Poor and Pregnant in New Delhi, India

Helen Vallianatos

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781598742930
• eBook ISBN: 9781315422350
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

In this innovative contribution to the study of food, gender, and power, Helen Vallianatos meticulously documents cultural values and beliefs, dietary practaices, and the nutritional and health status of mothers in Indian squatter settlements. She explores both large-scale forces—incorporating critical medical anthropology and feminist theory into a biocultural paradigm—and the local and individual choices New Delhi women make in interpreting cultural dietary norms based on their reproductive histories, socioeconomic status, family structure, and other specific conditions. Her findings have significant implications for nutritional and medical anthropology and development studies, and her innovative research design serves as a model for multi-method studies that use participatory research principles, combine quantitative and qualitative investigations, and interpret diverse types of data.

Chapter 1
Food, Gender, and Power

The anthropology of food and nutrition is “concerned with understanding the interrelationships of biological and social forces in shaping human food use and the nutritional status of individuals and populations” (Pelto et al., 2000, p. 1). The symbolic value of food is a fundamental means of understanding cultural systems. Food is a system of communication through its role as a signifier of information. For instance, food serves as a sign of membership and participation in the national imagination (Barthes, 1961/1997; Mintz, 1996). Of course, the major proponent for the investigation of food’s role as a sign is Claude Lévi-Strauss, whose structural analysis of myth emphasized the binary relationships between raw and cooked, successively nature and culture, commonly known as the “culinary triangle” (1969, 1968/1997). The structuralist perspective, as demonstrated by Lévi-Strauss, accentuated that food mediates nature and culture. It is in the process of cooking and creating a cuisine that food is transformed into a cultural entity. Thus, food might be part of the “natural” (or biological) realm, but it also has cultural meanings.

Mary Douglas (1975/1997) criticized Lévi-Strauss’s food categories for not addressing the relative values of the binary pairs he presented and for his emphasis on human universals, thereby neglecting local variations. Douglas, and like-minded anthropologists, focused on understanding how people give meaning to their world and the ways in which food systems symbolize social orders, relations, and identities. In her work on deciphering a meal, she perceived food systems as a microcosm of social structures in which food categories encode and structure social events. Many anthropologists have examined the important role of food in symbolizing social relations and obligations, both within and between groups (e.g., Malinowski, 1950; Sahlins, 1972). The kind and frequency of these exchanges can act as a barometer of the intensity of social bonds and relationships, as reciprocal exchanges denote egalitarian relations. Marcel Mauss’s seminal work The Gift (1967) emphasized how social bonds were formed through exchanges of gifts. Gifts of items such as food functioned to keep individuals indebted to one another and so within a cycle of positive transference. For instance, the distribution of meat in foraging societies maintained and strengthened kinship and social networks, and, in turn, the process of food distribution reflected social values and mores (e.g., Lee, 1969). Food gifts also function in creating and recreating social categories of the cosmos and time (e.g., Khare, 1992; Van Esterik, 1998). Thus, food is both a sign and a symbol.

Foods derive their meanings from culturally specific semiotic systems, or food systems.¹ For example, the meaning of potato is quite different for people living in the United States from its meaning for people in the Ecuadorian highlands, because cultural meaning is dependent on this food item’s social context and usage (Weismantel, 1988). A potato is a food item, but it is also more: It is a socially produced category with culturally specific meanings. Thus, for Americans, the meaning of potato “encompasses French fries, potato chips, mashed potatoes on the dinner table at Thanksgiving, and baked potatoes at the local steak house” (Weismantel, 1988, p. 15). On the other hand, for Ecuadorian highlanders, the meanings of potato are quite different, based on people’s reliance on potatoes for subsistence. Thus, in this cultural system, it also incorporates “hoes and harvests as well as of dishes such as yawarlocro and cariuchu (Weismantel, 1988, p. 15).

