Intracultural Diversity in Food Knowledge in Southern Brazil

This article was downloaded by: [Dicle University]On: 07 November 2014, At: 06:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ecology of Food and NutritionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gefn20

Intracultural Diversity in Food Knowledgein Southern BrazilChristine N. Newkirk a , Kathryn S. Oths b , William W. Dressler b &José Ernesto Dos Santos ca Program in International Affairs , The New School , New York, NewYork, USAb Department of Anthropology , University of Alabama , Tuscaloosa,Alabama, USAc Faculty of Medicine , University of São Paulo , Ribeirão Preto,BrazilPublished online: 13 Jul 2009.

To cite this article: Christine N. Newkirk , Kathryn S. Oths , William W. Dressler & José ErnestoDos Santos (2009) Intracultural Diversity in Food Knowledge in Southern Brazil, Ecology of Food andNutrition, 48:4, 285-302, DOI: 10.1080/03670240903022304

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03670240903022304

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gefn20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03670240903022304

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03670240903022304

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

285

Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 48:285–302, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0367-0244 print/1543-5237 onlineDOI: 10.1080/03670240903022304

GEFN0367-02441543-5237Ecology of Food and Nutrition, Vol. 48, No. 4, May 2009: pp. 1–30Ecology of Food and Nutrition

Intracultural Diversity in Food Knowledge in Southern Brazil

Diversity in Food Knowledge in BrazilC. N. Newkirk et al.

CHRISTINE N. NEWKIRKProgram in International Affairs, The New School, New York, New York, USA

KATHRYN S. OTHSDepartment of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

WILLIAM W. DRESSLERDepartment of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

JOSÉ ERNESTO DOS SANTOSFaculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

This research explores the social distribution of food knowledge inRibeirão Preto, a city in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Through ananalysis of the distribution of individual expertise in regard to thecultural model of food along the dimensions of healthfulness, practi-cality, and prestige, this research demonstrates that knowledge ofthe cultural model of food is most strongly shared in the upper classof the city. Qualitative and quantitative ethnographic research sug-gests that the social patterning of health-related food knowledge inRibeirão Preto may serve to maintain class distinction.

KEYWORDS foodways, cultural consensus, intracultural diversity,Brazil

INTRODUCTION

Food is one of the few domains of material culture absolutely necessary tohuman life. All social groups cook and eat, their diets subject to uniqueconditions of food availability, technology, preference, and biology; hence,culture groups have characteristic foodways. The study of the relationship

Address correspondence to William W. Dressler, Department of Anthropology, P.O. Box870210, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0210, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

286 C. N. Newkirk et al.

between food and culture is receiving more attention from anthropologists.Numerous studies have evaluated the symbolic and material dimensions offood use in society (see Mintz and Du Bois 2002, for a review). In contem-porary global society, through industrialization and cross-cultural interac-tion, food has become a commodity with an exchange value determinednot only by market forces, but through cultural evaluation (Warde 1997;Caplan 1997; Oths et al. 2003). Today, the communication of food-relatedvalues coupled with patterns of food consumption may function as signs ofsocial identity (Goody 1982; Bourdieu 1984; Weismantel 1988).

Brazil is a large and socially diverse nation. From the early colonialperiod, when European and indigenous foodways came together to form anew “typical” Brazilian cuisine (daCamara Cascudo 1968), Brazilian foods haveembodied Brazilian identities. Today, a revitalization of interest in Brazilianregional foodways functions to preserve and represent local histories, whilethe cross-fertilization of regional foodways serves to mediate culturalinteractions (Fisberg et al. 2002). For example, in a televised film celebratingcultural and regional differences in the national Festival of São João(Waddington 2002), the Brazilian Minister of Culture, Gilberto Gil, led asurvey of typical foods to demonstrate the regional differences in festivalactivities. Considering the cultural dynamics of food, as well as the socialinstitutions arranged around eating in Brazil, the anthropological study offood would greatly benefit from research into Brazilian food and foodways.

Much of the research regarding the relationship between food beliefs,food practices, and society takes for granted untested assumptions about thecontent and distribution of culture in the research population. The model ofcultural research often used in food studies, wherein an analytical reduction-ism is necessary for revealing macro-level social dynamics, often overlooksintracultural diversity. The notion that all members of a particular culturegroup share beliefs or equally participate in a single model of culture oftenpasses as an untested assumption. Furthermore, this approach often conflatesbehavior and belief. In attending to this problem, recent theoretical and eth-nographic work has argued that the degree to which beliefs or behaviors areshared by a group is an empirical question (Pelto and Pelto 1975; Oths et al.2003). Although past studies have contributed to our understanding of societyby demonstrating that food knowledge and values correlate with social iden-tities and differences (Mintz and Du Bois, 2002), they do little to explain whyor how. Furthermore, few studies have dealt with the appearance and impli-cations of patterned distributions of food knowledge within cultural groups.

