consumption and the problem of variety

8/8/2019 Consumption and the Problem of Variety

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/consumption-and-the-problem-of-variety 1/23

CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY:CULTURAL OMNIVOROUSNESS, SOCIAL

DISTINCTION AND DINING OUT

ALAN WARDE, L YDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

Abstract In the light of the work of Pierre Bourdieu, this paper begins by reviewingan argument that Western populations no longer recognise any fixed culturalhierarchy and that, instead, individuals seek knowledge of an increasingly widevariety of aesthetically equivalent cultural genres. Contrasting versions of thisargument are isolated. Data concerning the frequency of use of different commer-cial sources of meals and the social characteristics of customers using different typesof restaurant in England are examined. An attempt is made to infer the social andsymbolic significance of variety of experience and, in particular, of familiarity withdiverse ethnic cuisines. The findings are interpreted in terms of the complex role of consumption in personal assurance, communicative competence and social dis-tinction. It is maintained that the pursuit of variety of consumer experience is afeature of particular social groups and that some specific component practicesexpress social distinction.

Key words: Bourdieu, consumption, cultural capital, cultural omnivores, dining out,distinction.

Pierre Bourdieu’s book Distinction: The Social Judgment of Taste (1984) has

probably been the primary landmark in the sociology of consumption in

Britain and North America. For Bourdieu, lifestyle was an expression of class

position, which, according to another essay on the topic (1987), was

identifiable by the volume and composition of types of capital – economic,

cultural, social and symbolic – which were typically available to given house-holds. He argued that styles of consumption are means not just of deploying

economic resources but also especially of exhibiting ‘cultural capital’. The

display of goods is part of a system of reputation, involving judgements about

good taste, which results in members of different social classes systematically

picking some items in preference to others. In his view there was always

struggle over the legitimacy of the definition of what was in good taste, but

nevertheless there was widespread agreement at any point in time about its

existence, its hierarchical character and its distribution. Social distinction wasmarked by tastes which were formed as part of class habitus and were

mutually recognisable between individuals and groups in society. Symbols of

distinction were of many kinds – for instance including body posture and

accent – but possessions and pursuits were important parts of the common

systemic code.

Bourdieu’s analysis, applied to France in the 1970s, has been subjected to

SOCIOLOGY Vol. 33 No. 1 February 1999

105–127



extensive, though often highly sympathetic, critique. North American socio-

logists of culture have engaged in some increasingly sophisticated empirical

research in order to sustain and support their objections. For example,

Michèle Lamont (1992) compares the ways that upper-middle class men infour cities in the United States and France draw social and status boundaries.

They distinguish between themselves and others, and attribute superiority and

inferiority, in terms of three dimensions of status – moral, socioeconomic and

cultural. National differences in bases of status estimation were apparent; the

American men focused more on moral judgements (including estimates of

friendliness, honesty and co-operativeness) and socio-economic judgements,

whereas the French emphasised cultural exclusiveness and refinement, which

they assessed in relation to a hierarchy of cultural forms. She was thus ablepersuasively to criticise Bourdieu both for his theoretical limitations and for an

exaggeratedly Parisian interpretation of the rigidity and social centrality of a

particular form of hierarchical cultural capital. Her evidence from the provin-

cial city of Clermont-Ferrand, and even more so from New York and

Indianapolis, indicated that cultural boundaries were less clear and less rigid

than had been suggested by Bourdieu. Indeed, Lamont suggests that

differentiation in the sphere of culture is a relatively weak source of status

competition in the United States. She thus endorses DiMaggio’s (1987)

depiction of the United States as having ‘loose boundaries’, especially in thefield of culture, which prevents the formation of a strong universal hierarchical

cultural system. The United States is perhaps itself special because of its wider

appreciation of forms of popular culture and the absence of any pattern of

cultural hegemony. However, if this were a feature not just of the United

States, but a tendency of contemporary cultural change more generally, then

the processes which Bourdieu identifies as means of establishing and repro-

ducing social distinction might generally be in abeyance.

One highly consequential feature of contemporary commodity culture is the

enormous variety of cultural items in circulation. Potentially, this poses addi-

tional problems for Bourdieu, since his account depends upon a generalised

societal capacity for the identification and interpretation of key markers of

social position. A proliferation of items may dilute the concentration of

preferences within any group or, perhaps even more likely, make it impossible

to communicate refinement or distinction. If, for instance, it is true that

people today are compelled to use consumption behaviour to signify who they

are to other people, from whom they hope to gain approval and esteem for

their ‘style’, then identifying an appropriate and effective means to achieve thisbecomes increasingly difficult. With more signifiers available, and with

shortages of time, money and information being inevitable constraints upon

their employment and enjoyment, how can anyone be sure to transmit the

correct impression or be sure that the impression will be read correctly? In

such a society, then, two typical problems occur for groups or classes trying to

establish their claims to good taste; firstly, to legitimate the superiority of their

106 ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN



own cultural practices and, secondly, to demonstrate in communication with

others that they are indeed members of a superior grouping.

The question of whether there is a cultural hierarchy reflecting class

position and how it might have been affected by the variegation of culturalitems in circulation has exercised many scholars recently. Three different types

of conclusion have been drawn from very recent North American empirical

research. The first is that class distinctions are rapidly waning, are com-

paratively harmless, and that appreciation of a much wider variety of cultural

genres – dubbed ‘omnivorousness’ – is spreading, if somewhat unevenly,

replacing snobbish attitudes with a comparatively benevolent and tolerant

pluralism. The second maintains that omnivorousness is itself exclusionary, a

form of cultural symbolism, perhaps exhibiting a qualified cultural tolerancebut with a significant, if residual, class basis. A third view identifies an

instrumental purpose for omnivorousness, one which directly, but very

selectively, reinforces class inequalities because it bears a capacity to transform

cultural into social capital.1 We find examplars of these positions in articles by

Peterson and Kern (1996), Bryson (1996), and Erickson (1996) respectively.

Peterson and Kern (1996) argue that there has been a trend over the last

fifteen years in the United States for persons with ‘high-brow’ cultural tastes

in music (measured as having professed liking both opera and classical music

and liking one of these genres best of all types of music) to claim to like anincreasing number of middle-brow and low-brow genres too. This process

they call ‘omnivorousness’, which they measure ‘as the number of middle-

and low-brow forms respondents choose’ (1996:901). They note that high-

brow people are more likely to add low-brow genres (like country music,

blues, rock and gospel) rather than middle-brow items (such as Broadway

musicals and big bands), although they are adding these too. Moreover, while

low- and middle-brow people also claim to like more genres in 1992 than in

1983, the rate of increase of omnivorousness is fastest among the high-brows.

