Sociology of Food

What we eat, when, how, and with whom – these are not purely personal decisions. The sociology of food reveals that eating is a deeply social practice. It signifies belonging, marks differences, reflects power relations, and has become increasingly moralized. Between everyday routines and global food systems, a complex field of research unfolds, offering insights into social order, cultural symbolism, and societal change.

1. Why Food Matters to Sociology

Eating is mundane – and precisely for that reason, sociologically fascinating. It is among the most basic human activities, yet deeply embedded in cultural norms, social rules, and moral ideas. Sociology does not focus on calories or diets but asks: What does it mean to eat together? How do taste preferences arise? Why are some foods considered luxurious while others are seen as “cheap”?

In Max Weber’s sense, eating can be understood as social action – behavior oriented toward others. Being fed is among a human’s first social interactions. Eating alone is rarely desirable. In many families, dinner is the one fixed “mandatory appointment” of the day – free from screens, centered on attention, exchange, and symbolic community. In the business world, contracts may be signed in boardrooms, but often decided over shared meals.

From an interactionist perspective, eating is a stage for social performance. Erving Goffman showed how everyday actions become self-presentations. Whether at a family breakfast, a first date, or a business lunch – dining together requires role behavior, ritualized sequences, and social interpretation. Who leads the conversation, who serves, how food is consumed – all are part of a symbolic order that structures social relations.

The sociology of food sits at the intersection of everyday sociology, social inequality, role theory, and value sociology, while also drawing heavily from body and cultural sociology.

2. Taste Is Not Personal

Taste often seems like an individual preference – yet sociologically, it is a socially acquired sense of distinction. Pierre Bourdieu showed that culinary preferences are closely linked to social habitus: they are not freely chosen but internalized unconsciously – shaped by origin, education, and class.

Someone who enjoys a cheese burger and fries likely approaches food differently than someone savoring a 12-course tasting menu. In upper-class settings, food is often approached aesthetically and symbolically: light, healthy, curated. In working-class contexts, the emphasis may be on practicality and satiety. Neither is inherently superior – both reflect access to cultural resources.

Taste is a form of distinction – a conscious or unconscious way to differentiate oneself from others. Even seemingly progressive diets like veganism, clean eating, or local organics carry symbolic weight. Those who can afford it often buy “sustainably” – not only out of conviction, but also as symbolic capital.

Yet distinction is dynamic. Formerly elite foods like sushi have gone mainstream, appearing in supermarkets and cafeterias. Their exclusivity wanes – new forms of distinction arise: artisanal labels (“hand-rolled Edomae sushi”), certifications (“biodynamic”), practices (“plant-based”), or restricted access (fine dining, food pairing events).

Interestingly, price alone does not guarantee social recognition. The “golden steak” flaunted by footballers and influencers was widely mocked as nouveau riche. In academic or bourgeois circles, such displays are often deemed tasteless – precisely because of their cost. Distinction thus operates not only through wealth, but through culturally legitimate forms of consumption.

Taste is not only structured – it is identity-forming. Asking someone about their favorite food is often seen as intimate and revealing – akin to questions about music or books. Similar questions about other senses (“What’s your favorite smell?”) often feel strange. This imbalance shows how food, as social practice and symbolic self-description, is deeply rooted in our culture.

3. Food and Social Order

What counts as “normal” – three meals a day, using cutlery, avoiding noises while eating – is historically and culturally constructed. Norbert Elias illustrated how eating habits and bodily control evolved with societal stratification, status, and power.

A quote attributed to Martin Luther captures this transformation: “Why don’t you burp and fart? Didn’t you enjoy your meal?” Today considered uncivilized, such expressions were once part of table culture – before being gradually banished to the private sphere.

Using cutlery was once a marker of nobility, later adopted by the bourgeoisie in the 18th and 19th centuries, and eventually became a social norm. As Bourdieu theorized, everyday practices – “proper” eating, sitting, serving – are socially meaningful, used for distinction or imitation.

