eBook - ePub
Feeding Distinction: Constrictions and Constructions of Dietary Compliance
Filippo Oncini
This is a test
Buch teilen
- English
- ePUB (handyfreundlich)
- Ăber iOS und Android verfĂŒgbar
eBook - ePub
Feeding Distinction: Constrictions and Constructions of Dietary Compliance
Filippo Oncini
Angaben zum Buch
Buchvorschau
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Quellenangaben
Ăber dieses Buch
Building on Bourdieu's theory of capitals, this book provides an in-depth analysis of the social stratification of food consumption in Italy, with a special focus on the role of the school canteen as a possible enhancer of children's dietary compliance. Making use of large survey data, semi-structured interviews with parents, and long ethnographic fieldwork in four primary school canteens, the study presents new insights on the ways inequalities shape eating and feeding practices between home and school.
HĂ€ufig gestellte Fragen
Wie kann ich mein Abo kĂŒndigen?
Gehe einfach zum Kontobereich in den Einstellungen und klicke auf âAbo kĂŒndigenâ â ganz einfach. Nachdem du gekĂŒndigt hast, bleibt deine Mitgliedschaft fĂŒr den verbleibenden Abozeitraum, den du bereits bezahlt hast, aktiv. Mehr Informationen hier.
(Wie) Kann ich BĂŒcher herunterladen?
Derzeit stehen all unsere auf MobilgerĂ€te reagierenden ePub-BĂŒcher zum Download ĂŒber die App zur VerfĂŒgung. Die meisten unserer PDFs stehen ebenfalls zum Download bereit; wir arbeiten daran, auch die ĂŒbrigen PDFs zum Download anzubieten, bei denen dies aktuell noch nicht möglich ist. Weitere Informationen hier.
Welcher Unterschied besteht bei den Preisen zwischen den AboplÀnen?
Mit beiden AboplÀnen erhÀltst du vollen Zugang zur Bibliothek und allen Funktionen von Perlego. Die einzigen Unterschiede bestehen im Preis und dem Abozeitraum: Mit dem Jahresabo sparst du auf 12 Monate gerechnet im Vergleich zum Monatsabo rund 30 %.
Was ist Perlego?
Wir sind ein Online-Abodienst fĂŒr LehrbĂŒcher, bei dem du fĂŒr weniger als den Preis eines einzelnen Buches pro Monat Zugang zu einer ganzen Online-Bibliothek erhĂ€ltst. Mit ĂŒber 1 Million BĂŒchern zu ĂŒber 1.000 verschiedenen Themen haben wir bestimmt alles, was du brauchst! Weitere Informationen hier.
UnterstĂŒtzt Perlego Text-zu-Sprache?
Achte auf das Symbol zum Vorlesen in deinem nÀchsten Buch, um zu sehen, ob du es dir auch anhören kannst. Bei diesem Tool wird dir Text laut vorgelesen, wobei der Text beim Vorlesen auch grafisch hervorgehoben wird. Du kannst das Vorlesen jederzeit anhalten, beschleunigen und verlangsamen. Weitere Informationen hier.
Ist Feeding Distinction: Constrictions and Constructions of Dietary Compliance als Online-PDF/ePub verfĂŒgbar?
Ja, du hast Zugang zu Feeding Distinction: Constrictions and Constructions of Dietary Compliance von Filippo Oncini im PDF- und/oder ePub-Format sowie zu anderen beliebten BĂŒchern aus Politics & International Relations & Agricultural Public Policy. Aus unserem Katalog stehen dir ĂŒber 1Â Million BĂŒcher zur VerfĂŒgung.
