SLOW FOOD AND HOME COOKING: TOWARD A RELATIONAL AESTHETIC OF FOOD AND RELATIONAL ETHIC OF HOME pdf

___________________________________________________________________________
PROVISIONS:THEJOURNALOFTHECENTERFORFOODINCOMMUNITYANDCULTURE,no.1,2009

SLOW FOOD AND HOME COOKING: TOWARD A RELATIONAL AESTHETIC
OFFOODANDRELATIONALETHICOFHOME


LynnWalter

Abstract:This study examines whether Slow Food and other alternatives to
“fast food” develop a relational aesthetic of food that effectively addresses
the practical andstrategicinterestsofmothers in relationto children.Italso
asks what role women have played in creating these alternatives and the
extent to which they frame their actions in feminist discourses. Focusing on
Italy and the United States as paradigmatic cases with which to analyze
gendered food practices in relationship to slowfood and home cooking, it is
arguedthatthecapacityofalternativeagrifoodnetworkstoaddressboththe
immediate practical need for adequate
and appropriate food for everyone
while pursuing the long‐term strategic interest in the sustainability of the
agrifood systemwouldbeenhanced by an intergenerationaltimeframe. The
intereststhatmothershave in  feeding their familycould provide sucha time
frameworkforapoliticsofsustainableconsumption.

Slow Food, as a form of resistance to “fast food,” identifies time and place as
fundamental to the quality of food—locally, traditionally, and artisanally
produced—to be “good, clean, and fair” (Petrini 2007, Schlosser 2002).
1
 In its
“convivia” form Slow Food also connotes the sustaining, non‐commodified
relationships of caring and solidarity, reinforced by commensality (Sobal and

Nelson 2003). By associating Slow Food and other agrifood alternatives wi th a
“relationalaesthetic,”MurdochandMiele(2004)recognizetheembeddednessof
food in local/regional networks supported by
closer, more transparent
connectionsbetweenproducersandconsumersasoneoftheaestheticqualitiesof
slow food.This study extendstheir concept of“a relational aesthetic” toinclude
domestic co‐producers and  co‐consumers, whose aesthetics of food appreciate
notonlyitssensualpropertiesbutalsowhosefoodtheyeatand
withwhomthey
eatit(Bell2002).Itanalyzestheextenttowhich“homecooking”maybefruitfully
conceptualized within a relational aesthetic of cooperation, commitment, and
care‐‐‐qualities ofwhichspeed isno measure.These arethe qualitiesthat infuse
foodwiththeterroirofhome.
Of the caring
and carework that habitually fall to women home cooking is
particularlyevocative.“Homecooking”declaresthecorrespondencebetweenthe

WALTER
2
femininegenderedworknecessarytocreateandsustainthenextgenerationand
the siteof familialcommensality (Moisio, et. al. 2004). Genderas a difference in
relationthatconstructsandisconstructedbyfeedingandbeingfedischangingin
relationship to “fast food” and the “McDonaldization” of the dominant
 agrifood
system and to resistance to it by alternative agrifood networks, exemplified by
SlowFood(Ritzer 2001).Thisexaminationof genderedfoodpracticescenterson
home cooking because home is a location identified with reproduction of family
and gender as non‐commodified caring and responsibility. Home is a location
where
gender interests intersect with those of the generational interests—most

significantly, those of children, whose presence in the home initiates women’s
“righttofeed”andchildren’s“righttobefed”(VanEsterik1998).Homeisasiteof
‘socializing taste” (Och et. al. 1996) in the context of socializing sociability,
particularlyin
thepracticeoffamilialcommensality(BellandValentine1997,Julier
2002). Analyzing the gendered and generational discourses of slow food and
contemporary studies of home cooking and commensality will address th e
questionofhow“home”hasbeenconstructedastimeandplace(Lupton1994).
Therelationalqualityof“home”is 
locatedbothoutsideandinsideofthemarket,
outside in that “home cooking” is imagined to be based upon non‐commodified
relationships;andinsideinthatthemarketdependsuponthetime womenspend
on consumption and other reproductive activities. Although the “super heavy
users” of McDonald’s in the U.S. are
 younger men (Julier 2005: 181), marketers
know that it is women who are the principal food purchasers, while doubtless
cateringtotheappetitesofmenandchildren(Warde1997:317,McIntoshandZey
1989). Women’s work as food consumers, which routinely takes the highly
commodifiedformofgroceryshopping,is
performedasthepartoftheeveryday
practiceofhomecooking.Theparadoxical locationof“home”formsone basisof
women’s critique ofand resistanceto carework.In thegendered performanceof
carework and valuing of caring, home makers are presented with an ostensible
Hobson’s choice between caring for oneself and
 caring for significant others.
Another provocation is the “time bind” created by women’s participation in the
labor force and unpaid carework, a bind from which “fast food” serves as a
temporary escape for the individual consumer. In contrast to individualist
timesavingstrategieslikefastfood,Hochschild(1997)advocatesacollective
“time

movement”.WhetherSlowFoodissuchamovementdependsuponitscapacityto
mobilizetheresourcesofhomecookswithaprojectthattakesthemintoaccount.
Critical analyses of Slow Food question whether those with low incomes, most
significantly,femaleagrifoodanddomesticlaborersandtheirchildren,canafford

slow food. They also ask whether slow food addresses the problem of women
bearing a disproportionate share of the burden of its “slowness” through their
genderedperformanceoffoodpreparation,foodservice,andtheclean‐upoffood
3
PROVISIONS,NO.1,2009
waste,fromthekitchentotoiletinthefamily,thefield,andthefactory(Allenand
Sachs 2007, Avakian and Haber 2005, Barndt 1999, Chrzan 2004, Donati 2005,
Eyerman 1999,Gaytán 2004). Inpost‐industrialized countries,the trendtowards
smaller families and more single‐person households, along with cuts in social

welfareandfoodsecurityfunding,indicatemoreindividuationandlesssolidarity,
morefastfoodandlesshomecooking(BellandValentine1997:78).Nevertheless,
sincemothering isa relationalpracticeand women’sgenderedperformance ofit
is evaluated by their ability to feed their families, low‐income and employed
women
work hard at juggling the shopping, cooking, cleaning, and arranging
schedulestoensurethatcommensalityanda“propermeal”arecreated(Counihan
2004, DeVault 1991, Van Esterik 1999). The decline in birth rates in several
EuropeancountriestobelowZPGsuggests,however,thattherearelimitstotheir
willingnesstoreproduce
thefamily,eveninItaly,thebirthplaceof slowfoodand
fewer babies (Krause 2005). With these critiques in mind, this study examines
whether Slow Food and other alternatives to “fast food” develop a relational
aestheticoffoodthateffectivelyaddressesthepracticalandstrategicinterestsof
mothers in relation

to children. It also asks what role women have played in
creating these alternatives and the extent to which they frame their actions in
feministdiscourses.
S
LOWFOOD
Slow foodis multi‐faceted.First, itis the organization established inBra, Italyin
1989 by Carlo Petrini and 61 associates, which has since grown into an
international network with over 80,000 members, represented by national
organizations and a rapidly expanding number of local chapters or “convivia”
aroundthe
world(Slow Food International2008).Undergirding thenetwork isa
slow food critique of “fast food,” which Ritzer (2001) has identified with the
broader process of “McDonaldization,” the rationalization, standardization,
industrialization, and globalization of agrifood and, by extension, other
sociocultural institutions. Moreover, Slow Food is a part of a larger social

movement that brings together an array of agrifood activists working for
environmentallysustainableandeconomicallyviableagriculture,onfoodsecurity
and food safety concerns, on fair labor practices in agriculture and food‐
processing, and, like Slow Food, on preserving food traditions and biodiversity
embedded in local and regional foodsheds (Lang
1997). What draws them
together as a  movement is their insistence upon devising strategies that
simultaneouslydevelopalloftheircommongoals,whichSlowFoodhassuccinctly
identified as “good, clean, and fair food”. To do so, food producers, processors,
and marketers must understand these broader connections, and so too must

consumers.By understanding these connections, itis argued,consumers willbe
able to see through commodity fetishism and begin to act as food citizens,