In this study, I focus on how food acts as a symbol of power relations and, in particular, the confluence of gender relations and status with aspects of power. In the preface, I stated that in this study, I attempted to “weave” a story of pregnant women’s food behavior by examining aspects of the interconnectedness of food, gender, and power. I now explain three of the main “threads,” or elements, that are woven together in this study: (a) political-economic systems of food (i.e., global power relations and their impacts on food availability), (b) social environments of food (i.e., how power and gender relations intersect), and (c) intertwinements of food and health (i.e., the relationship between gender status and food behaviors).

THREAD 1: POLITICAL-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS OF FOOD

Power permeates all social relationships. The commoditization of food has led to increasing power differentials both within and between countries. A nation’s exportation of food while many local people go hungry is a paradox of the world food system. A strong case has been made that hunger is unnecessary, that enough food is produced to feed the worlds population, but political-economic world systems do not allow for equitable food distribution (Lappé & Collins, 1986). Understanding this situation requires discerning the historical context, especially colonial histories, of food commoditization. I use Sidney Mintz’s (1985) seminal work Sugar, Sweetness and Power to illustrate how inequities in our modern global food system developed.

Mintz’s (1985) influential analysis of the role sugar played in the development of the world economy during the colonial era, and the resultant “underdevelopment” of the Caribbean and African regions, depicts how political-economic forces shaped world hierarchies. In this work, Mintz described how sugar, once a symbol of upper class status, became an integral part of daily diets of the working classes. He argued that sugar and foods consisting of sugar became a substitute for other, more nutritious foods. Sugar became a panacea for hunger among the European proletariat and the slaves working the plantations in the Caribbean (thus, African slavery was an integral aspect of the growth of the sugar economy). For the upper class employers or slave-owners, providing sugar and sugar-based foods ensured inexpensive increased productivity. The change in the working class’s diet toward increased consumption of sugar-based foods was also linked to changing gender roles. Mintz described how ready-made foods, including those with heavy sugar contents (e.g., jam), had an increased role in people’s diets as women began working in factories and no longer had the time and energy to prepare time-consuming foods (e.g., a shift from oatmeal to bread and jam).

The political and economic forces at play during the colonial era continue in our modern world. In a later work, Mintz (1996) discussed how the meaning of sugar and sugar-related food items, especially Coca-Cola, changed in the early 20th century. He argued that political-economic decisions and agreements resulted in the association of Coca-Cola with the U.S. public’s imaginings of nationhood and the increased consumption of this soft drink during and after World War II. The politics of foods, as demonstrated by the soft drink industry, continues both within the United States (e.g., the “pouring rights” of soft drink companies in schools; see Nestle, 2002) and abroad (i.e., the race for the tastes and pocketbooks of residents of low-income countries).

The effects on global political-economic and social hierarchies that arose in conjunction with the sugar trade as described by Mintz (1985,1996) are echoed for other food items and other world regions, including India. The exploitation of Indian labor and natural resources by European colonial powers, in particular the British, has been well documented and will not be expanded on here (cf. Farmer, 1983). What I do wish to emphasize is that under colonialism’s rule, the area of land under cultivation in India increased, yet much of this land produced crops for manufacture and export (e.g., sugar, cotton). Furthermore, landlessness increased as the British strengthened preexisting hierarchies by increasing the power of landowners and tax collectors (zamindars) (Currie, 2000; Farmer, 1983). This process of economic exploitation, whereby crops are produced and/or processed for export, continues in the guise of structural adjustment programs (see Chapter 4). At this point, I emphasize that agricultural production for export has led to a shift away from subsistence crops, negatively affecting the diets of the poor (e.g., processed wheat and rice replacing barley or millet). Concurrently, countries like India have become more dependent on imports from food-surplus wealthy nations (Dasgupta, 2001).