Information
1. Towards a Theory of Feeding Practices
1. Introduction
The cultural turn of the 70s has been characterized by the rise and success of the so-called practice theorists. In an attempt to overcome the long-lasting ontological and epistemological antinomies that have afflicted the social sciences ever since, an outstanding proliferation of accounts has been proposed. Heavily influenced by Marxism, phenomenology, structuralism, semiotics and late Wittgenstein these approaches have all suggested new paths for an understanding of the main dilemmas regarding what can be heuristically called the formation of social action. Whilst âformationâ closely regards the dialectic between materialism and idealism, âsocialâ and âactionâ are more deeply concerned with social theory itself, namely with the structure-agency debate and with the opposition between normative and utility oriented types of action (Reckwitz, 2002).1 In sociology, âbringing culture back inâ, as opposed to Homansâ programmatic article for a neo-utilitarianism (1964), became a common feature of different approaches.2 The landscape of practice theorists is all but coherent and devoid of conflict. Bourdieuâs ârighteous wrathâ against Latour (2004) or the amusing ditty composed by Shalins on Foucault (Sahlins, 2002: 20)3 are just but a few patent examples. Yet, as Sherry Ortner (1984) elucidated, central axes of the theory can actually be retrieved. In presenting her concise essay on anthropological social theory since the â60s, she convincingly stated that those new practice theorists, amongst whom she put herself, were not bonded by a particular method or theory, but rather by a set of similar interests. As a matter of fact, they were drawn together by a common dissatisfaction with the antinomies that governed social sciences, and by the idea that the answer relied on a particular view of the concept of praxis. Praxis, âthe whole of human actionâ, was then to be interpreted as the theoretical locus where the alternatives to the conflicting dualisms could be formulated. They were by no means escaping the influence of their masters; rather, they were exploiting them to shape a third way. In this sense, the logic of praxis prepares the ground for establishing a dialogical relationship between the objectivism-subjectivism and the structure-agency dilemmas. This is not to say that those particular questions were ever solved, but new perspectives for their understanding eventually flourished. After all, also functionalism and utilitarianism can be very miscellaneous within their core, but common features can still be identified. Depending on authors, different aspects and influences can be highlighted. Reckwitz (2002), for instance, sustains that practice theory is a specific trend within the cultural turn, and makes explicit reference to Bourdieu, Giddens, Latour and Schatzki; Turner S. (1994), in his unsympathetic critique, labels all cultural theorists as practice theorists. Ortner (2006: 16), dissimilarly, points the attention towards those authors that stressed the intertwining of power, history and culture in constructing âa theory of the production of social subjects through practice in the world, and of the production of the world itself through practiceâ.
As far as I am concerned, I see the strength of practice theory in its conceptual openness.4 Nowadays, the term identifies a vague and large set of approaches that generally share the view that a loose set of organized, identifiable and intertwined activities (i.e. doings and sayings) are socially constituted and characterized by âmaterial, embodied, ideational and affective componentsâ (Welch and Warde, 2015: 85). The focus on human praxis suggests indeed a possible pragmatic usage of these notions, eventually resulting in actual practical interventions in public policies for promoting change (Hargreaves, 2011; Shove, 2014). Nonetheless, since some authors within practice theory have admittedly proposed their own research program as one that by definition avoids issues of social stratification,5 I find comfort in heading back to Bourdieuâs theoretical framework whilst acknowledging some major problematic aspects of its work. The chapter is structured as follows: first I lay out the epistemological foundations of the research as a dialectic between structuralism and constructivism; second, I present the theoretical and conceptual backbones of the thesis through Bourdieuâs concepts of doxa, capitals and habitus; third, I define and delimit feeding practices as the array of endeavours for the nourishment of infants and children; finally, I outline the methodological translation of this approach.