WALTER
4
demanding food policies and practices that ensure the reproduction of food
traditions, decent livelihoods, sound environments, and the well‐being of future
generations. Lastly, Slow Food as an organization brings a special dimension to
theagrifoodmovement‐‐‐thepleasuresoffoodand,byextension,thesensualand
relationalqualitiesof
anaestheticoffood.
S
LOWFOODANDHOMECOOKINGINITALY
Italy and the United States are paradigmatic cases with which to analyze
gendered food practicesin relationship toslow foodand homecooking (Fischler
2000,Gordon1998).As thearchetypeof fastfood,theU.S. standsincontrast to
Italy, the home of Slow Food. McDonaldization of the agrifood system
is
commonly identified with Americanization in articulations of the problems of
contemporary agrifood systems—environmentally destructive, unsustainable
agricultural practices; processed, unhealthy, artificially‐flavored food; exploited
agrifoodlaborers;thedestructurationoffamilyandsocietyintorushed,atomized
eaters, who don’t even take the time to sit down to eat. In contrast, Italy is

imagined as its antinomy—small farms worked by happy peasants; tasty,
homemade food eaten leisurely; diners gathered cheerfully around the table as
the sun sets over the Tuscan hills‐‐‐and Americans are not the only ones who
hunger for this and want to buy it (Donati 2005, Gaytán 2004). However, as
an
“imaginary”ofeverydaylife,as opposedtoa touristattraction,thecentralfigure
is an Italian woman preparing a delectable, made‐from‐scratch, multi‐course
meal.
2

Andshe,asimagined,cannotbebought.
Noteworthy by their absence from this imaginary are the substantiation of her
non‐commodifiedstatus—heryoungchildren.Theirabsenceaswellasthatofany
otherdependentsinneedofpersonalfeedingcarework,figurativelydistinguishes
public and domest ic eating.
3
 Feeding is dependency carework, and the one
responsible for it is overwhelmingly female. Above all, feeding the child is a
practicefirmlyassociatedwithmotheringasarelationalpractice.
4
Whenchildren
are in the picture, the women and men interviewed by Counihan (2004, 1999,
1988)forherstudiesoffoodandfamilyintwentiethcenturyFlorencecanrelateto
thepleasuresofthetableaspartofarelationalaestheticoffood.Itisanaesthetic
thatrecognizesfeedingthe
familyasapracticeservingintergenerationalinterests
through everyday and lifelong carework. As Counihan explains “meals were
important because they affirmed family, produced sociability, and conveyed
sensual and convivial pleasure on daily and special occasions (2004: 121).”
Commensality created relations of intimacy that “implied reciprocity, care, and
seriouscommitment(134ff).”
TheItalianfocusonpleasureinfoodpre‐datesslowfood(Counihan2005;Gordon
1998:93).AstudybyOchandcolleagues(1996)on“socializingtaste”in late20
th

5
PROVISIONS,NO.1,2009
century Italian families demonstrates that they still prioritized pleasure in their
interactions with their children at the dinner table. The dinner conversation was
mostly about various ways of eating, preparing, and procuring food. The meals

contained several dishes to reflect the taste of different family members (Och
et.al. 1996). Children learned
 to converse about food at the relatively
sophisticated level, discussing, for example, what ingredients complement each
otherinspecificdishes(Krause2005:150).“Thesefamilydinnerpracticesindicate
that individual tastes are recognized as an important component of one’s
personality, to be respected and nurtured (Och et. al. 1996: 40).” The
attention
motherspaidtofeedingtheirchildrenwasnotlimitedtowhattheirchildrenateat
home. For a case in point, Krause reports being surprised that the most hotly
debated topic amongmothers ata  schoolmeeting was the qualityof the school
lunchprogram.
This particular group of women,
 some professionals, others
artists,viewedthemselvesas progressive andsoperhaps it was
no surprise that they poked fun at themselves for having
returned to the topic of food. As one mother put it as the
[school]meetingcametoanend,“sempresitornaamangiare”‐‐‐
“Italwayscomes
backtoeating(2005:149).”
Their discussion reflected a set of values around food that connect concern for
children’s well‐being wi th the goal of socializing them through commensal
practicestoappreciatethequalitiesofarelationalaestheticoffood.
EventhoughItalianmothershavelongplacedhighpriorityon
thepleasureoffood
andfamilialcommensalityintheirhomecooking,SlowFoodfoundersstilldeclare
theneedtoreclaimtherighttopleasure.Insodoingtheyareprimarilyconcerned
withtheeducatingthepublictoappreciatethetasteof“endangeredfoods”made
byartisanalproducersinoppositiontothe
homogenizedtastesofmassproduced

food and in response to competition from global enterprises represented by
McDonald’s.Theyseethemselvesastheeducatorsofconsumertasteratherthan
as purveyors of the taste of contemporary home cooking (Miele and Murdoch
2003: 32). In part, this distinction is related to Slow
Food’s origins in changes in
ItalianpoliticsandoppositiontoEUpoliciesstandardizingfoodsafetyregulations
inwaysthatstrangledtraditionallocalartisanalfoodproduction(Leitch2003:441,
Parasecoli 2003).Notwithstanding its roots indefense ofsmall‐scalecommercial
foodproduction,Parasecoli assertsthat thereisaplace forfeminism and
gender
issues in Slow Food, a position based upon his conviction that: “…in the
organization of external work and domestic life that is prevalent in the West,
womenareincreasinglyfreedfromthepreparationofmeals,cookingisnolonger
considereda female task, atypical expression ofa patriarchal
society.Instead, it

WALTER
6
becomes an occasion for conviviality and enjoyment which men also play an
important role (2003: 38).”The data do not support his optimism.While some
Italianmenhavetakenupcooking,typicallyasanoccasionalspecialeventortofill
inforanabsentwife,mostdomesticduties,includingfeeding
thefamily,arestill
highly associated with the gendered practice of mothering (Bell and Valentine
1997:70;Counihan2004:92,118;RomanoandRanaldi2007; Warde,et.al.2007).
Furthermore, Parasecoli does not account for the planning and coordination,
shopping, serving, and cleaning up that accompany commensal occasions of
conviviality in
its familial and its more purely commodified forms, tasks which
commandgenderedandclassedlabor.

It is clear that feeding the family remains a highly gendered practice.
Nevertheless,therehavebeen significantchangesinItalianwomen’slives during
thepastgenerationthathaveledtowomenspendinglesstimeonhome
cooking.
These societal changes arerelated to the post‐WWII economicexpansion, which
provided an increasingly urban population with a higher standard of living.
Associated with prosperity, the families have become smaller with fewer
extendedfamilieslivingtogether(Counihan2004: 86);atthesametime,couples
aremarrying ata
laterage,andyoungadults arewaitinglongerto lookfor work
andtoleavetheirnatalhome(Krause2005:9).Thebirthratehasalsodeclinedto
amongthelowestintheworldat9.3(perthousandpeople)(Counihan2004:160,
Krause 2005: 67).Today busy mothers are spending somewhat less
 time on
cooking,andmenarespendingmarginallymoretimeonit.Inaddition,Counihan
(2004: 171) saw indications that fathers were taking a somewhat more involved
roleinprimarychildcare.
The consumer society also raised people’s standard of living and created new
middle‐class consumer identity. This new identity
meant that in families who
aspired to a higher class status, women had to work harder at maintaining their
homesandtheirfamilies’appearance(Krause2005:74‐77,2003:354).Presentinga
gendered class distinction made compromising their hi gh standards of
homemaking a disreputable option; and without an extended family member,

