Local food in the US

The local food movement has become increasingly popular in the United States over the past thirty years. In 1980, when the first Whole Foods Market opened, there were under a dozen “natural” grocery stores in the United States; there are now over 250 locations of that chain alone.[i] This, along with many other grocery chains, caters to a market seeking natural, organic and local food. These stores model themselves after farmers’ markets, feeling that this is a good model for sustainability since most of their sources use organic methods of growing. By some standards, “locavors,” as participants in this movement are affectionately know, may be seen as a technological digression; however, this way of life is beneficial to many areas of a society. The local food movement lends itself well to a structural functionalist social model because it was a means to accommodate the social and political environment of the 1970s in America. A cultural ecologist may also interpret “localvorism” as a way to re-assimilate into environmentally friendly practices.

Structural functionalism attempts to explain how society keeps its balance during periods of change and unrest. Through this lens, the local food movement can be seen as a fundamental part of the sustainability movement that emerged in the 1970s, when humanity started to realize the negative impact that it has on the environment. The negative effects of using pesticides and growth hormones were fairly self-evident; however, shipping foods across continents has its harmful effects too. Air pollution (caused by gases emitted by the vehicles used to transport of foods) and the ecological effects of monoculture on an area are major environmental concerns as they contribute to global warming and soil degradation. In and of themselves, sustainability and environmental consciousness are supposed to benefit the society’s physical and emotional health, but eating locally also serves to stimulate the local economy and to educate local people on farming practices. Without local farms, people generally do not know how food is grown. Although this knowledge is not necessary for society to function, it helps people to gain a broad appreciation and to understand how other methods of farming may be potentially hazardous to the ecology of and area. “Locavorism” also helps us, as anthropologists, to see the social hierarchies existing today, which are primarily economically based. Locally grown foods cost more because they are often grown organically on family-owned farms; these methods have higher start-up costs and they are more susceptible to their environments (i.e. insect-destruction). Higher prices make local food a commodity that is not accessible to people of lower economic classes; therefore, eating locally is symbolic of high economic standing in America. Taking this into consideration, we see that the local food movement serves to accentuate and “preserve the social structure.”[ii]

Cultural ecology focuses on interpreting cultural practices as a means of adapting to the present environment.  The local food movement is a response to the environmental problems that we caused through our careless or under-informed practices, particularly the ones involved in food production. Upon realizing their imminent demise if they continued in their ways, people began to try to live their lives differently in the hopes of salvaging the environment. Although many people see eating locally as a reversion to “a simpler time”, it is because people are now making a conscious effort to buy food this way, whereas they had no choice to do otherwise in the past.

– Kiernan P.

---

[i]
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/company/history.php#1

[ii] Kottak, page 65

The Mighty, Magnanimous Microwave

The most essential appliance in the American kitchen has quickly become the microwave. This small but powerful machine keeps many American college students from starving, helps save working parents priceless time, and gives children the ability to make macaroni and cheese whenever they so desire. Even though food is universal the world over because humans live all across the w­­­orld and all require food, the method by which it is cooked varies drastically. Although things might be simpler if everyone cooked their food the same way, it would not be as interesting and not be able to tell us as much about the culture in which the food is being prepared in.

If we had Franz Boas with us to talk about this widespread phenomenon with us, we could explore historical particularism with him. Two regions of the world may use microwaves in their everyday lives, but the reason why they integrated this technology may be completely different. The North American region may use the microwave because they invented the technology and it helps with their busy lifestyles. The region of Southeast Asia may use microwaves to conform to changing global standards and may be attempting to “modernize.” Regions such as Africa and South America may reject the use of microwaves in their everyday society for the same reason, such as the fact that they are impractical in a non-sedentary lifestyle. This gives us insight into the rationales of a culture.

Instead, if we were to view this from the perspective of a Cultural Evolutionist, there would be a very different approach.  This Cultural Evolutionist would be sitting in an armchair and use their own culture as the standard though which to compare others to. Let us presume that this anthropologist is from the United States. Countries and cultures that have integrated advanced cooking technology like the microwave would be viewed as industrially developed and hence culturally superior. These cultures would be culturally superior to cultures that do not have microwaves at all or cultures that have not used the microwave as long as the United States has. While traditional, this approach is faulty because of the high bias behind it. This Cultural Evolutionist is not going out into the cultures and learning more about the people’s views and thoughts on the microwave. Instead, he or she is making a harsh judgment without all the information. They are especially missing that which could be attained by talking to the people of a culture.