Meals structure everyday life, build community – or exclusion. Seating arrangements often reflect hierarchies: the “head of the table,” central authority – as seen in da Vinci’s Last Supper, where Jesus is centered. Weddings, banquets, or state dinners follow precise rules of placement and rank.

Who eats with whom, who prepares the meal, who serves, who speaks – all reflect microcosms of social order. Food is not merely sustenance but the performance of social relations.

Ferdinand Tönnies distinguished between community (emotional, face-to-face) and society (functional, goal-oriented). Shared meals foster communitas – emotional bonds, trust, belonging. Whether at family tables, festive feasts, or banquets: sharing food not only symbolizes but creates belonging.

4. Morality, Control, and Identity

In late modernity, eating is more than ever tied to moral, political, and cultural meanings. “What can one eat – and what not?” becomes a projection screen for values, ideologies, and identities.

Religion

Many food rules are religious: pork bans in Islam, fasting in Christianity, kosher laws in Judaism. Even in secular societies, morally charged food taboos persist – around meat, alcohol, or sugar.

Gender

Cooking remains gendered: the “housewife in the kitchen” versus the male-coded “celebrity chef.” Women still face higher expectations of bodily discipline and dietary control – diets, clean eating, intermittent fasting.

Luxury kitchen as a symbol of aesthetic distinction and social status (source: YouTube)

In contemporary design, open-concept luxury kitchens have become symbols of aesthetic performance and communicative space. Cooking is no longer just a domestic task but a performative act, where appliances, materials, and interior design reflect social distinction and lifestyle. These kitchens are often used to represent ideals of equality and shared responsibility – at least symbolically.

However, this democratization remains socially selective: in affluent homes, there are often two kitchen spaces – one for hosting and aesthetic display, the other (a “butler’s pantry”) for practical work. This spatial division reveals the continued layering of gender, class, and status in domestic environments.

In Ralf Dahrendorf’s terms, kitchen roles express social role expectations: mother as provider, father as host, children as silent diners. Modernity challenges these roles with new conflicts – between equality and tradition, ambition and family time.

Self-Control

The body becomes a project of optimization: diets, fitness food, health apps, eating plans. In neoliberal societies, eating reflects individual responsibility. Michel Foucault showed how modern societies regulate health via self-control and normalization. Food pyramids, calorie charts, BMI – all evaluate eating morally and medically. Health becomes disciplinary power – good nutrition a marker of social approval.

Aestheticized Morality

Andreas Reckwitz describes how consumption becomes an aesthetic-moral self-performance. Brewing fair-trade coffee in a designer kitchen and sharing it on Instagram performs not just taste, but moral superiority. This distinction grows as it contrasts “ordinary” gear or discount coffee.

Food becomes a stage for aesthetic responsibility – reflecting class, education, aesthetics, and values. In late modernity, the plate reveals not only hunger – but habitus, attitude, and expectations.

5. Globalization, Migration, and Food Culture

GlobalizationThe process of increasing interconnectedness and interdependence among countries through economic, political, cultural, and technological exchange. and migration have transformed kitchens, eating habits, and food markets. On the one hand, we observe a cultural hybridization: sushi, falafel, tofu, or kimchi have entered everyday diets across social milieus. On the other hand, culinary prejudices persist – especially toward “foreign” cuisines in migration contexts. In school cafeterias, talk shows, or institutional settings, debates about eating habits often reflect covert cultural devaluation.

Global food systems are under scrutiny: the standardization of food via fast food chains, frozen goods, or convenience products faces backlash from slow food movements, regional initiatives, or food sovereignty activists. George Ritzer described this standardization as McDonaldization – a process where efficiency, calculability, control, and predictability shape not only food but all aspects of modern life.

Access to healthy and diverse food is also a matter of social inequality. But this is not a one-way street. Sociology speaks of glocalization – the simultaneous presence and interpenetration of global and local food cultures. Local specialities maintain cultural identity: Thuringian bratwurst, Hamburg eel soup, Berlin or Duisburg’s currywurst – each carries regional history, meaning, and emotion. This is especially evident in local breweries, craft beers, and regional brands that function as cultural markers of belonging.