They note that high-brow people on average had two years more education,

$5,000 more household income, were ten years older and more likely to be

white and female. They interpret the trend as one whereby omnivorousness

replaces snobbishness, a status system which was more hierarchical and more

closed, in which an elite liked only exclusive forms of culture and refused

either to recognise or appreciate other less exalted forms. Peterson and Kern

offer a somewhat ambivalent, and perhaps generous, interpretation of omni-

vorousness: ‘it is antithetical to snobbishness, which is based fundamentally

on rigid rules of exclusion’ (1996:904). It is not ‘liking everythingindiscriminately’, but ‘an openness to appreciating everything’. Moreover, it

‘does not imply an indifference to distinctions’, for the high-brow does not

actually embrace the low-brow forms, but merely seeks to ‘appreciate and

critique in the light of some knowledge of the genre’.

The authors attribute the growth of omnivorousness to structural changes

which have made different cultural forms more widely available, ‘a historical

CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY 107



trend towards greater tolerance of those holding different values’ (1996:905),

the decline of a single standard in the art world, the effect of generational

politics as tastes developed from the 1950s onwards, and a change in the

operation of status group politics. They maintain (1996:906) that:

Dominant status groups have regularly defined popular culture in ways that fit theirown interests and have worked to render harmless subordinate status-groupcultures. One recurrent strategy is to define popular culture as brutish and some-thing to be suppressed or avoided; another is to gentrify elements of popular cultureand incorporate them into the dominant status-group culture. Our data suggest amajor shift from the former strategy to the latter strategy of status group politics.

Peterson and Kern conclude by claiming that ‘omnivorous inclusion seems

better adapted to an increasingly global world managed by those who maketheir way, in part, by showing respect for the cultural expressions of others’,

that omnivorousness is ‘better adapted’ to the late twentieth century, and that

it has an elective affinity with a ‘new business and administrative class’. How-

ever, the statistical relationships demonstrated are fairly weak and the absence

of occupation among the independent variables (though see Peterson and

Simkus, 1992) renders the argument frail.

Bryson used the 1993 US General Social Survey (with a sample of 1,606

people) also to examine musical taste, exploring which of eighteen genres

were disliked by respondents. She showed that there is no general tendency for

higher class people to express dislike for lower status tastes. Length of time in

education reduces the number of genres disliked. However, the educated

display a patterned tolerance, favouring some higher status black and foreign

music while rejecting the music associated with low status groups (specifically

rap, heavy metal, gospel and country). At the attitudinal level she finds

evidence of class rather than racial prejudice. She also shows that less edu-

cated people claim knowledge of fewer genres and suggests that there is some

kudos associated with possession of ‘multicultural’ capital (defined as aknowledge of selected diverse forms). She observes (Bryson 1996:897) that:

increasing tolerance has undoubtedly made high-status culture more open to racialand ethnic cultural differences. However, tolerance itself may separate high-statusculture from other group cultures. This tolerance line recreates the pattern of high-status (cosmopolitan) culture in opposition to non-high-status (group-based)culture. Thus, it provides a new criterion of cultural exclusion.

Incidentally demonstrating the value of a method of examining aversions as a

basis of symbolic differentiation (as advocated by Douglas 1996), she (Bryson1996:897) claims that:

focusing on cultural dislike has allowed me to make a crucial distinction betweendifference (a prerequisite of preference) and inequality (a matter of exclusion). Thatis, to the extent that symbolic boundaries are used as a basis of social exclusion,study of the politics of taste is essential to our understanding of the subtle forces atwork in power relationships and the reproduction of the social structure.




Bryson concludes by advocating further research: cross-national comparison

to distinguish theoretical generalities from local strategies of symbolic exclus-

ion (for content need not be the same from place to place); investigation of

other objects of taste; and exploration of the hypothesis that tolerance is itself a principle of good taste. Bryson (1996:897) speculates that we might then be

able to ‘make sense of the contradiction between increasing social inequality

and what appears to be a flattening cultural hierarchy’.

Erickson (1996) offers a very sophisticated account of a complex social

distribution of cultural knowledge. In a study of the personnel of the security

industry in Canada, she offers a stronger argument about the way in which

knowledge, though not experience, of cultural variety is instrumentally and

selectively used in directly class-based processes. She shows that there aresocial differences in omnivorousness between people at different levels of the

occupational hierarchy, with employers and managers being the most

omnivorous and with others in lesser positions of authority also scoring higher

than employees. She argues that business organisations have dual require-

ments, to exercise control and to ensure co-ordination through maintaining

social integration and effective communication. For the second function the

capacity of management to be able to talk to as many ranks as possible is

advantageous. Hence there is value in cultivating the social and cultural skill

of having a wide range of topics of conversation in order to ease com-munication. Omnivorousness is thus instrumental in the management of

workplaces; occupational class structure is implicated in the reproduction of

symbolic differentiation.

Empirically, Erickson demonstrates that high culture (books and art) is not

important to business people, who concentrate on those cultural elements

which are business-related. There are many genres where there are no per-

ceptible differences between groups. Thus, recognition of esoteric sports,

esoteric art, Canadian books, chain restaurants and popular magazines were

not preferred by any class in particular, presumably implying that these are

either mass or enthusiast items. The key discriminating items tend to be ones

which she claims have direct relevance for business activity: it was knowledge

of popular sports, mainstream art, books, better restaurants and business

magazines with which the more omnivorous people were disproportionately

familiar. So, for example, extent of knowledge of better restaurants is the

prerogative of owners and managers and of people with extensive social

networks. Such knowledge is also greater among the Canadian-born, whites

and women.Separating the effects on the diversity of cultural knowledge of primary

socialisation (natality, parental characteristics and own education), secondary

socialisation (respondent’s previous job experience) and current social

location (determined by current job and nature of social network), Erickson

demonstrates that the third set of factors are particularly powerful. This casts

some doubt on Bourdieuvian emphases on the role of engrained habitus:




‘family is not destiny’, for ‘culture includes many genres learned at different

times of life’ (Erickson 1996:223). She also indicates a very significant role for

networks, especially networks of weak ties (compare Granovetter 1973).2

Overall, Erickson stresses that there are many dimensions of differenceacross diverse classes and groups and between different fields and genres.