With the diversity and specialty that there is in anthropology today, the relationship between cultures and microwaves could be viewed in almost an infinite number of ways. These are only two possible ways to look at this issue. Even though we can look at a culture as a whole, there is variation. More developed parts of Africa may have microwaves and perhaps some Americans refuse to use microwaves because of the decrease of culinary effect. Microwaved food is often soggy and diminished in taste. While the cultural relationship with the microwave is fascinating to ponder, making sure that people are getting and adequate amount of nourishment through food is more important.

– Micah O.

The Digital Confines of Love, Sex, and Gender

Anybody familiar with the concept of love knows that it’s never simple. It is so complicated, in fact, that the idea of making a relationship public to the entire world seems ludicrous… but then there’s Facebook. Ah, Facebook, where relationship status is printed right under that picture of you that you’re so darn proud of. A place where somebody you’ve never met can get to know you intimately just by clicking a few links and reading about your favorite things. Facebook represents an all new aspect of the social world, one in which your private life isn’t so private, and where your relationship status dictates who views your page. Such a melting pot of young adult angst and hormonally charged dialogue and imagery provides a dangerous and intriguing new arena in which our generation plays the dating (and mating) game.  An anthropological analysis, using Feminist and Symbolic approaches, of this new “social network” Facebook reveals a new set of cultural guidelines and strict limitations concerning gender, sexuality, and love.

To begin with, we will look at the structure of the Facebook profile from a Feminist, gender-related perspective. To create a page, a person fills out information about their personal information: hometown, date of birth, education level, etc. Yet some of these areas expected to be filled in are blatantly biased; the category of “Interested In,” for example, offers only two choices, male or female. The category of sex also offers only male or female. Automatically, the site infers an adherence to common gender roles, and even suggests a strict adherence to sexual dimorphism. For example, while a gay man can choose male as his gender and select “Men” in the “Interested In” category, there’s little room beyond this. There is no “Transgendered” category, nor is there a category for intersexed individuals. The options listed present very little wiggle room in the way of sexual orientation, gender, and gender roles; you can be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, or you can choose to hide this specific information. Facebook has become global, yet it still recognizes only two sexes and gender is still predetermined.

If we look at Facebook from the Symbolic or Interpretive perspective, we can see that the site becomes a stage for performance. Sometimes the  projected self can be vastly different from reality. If culture is not in the mind but in public performance of symbols, then Facebook provides a gallery for our symbolic expression. We publish pictures of rites of passage; 21^st birthday parties and graduations, for example. And in this same way Facebook-sanctioned relationships have become status symbols. The visible connection between individuals on their profile signifies the legitimization of a relationship in real life, and it has become a rite of passage within a relationship to change a status from “Single” to “In a Relationship.” In these ways, Facebook has given Love a set of rules… you’re not in love if you’re not male or female, and you’re certainly not in a loving relationship unless your Facebook page says so.

– Sidney N.

On the Prowl: “Cougars” and their “Cubs”

“Mrs. Robinson, you’re trying to seduce me.” The infamous line from The Graduate refers to a recent trend in love and dating that seems to have just emerged from the closet – or bedroom. Cougars: they are sexually and romantically active middle-aged women who seek “cubs,” younger men usually in their early twenties and thirties. Are cougars a recent phenomenon or a long-standing tradition? Cultural ecologists and feminist anthropologists have different opinions.

To the cultural ecologist, the recent Cougar phenomenon is not recent at all. Pressure from environmental stresses – warfare, disease, famine, etc. – forced women to remain sexually active for as long as possible for a greater chance at offspring survival. Prime fertility years for most women occur in their late teens to mid-twenties, and due to the ease of conception during this slim time frame, younger women do not have to spend much time having sex. But this is not true for the middle-aged woman! Due to her advancing age, an older woman’s eggs may not be as viable as they once were. To increase the chances of conception, the middle-aged woman responds by having more sex. But why do cougars go for “cubs” rather than men of their own age? From the perspective of a cultural ecologist, an older woman’s best chance at conception would be with a sexually healthy and active male; typically, a younger male. (The availability of older men was probably slim due to deaths incurred from high-risk activities like hunting.) Competition from other men for younger females may scare off some younger males, compelling them to seek other women in the group to help pass on their genes. The practice continues today probably due to the reduced availability of eligible middle-aged men. They may already be married, have interfering health problems, or may not be attractive options for cougars.

