

Food and culture are closely related. In fact, I would argue that food is a tangible representation of culture; it is something people can connect over, see, taste, smell and hear. There are often shared sets of beliefs about food, and across different cultures food has its own sets of norms. What is considered edible or a delicacy can vary widely, as can meal etiquette, what time meals are eaten, how and by whom meals are prepared, and many other factors. Food can help define ethnic groups, religious communities, class divisions and geographic regions. I think most cultures are proud of what they eat, and they try to preserve their culture through food.

In the United States, however, culture is complex. Much of what might be considered "traditional" culture -- the kind people think of as associated with their ethnic background or religious beliefs -- is now being relegated to special occasions. For example, my family is Polish Catholic, and so we eat traditional Polish food on Christmas and Easter, but not during any other times of the year. Another example: the other side of my family is Croatian. My grandparents used to go to the Croatian club every weekend to dance to tamburitza music, but now the club only meets on important Croatian national holidays. 

 I would argue that "traditional" culture, in today's mainstream America, is simply not convenient and that is why it is becoming rare. With regards to food, it takes a long time to prepare traditional meals, and authentic ingredients are more expensive and difficult to find.  Pre-processed and pre-packaged foods are cheaper and easier to buy and prepare. But the downside here is that people are becoming desensitized when it comes to their food. They don't think about where it comes from, what it takes to prepare it, and how their food impacts the health of the earth. This leads to a lack of responsibility. In the US, Americans throw away almost half of the food they buy, and discarded food is the single largest component in landfills around the country.* Lots of Americans buy so much food, they end up never eating it and having to throw it out. If their food isn't "perfect" (think about that slightly deformed apple you let go bad) they toss it. There are so many demands for huge volumes of "perfect foods," factory farms and genetic modification are currently thriving. 

I go to school in a very remote area, the northern part of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. This area is not untouched by mainstream American food trends, but it is holding onto some traditional methods of attaining and preparing food. Hunting and growing food is very common here, and I even have some relatives locally who eat entirely out of a greenhouse and their backyard. The people who live this way have different attitudes about food, and it got me thinking. How does self-sufficiency and living off of the land impact people's beliefs and behaviors?  The culture of eating rustic is almost in direct contrast to the food trends of mainstream America. 

This short video clip from Eating Alaska shows how some people hunt and gather their food. The culture in this place centers on frugality and respect for the animals and the land. As a result, the people tend to get only what they need, and they use all of what they have. They also must take the time to prepare food since they are getting it in its natural, unprocessed state. This leads to a slower pace of life, and I think these people appreciate their food so much more because of the work they have to do to get it. I have to admit, I ate chicken that came from a can today and I felt a twinge of guilt over it, especially when I saw people shooting and cleaning their own dinner. I truly don't think I could kill an animal by choice. If I had to, I certainly would, and I think it would get easier over time. But I also think my own personal food culture would change to become more like the people in the video. I would definitely have a sense of respect for the animals I eat and the other food the land provides me. I also believe I would waste less so that I didn't have to keep taking from the land, since I think that would be a show of disrespect and neglect. 

I recognize that the collective American people cannot all hunt and gather their own food, nor can they cook every meal in a traditional fashion. However it is the mentality of the Alaskan hunter gatherers and our elders we should try to emulate. A sense of mindfulness for where our food came from could go a long way in changing mainstream American food culture. Recognizing that we create waste by choosing foods that are not responsibly manufactured and by over-consuming food is an important step. Taking time to prepare food could help us appreciate what we have. There is an opportunity to create a new food culture, and American food culture, that values responsibility, sustainability, and mindfulness. 

*source can be found here 

Data as Evidence: Educational Funding and Student Achievement

Though I am currently working towards a degree in Biology, my ultimate goal is to use that degree to become a secondary school teacher. As part of my training, I have gotten to look at many of the issues currently facing the American education system. Many of these issues center around how to best teach the nation's children. Should we practice structured formal schooling, or take a more child-directed approach? How should the school day be structured? Are standardized testing and curricula a benefit to students or a hindrance? These issues are not always social in nature. Many of them are based on educational theories and some are very much focused on the individual. For this post, I'd like to step away from these questions and look more closely at an educational issue that is highly social and political. Funding for education is a common debate topic, and many would probably be surprised to find out that it varies quite a lot from state to state, and even city to city. I would argue that the less funding that is available to schools, the lower the student achievement. This seems logical, considering that less funding could mean fewer supplies, lower quality teachers, and out-of-date technology. However, I want to take a quantitative approach to the issue, and use data as evidence. I also want to discuss some of the challenges that come with using data in sociology. The data and graphics I use in this post will come from the Kids Count Data Center, a website that collects and provides data detailing the well-being of children in the United States. I will also include the URL to all the graphics I use at the end of this post.

 The map at right shows the per-pupil expenditure for education per state in the U.S. The darkest states put the most money towards schools, and the lightest states spend the least. Immediately what stands out is the divide between north and south. Almost the entire southern half of the country is in the lowest expenditure bracket. The northern half varies, but it has almost no states in that lowest bracket. Looking more closely, the Northeast region spends the most. We will keep these in mind when looking at a few factors measuring student achievement.

Never Finished  High School

Attained a Bachelor's Degree

Now take a look at these maps and compare them. They show, per state, the educational attainment of adults ages 25-34. The darker colors show the highest percentages of adults in the age ranges, and the lighter colors show the lowest percentage. These maps align pretty exactly with the information on expenditure. In the southern half of the United States, which has the lowest expenditure, the highest percentage of adults have not finished high school. In the northern states, the higher percentage of adults in each state attained some form of college education. Notably, only in the Northeast were the highest percentage of adults earning graduate degrees.