However, she perhaps overstates her case when concluding that ‘diverse net-

works encourage cultural omnivores, not specialists in distinguished culture

nor specialists in culture specific to higher classes’ (Erickson 1996:238). For,

as with Bryson, the evidence does not demonstrate an absence of specialis-

ation, for neither have a measure of intensity of involvement. The possibility

that people have concentrated specialisms (which might constitute

enthusiasms) as well as a veneer of knowledge of diverse other genres, is notinconsistent with the evidence. Indeed, the omnivore who likes the high

culture items might use more intensive knowledge of these as grounds for

establishing and recognising symbolic superiority. It may be significant that

Erickson’s sample contains few professionals and comes from private sector

industry, Lamont (1992) having demonstrated that it was intellectuals in the

public and charity sectors who drew the strongest cultural boundaries. Finally,

Erickson (1996:219) investigated claims to knowledge rather than actual

practice, on the premise that ‘cultural inequality is not so much a hierarchy of

tastes (from soap opera to classical opera) as it is a hierarchy of knowledge(from those who know little about soap opera or opera to those who can take

part in conversation about both).’ Hence her conclusion that ‘the most widely

useful form of cultural resource is cultural variety plus the (equally cultural)

understanding of the rules of relevance’ (Erickson 1996:219). However, she

denies that this is directly a function of social class. She explicitly distinguishes

correlation with class from usefulness in class processes (1996:221), and

concludes that ‘advantaged people, including high-class people, will certainly

have better cultural resources, but this is not because of their class as such but

because of the diverse networks that advantaged people have.’ It is, however,

difficult to see how the design of her inquiry can permit such a definitive

separation.

The evidence provided by Peterson and Kern, Bryson and Erickson is

strictly incommensurate, as are their conceptualisations and their conclusions.

Their indicators of cultural distinction, their interpretations of the meaning of

such differentiation, their operationalisation of social class, and their accounts

of the prevalence of omnivorousness are, at the detailed level, non-com-

parable. Yet all work effectively with a broadly similar Bourdieuvian prob-lematic, while seeking to modify and moderate his conclusions about the

direct superimposition of cultural or symbolic differences upon social

divisions.

This paper adds evidence to the debate. It examines another field, eating

out, in another country, England, and deals with practices rather than

attitudes or awareness. It seeks to clarify whether omnivorousness is a




solution to the anxiety associated with an ambivalent modernity, an

expression of greater cultural tolerance, or a particular form of social

distinction. It contests some of the more simple pluralist assumptions by

claiming that omnivorousness and distinction are not mutually exclusive. Inthe next section we explain the significance of the case study of dining out

and describe briefly the empirical investigation upon which the argument is

based. Then we present data about which sorts of people use what range of

different types of commercial eating places, particularly identifying those who

frequent restaurants specialising in ethnic cuisine. We look for evidence of

omnivorousness and distinction. The penultimate section offers an

interpretation of the symbolic significance of the celebration of variety for the

middle classes, in terms of personal reassurance, communicative competenceand the instrumental and expressive role of omnivorousness in demonstrating

social distinction.

Methods for the Study of Eating Out in England

In the spirit of Bryson’s recommendation to undertake more case studies, we

consider eating out habits. Of course, the evidence from a single field is

incapable of providing a definitive assessment of the most general thesis, forBourdieu’s argument hangs upon the combinations of a group’s practices

across all fields. However, the subtleties of cultural distinctiveness are such

that for empirical purposes there is much to be gained from exploration of

specific areas. We consider eating out a good case study, not so much because

the metaphors of the omnivore and taste fit so well, but because it is a highly

differentiated and popular activity where selection among alternatives might

be expected to exhibit a social logic. An earlier study of household expen-

diture patterns reported that money spent on eating out was a pronounced

indicator of social class differences (Tomlinson and Warde 1993; Warde

1997). Not only Erickson (see also 1991), but also DeVault (1991) have

provided evidence of considerable concern and talk about food, particularly

among the middle classes. In addition, eating out presents both a considerable

range of alternatives and the opportunity for repeated selections. It represents

a much less decisive financial commitment or cultural statement than would,

say, house purchase. Despite exceptions, prices of meals out are sufficiently

moderate and varied for financial considerations to be not entirely compelling

in the process of differentiation.Semi-structured interviews were conducted in thirty households in Preston,

a medium-sized city in North-West England, to elicit discussion about eating

out. Subsequently 1,001 people, aged between 16 and 65, were surveyed in

three cities in England: London, Bristol and Preston. A quota sample

matched respondents to the overall population of diverse local wards by age,

sex, class and ethnic group. The survey was undertaken in April 1995 and




questions were asked about frequency of eating out, types of outlet visited,

attitudes to eating out and the nature of the most recent meal eaten away from

home. The answers to these have been analysed to explore social variations in

eating out by class, income, age, gender, education, place of residence, and soforth.

In this paper we report some findings from the survey, particularly from a

question which asked respondents what types of place they had visited in the

last twelve months. We use this to explore the extent to which people had used

the available range of options, which social groups sought the widest

experience, and whether particular types of outlet appeared, on the basis of

their clientele, to be socially exclusive.

The statistical analysis reported here is based upon techniques of cross-tabulation and multiple regression, with measures of commercial eating out as

dependent variables and a range of socio-demographic indicators as

independent variables. Though not a national random sample, there is no

reason to believe that the survey contains any particular bias as a portrayal of

urban English practice. The qualitative interviews were consistent with the

quantitative evidence.

Data: Varieties of Experience

We presented a list of types of commercial eating out place, based on an

earlier market research report (Payne and Payne 1993), asking respondents if

they had eaten a main meal in such an establishment within the last twelve

months. This is effectively a measure of recent familiarity, rather than

popularity. The frequency of response is listed in Table 1. The taxonomy is

problematic because it indiscriminately mixes types defined by cuisine, such

as Italian, by manner of delivery, such as bar meal, and by function, such as

roadside diner. Nevertheless, labels caused respondents no perceptible diffi-

culties of comprehension.3 As can be seen, pubs, fastfood places and teashops

were familiar to more people than were wine bars, vegetarian and ethnic

restaurants.

The pattern of who goes where is complex. All types of venue are to some

degree socially differentiated in their custom; there is usually some statistically

significant association with age, education and income, though not always in

the same direction. Patterns vary for each type of outlet. For example, those

independent variables which predict the likelihood of having eaten in afastfood place in the last twelve months are significantly different from those

for ethnic cuisine; for fastfood places where meals are eaten on the premises

(like McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken), income, class and city make

little difference, while household composition and especially age are very

strongly associated.4 However, the first key question is who uses a wide range

of options, who comparatively few?




Exposure to Variety

The evidence suggests that in practice the pursuit of variety is influenced to a

significant degree by socio-demographic characteristics. We constructed a

simple index of variety. We calculated how many of the nineteen types of

commercial place on our list respondents had visited in the last year. This was

constructed as a simple arithmetic scale which was then condensed into those

who had never eaten out, those using few (1–3) types, those with a moderate

level of exposure (4–7 types) and those who had the widest experience of

alternative venues (8–19 types).5 Crosstabulation of scores on the condensed

scale, our ‘variety index’, with standard socio-demographic independentvariables, produced the high levels of association documented in Table 2. The

number of places visited was associated with many variables; unsurprisingly

with frequency of eating out, but also with income, educational qualifications,

age, social class and employment status.