This study addresses the issue of intracultural diversity in relation to theanthropological study of food and foodways.1 Beginning with the observa-tion that culture is constituted by shared knowledge organized by domains,we employ cultural consensus analysis (Romney et al. 1986) along withother ethnographic research methods to measure and evaluate sharing offood-related knowledge in the research sample, to calculate individual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Diversity in Food Knowledge in Brazil 287

competence or expertise in regard to this food knowledge, and to producea cultural key, or a representation of the food knowledge shared within thisgroup. Through the application of this cognitive anthropological theory andcorresponding methods, this research investigates the relationship betweenthe structure of the cultural domain of food, the distribution of food knowl-edge, and social structure in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. More specifically, thisresearch looks at the social patterning of individual food knowledge withina group of people who demonstrably share one food culture. Furthermore,the relative importance of the dimensions of the food domain, plus thepatterned concentration of knowledge of these dimensions, are examined inregard to class identity in the city. Finally, this research includes a longitudi-nal perspective, in that it extends and refines a study of cultural models offood conducted ten years ago (Oths et al. 2003). Our results are consistentwith Bourdieu’s (1984) proposition that status distinction is achieved withina group through the socially patterned distribution of cultural expertise.

ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND

Ribeirão Preto is a vibrant large city of about 500,000 residents. The city ismost densely populated near the centro (downtown), where people occupyhigh-rise apartment buildings that gaze down on the city below and out tothe suburbs and farms. Arrayed around the centro are a series of diverseneighborhoods, spanning the socioeconomic spectrum, from public housingprojects to up-scale gated communities.

The median per capita income in Ribeirão Preto is nearly 130 percentthe median income for the entire state of São Paulo (Câmara Municipal2004). However, the city is not without the notable degree of socioeconomicdisparity characteristic of all Brazilian society. While the mean monthlyincome for the head of household in 2000 was about BR$1300 (reported inBrazilian reais), the median was only BR$700 (about US$230; CâmaraMunicipal 2004). In Ribeirão Preto, a smaller number of comparativelywealthy families live alongside the relatively poor majority. Furthermore,socioeconomic status, based on participation in the labor force, educationlevel, and income, is strongly correlated with ethnicity (Dressler et al. 1999).Generally, the wealthy Euro-Brazilians live closer to the urban center of thecity, and the poorer neighborhoods, distant from the centro, are populatedby the majority of city’s Afro-Brazilian residents. This pattern of ethnic-geographic distribution is found throughout the country (Hasenbalg 1985).

While Ribeirão Preto generally reflects the social and ethnic diversity ofBrazil on a smaller scale, the city is distinct because of its comparably highaverage wealth. The city is home to many high-status individuals includinghealth professionals, corporate executives, business persons, and universityprofessors (Dressler et al. 1996). The large number of wealthy and powerful

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


community members has facilitated the formation of elite lifestyles, main-tained by elite institutions including chic social clubs, high-end retailers, andformal restaurants. This research is greatly enriched by this facet of RibeirãoPreto society: the presence of a dominant upper class means the high statuslifestyle is established and publicly visible.

In order to represent the spectrum of socioeconomic variability inRibeirão Preto, this research draws on participants from four distinct neigh-borhoods, which have served as research sites for a series of studies carriedout by Dressler and his associates in the 1990s (Dressler et al. 1996). Thepoorest of the four sites had the semi-legal status of favela, or squattercommunity, ten years ago, and today this neighborhood is a conjuntohabitacional, or public housing project funded by the city government.Residents are both Euro- and Afro-Brazilian, and primarily work agricultural,construction, or domestic labor jobs. Residents compensate for a lack oflocal commerce by growing produce gardens in the open lots betweensome city blocks, and through independent retail of homemade productslike sweets and cheeses, and services such as car maintenance andconstruction.

The second neighborhood began as a conjunto habitacional in 1988.What were once uniformly constructed and decorated three to four roomconcrete homes have been renovated and updated, and today the neighbor-hood is a stable and desirable lower-middle class community. Thisneighborhood has a higher ratio of Euro- to Afro-Brazilian residents thanthe previous neighborhood, and the residents are generally employed inlow-status service and maintenance jobs. This lower-middle class neighbor-hood has two large grocery stores and several small markets, includingspecialty markets like fish stores, produce markets and butcher shops.Furthermore, other commercial activity such as clothing retail and serviceprovision is expanding in the community.

The third neighborhood is a traditionally middle class area of the city,founded at the turn of the 20th century by Italian and Spanish families emi-grating to Ribeirão Preto. Today, the neighborhood is a commercial hub,part of the larger urban geographic and economic network. Residents of thecommunity, mostly Euro-Brazilian, have secure, middle class occupations asteachers, shop owners and technicians. In the last 10 years, however, due tomarket reforms enforced by international lending agencies, the real incomeof the Brazilian middle class has actually fallen. Under these circumstances,the previously mentioned lower-middle class neighborhood and this middleclass neighborhood have become economically comparable (Dressler et al.2005). For this reason, many of the analyses performed on the data in thisresearch use education level, rather than neighborhood or occupation, as asocial class grouping variable.