To the feminist anthropologist, the recent attention shift toward cougars can be explained by the increased scholastic and financial independence of women in the past few decades. Women of all ages and marital statuses are no longer tied to their male counterparts. With increased education and economic autonomy, women who were once thought of as romantically and sexually unavailable have reentered the dating scene and are viewed by many as mature, romantic, and experienced partners. With economic success no longer limited to men, many women are taking on the traditional male role of household provider. Delaying marriage to focus on careers and increased divorce rates among middle-aged couples are reasons why many older women (re)enter the dating scene. Due to the increasingly important roles of women in the community, taboos of age disparity in relationships are slowly breaking down. Once thought of as unacceptable in Western culture, relationships between older women and younger men are now thought of as empowering for the woman; taking charge of the relationship and representing an equal portion of the concept of the “couple.” The prospect of a sexually dominant partner can be appealing for the often inexperienced younger man.

– Jessie M.

Geertz and Levi-Strauss Reveal Summer Love! Tell Me More!

Ahhh… Summer Love: the hot romance so common among our youth is actually almost unique to American culture and sometimes incomprehensible to others. It can only be understood based on the exclusively American interpretation of what “love” is, in contrast to “hate.” Although all people may share the psychological ability and need to love, the cultural system of Summer Love is based off the American concept of a love that can be fleeting, mindless, dismissed.

The best way to describe what Summer Love symbolizes in American culture is through popular music. Clifford Geertz believes that culture can be found in the public performance of symbols, and what is more public and cultural than music?[1] Songs are “vehicles of culture,” holding vast meaning and significance and are easily communicated between and within cultures: learned, shared, influenced by and adaptable to change in the culture.[2] Society responds to, recognizes, learns, and shares the lyrics, and they are easily identified as cultural symbols. So, based on songs about  “having fun all summer long” [3] “running barefoot and feeling free while the love in our hearts blend,” [4] “on an island in the sun, playing and having fun…we’ll run away together,” [5] “fell deep in love and now we ain’t speaking…summer girls come and summer girls go,” [6] “I don’t recall a single care…then Labor day came…and we left our love,”[7] a symbolic anthropologist could characterize Summer Love in America throughout history as liberating, relaxing, fun, and intense but of limited duration. Friends, family, even the two lovers shrug off Summer Love as a phase of growing up.

Of course, there are songs in direct contrast to these happy tunes regarding the same subject of Summer Love: Taking Back Sunday’s “You Are So Last Summer,” with a chorus of “maybe I should hate you for this” is about the hurt of one youth when a summer fling didn’t last, was a lie. The binary opposition between the carefree love quoted above and the hate described here is a topic a Structuralist would be interested in. Levi-Strauss would show that despite being opposites, the concepts of love and hate mutually constitute each other: to hate someone does not make sense unless you compare it to loving someone. The unity of opposites theory shows how the concepts work together to create social meaning and structure. [8] Structuralists would reveal how the social structure of this romantic relationship mirrors the “psychic unity” of human love; specifically, the American mentality of the freedom to and be in love. The cognitive structure of the need for love but reluctance towards commitment created the cultural structure of Summer Love in America, where love is a not always taken seriously. Because it is linked to the thought process that is so deeply ingrained in American culture, Summer Love has become the norm here. Although all humans share the same basic psychological make-up, concepts of love are culture specific and each retains its own social structure: Summer Love is not a universal phenomenon.[9]

– Kendall L.

---

[1] Carole McGranahan. Lecture: Symbolic Anthropology. ANTH 2100: Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology. 10-13-10.

[2]Carole McGranahan. Lecture: Symbolic Anthropology. ANTH 2100: Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology. 10-13-10.

[3] Beach Boys 1964  “All Summer Long,”

[4] Dolly Parton 1979“ Sweet Summer Lovin.”

[5] Weezer 2001 “Island in the Sun”

[6] LFO 1999 “Summer Girls”

[7] Death Cab for Cutie 2005 “Summer Skin”

[8] Conrad Phillip Kottak, Cultural Anthropology (New York: Mcgraw Hill, 2009) 69-70

[9] Carole McGranahan. Lecture: Marriage, Structuralism. ANTH 2100: Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology. 10-6-10.