typicallyagrandmother,aroundtohelp,somethingelsehadtogivewaytomake
time. One response by Italian women has been to have only one child, thereby
enablingthemto nurturetheirchildto astandard expectedby theirstatus.They
alsorespondedbypurchasingmorepreparedfoods(Counihan
1988:58).Sincethe

economic concentration of retail and food production makes it difficult for
local/regionalproducers,processors,andrestaurantsto competein theprepared
foodmarket,thislattertendencyisonereasonthatSlowFoodasanorganization
is promoting the embedded quality of food through the development of more

transparent connections between producers and consumers (Helstosky 2004:
163).
7
PROVISIONS,NO.1,2009
HOMECOOKING,ABUNDANCEANDAFFLUENCE
The trend for home cooks to spend less time cooking by purchasing more
processed food has been documented for other western countries as well. For
example, in their study of time use in France, U.K., U.S., Norway, and the
Netherlandscomparingthe1970sandthelate1990s,Wardeet.al.(2007)
founda
decline inthe amount of time spent cookingin all countries and a decline inthe
amount of time spent eating in all but France. Also, more meals are being
consumed outside the home, which Miele and Murdoch (2003: 28) attribute to
abundanceandaffluence.Despitediscoveringsimilartrends
betweentheU.S.and
Europeancountries,WardeandhiscolleaguesnotedthattheEuropeancountries
wereatthepointinthelate1990sintheamountoftimecookingandeatingthat
the U.S. was in the 1970s. If Miele and Murdoch’s hypothesis is correct about
abundance and affluence being
positively correlated with consumption of
processedfoodsinItaly,thenitispossiblethattheearlieradoptionofsuchfoods
in the U.S. can be partially explained by its coming out of WWII in relative
prosperitycomparedto Europe.Thequestion ofwhetherjob creationassociated
with this relativeprosperitymight
 help toexplain whymothers ofchildrenup to

16 years of age in the U.S. have maintain their family’s class status by being
employedatarateof66.7%in2005,whereasforItalianmotherstheemployment
rateis48.1%,iscomplicatedbyinterveningsocioculturalvariables(OECD2007).
Also
lessstrictlyrelatedtoabundanceandaffluenceisthelowerbirthrateinItaly
thanintheUnitedStates.Italians,whosetotalfertilityratewas1.34in2005,have
beenslightlyaheadof westerntrends, andit isthe U.S.that islaggingbehind at
2.05in2005(OECD2007).Krause(2005)
notesthatthemodernizationhypothesis,
whileitpredictssmallerfamiliesoverall,doesnotexplainthedifferencesbetween
birthrates in wealthier countries and suggests that sociocultural factors are also
influencingfamilysize.InthecaseofItalyitmaybe,aspreviouslyindicated,that
mothershavesuchhighexpectationsforhome
makingand othercarework,they
can onlylavishit on fewer children. At the level ofpublic supportfor dependent
carework,thesmallerfamilysizecouldalsoberelatedtothefactthat,compared
tootherwesternEuropeancountries,Italianchildrenuptoagetwoarelesslikely
tobein
institutionalchildcare(OECD2007).Ineithercase,thefactthattheItalian
practice of home cooking is focused on the pleasure of food and conviviality
connects Slow Food with roots th at go deeper than the recent period of
abundance and affluence. Paxson (2005) asks how Slow Food translates as it
spread from Italy to the more health conscious  and economically neoliberal
United States. Ultimately, her question directs attention to a larger one about
how the meaning  and practice of fast food and slow food is affected by
socioculturalcontexts(Wilk2006a).

WALTER
8
F

ASTERFOODANDHOMECOOKINGINTHEUNITEDSTATES
AsinItaly,feedingthefamilyintheUnitedStatesisagenderedrelationalpractice
with women taking primary responsibility, even among couples who expressly
supportcooperativeformsoffamilialcarework(DeVault1991).Ofthenearlyhalf
of DeVault’s interviewees who thought familial carework should be cooperative,
having children in
the home made it less likely that such carework would be
shared in practice (1991: 26). Furthermore, employed women tended to reduce
thetimetheyspentfeedingthefamilyandtotraintheirchildrentodosomeofit,
ratherthan towait fortheir husbandsto takemore responsibility(DeVault
1991:
97‐99, Moisio 2004: 362). Thus, as DeVault describes U.S. middle‐class families
with dependent children, their stated ideals of cooperative home cooking and
parentinghaveresultedinonlymarginalshiftsinthegenderedpracticesofhome
cooking.
Still, DeVault found that most mothers place great value on the
shared family
meal and invest timein trying tomake ithappen, evenas job,school, andother
activitiesoutsidethehomemakeitmoredifficulttocoordinatefamilyschedules.
According to child development research, children’s psychological and physical
health is supported by regular familial commensality (Fulkerson, et. al. 2006).
Given
theimportancemothersandhealthexpertsalikeplaceonfamilymeals,the
increased demands onwomen’s time, and,Warde (1997:151) adds, “theabsence
ofconcessionsandcompromisesbymen”,itisnotsurprisingthatmoreandmore
women ha ve turned to an  individualist consumer strategy, like the use of
convenience
foodsinhomecookingtosavetime.Fromoneperspectiveprocessed
foodsmayeven serveafeministagenda;as Innessargues,“Thefrozenfishstick,
theTVdinner,macaroniandcheeseinabox,andotherconveniencefoodsarethe

women’smovement’sunlikelyhelpers(Inness2006:37).”
Given the value mothers
 attach to familial commensality, Och and her co‐
researchers (1996) did not anticipate their findings that American parents and
children frequently disagreed with each other at the table about which foods
tasteddeliciousorinedible.Theynotethat“Thecross‐generationaldivergencein
tastecontrastswiththecross‐generationalsolidarity
thatdominatedItalianfamily
meal interactions (1996: 34).” In the U.S. case the cross‐generational
disagreements were at least partially related to cultural categorization of food
intoadultfoodsandchildren’sfoods,categoriesthatItaliansdidnotrecognizein
their meal conversations. A related reason is the contrast between the focus
 on
healththatparentuse totrytoget theirchildrento eatthefoodthat isgood for
them and the efforts by advertisers who promote cross‐generational
disagreement by telling children to insist on the food that the grown‐ups don’t
like. Some mothers concede to their children’s
tastes to get them to eat
9
PROVISIONS,NO.1,2009
enthusiasticallyandnotwastefood;andlow‐incomemothersmaynothavemuch
fresh produce available to them (Allen and Sachs 2007:11). Alternatively, Namie
(2008)attributesthefactthatchildren’sfoodchoicesdivergefromadults’tochild
development goalsof socializing independence and self‐reliance by encouraging
children to decide for
 themselves what they want to eat. No doubt based on
permutationsofallofthesefactors,childrenareindeedmakingmoreoftheirown
decisionsaboutwhattoeat,sometimesatacosttotheirownhealth.
Sincemorechildrenarechoosingwhattheywanttoeatfromtheprocessed
food

arraypromotedbyfoodadvertisersandmoremothers’areusingtheindividualist
strategy of faster food preparation to accommodate their time bind and still
provide family meals, it is not surprising that many in the younger generation
knowlittleaboutthesourcesoffoodandconsiderhomecookingtobe
“havingto
mixstuff”(Moisioet.al.2004:373).Complicatingthispicturethoughisthehigher
priority on food as nutritional health in the U.S. than in Italy (Och et.al 1996,
Paxson2005).LikepleasureinItaly,healthasapriorityinfoodhasalonghistory
intheU.S.
(DuPuis2002,Levenstein2000).Thispriorityhaspromotedthegrowth
of“enriched”conveniencefoodsand,morerecently,organicfoods(Lohr2001).It
has also led mothers to support efforts to remove soda and candy vending
machines from schools (Murnan et. al. 2006). While these approaches maintain
the cultural priority on health,
 a promising alternative approach is the
development of curricula around school gardens and kitchens.  This strategy,
promoted by Slow Food USA among others, serves the Slow Food goals of
knowledgeoffoodasasourceofpleasureineatingit(Chrzan2004).
The relatively poor nutritional choices and health status
of U.S. children would
seem to contradict the avowed U.S. priority on food as nutrition (NCHS 2004).
Although these concerns for children’s health are real, they are exacerbated by
U.S. socioeconomic patterns dividing home cooking by class and race (Abarca
2006,Allen andGuthman 2006,Block 2004,Inness2006,Williams‐Forson
2006).
Class,race, andregion affectmother’s  abilityto fulfillher“right tofeed” inways 
that doubly disadvantage low‐income mothers and their children (Van Esterik
1998).IntheU.S.context,thelinkagebetweenabundanceandthegrowthoffast
foodis premisedupon agrifoodpoliciessupportingcheapfood
madepossible, in