The continuing spread and exchange of food items in the global economy is labeled delocalization, defined as the “processes in which food varieties, production methods, and consumption patterns are disseminated throughout the world in an ever-increasing and intensifying network of socioeconomic and political interdependency” (Pelto & Pelto, 2000, p. 269). Delocalization is nondirectional, occurring through a multiplicity of routes, including trade, shifts from subsistence to cash-cropping (and the attendant shift in kinds of crops), and migration of ideologies leading to new food preferences. The compound effects of delocalization are both positive and negative. Although dietary diversity, which is more likely to provide a healthy variety of nutrients, has increased for wealthy individuals, it has, arguably, decreased for many who cannot afford to purchase exotically grown foods and whose local subsistence economies have shifted to export-oriented agriculture (Pelto & Pelto, 2000).

The negative impacts of delocalization and the globalization of the food industry have been well documented. The commodification and exploitation of finite resources have led to dramatic social changes. This is recognized by the increased social tensions and changes in social organization, as well as the demise in local diet quality (e.g., Nietschmann, 1974; Pelto & Pelto, 2000). Vandana Shiva (2000) has documented how globalized agriculture and the “green revolution” have affected the environment, the quality of foods consumed by the vast majority of humans, and the lives of small-scale farmers in India. The effects of the green revolution and export-oriented agriculture in India have been dramatic because of their occurrence in a relative short time frame. On implementation of economic liberalization policies in 1991 (i.e., structural adjustment programs), the land under cultivation of cash and nonfood crops has increased, and farmers have increasingly been sold high-technology “advances” such as fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically engineered seeds. Industrialization of agricultural has displaced agricultural laborers and is linked to increased landlessness and displacement of peoples to urban areas (Shiva, 2000). Consequently, wealth disparities have increased, whereas food availability for the poor has decreased (Dasgupta, 2001).

Shiva (2000) made a strong case for the need to value “traditional” farming practices, in part because the increased food supply due to the green revolution is an illusion. This illusion arises because short-term gains in productivity mask the long-term repercussions of environmental degradation (decreasing water tables, saltification of irrigated lands, etc.) and of the costs on human lives (increased exposure to toxins, the unknown ramifications of genetically engineered products, etc.). Thus, Shiva argued that the long-term consequences of the green revolution for the economic wellbeing and healthiness of individuals, as well as the environment, are destructive (2000).

I have outlined how international political-economic forces, such as colonialism and current processes of globalization and delocalization of food, interact in the formation of global hierarchies. Globalization and delocalization of food are two of the key processes through which global hierarchies are constructed and maintained. The Government of India’s ability to ensure food security is intricately tied to India’s commitments to international bodies (i.e., the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) to increase cash-cropping while reducing government expenditures, and to international trade agreements (as exemplified by the increased availability of foreign foods on store shelves since liberalization). The unavailability of food, at national, community, or individual levels, is a sign of powerlessness (Lappé & Collins, 1986). Thus, one of the threads I have woven into this story of the intersection of food, gender, and power is how processes of economic liberalization have affected the availability (both quantity and quality) of foods to residents of a jhuggi-jhopri community in New Delhi (see Chapter 4).

THREAD 2: THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS OF FOOD

The power relations exhibited through food distribution are also evident within the boundaries of nation-states. Food consumption and exchange delineate relationships based on religious membership, caste, social class, and gender. The acceptance and refusal of food clearly marks the religious status of an individual or a group of people (e.g., caste), and changing patterns of food acceptance or refusal reflect changing socioeconomic relations (Abdussalam & Käferstein, 1996; Breckenridge, 1986; Khare, 1992, 1998; Kilara & Iya, 1992; Marriott, 1968; Sharma, 1961; Toomey, 1986).

The food traditions and values symbolized by the ritualistic use of food in Hindu and Muslim communities serve as an expression of identity. Both Hindus and Muslims emphasize the sharing and exchange of food as part of their social and moral duties (I focus only on Hinduism and Islam here, because study participants were exclusively members of these two religions, as described in Chapter 3). Food transactions among Indian Muslims are a pious action but of multiple meanings. This is exemplified by the process of meat distribution from the sacrificed animal on bakra Īd, or Īd-ul-Azha. The sacrificial meat is divided into thirds, representative of three kinds of social relationships. The first is family, an extension of self, and the second group is equals, defined as relatives, friends, or neighbors, who can sacrifice and give return gifts of meat. These first two relationships are defined by reciprocity and relative equality. These people may acquire social honor via generous hospitality. The third category is the poor, who must receive gifts of food without having the ability to give in return. Because of their inability to reciprocate, they must accept charity and so cannot claim social honor (Murphy, 1986).