The fourth neighborhood is a private, upper class community locatedacross the highway from the University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirão Preto. This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


neighborhood is a popular residence for the elite, including doctors, busi-nessmen, and professors. The houses sit on large plots of land, and there isgreat variation in architectural style because many homes were designed ormodified by their owners. Details such as cultivated gardens and designersidewalk tiles reflect the wealth of the community. Residents of this commu-nity have access to a great variety of retail and grocery stores, includinghigh-priced gourmet and health food stores. Compared to residents of theother neighborhoods, these residents have the greatest economic capital toinvest in their health and lifestyles.

The foods and foodways of Ribeirão Preto both articulate with Braziliantraditions and express local preferences. The typical almoço (lunch) consistsof rice, beans, meat, a cooked vegetable, fruit, and a salad. This is the mealmost likely to be prepared in situations when part or all of the family canreturn home to eat together during the middle of the day. In wealthierhomes, an empregada (domestic worker) prepares the meals, and in lower-class homes the meal is often prepared by the mother or female head of thehousehold.

Foods typically eaten in homes in Ribeirão Preto are only part of the“ostensible socially valued diet” (Oths et al. 2003, 311). Also included in thiscategory are Brazilian special event foods and ethnic foods that have beenincorporated into the local eating habits through immigration or popularfood trends. Today feijoada—a meat and black bean stew derived fromNortheastern Afro-Brazilian cuisine—constitutes the Brazilian national dish(Page 1995). Churrasco, which describes as much a meal as an event,consists of barbequed beef or chicken prepared in outdoor brick pits andserved with bread and vinagre, or a chopped tomato and onion salad mari-nated in olive oil. Both feijoada and churrasco are considered high statusbecause they are comparably expensive and reserved for special occasions.

Several other foods stand out as significant in the local cuisine. RibeirãoPreto is well known for the draft beer, or chopp (pronounced “shoapy”)produced in the city. Chopp is highly esteemed and more expensive thanother beers, available only in restaurants or outdoor bars. In such high statusbars, one can order palm hearts or fresh fish and shrimp as appetizers.Additionally, Italian foods, particularly pizza, occupy a high status inRibeirão Preto. Pizza is a particularly popular meal for Sunday night dinner,in both informal and formal restaurants. The popularity of pizza and pastadishes articulates with the popularity and prestige of various dairy products.For example, molho branco (white sauce), made from heavy cream andbutter, is a popular accompaniment for vegetables and pasta dishes. Freshcheese accompanies french bread and goiabada (guava jelly) or ham atbreakfast. Yogurt, an increasingly popular snack food, is considered healthyand convenient. In regard to fruits and vegetables—abundant and widelyavailable at outdoor markets, small stands and large grocery stores—priceand reputation determine desirability. Oranges are locally-produced and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


popular, but more expensive fruits such as papaya and grapes have ahigher prestige value. Fresh juice is considered more wholesome thanprocessed store-bought drinks; however, Coca-Cola©—one of the mostpopular and least expensive beverages—is probably consumed more. Also,chocolate is a preferred sweet, and several chain and local chocolatiers runsuccessful businesses in Ribeirão Preto.

Food culture is a unique lens through which to view social life inRibeirão Preto. The popular diet has not changed dramatically since theearly 1990’s (Oths et al. 2003); however, there have been shifts in the wayfoods are represented in the culture of the city, and examining those shiftsadds to an analysis of culture change in Ribeirão Preto. Furthermore, exam-ining the current structure of the food domain contributes to a study offood, social class, and class identity.

SAMPLE AND METHODS

Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were used to constructthe cultural model of food in Ribeirão Preto. Forty individuals, 5 men and5 women from each of the 4 neighborhoods described above, were inter-viewed. These individuals were drawn from a larger, random sample of 271individuals who had participated in the main research of which the studyreported here was a part (Dressler 2005; Dressler et al. 2005). The inter-views were conducted in participants’ homes, with only one member ofeach household participating. The human subjects protocol was reviewedand approved by the Institutional Review Board for the Protection ofHuman Subjects of The University of Alabama.

The first stage of the interview was designed to gather quantitativedata for multi-dimensional scaling and cultural consensus analysis. With alist of 21 culturally salient food items initially developed by Oths et al.(2003) for similar research in Ribeirão Preto (Table 1), participants wereasked to sort food items into groups of similar foods, and to identify thekey characteristics of each group formed. The food items were listedindividually on 21 3 × 5” cards randomly arranged before each task. Previ-ous research identified the dimensions of healthfulness, practicality andprestige as those most important to the cultural model of food in RibeirãoPreto (Dressler 2001). In order to test consensus along these dimensions,we asked each individual to rank food items from most to least healthful,prestigious, and practical. For each dimension, we asked each participantto first divide the cards into 2 piles—for “more” and “less”—and then rankthe cards within each pile. In the second stage of the interview, Likert-response scales were used to collect data regarding the importance ofsources of food-related information, with a list of salient sources developedin consultation with the Brazilian research team. Open-ended interview

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


responses regarding individual shopping and dining preferences, and dailyeating habits were also collected.

In addition to individual interviews, food-themed focus group interviewswere carried out with groups of 8–12 participants from each neighborhood.Furthermore, throughout the research period, the senior author kept fieldnotes about experiences and observations of dining, food advertisementand food discourse in Ribeirão Preto. Through the combination of structuredinterviewing, participant-observation, and focus group interviews, a culturalmodel of the food domain was constructed.