The ‘variety index’ was then used in linear multiple regression analysis. The

final regression equation (see Table 3, column a) explained 26 per cent of the


Table 1

Type of Restaurant Eaten in during Last Twelve Months

Our sample (1995) Payne and Payne (1993)

Pizza 41 24Fastfood outlet 49 n/aFish and chip (eat in) 18 23Wine bar 17 8Roadside diner or service station 31 28In store or shopping mall 31 n/aCafé or teashop 52 n/aSteakhouse 19 21Pub (bar meal) 49

}60}Pub restaurant 41Other British 6 16Indian 33 24Chinese 29 29Italian 31 16American-style 12 16French n/a 7Other ethnic 21 n/aGreek n/a 7Vegetarian 9 4

Other 1 6None/don’t know n/a 13

Note: The table shows the percentage of respondents in each survey who had eaten ineach venue at least once within the past twelve months.



variance (adjusted R2) on the index, a moderate but acceptable level given the

nature of the independent variables and the heterogeneous character of the

components of the index. It indicates that breadth of exposure can be

predicted best by high household income, having a university degree, being in

the middle of the age range, and being currently in a white-collar occupation,

especially being an employer or manager. Being a student, having a high

personal income and holding educational credentials below degree level were

also significant. This is prima facie evidence that a distinct and comparatively

privileged section of the population achieve greatest variety of experience. The

independent significance of income, occupation and educational credentials

suggests that social class is a principal factor explaining differential

experience; in Bourdieu’s terms, a combination of economic and personalcultural capital influence behaviour. Moreover, it supports Erickson’s observa-

tion that people in positions of authority in the workplace are likely to have

the broadest cultural experience. Employers and managers are the socio-

economic group with the greatest tendency to score highly on the index.

The extent to which this might be interpreted as an indicator of either

instrumental self-promotion or cultural distinction, is one issue at stake in this


Table 2

Variety of Restaurants Attended in Last Twelve Months

Association with number of Social characteristics types of restaurant

Frequency of eating out commercially 0.64***Frequency of eating at family member’s home 0.22***Frequency of eating at friend’s home 0.48***Personal income 0.42***Household income 0.48***Employment (full-time, part-time, none) 0.22***Father’s social class 0.26***City 0.16***Sex 0.07Age 0.20***White 0.23**Student 0.28***Household composition 0.07*Children under 16 — Educational qualifications 0.44***Type of secondary school 0.22***Retired 0.43***Occupational class 0.22***

Notes: Scores calculated as 0–3 on the variety index; measure of association, gamma;significance, z (***<0.001; **<0.01; *<0.05)



paper. It will be appreciated that people with these characteristics are also

those who eat out most frequently and the likelihood of experiencing a wide

variety of types is, unsurprisingly, increased with greater opportunity. It is thus

important to note that an equivalent attempt to predict the frequency with


Table 3

Standardised Regression Coefficients for Each Dependent Variable:

Four Models of Eating-Out

Dependent variable

Independent a b c dvariable Variety Frequency Curiosity Commonplace

Household income 0.23*** 0.16*** 0.23*** 0.21***Personal income 0.08* 0.10** 0.07* 0.06

Degree 0.22*** 0.13*** 0.23*** 0.17***

GCSE 0.08** 0.08*A-Level 0.08** 0.08* 0.05 0.06

Ethnicity 0.12*** 0.09** 0.05 0.12***

Student 0.10*** 0.11**Part-time worker 0.05Single 0.07Hhsize>2 0.06* 0.08**

Housewife 0.09** 0.09** 0.09**

Preston 0.09* 0.08**London 0.24*** 0.08**Father service class 0.08** 0.01

Professional 0.05 0.06* 0.07*Employer 0.10** 0.07* 0.11***Intermediate 0.09** 0.11**Supervisory 0.06* 0.07*Non-manual 0.07*

Age 0.547** 0.359* 0.210***Age squared 0.175*** 0.341 0.502**

Adjusted R2 26% 15% 34% 24%n 1,001 976 1,001 1,001

F -statistic 28.5*** 18.8*** 38.6*** 19.1***

Notes: The four variables are defined in the text. Significance levels ***0.001 orbetter; **0.01; *0.05. Variables with significance lower than 0.10 have been excluded

from each model.



which respondents ate out was statistically less successful. Having asked

respondents how often they ate out, we created a second scale which

distinguished between those who never ate out (7 per cent of respondents),

those who ate out occasionally (less often than monthly, 29 per cent), thosewho are out frequently (monthly but less than weekly, 44 per cent), and those

who ate out regularly (at least weekly, 21 per cent). The directly comparable

linear multiple regression analysis, using the same independent variables,

explained only 15 per cent of the variance (see Table 3, column b). Frequency

of eating out is primarily a function of income, though age and, again,

educational credentials are significant. Socio-economic group is of no con-

sequence, but being a housewife, self-allocation as ‘non-white’, and living in

a household of more than two persons were associated negatively withfrequency of eating out. Exposure to variety is not simply a consequence of

frequency of eating out; their correlation is low (R2=0.31). The variety index

is more strongly determined by socio-demographic characteristics, suggesting

that omnivorousness bears some social and symbolic significance.

So, some socio-demographic characteristics enhance the likelihood of

eating in a wider range of venues and they are ones associated with social class

and with the distribution of cultural and economic capital. To explore these

relationships further we examine in some detail the use of different types of

restaurant, specifically the socio-demographic bases of familiarity with res-taurants specialising in ethnic cuisine. The social, or rather statistical, fact that

we wish to concentrate attention upon is that amount of variance explained by

socio-demographic factors for use of ethnic restaurants was significantly

higher than for either the index of variety or for frequency of eating out on

commercial premises.