part,bythoseworkinginlow‐wagedjobsinagriculture,theagrifoodindustry,and
paid carework (Barndt 2002, Schlosser 2002). It is th ey wh o bear a
disproportionateshareoftheburdensofthe“fastness”ofcommodifiedfood.
Comparedtootherwealthycountries,thecritiqueof“fastness”ineveryday
lifein
the U.S. is grounded in more insecurity and related structural time binds with
fewersocialwelfareprograms,fewerpaidholidays,lesssickleave,nopaidfamily
leave, fewer labor contracts, and a greater economic divide (Hochschild 1997,

WALTER
10
Schor1991).Therelativepaucityofpublicsector supportforsocialsecurityalong
withthe higher employmentrate of mothersandadolescentchildren inthe U.S.
helpexplainwhyoneofKrause’sintervieweesobservesthat“Italiansschizzano,or
rush, when they have to, when they work. But Americans are always
rushing
around even when they don’t have to. It’s a disease (2005: 63).” As a form of
resistancetofastness,slowfoodtapsintothatdis‐ease(Jabset.al.2007).
The slowness imaginaryprovides fertileground forSlow Foodin theU.S., which
has grown to 170 convivia across the
 country (Slow Food USA). The picture it
paintsisattractive:“SlowFoodisalsosimplyabouttakingthetimetoslowdown
andto enjoy lifewithfamilyand friends(Slow FoodUSA).” Itis onethatwomen
and men, middle and low‐income families alike can relate to. Further,
the Slow 
Food goal of clean food appeals to U.S. priority on health in food. Slow Food’s
celebrationofpleasureoffoodbringsthebodytobearonpositivemotivationsfor
a relational aesthetic of food which could position food itself, the environment,
co‐producers/preparers,andtheconsumers/co‐eatersin
relationsofcooperation,

commitment, and care‐‐‐relations served better by slowness than fastness. “For
instance,feedingachildinhalfofthetimeincreaseshouseholdproductivityinan
economic sense; however, it might decrease the satisfaction with and hence
motivation for suchan activity”(Reisch 2001:371). Also,by includingthe
 goalof
fairness in its goals of “good, clean, and fair food”, Slow Food recognizes the
inequalitiesoftheprevailingagrifoodsystem,therebyprovidingabasisonwhich
toextendarelationalaestheticoffood.
Thepathtotherealizationofsuchall‐encompassinggoalsrequiresthecultivation
of a
relational aesthetic of food with  those whose time is on a tight budget. As
Parkinsargues,“Work,familyandgenderaresignificantfactorsintheconstitution
and perpetuation oftemporal disparities andinequities incontemporary culture,
which problematizes any simplistic notion of implementing ‘slower’ living across
the board, or a desire
 for ‘slower’ living being a universal one (2004: 367).” For
example, by inviting people to join Slow Food USA because “Every day can be
enriched by doing something slow‐making pasta from scratch one night,
seductivelysqueezingyourownorangejuicefromthefreshfruit,lingeringovera
glass of
wine and a slice of cheese‐even deciding to eat lunch sitting down
instead of standing up.” they seem to be excluding all children and low‐income
peopleaswellas busymothers.Incontrast,fastfood hasset aplaceforthemat
the table (Bembeck 2005, Reiter1999). So
 too mustslow food ifit is to offer an
authenticalternative.
P
RACTICALANDSTRATEGICGENDERANDGENERATIONALINTERESTS
Mothering is a relational practice in which feeding the family is shaped by the
critical intergenerational dimension of time (Jabs et. al. 2007). Because it is a

11
PROVISIONS,NO.1,2009
lifelong commitment, mothering calls for managing time in the next few hours
and,simultaneously,inthenextfewdecades,atimespanthatposesquestionsof
priority in carework. For example, feeding a child what he or she wants might
makeforamorepleasurablemealforeveryoneatthetime,
butinthelongtermit
might be harmful to the child’s health. Molyneux’s (1985) distinction between
practical and strategic gender interests parallels this short‐term and long‐term
time dilemma, stipulating its political significance. In the context of women’s
movements, she analyzes how political organizing to meet immediate practical
needsforfood,water,andsheltertendsnottoaddressthestructuralrootsofthe
problem,usuallybecause todosowould bringpowerfulinterests tobear against
thepracticalinterestsandbecauseofalackofsufficientresourcestosuccessfully
oppose them. On the other hand, political organizing around long
‐term goals
tendsnottoaddresstheimmediatepracticalinterestsofordinarypeopleintheir
platforms and programs of action (Walter 2003, 2001). This is typically because
theactivists’socio‐economicstatusishighenoughthattheirpersonalshort‐term
practical needs are already being met and because they have
more political
resources with which to confront opposing forces, in this case patriarchal
socioculturalstructures andthe concentratedsocioeconomic  power ofdominant
agrifood systems. Extending Molyneux’s analysis to new agrifood movements,
their capacity to address both the immediate practical need for adequate and
appropriate food for everyone while pursuing the long
‐term strategic interest in
the sustainability of the agrifood system would be enhanced by an
intergenerational time frame. The intergenerational dimension of mothering
means that practical and strategic interests that mothers have in feeding their

family could provide such a time framework for a politics of sustainable
consumption(Desai2001,
Shiva1988,Vileisis2008).Ofcourse,thisassumesthat
mothers do have a “strategic interest” in their children that constitutes a long‐
termcommitmentthatmotivatesthemtoactpolitically.
5

Manypleasantandpainfulfoodmemoriesareofchildhoodandbeingfed,usually
by mother, but also by grandmothers and aunts, and fathers (Lupton 1994,
Counihan2004,DeVault1991).Asarelationalpractice,motheringrespondstothe
eatingpracticesofchildren,whohavedesiresoftheirownexpressedindivergent
sonanddaughteringrelationalpractices.AsProbyncautions,“Theclaustrophobia
ofbeingcooked forand beingfedis animportant undertowbeneath thebucolic
imagesof eatingtogether (2000:38).”For example,Italian mothers’attentionto
different tastes and the focus on individual pleasure create a deep emotional
dependence between the
 generations (Och et. al. 1996). That dependence is
especially deep between mothers and sons, because the division of labor in the
householdissuchthatdaughterslearntoshoulderfoodresponsibilitieswhilesons
seldom do (Counihan 2004:150). Although many are nostalgic, some food

WALTER
12
memoirstellofgenerationalconflictsoverfood(Lupton1994,Winegardner1998).
“Ours was discomfort food,” discloses Dufresne (1998: 85). Other narrators look
backwithchagrinasthechildbecomesa parentandrepeatsthepatternsofhome
cooking that she had so stubbornly rejected (Gall 2003). The fact that children
grow up to have children of their own is what sustains and confounds home
cookingacrossthegenerations.
Theextenttowhichgenerationalinterestsaroundfoodareconflictedisrelatedto

gendered interests expressed in reproductive and mothering practices. Italian
women’s decisions to have fewer children and U.S. women’s decision to
 use
processed foods and then worry about their children’s health exemplify this
relationship.Becausefoodisboth apracticalandstrategicinterest,foodpolitics,
including Slow Food and the broader sustainable consumption project, must
address its relationship to reproduction. Home cooking as  a mothering practice
already does so with all
of the conflict and the cooperation that goes into
balancing genderand generational interests andthe immediateneeds and long‐
terminterestsofchildren.Thatitdoessoatthecostofgenderinequityhasbeen
thecruxoffeministambivalencetowardhomecooking.
6