Attained a Graduate Degree

These maps show a pretty clear correlation between per-pupil expenditure and educational attainment. However, this does not necessarily mean that spending more money on students guarantees they go on to get a post-secondary education.  This is where using data in sociology becomes challenging. This issue, like most others sociologists study, is multi-faceted and complex. For example, I originally set out to measure student achievement in relation to education expenditure. Is educational attainment a good measure of student achievement? Would it be better to use the standardized test scores of children who are actually in school right now? There could be a variety of lurking variables at play. What if, for whatever reason, students in the south can't afford to attend college? Maybe there are some cultural influences to consider. It is entirely possible that students from the north, and especially the Northeast, are pressured and expected to go to college. Just think about how many Ivy League schools are in the Northeast, and how some parents might expect their kids go get into them, In the south, maybe there is less pressure to go to college and more of an expectation to get a job right out of high school. To make my point in fewer words, there are countless potential causes for this one correlation. Using data as evidence can reveal patterns and useful information, but a vivid sociological imagination is required to form connections, make sense of it all, and question what is there.


Links to the webpages for graphics:

•  http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/Map/5199-per-pupil-educational-expenditures-adjusted-for-regional-cost-differences?loc=1&loct=1#2/any/false/868/any/11678/Orange/
• http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/Map/6294-educational-attainment-of-population-ages-25-to-34?loc=1&loct=2#2/any/false/36/1311/13090/Orange/

The Sociological Imagination

In his Sociology on the Street video, Dalton Conley gives a tour of his childhood neighborhood and memories in an attempt to describe the concept of sociological imagination. He defines this as connecting our personal experiences to broader historical forces. To me, using my sociological imagination means looking at the social influences of my past and thinking about how they have shaped who I am. I also like to play make-believe with my sociological imagination, thinking about how alternate social situations could have made me different from the person I am now. In this post, I'll share the social influences of my own childhood and explore how they are connected to the way I see myself. 

I grew up in a tiny farm town in Ohio, essentially some houses and restaurants surrounded by corn and lots of it. Summers were spent shopping at farmer's markets and watching thunderstorms, and winters were mild and quiet. The most exciting things to happen were usually high school football games, or the annual street fair. You may think that a sleepy place like this wouldn't make much of an impact on a person, but after a little bit of introspection, I realized that it did have an impact on me. In Cortland, the pace of life was slow and the people were few. I now live in a more urban area (outside of Detroit) and it's not easy. After we moved, I developed an anxiety issue, and so I have these debilitating panic attacks in crowded places, when stuck in heavy traffic, and anywhere else where people are busy, stressed, and on most edge. I miss the quiet, open-air feel of a small town, and I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons I was drawn to Houghton. I'm also pretty sure that I'll look for a career in a small area. For some people, I think the social structure of where they grew up is what they will often seek out in adulthood, either because it's the most comfortable, because they feel they belong, or because they just don't know any different.

The move to Michigan was also difficult for me because I had to change schools, but I didn't have the typical issues of making new friends or adjusting to a new routine. What made it difficult was that I went to a Catholic school in Ohio, and transferred to a public school in Michigan. I loved going to Catholic school. It was small, I knew everyone in my class and had known them since kindergarten, we got to wear uniforms, my parents were always involved, and many more reasons. But looking back, I realize that Catholic school was also very sheltered. When I started public school, I experienced a bit of a culture shock. All the girls wore makeup and tight clothes with the same labels on them. The boys said words I didn't know (swear words, I later learned). Classrooms were rowdier, lunch was terrifying, and kids lit things on fire on the bus. I wasn't sure if I wanted to be noticed or be invisible, I just knew I wanted to fit in. Long story short, I ended up with a nasty eating disorder, the after-effects of which still plague me to this day. Between Catholic school and public school, I was in two entirely different social environments, one where I was a confident, if shy, student, and the other where my confidence was wrecked and I ended up getting sick. In this way, the change in social influences completely altered the way I viewed myself.

More recently, I have found myself in a new social group: people with divorced parents. The move to Michigan put a big strain on my parents' relationship, and they just couldn't make it work. They now live in separate houses, both are happy, and one has even remarried. For me, the divorce has impacted the way I view relationships, and the way I view my family. As far as the former, I am definitely wary of relationships and a little commitment-shy. It is hard not to be a little cynical when the main relationship you have to look up to doesn't work out. Regarding the latter, I am sometimes embarrassed to tell people that my parents are divorced, especially boys that I might want to be romantically involved with. I'm afraid people will think that since that my parents couldn't stay together, a relationship with me won't be successful in the long term as well. However, I will admit, that is probably just my fear about myself. I also sometimes feel shame around families who are still all together. Regardless, the social stigmas of divorce can definitely be cited as things that influence how I see myself and my family.

I ask myself this all the time: What if I never moved to Michigan? Would I be in a better situation or a worse one? I know for a fact that I would be different. I always wonder if I would not be so anxious about things, or if I would have never had to deal with an eating disorder. Maybe my parents would still be together. Living in Ohio, I most likely would have been able to grow up at a slower pace in a safer, more comfortable social environment. I'm sure there would have been challenges, but I'm also sure those challenges would have been different from the ones I faced in Michigan. I like this exercise and using my sociological imagination because not only does it give me insight into my own life, but it helps be identify some broader social factors that might be impacting other's lives. I think that using sociological imagination is like being a "fly on the wall" trying to interpret the reasons why people act, interact, and think the way they do.