RESULTS

Cultural Consensus

Most importantly, this research demonstrates that one cognitive model offood is shared across social strata in Ribeirão Preto. Consistent with previousresearch (Dressler 2001), we found substantial agreement in the rankings offoods along the dimensions of healthfulness and practicality, and a fairamount of agreement along the dimension of prestige. The amount of agree-ment along the dimension of healthfulness was notably greater than alongother dimensions and healthfulness was the most important dimension forstructuring relationships between the food items tested in the cognitive tasks.

TABLE 1 List of 21 Food ItemsUsed in Cognitive Tasks (Othset al. 2003)

Food items:1. Pizza2. Churrasco (grilled meat)3. Fresh fish4. Salgadinhos (salty snacks)5. Feijoada (meat stew)6. Fresh cheese7. Broccoli8. Ham9. Coca-cola

10. Chopp (draft beer)11. Chocolate12. White sauce13. Papaya14. Palm hearts15. Butter16. Fresh juice17. Grapes18. Yogurt19. Shrimp20. Orange21. French bread

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Using Anthropac 4.7x (Borgatti 1996), pilesort data were converted to asquare similarity matrix, in which entries in the matrix represented theproportion of people who placed each food term in the same pile. Thesesimilarities were then analyzed using multidimensional scaling (MDS). MDSconverts similarity to distance in a given dimensionality. For these pile sortdata, a two-dimensional map illustrates the perceived distance betweenterms, and measures of goodness of fit indicate that this is an acceptablerepresentation of similarities and differences among the terms (stress = 0.171).Figure 1 presents the MDS diagram broken into four sections, in accordancewith the results of a hierarchical cluster analysis. Where MDS is good at rep-resenting overall interpoint similarities and differences, cluster analysis isgood at identifying the boundaries that separate groups of terms. In thiscase, participants grouped fruits and vegetables together, and almost nevergrouped them with foods like soft drinks, beer, feijoada, churrasco, saltysnacks or pizza—the foods that make up the group placed the greatest dis-tance away. The grouping criteria reported by each participant during theindividual interviews provide an understanding of the themes of eachgroup. Foods like beer, churrasco, and pizza are considered both unhealthyand special-occasion, whereas foods like fruits and vegetables are consid-ered healthy and are foods that are eaten every day. Participants noted thatfoods like shrimp, fish, and white sauce are high in prestige value, and ofteneaten in restaurant settings, whereas foods like french bread and butter,

FIGURE 1 Multidimensional scaling diagram with clusters represented (stress = 0.171).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


cheese, yogurt, ham and chocolate are eaten on a daily basis, and oftentogether at breakfast or in the evening as a light supper.

We also used Anthropac 4.7x (Borgatti 1996) to determine the degreeto which evaluations of the food items along three dimensions—health,practicality, and prestige—are shared within the group of respondents. Theresults of the cultural consensus analysis suggest that, in regard to each ofthe three dimensions tested, the research participants were drawing on asingle cultural model: the eigenvalue ratios corresponding to the dimen-sions of healthfulness, practicality and prestige respectively, are 17.8, 4.41,and 2.6. These preliminary results of consensus analysis provide data thatcan be used to further explore the structure of the MDS diagram. Findingconsensus along each dimension justified using the cultural key as a reliablerepresentation of the culturally correct rankings of foods along each dimen-sion. This cultural key can be then be used in profile fitting (PROFIT) anal-ysis to relate the spatial distribution of foods observed in the pilesort task tothe dimensions of meaning explored in the ranking tasks (Figure 2). Theresult of regressing the healthfulness ranking on the MDS diagram (multipleR = .94) demonstrates a very close fit between the perceived similarities offoods represented through the pilesort task and their ranking from most to

FIGURE 2 Multidimensional scaling diagram with PROFIT analysis. This diagram demon-strates the regression of the healthfulness, prestige, and practicality rankings on the MDSdiagram of the food domain.

HealthR = .94

PrestigeR = .33

Practicality R = .72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


least healthy. The dimensions of prestige and practicality (multiple R = .33, .72respectively) show lower correlations.

Combining the eigenvalue ratio and PROFIT results with the meancompetence value—an indication of how well-known a cultural model is atthe population level (Table 2)—provides a multi-faceted view of eachdimension tested with cultural consensus analysis. These statistics demon-strate that the dimension of healthfulness is most highly shared among allindividuals interviewed (eigenvalue ratio = 17.8); also, individuals were onaverage more competent in the model along the dimension of healthfulnessthan along any other dimension (mean competence = .833). The relativelylow standard deviation of competence scores in the healthfulness dimen-sion indicates that competence is relatively consistently distributed acrossthe sample as well (s.d. = .137). Furthermore, in regard to the healthfulnessdimension, the close fit between the ranking of health and the interpointdistances from the PROFIT analysis (multiple R = .94) demonstrates theimportance of this dimension in structuring the food domain. In contrast, themodel in the dimension of practicality is highly shared (eigenvalue ratio = 4.4),but average competence is not as high or as tightly distributed around themean as found for the healthfulness dimension (mean competence = .647,s.d. = .231). Furthermore, PROFIT analysis reveals that the organization offoods along the practicality dimension is less related to the overall structur-ing of the food domain (multiple R = .72). Finally, there is the lowest degreeof consensus and average competence in the prestige dimension (eigen-value ratio = 2.6, mean competence = .614). Also, evaluations of food alongthe prestige dimension demonstrate that the organization of food in terms ofprestige does not articulate well with the model of the food domain, as indi-cated by PROFIT analysis (multiple R = .33).