---

---

Hook Up Culture

As my parents remind me on a regular basis, things these days are much different than when they went to college. My mother is constantly telling stories of the boys she dated when she was in college and asking me why I have only gone on one date the entire time I have been in college. Well, she is right, things just are not the same these days.  College has gone from couples and dates to singles and sex. Dating is virtually nonexistent and “hooking up” has taken over. Everyone I have met in college is hooking up, trying to hook up, or trying to get over a hook up. As this is becoming more and more prevalent, many people, parents especially (or at least mine), are trying to figure out why dating has died.

A Structural-Functionalist would look at the hook up culture in college and ask how this is serving a function for society. Dating is a formal way to court possible mates or spouses. Like dating, hooking up is still a form of courtship, but it is a much more casual approach that seems to better suit the lifestyle of current college students. This demonstrates the idea of dynamic continuity; the age old need for companionship and sex are still there, but how one fulfills these needs changes with society. Society is becoming more detached from human interaction with the increasing amount of technology, so maybe college students feel it is normal for a sexual relationship to only involve sex and no personal connection. It is also true that students want their sexual needs met, but because of logistics, do not want to become emotionally involved; students are often from different states and plan on leaving or going home after graduation, making sustaining a relationship difficult.

A Feminist Anthropologist would also have a lot to say about the hook up culture in colleges. From this perspective one would probably note the performance of gender in the hook up culture. With any courting practices, both sexes try to make themselves look attractive for their potential mates.  For women this means putting on makeup, doing their hair, and wearing clothes they believe to make themselves look more attractive. For men they might put on their nicer clothes and cologne and shave their face (or not shave, if that’s what they think is attractive). At a party, which is where most people would go to find someone to hook up with, the way that people dance or flirt can be seen as gender performance. A Feminist Anthropologist would also probably note the sexual bias within hook up culture. It is very unlikely that a female would more aggressively pursue a male to hook up. Usually a female will wait for a guy to approach her and let him guide the relationship if both are interested in hooking up.  America has a patriarchal society and within the hook up culture it is no different.

– Casey K.

1,2,3,4 Tell Her That You Love Her More or You’ll Be Going Home Alone: A Closer Look at a Modern American Dating Ritual

Speed dating is a new form of matchmaking for the fast-paced world of modern America. A new concept, speed dating brings a group of young people together in a structured environment to help them meet eligible men and women. When examined from two anthropological viewpoints, we can gain a better sense of how speed dating fits into modern American society as well as how it can elucidate certain rituals.

From a structural-functionalist viewpoint, speed dating is simply a new elaboration of the traditional societal structure of marriage.  In this case, the specific structure of dating to find a life-long mate remains the same, while the population’s interpretation and representation of the institution is changing.  Speed dating was created for the fast-paced, busy world where Americans work and play. Combining the practical institution of monogamous mating with the romantic notion of “the one,” we get the paradigm of speed dating where groups of males and females go on five minute long “dates” to discover the important basics of their partner. This information will allow the individual to determine whether they have found a potential mate or not. Although the criteria for that partnership and the methods by which to acquire it may have changed, the desire to find a lifetime partner has not.

The structural-functionalist viewpoint lacks the recognition that institutions change too. Partnering and the creation of a family have certainly maintained importance in today’s society, but the structure is no longer the same. No longer is the one man, one woman pairing the only way to accomplish these ends. The structure itself is constantly shifting to include new permutations of society.

To take a symbolic anthropology approach to speed dating, one would look at the rituals within the performance.  For example, to gather and organize the participants the director rings a bell, bangs a gong, or presses a buzzer to indicate both the time to begin as well as when it is time to switch partners. The specific response to these noises is socially embedded in American customs; for us it is a clear symbol to start or stop any given activity. Furthermore, this symbolizes the linear way in which Americans view events, generally with a clear beginning and end. Once the times-up indicator has been used, the male will stand up and move on to the next female.  From a symbolic anthropology and from a feminist anthropology outlook this could symbolize two things: one, the classic chivalry idea of the male having to take on the inconvenience of movement, or two, which seems more likely (and even provides further insight into the previous idea), the mobile male demonstrates the guise of power in dating situations, symbolically similar to a male spreading his seed.  Anthropology allows for many interpretations of the relatively new practice of speed dating and how it fits in to modern society.

– Jamie J.