F
EMINISMANDHOMECOOKING
AllenandSachs(2007)andMicheletti(2006)notethatwomenareactivistsinnew
agrifood movements; and Slow Food has some very prominent women in its
leadership—e.g.,Wangari Maathai, Vandana Shiva, and Alice Waters. Allen and
Sach(2007:2)askwhyitisthenthat“…whilewomenengageinsignificantandfar‐
reaching efforts to change the system, few of these efforts focus specifically on
improvinggenderrelations.”SinceBoserup’s1970pioneeringworkonwomenand
agriculturaldevelopment,feministscholarshaveconfirmedherconclusionsonthe
critical role that women play in agriculture and food provisioning in Africa and
criticized herwork for
 failure to examinethe relationships thatintegrate market
and domestic production and reproduction (Benería and Sen 1981). In a more
recentexample,Counihan(2004)andKrause(2005)bothpointoutthattheextent
of Italian women’s work in paid domestic production was obscured by the
assumption thatpaid work done

in the home was women’shome making. After
nearly forty years of making this same critique, it is apparent that there are
powerful symbolic and material barriers to conceptualizing the relationship
between production and reproduction. In part, this difficulty is replicated in
reflexivecritiquesoffeministpolitics.
Reborn in the 1960s
 at the height of the civil rights movement, the “new” U.S.
women’s movement focused its politics primarily upon discrimination against
womenonthebasisofsex.Middle‐classwomenwerediscriminatedagainst,they
argued, not only in the domestic sphere of reproduction and home making but
13
PROVISIONS,NO.1,2009
alsointhepublicsphereofproductionandgovernance.Baseduponthis analysis,
middle‐classfeminismchallengedbothformsofdiscrimination,claimingtheright
totheirownbodies,toparticipatefullyinthepublicsector,andtosharethetasks
ofhomemakingandchildrearingwithmeninthehome.Low‐income
womenwho
felt the politics of anti‐welfare push them into the labor force and devalue their
homemaking, their mothering, and, by implication, their children, challenged
middle‐classfeminists’failure toseetheintersectionofmothering asagendered
practice with mothering as a classed and raced practice. In contrast,
Italian
feministsinherited classanalysesof the“woman question”from theirstrong left
political parties. Nevertheless, they too found it difficult to integrate women’s
insights into ways that family, reproduction, and culture oppressed women into
pre‐existing analytical categories focused on production (Ferrari 2008, Krause
2003).Alongwithraceandsexuality,
theintersectionalproblematicofgenderand
class formsthecritical political basisfor poststructuralistanalysesof genderasa
socially constructed practice. From a different angle, the political focus on

women’s rights has also been a barrier to the analysis of the politics of food in
relation to feminism, because
an individual rights perspective does not fit
comfortably into an analysis of the human condition of dependency that
necessitatesmotheringandothercarework(Gilligan1982,Kittay1999).
T
OWARDARELATIONALETHICOFHOME
Intheir recentworkonhistoricalstudiesofwomen andfood, Avakianand Haber
(2005)argue that the timeis right for“feminist foodstudies.”One avenueis the
work by feminist scholars on a relational conception of self that would
accommodate self‐interestas connectedto the interestsof
others (Kittay1999).
This conception of self also allows for generational changes in self rather than
assuminga discreteselfthat “cling[s]tothe ideathat,at least,an aspectofusis
not affected by time (Curtin 1992: 141).” Drawing upon work on the ethical
implicationsofarelational,continuous
conceptofself,Whatmoreproposesa“re‐
cognition of formal justice along with a creative engagement with the ideas of
human nature, in terms of the predicament of finitude, decay, and mortality
(2002:151).”
Theoreticalandpracticalundertakingsinalternativeagrifoodnetworks,as wellas
infeministstudies,arewell
timedtoinitiatea“re‐cognition”offormaljusticeand
human nature. There is a significant effort by scholars, Slow Food, and other
sustainable consumption activists to bridge the knowledge gap between food
producers andconsumers andto address the analytical separationof production
and consumption so that consumers can act
 politically to promote quality food
and fair livelihoods (Goodman 2002, Goodman and DuPuis 2005). Another
contribution is Allen’s (2004) work calling for greater attention to gender as a

WALTER
14
critical variable in shaping access to resources in alternative agricultural
movements. Meredith E. Abarca (2006) addresses the creativity involved in
Mexican and Mexican‐American women’s work in the kitchen as a basis for
thinkingaboutworkingclasswomen’ssubjectivityandagency.DeborahBarndt’s
(2002, 1999) research on the impact of
NAFTA and on women’s labor in the
commodity chain is a significant example of the kind of work that is moving
analysisforwardonthelinksbetweengender,class,andagrifoodsystems.
From a feminist studies perspective, Kittay (1999) examines the political
implications of dependency by applying a relational concept of
 self. Keeping in
mind that “we are all some mother’s child” and specifically pointing out that
mothersarealsosomemother’schild,Kittayarguesthatitistheresponsibilityof
thelargersocietytosupportthosewhodothecarework.Thissocialresponsibility
forthe careworkeropens “home”to justice
claimsof fairnessand equalitybased
not upon the rights of the abstract individual but upon the social value of well‐
beingthroughtheconnectionsofdependencycarework,bothpaidandunpaid.“In
a globaleconomy of constantflow and movement, homeless ispowerless, at the
mercy of the tides
and currents, unable to find a  place of refuge…Wilk 2006b:
203).”Itisa relationalethicofhomethatrecognizesthehomelesspersonassome
mother’s child and offers her a place at the table. Because they incorporate
feministandenvironmentalistapproachesintheiranalysesofalternativeagrifood
networks, Whatmore(2002)
 and Curtin(1992) botharguethat the relationalself
must be conceptualized not only in relation to other people, but also to the

environment. Since home is where eating connects consumers to nature most
intimately, to conceive a hybridity linking our relational, continuous selves to
naturewouldbeastep
towardanevenmoreinclusiveconceptionofhome.
“Home” is imagined in moments of perfect conviviality and moments of deep
despair. Home is a key reproductive site of nature/culture hybridity, where the
naturalness of eating is profoundly shaped by women’s time. It is women’s time
thatistakenforgrantedand
devalued;anditiswomen’spositioninthehomethat
is assumed and confining. It is, therefore, in this conflicted time and place that
SlowFoodneeds totake genderintoaccount, ifitsrelational aestheticoffoodis
tobeintegratedwitharelationalethicofhome.SlowFood
asanorganizationand
slow food as a critique of fast food must address the gendered nature of
responsibilities for feeding the family to reach its goals of good, clean, and fair
food. Then home cooks might find the time to partake in slow food. Their
participation in the formation of
 a relational aesthetic of food would support a
relational ethic of “home” that opens the door to non‐familial others in the
relations of “intense, diffuse, and enduring solidarity.”
7
 In turn, a more inclusive
conception and practice of home would support the goals of slow food and
sustainableconsumption.
15
PROVISIONS,NO.1,2009


ENDNOTES
1

This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 2
nd
 International Sustainable
Consumption and Alternative Agri‐Food Systems Conference, May 27‐30, University of
Liege,Arlon,Belgium.WhenreferringtotheofficialSlowFoodorganization,thetitlecase
fontisused;whenreferringto“slowfood”asanidea,itisprintedinlowercasefont.