In Hinduism, food is both a moral and a material emblem, and so the giving and sharing of food is “integral to one’s cosmic duties, debts, and dharma, to ensure prosperity life-after-life ‘in food, cattle and progeny’” (Khare, 1998, p. 261). Two kinds of dharma are delineated; first, there is the caste (jati-varna) dharma that is, arguably, socially restrictive, but second, there is the lesser known sadharna dharma (everyday dharma), which ordains the sharing of food irrespective of the status of the recipient (Khare, 1998). The concept of dharma is important in understanding relations of power and food in Hindu society for, at least idealistically, Hinduism is a social contract that emphasizes the interdependence of people (i.e., th jaj-mani system). Every individual and group of people is interdependent, exchanging goods and services as well as food. In other words, self-interest is dependent on assuring others’ interests (Khare, 1998). This is not to say, however, that all individuals or groups are equally socially valued and so have equal access to social prestige, or that Hinduism is a monolithic entity (see Flood, 1998). In fact, food transactions symbolize caste rankings (Marriott, 1968).

Who gives or receives food marks the caste and class affiliations of both giver and receiver (e.g., Marriott, 1968; Raheja, 1988). Giving and receiving food formulates intercaste relationships through the symbolic transference of inauspiciousness from donor to receiver, so that food embodies the sins of the donor. Thus, the receiver “digests” the inauspiciousness and sins of the donor, the donor’s household, and even the village (Raheja, 1988).² Furthermore, the kinds of food items that make up diets of people indicate their caste and class rankings. For instance, nonvegetarianism is most prevalent among lower caste Hindus, although not exclusively so.

Individual or group attempts to raise their social status are symbolized through “gastrodynamics,” or changing dietary habits (Rao, 1986). Those of lower caste who are in the process of attaining middle- or upper caste/class standing often emulate the higher caste’s dietary patterns. This process of lower castes’ emulating upper caste behaviors is called “Sanskritization” (Srinivas, 1966). Of course, caste and class categories are not homogeneous. Women, especially poor women, bear the brunt of the process of Sanskritization (Gopaldas, Gupta, & Saxena, 1983a, 1983b; Sen, 1997). Berreman (1992) has found the greatest gender disparity, hence the lowest women’s status, among members of low-caste/class groups that are Sanskritizing. Kapadia (1985) has argued that socioeconomic status is gender specific. In other words, household males’ socioeconomic status can rise while household females’ status falls. The gendered experiences of socioeconomic status and the complexity of socioeconomic status within a household have been recognized (Harriss, 1995; Kandiyoti, 1998; Lockwood, 1997; Moore, 1988), and the relationship between intrahousehold power, and gender relations in terms of food and nutrition is elaborated on below.

There is a striking paradox in women’s societal position in India: Women are revered as goddesses, and some women are extremely powerful (e.g., Indira Gandhi), but the majority of women experience low social status (Jacobson & Wadley, 1995). The low status of women is reflected in gender ideology. For example, women embody nature and śakti (power), and consequently are da...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• 1 Food, Gender, and Power
• 2 The Setting: Living in Poverty
• 3 The Research Process: Participants and Methods
• 4 The Political Economy of Health and Hunger in India
• 5 Eating for Two? Perspectives on Food Consumption During Pregnancy
• 6 The Social Contexts for Pregnant Womens Nutritional Landscapes
• 7 Health Assessment: Numbers and Experiences
• 8 Relationships between Food, Power, and Gender
• Appendix A: Glossary
• Appendix B: Food-Based Dietary Guidelines
• Appendix C: Food Categorization in Chanda Nagar
• References
• Index