2. The Logic of Practice: Epistemological Foundations
Among practice theorists, Bourdieuâs attempt at synthesis is of particular significance. Being a scholar much devoted to a systemic and theoretically informed empirical work, he left a coherent sociological toolkit that can be used on a variety of topics. Bourdieuâs program had an accurate vocabulary (habitus, field, capital), a coherent and heterogeneous combination of methods (ethnography and Multiple Correspondence Analysis), and, most importantly, a proposal for the understanding of the subject-object dichotomy that could sustain his scientific approach to sociological research. This is not to say that his work is devoid of hurdles or flaws. All in all, thinking âwith Bourdieuâ also requires thinking beyond and against him (Wacquant, 1992; King, 2000). As Wacquant (2014b) suggested, Bourdieuâs methodological tools are still be able to accommodate certain problematic aspects of his theory as long as those very central concepts are considered as means (and not as ends) of the research process itself.
Bourdieuâs theory of practice emerges as a consequence of his dissatisfaction with the objectivism of i) structuralism, which ends up neglecting âthe functional properties the message derives from its use in a specific situation, and, more precisely, in a socially structured interactionâ (1977: 25) and with the âbiographical illusionâ produced by ii) phenomenology (or, more specifically, ethnomethodology), which maintains that âscientific knowledge is continuous with common-sense knowledge, because it is only a âconstruction of constructionsââ (Bourdieu, 1990a). These two points deserve a specification, since Bourdieuâs theory of practice eventually results from their dialectic more than from their rejection tout court.
2.1 Structuralism
Structuralism, and especially its Marxist version, influenced the French sociologist right from the very beginning of his career, and particularly during his Algerian fieldwork (Bourdieu, 1990b). Bourdieu holds firmly that the major failure of the structural reason is the estrangement of agents from their conducts, that in turn annihilates the object of social research itself, viz social action. Nonetheless, taken as a moment of the dialectic, it constitutes a necessary step of the research process because it sheds light on the unconscious âgrammarâ of society. Macro-structures, that may take the form of constructed empirical regularities, delineate âthe possibilities and impossibilities, freedoms and necessities, opportunities and prohibitions inscribed in the objective conditionsâ (Bourdieu, 1990b: 54). Yet, the same process of formalization, if abstracted from the practical reason of individuals, is doomed to intellectualist fallacy: it fails to disentangle the difference between âthe model of reality and the reality of the modelâ it proposes (in Swartz, 1998: 58). The set of rules that emerge from empirical regularities of practices, are certainly âheuristically usefulâ, but they cannot be confused with their application, which must be meaningful for the subject that governs them (Crossley, 2001). This point is indeed at the base of Bourdieuâs usage of a mixed methodology: whilst statistical analysis can discover actual distributions of practices by means of different endowments of capital, ethnographic insights give back to the actors partial âauthorityâ over their actions (Swartz, 1998; Vandenberghe, 1999; Robbins, 2007).6
The tension between the opus operatum and the modus operandi thus results in a proposal for the structure-agency resolution very much analogous to Giddensâ structuration theory7 (Giddens, 1979; 1984; Vandenberghe, 1999; Joas and Knöbl, 2009). Sociology, eventually, has to simultaneously take into account âthe things we do and the things which happenâ (Louch, 1966). This is not to say that Giddens and Bourdieu have similar conceptions of structure and agency. Whilst the former holds that âstructure is implicated in that very âfreedom of actionââ (Giddens, 1984: 174), and does not constitute an outer limit, the latter eventually gives a causal effect to structural properties. However, for both authors, day to day activities and routines represent a fundamental expression of this process of duality. Giddens (1984) stresses that routines are able to minimize sources of anxiety and that the repetitive nature of habits foster the reproduction of institutionalized practices. Bourdieu (1984), much more concerned with empirical research, shows how daily practices are structured and reproduced through social classes, constrained by and contained in the habitus as an individual and collective feature.
A second major influence of structuralism, however, lies in the relational mode of thought, which Bourdieu directly draws from Saussurian linguistics. As the meaning of a particular word arises from its differentiation from other signifiers, practices make sense inasmuch they are defined in relation to one another. As de Saussure (1993) explains, within language, words are related by their syntagmatic linkage.8 The juxtaposition of magn- and animus, or the formulation of a sen...