Use of Specialised ‘Ethnic’ Restaurants

As in other parts of Europe, restaurants claiming to specialise in the

preparation of distinctive foreign cuisines have flourished in Britain as the

habit of eating out for pleasure has developed. The term ‘ethnic’, when

applied to food, is inherently problematic. In a country like England, where

foodstuffs have been imported in quantity for centuries and which is

increasingly affected by the international economy and global culture, purity

or authenticity of cuisine is hard to identify. A potential technical difficulty

therefore arises, how to decide what should count as, for instance, an Indianor an Italian restaurant. Should a pizza and pasta place be deemed Italian? Is a

certain level of authenticity to Italian regional cuisine required, since many

will serve English dishes too? Our study left the respondents to decide,

offering a list of types of eating-out place which included Italian, Chinese/

Thai, American, Indian and ‘Other ethnic’. The last, we assume, will be

mainly French, Greek and Turkish restaurants – because although Nepalese,




Indonesian, Mongolian and other ethnic restaurants can be found in Britain,

their numbers are few. Because we recorded respondents’ answers to a list

offered by the interviewer, we cannot be sure that the establishments

supplying meals would see themselves in the same way.Wide availability of ethnic restaurants is a relatively recent development

which is still far from evenly dispersed across Britain. A considerable

proportion of people in our survey avoided ethnic restaurants altogether: 48

per cent had never eaten in any such establishment in the last 12 months.6

Nevertheless, substantial minorities of the population have eaten different

sorts of ethnic cuisine, on commercial premises, in the last year. Nationally,

more have been to Chinese and Indian than any other, but in our sample

Italian food was widely eaten as were ‘other ethnic cuisines’ (see Table 1).Factors which encourage use of one type of specialist ethnic restaurant

increase the likelihood of eating at each of the others too. Table 4 records the

strength of statistical association between socio-demographic factors and

whether a respondent had visited particular types of ethnic restaurant during

the last year. Probably the clientele of Chinese and ‘Other ethnic’ restaurants

are the most socially distinctive, and American-style restaurants the least. But

overall the same factors operate in all these types, which is not the case for


Table 4

Cross tabulation of Respondents Visiting Particular Types of

Ethnic Restaurant During the Last Twelve Months (%) and Their

Social Characteristics

Indian Chinese Italian American Other

Respondents visiting 32.9% 29.2% 31.0% 11.7% 21.3%

Frequency of eating out 0.51*** 0.58*** 0.54*** 0.53*** 0.53***Respondent’s income 0.42*** 0.50*** 0.47*** 0.39*** 0.53***Household income 0.41*** 0.46*** 0.44*** 0.34*** 0.59***Father’s social class 0.32*** 0.38*** 0.35*** 0.29*** 0.47***City 0.42*** 0.49*** 0.33*** 0.39*** 0.58***Gender 0.09 0.11Age 0.23*** 0.14** 0.17*** 0.41*** 0.11**Household type 0.10* 0.14* 0.13* 0.31*** 0.12*Children — 0.10 0.14* — 0.11

Employment status 1 0.19*** 0.17** 0.26*** 0.17** 0.26***Education 0.50*** 0.50*** 0.51*** 0.47*** 0.63***School 0.23*** 0.35*** 0.28*** 0.33*** 0.42***

Retired 0.52*** 0.40** 0.44*** 0.59*** 0.59***Social class 0.20*** 0.26*** 0.28*** 0.27*** 0.35***

Note: Measure of association, gamma; significance z (***<0.001; **<0.01; *<0.05).



many other kinds of venues. These findings were confirmed by use of logistic

regression analysis (see Olsen, Warde and Martens 1998).

Many factors are associated with the propensity to use ethnic restaurants.

Among these are the extent to which one eats out; the more frequent eatingout, the more likely a respondent is to try ethnic cuisine. The same practical

and instrumental factors that underpin general frequency of eating out operate

too: living in a household containing two adults in full-time employment, living

alone or in a student household, being single, being young, and so forth

increase likelihood of eating in a foreign restaurant. However, some factors are

particularly associated with the extension of the experience of specialist ethnic

restaurants, implying that the field of ethnic cuisine carries a certain level of

cultural distinction. Throughout, there is more pronounced involvement bythose with higher income, by those living in London, by the better educated

and by higher social classes than is the case with other forms of eating out.

More precise delineation of the factors influencing familiarity with ethnic

restaurants was obtained by constructing a ‘curiosity index’, a scale which

recorded the number of different types of ethnic restaurant a respondent had

visited in the last year. The scale included four types, Indian, Italian, Chinese/

Thai, and ‘Other ethnic’ restaurants, thus permitting scores from 0 to 4. The

index exhibited measures of association greater than for other forms of eating

out. As Table 3, column c, indicates, 34 per cent of the variance wasexplained by the socio-demographic characteristics of our respondents.

Involvement is more pronounced among those with higher income, those

living in London and those holding a degree-level qualification. Household

income was very important, personal income less so, though still significant.

London residence was very important, reflecting in part the superior supply of

the metropolis, which has a long history (Driver 1983). Restaurants with

different specialisations are unevenly distributed throughout the country; for

example, Preston has a greater than average number of Italian and Indian

restaurants and living in Preston was, compared with the third city Bristol,

also likely to enhance familiarity with meals in ethnic restaurants. Again, being

a housewife and living in a large household reduced familiarity. But parti-

cularly interesting is the effect of social and occupational class. There was a

significant association with the social class of the respondent’s father at age

16, a variable which had no impact in almost any other statistical test we have

attempted. Having a father who held a service class position enhanced

curiosity, implying a process of inter-generational transmission of cultural

capital. Association with measures of class based on socio-economic group of the respondent’s household were also significant with respect to professional

and managerial occupations.

Prima facie, attendance at a wide range of ethnic restaurants indicates

possession of high levels of both economic and cultural capital. This strongly

suggests that social distinction is being maintained in at least one corner of the

immense field of food provision.




Variety and Curiosity

A comparison between the variety index and the curiosity index (Table 3,

columns a and c) suggests that people scoring high on our curiosity indexwere exhibiting a specific form of social refinement exceeding any concern to

pursue variety for its own sake. For if pursuit of variety per se were a strategy

for exhibiting refinement, then the scores on the variety index would be as

strongly and comprehensively explained by socio-demographic characteristics

as were those for ‘curiosity’. That the latter correlations were stronger,

appears to be evidence that a taste for ethnic cuisines is especially distinctive.

To explore this line of interpretation further we constructed a further index,

which for want of a more informative label we call ‘the commonplace index’,which measured how many types of outlet had been visited during the last

twelve months, excluding the four ethnic specialist cuisine restaurants. The

maximum possible score was 15. One hundred and six respondents scored 0

and one person 15. We again regrouped this variable into four categories,

from none to high. This scale was also subjected to linear multiple regression

and achieved an adjusted R2 of 0.24 (see Table 3, column d).

Comparison with other models have some points of interest. Exposure to

the ‘commonplace’ is determined by many of the same features as is variety

(column a). The exclusion of specialist ethnic restaurants confirms thatLondoners are strong aficionados of ethnic cuisine (partly because they make

little use of pubs and pub restaurants, see Martens and Warde 1996) and that

ethnic minority respondents exhibit an aversion to ‘British’ food outlets.