2
Parasecoli(2003:35)quotesStefanoBonilli,editorofGamberoRosso,ina1999interview
assaying,“Weweresayingthathigh‐endconsumptionisalsoaculturalthing;youhaveto
be intelligent and have knowledge. If once a year you decide to spend money on a good
dinner, agood wine, a goodproduct, or a goodtrip, it’s betterthat someone elsedo the
researchforyou,someonewho’sfreefromanyformofconditioning(emphasisadded).”In
this version of the Slow Food “imaginary,” the cookis typically male, and the occasion is
notoneofeverydaylife.
The concept “imaginary” is borrowed from Appadurai (1996). It implies an image that is
mass‐mediatedandtransnationalcarryingsymbolicresponsestoglobalization.
3
Klemmer (2000) notes that heterosexual couples with dependent children living with
themdonotconstituteamajorityofhouseholdsineitherItalyortheUnitedStates.Itcould
bearguedonthisbasisthatSlowFooddoesnotneedtotakethatparticulargroupoffood
consumers into account in order to mobilize a thriving and effective alternative agrifood
movement but can simply focus on same‐sex couples, opposite‐sex couples without
dependentchildren,unpartneredhousemates,andsinglesasitsparticipants.However,this
position overlooks the importance of reproduction to society, to socializing taste, and to
promoting a relational aesthetic of food. It also does not take into account the fact that
almosteveryonewillbeinamotheringrelationshipatsometimeintheirlives,asachild,a
mother,orboth.

4

 Identifying mothering as a relational practice of caring and carework allows for the
possibility that either sex could be in this relationship with a child or other dependent
person.However,Ihavechosentousetheword“mother”throughoutinordertotakeinto
accountthefactthatwomendomore
motheringthanmendo.
5
 Ofcourse, theassumption of maternalinterest in her child does not reflectreality in all
cases.ThisfactisonereasonwhyHeld(1997)preferstheterm“motheringperson.”Thatis, 
a”motheringperson”isanyonewhoisvestedenoughintheinterestsofthespecificchildto
beresponsible
formeetingitsphysicalandemotionalneedsandwhoseselfisinrelationto
the child, whether that mothering person is female or male. She might be the “other
mother” that Patricia Hill Collins (2000) finds so supportive forAfrican Americanfamilies.
The term “mothering person” mightalso beapplied
to someone whodoes paid carework
forthechild,assumingthatpersoncaresaboutthechildaswellascaresforit.However,as


WALTER
16

used here, a mother is someone in a mothering relation to the child, which denotes a
lifelongcommitmentthatpaidcareworkusuallydoesnot.
6
Homecanbealocationofviolenceagainstwomenandchildren,whichisalsoareflection
of power as a dimension of the relational practice of gendered intimacy as expressed in
home making (McCloskey et.  al 2002, Price 2002). Although power is a dimension of all
relations, it can be
used for the most dreadful harm in the context of home, where the
expectationsofcarearegreatest.Ratherthanglorifying“home”though,onepurposehere

istoaddressitsweaknessesbybuildingonitsstrengthsandtorelatebothtothequestion
ofitsrelationshiptosustainableconsumption.
7
 “Intense, diffuse, and enduring solidarity” is central to Gary Witherspoon’s (1975: 22)
extensive definition of Navajo kinship. Without these qualities there is no kinship, and
sharingfoodisone  wayofdemonstratingthem. “Just as amotherisonewhogiveslifeto
her children through birth, and sustains  their
life by providing them with loving care,
assistance,protection,andsustenance,kinsmenarethosewhosustaineachother'slifeby
helping one another, protecting one another, and by giving or sharing of food and other
items of subsistence. Wherethis kindofsolidarity exists, kinship exists;where itdoes not
exist,
thereisnokinship(p.22).”Myconceptionoftherelationalaestheticoffoodasbased
upon the qualities of cooperation, commitment, and care is indebted to his thinking on
Navajokinship.

B
IBLIOGRAPHY

Abarca,MeredithE.VoicesintheKitchen:ViewsofFoodandtheWorldfromWorking‐Class
MexicanandMexican‐AmericanWomen(CollegeStation,TX:TexasA&MUniversity
Press).
Allen,Patricia2004.TogetherattheTable:SustainabilityandSustenanceintheAmerican
AgrifoodSystem(UniversityPark,PA:ThePennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress).

Allen,PatriciaandJulieGuthman2006.“From‘OldSchool’to‘FarmtoSchool’:
NeoliberalizationfromtheGroundUp”AgricultureandHumanValues23(4):401‐415.
Allen,PatriciaandCarolynSachs2007.“WomenandFoodChains:TheGenderedPoliticsof
Food”JournalofSociologyofFoodandAgriculture15(1):1‐23.
Appadurai,Arjun1996.ModernityatLarge:CulturalDimensionsofGlobalization

(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress).
Avakian,ArleneVoski1997.ThroughtheKitchenWindow,WomenExploretheIntimate
MeaningsofFoodandCooking(Boston:BeaconPress).
17
PROVISIONS,NO.1,2009
Avakian,ArleneVoskiandBarbaraHaber(eds.)2005.FromBettyCrockertoFeministFood
Studies,CriticalPerspectivesonWomenandFood(Amherst,MA:Universityof
MassachusettsPress).
Barndt,Deborah2002.TangledRoutes:Women,Work,andGlobalizationontheTomatoTrail
(Lanham,MD:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,Inc.).
Barndt,Deborah,ed.1999.WomenWorkingtheNAFTAFoodChain:Women,Food&
Globalization(Toronto:SecondStoryPress).
Belasco,Warren2007AppetiteforChange:HowtheCountercultureTookontheFood
Industry,2
nd
edition(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress).
Bell,David2002.“FragmentsforaNewUrbanCulinaryGeography”JournalfortheStudyof
FoodandSociety,Vol.6,No.1,pp.10‐21.
Bell,DavidandGillValentine1997.ConsumingGeographies:WeAreWhereWeEat(London:
Routledge).
Bembeck,Helene2005.“Home
toMcDonald’s:UpholdingtheFamilyDinnerwiththeHelp
ofMcDonald’s”Food,Culture&Society8(2):215‐226.
Benería,LourdesandGitaSen1981.“Accumulation,Reproduction,andWomen’sRolesin
EconomicDevelopment:BoserupRevisited”Signs:JournalofWomeninCultureand
Society7(2):279‐298.
Block,JasonP.2004.“FastFood,Race/Ethnicity,andIncome:AGeographicAnalysis”
AmericanJournalofPreventativeMedicine27(3):211‐217.
Boserup,Ester1970Women’sRoleinEconomicDevelopment(London:St.Martin’sPress).
Bourdieu,Pierre1984.Distinction:ASocialCritiqueoftheJudgementofTaste(Cambridge:

HarvardUniversityPress).
Chrzan,Janet2004“SlowFood:What,Why,and
toWhere?”Food,Culture,&Society7(2):
117‐132.
Collins,PatriciaHill2000.BlackFeministThought:Knowledge,Consciousness,andthe
PoliticsofEmpowerment(NewYork:Routledge).
Counihan,CaroleM.2004.AroundtheTuscanTable:Food,Family,andGenderinTwentieth
CenturyFlorence(NewYork:Routledge).
Counihan,CaroleM.1999.The
AnthropologyofFoodandBody:Gender,Meaning,andPower
(NewYork:Routledge).
Counihan,CaroleM.1988.“FemaleIdentity,Food,andPowerinContemporaryFlorence”
AnthropologicalQuarterly61(2)April:51‐62.
Curtin,DeaneW.“RecipesforValues”1992.InCooking,Eating,Thinking:Transformative
PhilosophiesofFood,DeaneW.CurtinandLisa
M.Heldke(eds.)(Bloomington:Indiana
UniversityPress)pp.123‐144.