Intracultural Diversity

Cultural consensus analysis demonstrates that competence varies along eachdimension of the food model. Further analyses reveal the social patterningof intracultural diversity in food beliefs in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. Whereas anearlier study (Dressler 2001) found virtually no patterns in the distribution ofcompetence scores among social categories, here we found general trends,

TABLE 2 Results of Cultural Consensus and PROFIT Analysis for Three Dimensions of theFood Domain

DimensionEigenvalue

ratioMean

competence RangeStandard deviation

PROFIT multiple R

Healthfulness 17.8 .833 .24–.95 .137 .94Practicality 4.4 .647 −.01−.91 .231 .72Prestige 2.6 .614 .30–.85 .137 .33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


and in some cases, statistically significant differences, in the distribution ofknowledge by social groups. When the sample is broken into three groupsaccording to highest attained education level, which can be taken as aproxy measure of social class,2 cultural competence in each of the dimen-sions increases on average and is less variable as you move from the lowerto the upper class. Furthermore, while this trend is observable in each of thethree dimensions of the cultural model of food, the difference in compe-tence levels by education is statistically significant in regard to the dimen-sion of healthfulness (F = 3.38, p < .05, Figure 3).

These findings pose an interesting question, especially in considerationof previous research which suggested that competence in the dimension ofprestige is an indicator of upper class identity (Oths et al. 2003). Here wesee that knowledge in the dimension of healthfulness, not prestige, is con-centrated in the upper class.

Comparing prestige rankings from 1991 to those of today provides evi-dence that evaluations of health have largely influenced cultural evaluationsof prestige. Table 3 presents the cultural key of prestige rankings of each ofthe four neighborhoods. This table emulates the table created by Oths et al.(2003) for the purpose of comparing several aspects of the food domain atonce. The foods in the shaded boxes are the foods appearing in the top 10

FIGURE 3 Cultural competence coefficients in dimensions of healthfulness, practicality, andprestige according to highest level of education achieved.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


rankings of the upper-class group. The foods in all capitals are those con-sidered fattening (Oths et al. 2003) and the bolded foods are the typical, ortraditional, Brazilian dishes.

Only 5 of the foods appearing in the upper class neighborhood’s top10 most prestigious foods in 1991 (Oths et al. 2003) appear in their top 10most prestigious foods today. The foods that have fallen in prestige rankingfor this neighborhood include feijoada, churrasco, ham, chocolate, andchopp: the five foods that have dropped down the list since 1991 are high-fat foods. They have been replaced with four foods perceived as the mosthealthy: grapes, yogurt, natural juice, and papaya (Table 3). The only foodsconsidered unhealthy among the ten most prestigious foods for the upperclass include pizza and molho branco (white sauce). It appears that overtime, health value has come to at least correlate with and perhaps evendefine prestige value, at least for the upper class.

Today, the neighborhood whose prestige ranking of food best matchesthe prestige rankings of the upper class neighborhood in 1991 is the lower-middle class neighborhood. Interestingly, today the weakest correlationbetween individual neighborhoods’ healthfulness rankings of food is foundbetween these two neighborhoods. This may be evidence of the fact thatthe lower class, through efforts toward upward mobility, has adopted anupper class model of prestige, unaware that the new trend in food prestige

TABLE 3 Prestige Rankings of 21 Food Items by Neighborhood This Table is Arranged toFacilitate Comparison with the Results of Oths et al. (2003)

Upper Middle Lower-Middle Lower

1 Shrimp Shrimp Shrimp Shrimp2 Fresh fish Palm heart FEIJOADA Fresh Fish3 Palm Heart Fresh fish Fresh fish WHITE SAUCE4 WHITE SAUCE WHITE SAUCE WHITE SAUCE Fresh cheese5 Grapes CHOCOLATE CHURRASCO Palm heart6 Yogurt Fresh cheese Palm heart CHOPP7 Natural Juice FEIJOADA PIZZA CHURRASCO8 Fresh Cheese Yogurt Fresh cheese FEIJOADA9 Small papaya HAM CHOPP Yogurt

10 PIZZA Grapes Yogurt PIZZA11 HAM CHOPP HAM HAM12 CHOCOLATE PIZZA CHOCOLATE CHOCOLATE13 Broccoli CHURRASCO French bread Small papaya14 FEIJOADA Broccoli SALGADINHOS Grapes15 SALGADINHOS Natural Juice Broccoli Natural juice16 CHURRASCO Small papaya COCA COLA Broccoli17 CHOPP Orange BUTTER COCA COLA18 BUTTER SALGADINHOS Natural Juice French bread19 Orange French bread Small papaya Orange20 French bread BUTTER Orange SALGADINHOS21 COCA COLA COCA COLA Grape BUTTER

All caps = fattening, Bold = traditional foods, Shaded = top 10 most prestigious for upper class.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


for the upper class is driven by the healthfulness dimension of the fooddomain. These findings suggest that the dimension of healthfulness, notprestige, is now instrumental to defining an upper-class model of the fooddomain, and that expertise in the healthfulness dimension is related toupper-class status.