Compared with the curiosity index (column c), the impact of having a degree

was reduced in strength, inherited cultural capital (as indicated by having a

father in the service class) became insignificant, and the role of London

residence was reversed. The comparison affirms the importance of higher

education, and cultural capital more generally, in enhancing tastes for the

exotic. The amount of variance explained is substantially less than that for the

curiosity scale (24 per cent compared with 34 per cent), again implying that

higher levels of cultural capital are associated with the consumption of ethnic

cuisine than with simple pursuit of variety.

The Meaning of Variety

Cultural variety generally poses a problem, identified by Simmel (1968) as aproblem of attention, about the relevance and value of the many cultural items

which present themselves in modern societies. Ignorance of socially meaning-

ful items might be shameful, a preference for vulgar items revealing, display of

intended markers misleading, interpretation of signs mistaken. Examination of

the clientele of restaurants in England indicates yet again the complexity of

cultural practices and the difficulty of analysing differentiation in the field of




consumption. The evidence does not easily distinguish between the theoretical

accounts of the symbolic significance of omnivorousness. Rather it suggests

that each account may have purchase in different respects. Eating out seems

to present the middle classes with opportunities for personal reassurance, fordemonstrating social competence and for staking claims to social exclusivity.

One form of modern ambivalence has been described as consumer anxiety.

For example, Bauman (1988) suggests that consumption is a source of anxiety

because choices are constitutive of self-identity. To the extent that individuals

are free in the sphere of consumption, and identity is no longer guaranteed by

or even closely associated with social position, then misconceived aesthetic

decisions will convey regrettable and damaging messages about the self.

Hence, anxiety is associated with choice. Arguably, in societies where there isan established and widely recognised cultural system individuals are much less

likely to make a mistake. In such systems the upper and middle classes are

likely to ensure that they are well acquainted with the canons of ‘good taste’

and will, economic resources permitting, act accordingly. Once the certainties

implicit in societal notions of good taste are shaken, then groups for whom

appearances matter are more likely to experience ambivalence. Proliferation of

varieties of cultural items threatens to increase anxiety.

One simple strategic response is to extend knowledge and familiarity of as

many items as possible and to advance the claim that refinement is to beidentified through breadth of experience or awareness. In such circumstances,

omnivorousness may come to be valued in its own right, as an end rather than

a means. Knowledge and experience of the widest possible variety of alterna-

tives are equated with cultural sophistication. Anxiety may be avoided by

reasoning that every experience is justifiable and valuable because part of a

learning process. Personal responsibility for judgement is relieved. Capacity to

make ‘reliable’ aesthetic judgements on every occasion is no longer required.

Personal reassurance and comfort may emerge because omnivorousness

evades prior responsibilities for aesthetic judgement of the kind that deter-

mined which of a variety of practices or items was better than another. Placing

variety on a pedestal legitimises aesthetic indecision by re-evaluating it as

laudable. The implication is a shift from connoisseurship or refinement –

knowing what is best – to having a wide knowledge of all the alternatives. This

may serve as a claim to cultural sophistication, permitting an opinion about

everything without need for judgement concerning quality. This parallels the

shift of orientation of contemporary intellectuals described by Bauman (1987)

as the move from legislator to interpreter. The implicit evasion of aestheticjudgement constitutes a strategic solution, or resolution, to the problem of

selection among the huge array of items in the contemporary market place.

Expression of personal identity is generally connected to codes of social

identification. The recognition of an individual’s claim to esteem depends

upon others being able to recognise to which category of person s/he belongs.

One of the problems with intensification of variety is precisely that it puts a




severe strain on the capacity of codes of consumption to communicate social

membership. In this context some groups develop what are effectively

uniforms; the stylisation of consumption is part of this process. An alternative

response is to increase the means to communicate with many other groups ontheir own terms, hence increasing communicative competence. The strategy

involves extending vocabularies or repertoires of different genres of sym-

bolically significant cultural fields and practices, so as to be able to

communicate with a maximum number of people in other groups. Celebration

of variety makes it possible to operate in the world of diverse mass-produced

commodities before a very heterogeneous audience (or more likely con-

secutive audiences) to achieve a level of cultural communication and to make

symbolic statements about identification. Thus people might develop a codedcultural repertoire that will speak to the young, the English, the foreign visitor,

the senior citizen, etc.

Our data demonstrated that this strategy is more extensively adopted by

particular class fractions. Both DeVault (1991) and Erickson (1991) reported

that a capacity to talk about food and restaurants was generally expected in

professional and managerial circles in North America. The same happens in

Britain. We asked respondents whether they talked to others about where and

what they ate out. White-collar workers were more likely to talk about eating

out then were manual or self-employed workers (see Table 5). Employers andmanagers talk more frequently with colleagues than any other socio-economic

group, though not much more than professionals and intermediate white-

collar workers. If knowledge of food is an element in middle-class social

competence, then it is probably largely because it is a topic of conversation. It


Table 5

Categories of People to Whom Respondents Talk about Eating Out, by

Current Occupational Class

Anyone Family Colleagues Friends% % % % n

Employer/manager 81 47 53 76 74Professional 77 47 49 67 57Intermediate white-collar 87 46 41 79 1070Petit bourgeois 50 33 17 42 24Supervisor/skilled manual 66 41 33 53 83

Junior non-manual 73 48 43 65 167 0Semi/un-skilled manual 57 37 31 50 90No current job recorded 56 35 6 53 3990

Notes: The table records percentages responding affirmatively to the questions: ‘Doyou ever talk to other people about the places where you eat our or about what youate when eating out?’ (column 1); ‘What sort of people would that be?’ (columns2–4). Total number of respondents was 1,001.



is a medium which is less accessible to visual inspection, for surely only the

few visit restaurants in the expectation that they will be seen by relevant

others. Rather it is more a form of consumption that can be re-visited in

conversation, recollected rather than directly displayed. In this respect diningout is an important corrective to analyses of consumption which concentrate

overwhelmingly on visual rather than embodied and verbal communication.

Our findings are consistent with those of Erickson regarding the prevalence

of omnivorousness among employers and managers, suggesting that there may

indeed be some instrumental purpose to the strategy. However, Erickson attri-

butes their acquisition of knowledge to their involvement in broader networks

of social contacts rather than to any conscious and instrumental calculation

that they will benefit practically. Hypotheses about networks cannot beaddressed by our data. However, variety probably does help develop and

sustain weaker ties because a larger pool of items provides more sources of

conversation and looser networks may circulate wider knowledge. It might be

hypothesised that the more dense the social network and the more cohesive

the community, the less important will be command of variety. Where social

relations are well established and making new acquaintances is less important,

cohesiveness will often crystallise precisely around a shared sense of cultural

value and judgement. Command of variety might well become a basis for the

accumulation of social capital. Further exploration of such issues will requireexplicit investigation of networks probably using new techniques of analysis

(Longhurst and Savage 1996; Bagnall, Longhurst and Savage 1997).