WALTER
18
Davis,Karen2001.“ResponsibilityandDailyLife,ReflectionsoverTimespace”in
Timespace,GeographiesofTemporality,JohnMayandNigelThrift,eds.(London:
Routledge)pp.133‐148.
Desai,Manisha2001.“India:Women’sMovementsfromNationalismtoSustainable
Development”inWomen’sRights:AGlobalView,LynnWalter,ed.(Westport,CT:
GreenwoodPress)
pp.99‐112.
DeVault,MarjorieL.1991.FeedingtheFamily:TheSocialOrganizationofCaringas
GenderedWork(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress).
Donati,Kelly2005.“ThePleasureofDiversityinSlowFood’sEthicsofTaste”Food,Culture

&Society8(2):227‐242.
Dufresne,John1998.“NothingtoEatbut
Food:MenuasMemoir”inWeAreWhatWeAte:
24MemoriesofFoodMarkWinegardner,ed.(Orlando,Florida:AHarvestOriginal)pp.80‐
92.
DuPuis,E.Melanie2002.Nature’sPerfectFood:HowMilkBecameAmerica’sDrink,New
York:NewYorkUniversityPress.
Eurostat“HouseholdCharacteristicsbyTypeofHousehold”Onlineat
epp.eurostat.ec.europa.euExtractedApril23,2008.
Eyerman,Ann1999.“ServingupService:Fast‐FoodandOfficeWomenWorkersDoingIt
withaSmile”inWomenWorkingtheNAFTAFoodChain,DeborahBarndt,ed.,(Toronto:
SecondStoryPress)pp.162‐174.
Ferrari,Chiara2008.“ContestedFoundations:PostmodernFeminismandthe
Caseofthe
UnionofItalianWomen”Signs:JournalofWomeninCultureandSociety33(3):569‐594.
Finkelstein,Joanne1999.“RichFood:McDonald’sandModernLife”Resisting
McDonaldization,BarrieSmart,ed.(London:Sage),pp.71‐82.
Fischler,Claude2000.“The‘McDonaldization’ofCulture”inFood,ACulinaryHistory,Jean‐
LouisFlandrinandMassimoMontanarieds.,EnglisheditionbyAlbertSonnenfeld(New
York:PenguinBooks)pp.530‐547.
Fulkerson,JayneA.;MaryStory,AlisonMellin,NancyLeffert,DianneNeumark‐Sztainer,
andSimoneA.French2006.“FamilyDinnerMealFrequencyandAdolescent
Development:RelationshipswithDevelopmentalAssetsandHigh‐RiskBehaviors”
JournalofAdolescentHealth39:337‐345.
Gall,Kara2003.“It’stheRegion,nottheVegan”inWomenWhoEat,LeslieMiller,ed.(New
York:SealPress)pp.121‐130.
Gaytán,MarieSarita2004.“GlobalizingResistance:SlowFoodandNewLocalImaginaries”
Food,Culture,&Society7(2):92‐116.
Giard,
Luce1998.“Doing‐Cooking”InThePracticeofEverydayLife,Vol.2:Livingand

Cooking,MicheldeCerteau,LuceGiard,andPierreMayol;TimothyJ.Tomasik,trans.
(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress)pp.150‐247.
19
PROVISIONS,NO.1,2009
Gilligan,Carol1982.InaDifferentVoice:PsychologicalTheoryandWomen’sDevelopment
(CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress).
Goodman,David2002.“RethinkingFoodProduction‐Consumption:Integrative
Perspectives”SociologiaRuralis42(4)Oct.:271‐277.
Goodman,DavidandE.MelanieDuPuis2005.“KnowingFoodandGrowingFood:Beyond
theProduction‐ConsumptionDebateintheSociology
ofAgriculture”SociologiaRuralis
42(1)Jan.:5‐22.
Gordon,Alan1998“ChangesinFoodandDrinkConsumption,andtheImplicationsfor
FoodMarketing”inTheFutureofFood,Long‐termProspectsfortheAgro‐foodSector,
OECD.
Guthman,Julie2004.AgrarianDreams:TheParadoxofOrganicFarminginCalifornia
(Berkeley:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress).
Held,Virginia1997.“Selection27fromNoncontractualSociety:AFeministView”inKey
ConceptsinCriticalTheory:Gender,CaroleC.Gould,ed.(NewJersey:HumanitiesPress)
pp.261‐271.
Helstosky,Helen2004.GarlicandOil:PoliticsandFoodinItaly(Oxford,UK:Berg).
Hochschild,Arlie
Russell1997.TheTimeBind:WhenWorkBecomesHomeandHome
BecomesWork(NewYork:MetropolitanBooks)
Inness,SherrieA.2006.SecretIngredients:Race,Gender,andClassattheDinnerTable(New
York:PalgraveMacmillan).
Jabs,Jennifer;CarolM.Devine,CaroleA.Bisogni,TracyJ.Farrell,MargaretJastran,and
ElaineWethington
2007.“TryingtoFindtheQuickestWay:EmployedMothers’

ConstructionofTimeforFood”JournalofNutritionEducationandBehavior39:18‐25.
Julier,AliceP.2005.“HidingGenderandRaceintheDiscourseofCommercialFood
Consumption”inFromBettyCrockertoFeministFoodStudies,ArleneVoskiAvakianand

BarbaraL.Haber,eds.,(Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress)
Julier,AliceP.2002.FeedingFriendsandOthers:BoundariesofIntimacyandDistancein
SociableMeals.DoctoralDissertationinSociologyattheUniversityofMassachusetts‐
Amherst.
Kittay,EvaFeder1999.Love’sLabor:EssaysonWomen,Equality,andDependency(New
York:Routledge)

Klemmer,Debbie2000.“TraditionandChangeinDomesticRolesandFoodPreparation”
Sociology34(2):323‐333.
Krause,ElizabethL.2005.ACrisisofBirths:PopulationPoliticsandFamily‐MakingInItaly
(Wadsworth/ThomsonLearning:Belmont,CA).
Krause,ElizabethL.2003.“Italy”inTheGreenwoodEncyclopediaofWomen’sIssues
Worldwide:Europe,Lynn
Walter,ed.(Westport,CT:GreenwoodPress)pp.341‐372.

WALTER
20
Labelle,Julie2004.“ARecipeforConnectedness:BridgingProductionandConsumption
withSlowFood”Food,Culture,&Society7(2):81‐96.
Lang,Tim1997.“GoingPublic:FoodCampaignsduringthe1980sandEarly1990s”in
NutritioninBritain:Science,scientistsandpoliticsinthetwentiethcentury,DavidF.Smith
(ed.),
Routledge:London,pp.238‐260.
Laudan,Rachel2001.“APleaforCulinaryModernism:WhyWeShouldLoveNew,Fast,
ProcessedFood”Gastronomica1(1)Feb.:36‐44.
Leitch,Alison2003.“SlowFoodandthePoliticsofPorkFat:ItalianFoodand European

Identity”Ethnos68(4)Dec.:437‐462.
Levenstein,Harvey2000.“The
PerilsofAbundance:Food,Health,andMoralityin
AmericanHistory”inFood,ACulinaryHistory,Jean‐LouisFlandrinandMassimo
Montanarieds.,EnglisheditionbyAlbertSonnenfeld(NewYork:PenguinBooks)pp.516‐
529.
Lohr,Luanne2007.“FactorsAffectingInternationalDemandandTradeinOrganicFood
Products”inChangingStructure
ofGlobalFoodConsumptionandTrade,AnitaRegmi,ed.,
WRSNo.(WRS01‐1)onlineatwww.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs011,accessedApril15,
2008.
Lupton,Debra1994.‘Food,MemoryandMeaning:TheSymbolicandSocialNatureofFood
Events’TheSociologicalReview42(4):664‐685.
McIntosh,Wm.AlexandMaryZey1989.“Womenas
GatekeepersofFoodConsumption:A
SociologicalCritique”FoodandFoodways3(4):317‐332.
McCloskey,LauraAnn;MichaelaTreviso,TheresaScionti,andGiulianadalPozzo2002.“A
ComparativeStudyofBatteredWomenandTheirChildreninItalyandtheUnitedStates”
JournalofFamilyViolence17(1)March:53‐74.
Micheletti,Michele2006.“WhyMoreWomen?IssuesofGenderandPolitical
Consumerism”InPolitics,Products,andMarkets:Exploringpoliticalconsumerismpastand
present,MicheleMicheletti,AndreasFollesdal,andDietlundStolle,eds.(NewBrunswick,
NJ:TransactionPublishers)pp.245‐264.
Miele,MaraandJonathanMurdoch2003.“FastFood/SlowFood:Standardizingand
DifferentiatingCulturesof
Food”inGlobalization,LocalizationandSustainable
Livelihoods,ReidarAlmåsandGeoffreyLawrence,eds.(Aldershot,England:Ashgate)pp.
25‐41.
Miller,Leslie(ed.)2003.WomenWhoEat(NewYork:SealPress).
Moisio,Risto;Arnold,EricandLindaL.Price2004.‘BetweenMothersandMarkets:

ConstructingFamilyIdentitythroughHomemadeFood’Journal
ofConsumerCulture4(3):
361‐384.
Molyneux,Maxine1985.“MobilizationwithoutEmancipation?Women’sInterests,the
State,andRevolutioninNicaragua”FeministStudies11(2):227‐254.
21
PROVISIONS,NO.1,2009
Murdoch,JonathanandMaraMiele2004.“ANewAestheticofFood?RelationalReflexivity
inthe‘Alternative’FoodMovement’”InQualitiesofFood,MarkHarvey,Andrew
McMeekinandAlanWarde,eds.,(Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress)pp.156‐175.
Murnan,Judy;Jamesh.Price,SusanK.Telljohann,JosephA.Dake,andDebra
Boardley
2006.“Parents’PerceptionsofCurricularIssuesAffectingChildren’sWeightin
ElementarySchools”JournalofSchoolHealth76(10):502‐511.
Namie,Joylin2008.“ThePowerofChildrenoverHouseholdFoodConsumption”
AnthropologyNews,49(4):11‐12.
NCHS(NationalCenterforHealthStatistics)2004.“ObesityStillaMajorProblem,New
Data
Show”Onlineatwww.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04facts/obesity.htm,accessedApril
20,2008.
Och,Elinor;ClotildePontecorvoandAlessandraFasul.1996.“SocializingTaste”Ethnos
61(1‐2):7‐46.
OECD2007BabiesandBosses‐‐‐PoliciesTowardsReconcilingWorkandFamilyLife:A
SynthesisofFindingsforOECDCountriespublished,Nov.29,2007,on‐lineat
www.oecd.org/els/social/family,accessed
April20,2008.
Parasecoli,Fabian2003.“PostrevolutionaryChowhounds:Food,Globalization,andthe
ItalianLeft”Gastronomica3(3):29‐39.
Parkins,Wendy2004.“OutofTime:Fastsubjectsandslowliving”Time&Society13(2/3):
363‐382.

Paxson,Heather2005.“SlowFoodinaFatSociety:SatisfyingEthicalAppetites”
Gastronomica5(1):14‐
18.
Petrini,Carlo2007.SlowFoodNation:WhyOurFoodShouldBeGood,Clean,andFair(New
York:Rizzoliexlibris)
Petrini,Carlo,ed.withBenWatsonandSlowFoodEditore2001.SlowFood:Collected
ThoughtsonTaste,Tradition,andtheHonestPleasuresofFood(WhiteRiverJunction,VT:
ChelseaGreen
PublishingCompany.
Pietrykowski,Bruce2004.“YouAreWhatYouEat:TheSocialEconomyoftheSlowFood
Movement”ReviewofSocialEconomyLXII(3):307‐321.
Price,Joshua2002.“TheApotheosisofHomeandtheMaintenanceofSpacesofViolence”
Hypatia17(4):39‐70.
Probyn,Elspeth2000.CarnalAppetites:FoodSexIdentities(London:
Routledge).
Reisch,LuciaA.2001.“TimeandWealth:TheRoleOfTimeAndTemporalitiesFor
SustainablePatternsOfConsumption”Time&Society10(2/3):367‐385.
Reiter,Ester1999.“ServingtheMcCustomer:FastFoodisnotaboutFood”inWomen
WorkingtheNAFTAFoodChain,DeborahBarndt,ed.,(Toronto:SecondStory
Press)pp.
82‐96.

WALTER
22
Ritzer,George,ed.2002.McDonaldization,TheReader(ThousandOaks,CA:PineForge
Press).
Ritzer,George2001.‘SlowFoodversusMcDonalds’InSlowFood,CarloPetrini,ed.,(White
RiverJunction,VT:ChelseaGreenPublishingCompany),pp.19‐22.
Romano,MariaCleliaandRitaRanaldi2007.“PaidandUnpaidWork”GlobalForum
on

GenderStatistics,Rome,Dec.10‐12,2007,publishedbyIstatonlineat
unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/meetings/wshops/Gender_Statistics_10Dec07_Rome/
docs/5.2_Romano.pdf
Schlosser,Eric2002.FastFoodNation:TheDarkSideoftheAll‐AmericanMeal(NewYork:
Perennial)
Schor,JulietB.2005.“SustainableConsumptionandWorktimeReduction”Journalof
IndustrialEcology,9(1‐2):37‐50.
Schor,
JulietB.1991.TheOverworkedAmerican:TheUnexpectedDeclineofLeisure(New
York:BasicBooks)
Shiva,Vandana1988.StayingAlive:Women,EcologyandSurvivalinIndia(London:Zed
Books).
SlowFoodInternational2008.Onlineatwww.slow.com,accessedApril10,2008.
SlowFoodUSA2008.Onlineatwww.slowfoodusa.org,accessedApril15,
2008.
Sobal,JefferyandMaryK.Nelson2003. “CommensalEatingPatterns:ACommunity
Study”Appetite41:181‐190.
Valentine,Gill1999.“EatingIn:Home,Consumption,andIdentity”TheSociologicalReview,
pp.491‐524.
VanEsterik,Penny1998.‘RighttoFood;RighttoFeed;RighttobeFed.TheIntersectionof
Women’sRightsandtheRighttoFood’AgricultureandHumanValues16:225‐232.
Vileisis,Ann2008.KitchenLiteracy:HowWeLostKnowledgeofWhereFoodComesfromand
WhyWeNeedtoGetitBack(WashingtonD.C.:IslandPress).
Walter,Lynn2003.“Women’sMovements”inTheInternationalEncyclopediaofMarriage

andtheFamily,JamesJ.Ponzetti,ed.(NewYork:Macmillan)pp.1714‐1720
Walter,Lynn2001.“Denmark:Women’sRightsandWomen’sWelfare”inWomen’sRights:
AGlobalView,LynnWalter,ed.(Westport,CT:GreenwoodPress)pp.57‐70.
Warde,Alan1997.Consumption,FoodandTaste:CulinaryAntinomiesandCommodity
Culture(London:SagePublications).

Warde,Alan,Shu‐LiCheng,WendyOlsenandDealSoutherton2007.“Changesinthe
PracticeofEating:AComparativeAnalysisofTime‐Use”ActaSociologica50(4)Dec.:363‐
385.
23
PROVISIONS,NO.1,2009
Whatmore,Sarah2002.HybridGeographies:NaturesCulturesSpaces(London:Sage
Publications).
Whatmore,Sarah1997.“Dissectingtheautonomousself:Hybridcartographiesfora
relationalethic”EnvironmentandPlanning,15:37‐53.
Wilk,Richard2006a.FastFood/SlowFood:TheCulturalEconomyoftheGlobalFoodSystem
(Lanham,MD:AltamiraPress).
Wilk,Richard
2006b.HomeCookingintheGlobalVillage(Oxford:Berg).
Williams‐Forson,PsycheA.2006.BuildingHousesOutOfChickenLegs:BlackWomen,Food,
AndPower(ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress).
Winegardner,Mark,ed.1998.WeAreWhatWeAte:24MemoriesofFood(Orlando,Florida:
AHarvestOriginal).
Witherspoon,
Gary1975.NavajoKinshipandMarriage(Chicago:UniversityofChicago
Press).