The data from participant-observation, individual and focus groupinterviews corroborated these findings, demonstrating the importance of thedimension of healthfulness in structuring the food domain, and providinginformation that reflects class-based differences in the associations betweenfoods and their meanings. Information about food, and particularly thehealth value of foods, is ubiquitous in Ribeirão Preto. Food informationreaches members of the community through all forms of media, includingtelevision and literature, in the form of culinary programs and morningnews and entertainment programs, evening news, newspapers, magazines,nutrition sourcebooks and cookbooks. Even when the media are notdirectly addressing food, messages about food are often communicated tothe audience. As a case in point, soap operas—the definitively Brazilianform of public entertainment (Kottak 1990)—often represent scenes offriends and families eating, either in their homes or in restaurants. Often,the foods being consumed in these scenes—including abundant fresh fruitsand vegetables—represent the ideal high-status cuisine. However, someforms of food information are valued over others. Interview results demon-strated that doctors and nutritionists were the most trusted sources of infor-mation about food, followed by books and magazines about nutrition orhealth; family, cookbooks and cooking shows followed. Information thatrelates food to health is judged more important than information regardingother aspects of food or eating.

The importance of different categories of food information variedaccording to social group, providing information that might help explain theobserved patterns of intracultural diversity in knowledge of the fooddomain. Exposure to foods through traveling or living outside of RibeirãoPreto, dining in restaurants, going to parties and visiting grocers was consid-ered a highly important source of information about food by the upperclass, setting elite individuals apart from the rest when breaking the groupdown by either neighborhood (F = 5.26, p < .01) or education level(F = 3.42, p < .05). In addition, television as a source of information aboutfood was positively evaluated by the three lower-class neighborhoods, butnot by the upper-class neighborhood, significantly distinguishing betweenthese two social groups (F = 3.38, p < .05). This demonstrates that not onlydo evaluations of food items differ by social class, but so do methods ofacquiring information about food.

At the same time, doctors and nutritionists were positively evaluated assources of information about food across the board, and neither neighbor-hood nor educational level functioned to distinguish assessments of these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


sources. Several individuals from all four neighborhoods described theirpersonal experiences with food, health problems, and medical professionals(or the advice of “medical professionals” gleaned from news sources andtelevision shows). It became apparent through these accounts that oftenindividuals became more aware of foods and eating because of healthproblems, including hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

The focus group interviews resonated with the individual interviews.While the basic model of the food domain is shared among all social classesin Ribeirão Preto, differences in specific knowledge and conversation stylessubtly reveal differences between the neighborhoods. Furthermore, theresponses elicited from the prompts used in the focus group interviewsrepresent the social premium placed on health and health foods in RibeirãoPreto.

DISCUSSION

Most importantly, this research demonstrates that the model of food isshared across social strata in Ribeirão Preto, but that the degree of individ-ual expertise in any dimension of this domain is distributed in a sociallypatterned way. Members of the upper class were consistently more expertin the knowledge of the health dimension of the food domain, whereasmembers of the lower classes were less expert, and their competence scoresmore variable. Additionally, when comparing our results to those of earlierresearch (Oths et al. 2003), we found evidence of a shift in perceptions ofprestige. Whereas a decade ago, high-fat and traditional foods were foundamong the top-ten most prestigious foods according to the upper class(Oths et al. 2003), today in the upper class these foods have lost prestige,having been replaced by foods like fresh fruits and dairy products. Today,many of the foods ranked highly prestigious are also the foods perceived asrelatively healthy.

These results present two questions relevant not just to Ribeirão Preto,but to the study of food and culture. First, why is the dimension of health sointegral to structuring the way people of all classes think about food?Second, why is knowledge of the cultural model of food, particularly inrelation to health value, concentrated in the upper class, and what are thereal-life consequences of the disparate distribution of this knowledge?

Both of these questions are addressed in Williams’ (1995) discussion ofthe relationship between lay concepts of health and the habitus, developedfrom the theoretical work of Bourdieu (1984). The habitus is a constructdeveloped by Bourdieu to capture the many facets of life that are more orless taken for granted in day-to-day interaction, including schemas, practices,habits and preferences. Bourdieu (1984) theorizes that through habitus—orthe inherent character of an individual developed through relationships

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


with members of similar social standing—social differences are both createdand preserved. Williams (1995) applies this idealist explanation of classdistinctions to explain the social disparities in health status observed inEngland. Williams suggests that “because of their greater access to and pos-session of capital, the dominant classes are more likely to be in control ofthose fields which are invested with the power of bestowing value uponparticular bodily forms and lifestyles” (1995, 589). Williams (1995) arguesthat it is an elite privilege to be concerned with, to define, and to embodythe proper kind of body.