There are several reasons why variety might appeal to members of the

educated middle class in England. It is a corollary of fashion; new fashions

require experience of new items. It may be an integral aspect of the reaction of

the comfortableness of Western middle-class existence which induces

restlessness and disappointment. The appeal of cultural experimentalism and

innovation is widespread. Search for variety could also be a step in the search

for refined excellence, a means to sharpen capacities for judgement and

develop new standards. It might, finally, also be a benchmark of social

distinction in its own right, as suggested by Bryson.

We are not inclined to accept this last view because of the comparatively

weak statistical explanation of our variety index. Although richer, better

qualified, white-collar workers have the widest experience, the degree of

exclusivity is not exceptionally high. This is made apparent by comparison

with the more distinguished clientele of ethnic restaurants. The pursuit of

variety in the field of food, and even more the affection for ethnic cuisine, maymask a straightforward class-based system of symbolic classification. Indeed,

we maintain that distinction is claimed through extensive experience of

specialised ethnic cuisine. The more pronounced socio-economic exclusivity

of the clientele of ethnic restaurants allows us to infer that there is something

symbolically significant about a taste for foreign foods. It suggests that a broad

repertoire of culinary experience (for purposes of conversation, comparison,




companionship) is a practical tool of intra-class communication and a type of

symbolic claim among fractions of the middle class with high levels of cultural

capital. That cultural capital is not only derived from the higher education but

also from parental class background, and to some extent metropolitanlocation. Possibly the trick of contemporary status competition is to appear to

honour the populist ethic of equivalence among cultural preferences while still

laying claim to cultural refinement and superiority by implicitly marking some

genres as exceptionally worthy. The appeal of ethnic cuisines other than one’s

own is almost certainly symbolic too, linking specialised knowledge with a

cosmopolitan orientation. The attachment to the social value of cosmo-

politanism, both as the sense of being able to fit anywhere (Hannerz 1990) or

as a positive liberal commitment to tolerance (van der Berghe 1984), isperhaps more pronounced among the British than the American middle class.

We cannot determine conclusively whether cultural differentiation in

Britain does entail a commonly acknowledged hierarchy of taste, for a

plurality of practices need not necessarily stand in relationships of superiority

and inferiority. However, knowledge and experience of a wide range of ethnic

cuisine, or breadth of repertoire, probably is a claim to refinement and is a

part of contemporary status competition in Britain. Moreover, this may

indicate a shift from a relatively transparent to a less easily detectable system

of class-based discrimination, a shift from invidious to insidious comparison.If there is still a process of competition for status and esteem in which

establishing a claim to cultural sophistication and good taste is central, then it

is less universal and less directly visible than Bourdieu might anticipate.

Conclusions

We have uncovered some evidence of an underlying orientation towards

‘omnivorousness’ among particular social groups. To experience variety

among eating out places is not simply a function of the frequency with which

people eat out. As Peterson and Kern (1996) said, though we believe for

somewhat different reasons, this is a consumer strategy particularly well

tailored to the times when industries produce apparently endless alternative

new and established products and services. A veneer of knowledge about all

things, permitting cultural awareness and a capacity to comment, may be

personally reassuring in networks where self-respect is associated with

recognition of cultural items.Our review suggests that if modern consumerism is a potential source of

anxiety, then at least some social groups have adopted a coping strategy that

involves the development of a repertoire of knowledge of many cultural

elements. The success of the omnivore strategy is one reason why the levels of

anxiety predicted to overwhelm the modern consumer in the search for self-

identity have not been reached.




Elements of Erickson’s account of the social concentration of communi-

cative competence are corroborated. Among occupational groups, employers

and managers command the highest levels of familiarity with the range of sites

for eating out. It is likely that this does have instrumental value for them.However, the incidence of familiarity with variety among other fractions of the

highly qualified living in middle-class households suggests that in Britain some

more general form of social kudos, transcending narrow instrumentalism, is

attached.

Variety per se proved considerably less amenable to statistical explanation

than familiarity with foreign cuisine, at least as measured by our indices.

Frequenting ethnic restaurants is not symbolically equivalent to using a wide

variety of commercial food services. We are tempted, therefore, to concludethat differences of social status are displayed through comprehensive

knowledge of ethnic cuisine, it being a form of cultural capital which bestows

distinction. If any type of eating out is associated with style, connoisseurship

and social distinction, as reflected in it being the province of the educated,

metropolitan middle classes, it is the tendency to eat in a wide range of foreign

restaurants. In England experience of foreign cuisines is a mark of refinement,

the possession of which is class-related. Bourdieuvian analysis might readily

account for this particular mode of social display, though the case is far from

thoroughly established.Bryson (1996) considered anomalous the tendency for social inequalities in

the United States to widen whilst cultural differences became flatter. Such a

trend implies that specifically cultural differences are no longer of great social

moment. Perhaps the immense variety of available cultural items has finally

eliminated people’s capacities, or inclinations, to attribute worth to people in

terms of their cultural preferences. More probable, though, is a version of

Erickson’s thesis. Cultural knowledge is not directly utilisable because of the

substantial problem of mutual recognition between groups. Rather, cultural

judgement has its primary effect through its capacity to solidify and entrench

social networks. It is by achieving communicative competence with others in a

similar social position that the possibility of exchanging or transforming

cultural capital into economic capital or social power is realised. Inter-group

recognition becomes less effective as messages become harder to read. In such

circumstances, the cultural system might become uncoupled or disengaged

from the distributive effects of social and economic processes.

However, the evidence about British dining out does not suggest a

thoroughly flat field of cultural practices. The socially distinguishing features of the clientele of restaurants, particularly of those who are most widely familiar

with specialist ethnic cuisine, implies that cultural consumption continues to

reflect social inequalities and, if it symbolises refinement, is a potential

mechanism for social exclusion. Also, though more weakly, the evidence of the

breadth of experience of varieties of restaurants implies that competence in this

field serves instrumental ends for fractions of the British middle class. One




possible theoretical conclusion is that many types of cultural practice lack

symbolic significance, but that some others continue to act as recognised and

recognisable social markers. If there has been some disengagement of the

cultural and social orders, the dissociation remains only partial.Our research data was not initially collected with the debate about omni-

vorousness specifically in mind and is not entirely adequate to the task of

distinguishing authoritatively between different interpretations. Several

methodological difficulties would need to be overcome in order to determine

whether such a trend was occurring in Britain and what exactly it might mean.