Thus, food culture becomes a site of negotiation: between global offerings and local claims, between migration and exclusion, between culinary exchange and symbolic defense of tradition.

6. Norms and Values Around Food

Few areas of life are as bound to social norms and cultural values as food. From early on, we learn “proper” table manners: don’t slurp, don’t talk with your mouth full, don’t eat with your hands – unless the culture or context permits it. These rules express social normativity and enable social control.

ValuesValues are deeply held beliefs and ideals about what is good, desirable, and important in a society. shape what counts as “good” or “right” food. Different cultures maintain very different values: raw meat (sashimi) is a delicacy in Japan but taboo elsewhere; in India the cow is sacred, while in Europe beef is a staple. These differences highlight the cultural significance of food.

Even in secular societies, we observe quasi-religious food values: veganism, organic food, or local diets are often seen not just as practical, but morally superior. Those who violate these norms – by eating fast food or cheap meat – risk symbolic devaluation. Food norms and values regulate not just behavior but social inclusion, recognition, and order.

One rarely discussed aspect of food norms is defecation – the inevitable result of eating. Although often cloaked in shame and discretion, it too is governed by norms and rituals: from euphemisms (“I need a moment”) to the “restroom.” Interestingly, the toilet is the great social equalizer: all people, regardless of class or taste, must use it.

This makes culinary distinctions even more paradoxical: while taste and dining are often celebrated, digestion is hidden and silenced. Though distinction exists here too (four-ply toilet paper, bidets, air sprays), it lacks the cultural symbolism of food performances. Discussing food norms should include reflection on bodily exits – they too are socially regulated and culturally significant.

7. Deviance and Crime Around Food

From a criminological and sociology of deviance perspective, food is a highly relevant topic. The food chain often draws public scrutiny – involving scandals, deception, exploitation, or animal cruelty. Sociology of food opens a broader view on gray zones between legality, morality, and market logic.

Examples of deviant or criminal food practices include:

• Subsidy fraud in agriculture
• Sales of spoiled or mislabeled meat (e.g., horse meat scandal)
• Use of ecologically or ethically questionable ingredients (e.g., palm oil, caged eggs)
• Import of rotting meat, label fraud, chick shredding

These cases raise core questions: Who defines what is moral or criminal? What norms apply to food – and how are they enforced? Who bears responsibility – consumers, traders, or states? Concepts from Green CriminologyA branch of criminology that examines environmental harm and ecological justice., Labeling Theory, and Consumer Critique offer rich analytical frameworks.

Marxist perspectives further critique the global food system. Under capitalism, food is produced not as a social good but as a commodity – driven by profit, efficiency, and growth. The commodification of seeds, water, land, and food leads to exploitation, environmental externalities, and global food inequality. These insights inform debates on Food Justice, Green CriminologyThe scientific study of crime, criminal behavior, prevention, and societal reactions to deviance within and beyond the criminal justice system., and Post-Growth Politics.

8. Conclusion: Why the Sociology of Food Remains Relevant

Food is never just nourishment. It expresses belonging, enacts control, enables communication – and increasingly becomes a field of conflict. The sociology of food reveals how everyday life is shaped by cultural meanings, social expectations, and political frameworks. To understand how society works – look at the plate.

Recommended Reading

Literature

• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Dahrendorf, R. (1977). Homo Sociologicus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Douglas, M. (1966/1991). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge.
• Elias, N. (1939/2000). The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Foucault, M. (1975/1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
• Goffman, E. (1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
• Lupton, D. (1996). Food, the Body and the Self. Sage.
• Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. In: Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 6.
• Reckwitz, A. (2017). The Society of Singularities. Berlin: Suhrkamp (German original).
• Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
• Tönnies, F. (1887). Community and Society. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.