Williams argues that these concerns are shared in society, but concen-trated in the upper class where it is generated. He also argues that even ifthe elite-driven knowledge of health and the body is generally sharedthroughout society, it may not become intrinsic to the identities of lowerclasses as a matter of habitus. Furthermore, Williams (1995) suggests thatthe meaning and function of shared knowledge and social practices aredifferently defined across classes because of the mediating influence of thehabitus. This argument responds to both of the major questions posed bythe results of this research. The importance of health in shaping thestructure of the food domain may be a reflection of the general interest ofmodern society to control and define the body. With the development of abiomedical model of nutrition and the dispersion of nutrition discourse intowestern popular culture in the last century, we have come to conceptualizefood in a uniquely biomedical way: food now represents a way to mediateour individual health and well-being, to improve our biological functioning,and to control our physical appearance. While this conception of food mayseem natural to us, it is not universal, and it has not always been this way.For instance, Alan Warde (1997) demonstrated, through a survey of BritishWomen’s magazines that from 1968 to 1992, that the percentage of food rec-ipes including a mention of healthy eating increased from 9 to 65 percent.In Britain, as in the US, the scientific evidence relating food to human healthhad been absorbed into popular culture as recently as the 80’s and 90’s.

Ten years of food-related research in southern Brazil has documented asimilarly rapid cultural transformation toward a biomedical model of foodand eating: only now is Brazilian food culture beginning to encompass thesort of nutritional discourse that dominates the food culture of Britain andthe United States. Participant-observation in Ribeirão Preto confirmed thepresence of nutrition discourse of scientific, cosmopolitan biomedicine,which promotes associations between food and physiological health.

Williams’s (1995) argument also helps to explain why competence inthe cultural model of the food domain, especially along the healthfulnessdimension, is concentrated in the upper class. He suggests that it is part of theupper class habitus to define and retain the important shared knowledgerelated to health. Extending this argument in consideration of Bourdieu’s(1984) theory of the habitus, expertise in the domain of health (and in this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


case, food) is instrumental in differentiating the upper class and maintainingits social identity. In other words, it is in the interest of the upper class tomaintain a distinctive amount of food and health expertise, coupled withpractice. This assertion certainly corroborates the findings of Dos-Santoset al. (2001) and, more recently, Dressler et al. (2008) regarding socioeco-nomic status and body composition in Ribeirão Preto.

The relationship between upper class identity and health or foodknowledge is somewhat unique: it is not always the case that the upperclass is most expert about a cultural domain, or that the knowledge “tricklesdown” from above. Fallers addresses this issue, asking “to what degree arepreferences for other goods and services introduced, not at the upperincome levels, but by the ‘intelligentsia,’ who appear at times to havegreater pattern-setting potential than their relatively low economic positionmight lead one to believe (1954, 320)?” Indeed, Dressler (2001) has foundthat knowledge in some cultural domains, including lifestyle, is concen-trated in the lower, rather than the upper classes. However, when compar-ing the results of this research to Oths’ (2003) findings from one decadeprior, it is evident that the “trickle-down” theory is well-suited to explainclass differences in food knowledge. For example, in 1993, ham, chocolate,and chopp were numbers 7, 8, and 9, respectively, in the list of 21 fooditems ranked according to prestige by the upper class. At that time, the mid-dle class assigned these foods numbers 15, 17, and 21. In contrast, ten yearslater the middle class assigned these food items numbers 9, 5, and 11, andthe upper class has new rankings, demonstrating cultural innovation.

The discussion of intracultural diversity in health knowledge and prac-tice presented by Williams (1995) does not preclude cultural sharing.Indeed, following Bourdieu’s idea of the habitus, social distinction can beachieved through the differential distribution of cultural expertise in termsof a particular cognitive model even when the model is shared. Thisresearch supports the theoretical construct of the habitus, as it demonstratesthat social structural differences are mirrored by differences in the waysocial classes associate with shared cultural domains.

With respect to limitations of this study, it should be noted that it is basedon a relatively modest (n = 40) sample size. At the same time, this is a sub-sample of a carefully-selected random sample of four neighborhoods varyingin socioeconomic status, and therefore achieves a representation of the rangeof socioeconomic variation that few studies of cultural models do. Also, theemphasis in the research is on the distribution of cultural competence in thecultural model. As Romney et al. (1986) have demonstrated, where consensusin a cultural domain exists, it can be detected in a relatively small sample suchas this. Finally, this research takes a strong emic orientation; that is, the aim isto discover the meanings used by participants to talk about food in Brazil. Thedimensions of meaning analyzed thus emerged from the discourse of theparticipants, and not exclusively the interests of the researchers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Through the application of a cognitive theory of culture, and culturalconsensus analysis, we have collected evidence that ascribed food meaningsmay reflect distinctions between social identities intra-culturally, as well asinter-culturally. While individuals in Ribeirão Preto draw on shared foodknowledge, expertise in the cultural model, particularly along the dimensionof healthfulness, is concentrated in the upper class. The social patterning ofthe distribution of competence in the cultural model of food may be relatedto already existing differences in social environment, and it may be rein-forced by the reproduction of knowledge within each class. This researchdemonstrates that not only do differences in culture serve to differentiatesocial groups, but also do differences in command of cultural knowledge.