Firstly, we lack suitably organised data on change over time. Secondly, the

positions outlined in the literature are often incommensurate. Some are claims

about the social distribution of knowledge about cultural genres, some referexplicitly to what people say they like and dislike, while others (including

ours) are about practices, or what people claim to do. The competing

theoretical positions are insufficiently specified to test them effectively.

Thirdly, studies have conceptualised and operationalised social and economic

status differently; class is sometimes measured by education, sometimes by

income, and too infrequently by economic position based on ownership and

occupation. Finally, in all the statistical explanations there remains a large

proportion of variance unexplained. Nevertheless, there seems to be much to

recommend more rigorous analysis of British behaviour in different culturalfields and genres to evaluate Bourdieuvian explanations.

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to the Economic and Social Research Council for funding this study. Itwas part of the ESRC Research programme, ‘The Nation’s Diet: the social science of food choice’.

Notes1. Cultural capital refers to cultural knowledge, competence and disposition,

identifiable through embodied traits, educational qualifications, materialpossessions and involvements in cultural practices. Social capital is invested insocial networks, consisting of acquaintances and contacts who may assist in theaccumulation of types of capital.

2. The span of networks was measured by asking in which of nineteen occupationalgroups the respondent had a relative, friend or acquaintance.

3. The table offers a comparison with the random national sample survey of Payneand Payne (1993), which asked the same question but which probably provides a

more accurate picture of the composition of the trade nationally.4. This is dealt with in another paper which summarises the results of logistic

regression analysis on socio-demographic characteristics of users of various typesof outlet; see Olsen, Warde and Martens 1998.

5. We used the collapsed scale because we sought to compare its statisticalexplanation with that of other scales whose maximum range was 0 to 4.

6. In addition, 27 per cent of respondents never ate ethnic take-away meals, eventhough they are more widely accessible.




References

BAGNALL , G., L ONGHURST, B. and SAVAGE, M. 1997. ‘Social Class, Lifestyles andUrban Networks’. Paper to BSA Annual Conference, York.

BAUMAN, Z. 1987. Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Postmodernity and Intellectuals. Cambridge: Polity.BAUMAN, Z. 1988, Freedom. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.BAUMAN, Z. 1991. Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge: Polity.BOURDIEU, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.BOURDIEU, P. 1987. ‘What Makes a Social Class? On the Theoretical and PracticalExistence of Groups’. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 32:1–17.BRYSON, B. 1996. ‘“Anything but Heavy Metal”: Symbolic Exclusion and MusicalDislikes’. American Sociological Review 61:844–99.

DEVAULT, M. 1991. Feeding the Family: The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.DIMAGGIO, P. 1987. ‘Classification in Art’. American Sociological Review 52:440–55.DOUGLAS, M. 1996. ‘On Not Being Seen Dead: Shopping as Protest’, pp. 77–105 inThought Styles. London: Sage.DRIVER , C. 1983. The British at Table, 1940–80 . London: Chatto & Windus.ERICKSON, B. 1991. ‘What is Good Taste for? Canadian Review of Sociology and

Anthropology 28:255–78.ERICKSON, B. 1996. ‘Culture, Class and Connections’. American Journal of Sociology102:217–51.

GRANOVETTER , M. 1973. ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’. American Journal of Sociology78:1360–80.HANNERZ, U. 1990. ‘Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture’. Theory, Culture & Society 7:237–52.L AMONT, M. 1992. Money, Morals and Manners: The Culture of the French and AmericanUpper-Middle Class. Chicago: Chicago University Press.L ONGHURST, B. and SAVAGE, M. 1996. ‘Social Class, Consumption and the Influenceof Bourdieu: Some Critical Issues’, pp. 274–301 in S. Edgell, K. Hetherington and A.Warde (eds.), Consumption Matters, Sociological Review Monograph Series A.MARTENS, L. and WARDE, A. 1996. ‘The Social and Symbolic Significance of EthnicCuisine in England: New Cosmopolitanism and Old Xenophobia’. Paper presented toBSA Annual Conference, Reading University.OLSEN, W., WARDE, A. and MARTENS, L. 1998. ‘Social Segmentation of the Marketfor Eating Out’. Working Paper No. 2, Graduate School of Social Sciences andHumanities, University of Bradford.PAYNE, M. and PAYNE, B. 1993. Eating Out in the UK: Market Structure, Consumer

Attitudes and Prospects for the 1990s. Economist Intelligence Unit Special Report No.2169. London: Economist Intelligence Unit and Business International.PETERSON, R. and K ERN, R. 1996. ‘Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob toOmnivore’. American Sociological Review 61: 900–7.PETERSON, R. A. and SIMKUS, A. 1992. ‘How Musical Tastes Mark Occupational

Status Groups’, pp. 152–86 in M. Lamont and M. Fournier (eds.), Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.SIMMEL , G. 1968 [1911]. ‘On the Concept and Tragedy of Culture’, pp. 27–46 inGeorg Simmel: The Conflict in Modern Culture and Other Essays. New York: Teachers’College Press.TOMLINSON, M. and WARDE, A. 1993. ‘Social Class and Change in the Eating Habitsof British Households’, British Food Journal 95:3–11.




VAN DER BERGHE, P. 1984. ‘Ethnic Cuisine: Culture in Nature’. Ethnic and Racial

Studies 7: 387–97.WARDE, A. 1997. Consumption, Food and Taste: Culinary Antinomies and Commodity

Culture. London: Sage.

Biographical notes: ALAN WARDE is Professor of Sociology, Lancaster University.His recent work has been in the field of the sociology of consumption with particularreference to food. His book, Consumption, Food and Taste: Culinary Antinomies and

Commodity Culture, was published by Sage in 1997. He is currently completing avolume on eating out with Lydia Martens. WENDY OLSEN is a Lecturer at theDevelopment and Project Planning Centre and the Graduate School of Social Sciencesand Humanities, University of Bradford. She is currently working on socio-economicaspects of development and on research methodology. She is the author of Rural IndianSocial Relations: A Case Study in Southern India (Oxford University Press, 1996).

LYDIA MARTENS is Lecturer in Sociology, University of Stirling. She works on thesociology of consumption and the sociology of work. A book, Eating Out: A Sociological

Analysis, jointly authored with Alan Warde, will be published by Cambridge UniversityPress in 1999. Her book, Exclusion and Inclusion: The Gender Composition of British and

Dutch Work Forces, was published by Avebury in 1997.

Address: Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YL, UK.e-mail: [email protected]


consumption and the problem of variety

Documents