NOTES

1. This research was supported by research grant BCS-0090193 from the National Science Founda-tion, William W. Dressler, Principal Investigator. The data were collected by Christine N. Newkirk for hermaster’s degree thesis at The University of Alabama and as a part of the larger research project. For aprevious version of this paper, Ms. Newkirk won the Student Paper Competition of the Society forAnthropological Sciences for 2004, the Student Paper Competition of the Society for the Anthropology ofFood and Nutrition for 2004, and the Award for Outstanding Research by a Master’s Student at The Uni-versity of Alabama, 2005. The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Débora de Bortoli,Camila D. Borges, and Mauro C. Balieiro in the research.

2. There is a significant, positive relationship between the income and education levels of individ-uals in the sample (F = 3.4, p < .001). Furthermore, there is a significant increase in family income(F = 7.3, p < .001) and education level (X2 = 26.7, p < .001) from the poorest to wealthiest neighbor-hoods sampled.

REFERENCES

Borgatti, S. P. 1994. ANTHROPAC 4.7x. Columbia: Analytic Technologies.Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Richard

Nice, trans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Câmara Municipal, Ribeirão Preto. 2004. Emprego e renda. Electronic document,

http://ww.ribeiraopreto.sp.gov.br, accessed February 18, 2004.Caplan, P. ed. 1997. Food, health and identity. London: Routledge.da Camara Cascudo, L. 1968. História da alimentação no Brasil, 2nd vol. São Paulo:

Companhia Editora Nacional.Dressler, W. W. 2001. Culture and individual adaptation: Research report I – Brazil

2001. Electronic document, http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Dressler%20Research%20Report%20I.pdf, accessed September 14, 2004.

Dressler, W. W. 2005. What’s cultural about biocultural research? Ethos 33: 20–45.Dressler, W. W., M. C. Balieiro, and J. E. dos Santos. 1999. Culture, skin color, and arte-

rial blood pressure in Brazil. American Journal of Human Biology 11(1):49–59.Dressler, W. W., M. C. Balieiro, R. P. Ribeiro, and J. E. dos Santos. 2005. Cultural

consonance and arterial blood pressure in urban Brazil. Social Science andMedicine 61: 527–540.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Dressler, W. W., J. E. Dos Santos, and M. C. Balieiro. 1996. Studying diversity andsharing in culture: An example of lifestyle in Brazil. Journal of AnthropologicalResearch 52(1): 331–353.

Dressler, W. W., K. S. Oths, R. P. Ribeiro, M. C. Balieiro, and J. E. dos Santos. 2008.Cultural consonance and adult body composition in urban Brazil. AmericanJournal of Human Biology 20: 15–22.

Dos-Santos, J. E., K. S. Oths and W. W. Dressler. 2001. Socioeconomic factors andadult body composition in a developing society. Revista Brasileira de Hipertensão8(1): 173–178.

Fallers, L. A. (1954). A Note on the “Trickle Effect.” The Public Opinion Quarterly,18(3), 314–321.

Fisberg, M., J. Wehba, and S. M. Franciscato Cozzolino. 2002. Um, Dois, Feijão comArroz: A Alimentação no Brasil de Norte a Sul. São Paulo: Atheneu.

Goody, J. 1982. Cooking, cuisine and class: A study in comparative sociology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hasenbalg, Carlos A. 1985. Race and socioeconomic inequalities in Brazil. In Race,Class, and Power in Brazil. Pierre-Michel Fontaine, ed., pp. 25–41. Los Angeles:University of California Press.

Kottak, C. P. 1990. Prime-time society: An anthropological analysis of television andculture. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Mintz, S. W. and C. M. Du Bois. 2002. The anthropology of food and eating.Annual Review of Anthropology 31(1): 99–119.

Oths, K. S., A. Carolo and J. E. dos Santos. 2003. Social status and food preferencein southern Brazil. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 42(1): 303–324.

Page, J. A. 1995. The Brazilians. Reading: Perseus Books.Pelto, P. J. and G. H. Pelto. 1975. Intra-cultural diversity: Some theoretical issues.

American Ethnologist, 2(1): 1–18.Romney, A. K., S. C. Weller, and W. H. Batchelder. 1986. Culture as consensus: A the-

ory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist 88(2): 313–338.Waddington, A., dir. 2002. Viva São João. 90 min. Conspiração Filmes/Gege

Produções. Rio de Janeiro.Warde, A. 1997. Consumption, food and taste: Culinary antinomies and commodity

culture. London: Sage Publications.Weismantel, M. J. 1988. Food, gender, and poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes.

Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Williams, S. J. 1995. Theorising Class, Health, and Lifestyles: Can Bourdieu Help Us?

Sociology of Health and Illness 17(5): 577–604.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dic

le U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

44 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Intracultural Diversity in Food Knowledge in Southern Brazil