Adding to this argument is the fact that organic food has provided an alternative to “conventional” food products. Its importance is thus two-fold, as it simultaneously presents itself as an alternative, while – by its mainstream presence and appropriation by consumers – questioning the legitimacy of “conventional” food, on the basis of different essential and previously unquestioned parameters: “Concern about animal welfare is more important for particular organic products and countries where intensive animal farming systems are commonly used. This includes chicken meat and eggs, pork products and, to a lesser extent, beef and dairy products” . This point is also reflected in a 2007 EC report: “The combined benefits of agriculture through the production of safe food, respect of environmental and animal welfare standards is more likely to be selected as important by respondents in most Member States, but particularly northern European countries” . Perceptions of individual health and safety are, still, considered the most important explanatory factors to the consumption of organic foods, which is even the more interesting as organic food products have no documented “extra” positive health effects on the individual’s health when compared to conventionally grown food products . Indeed, individual economic-choice-rationalities , have been shown to be after-rationalisations themselves. Some research suggests instead that the consumption of organic food for most consumers in Western Europe is actually, primarily, motivated by their belief in organic foods’ universal “goodness” . And then, secondly, these beliefs are dressed in the cloak of the “rational” economic optimizing consumer, as post-rationalizations, in order to present oneself as a critical and/or authentic consumer,macetas cultivo or true to ones own tastes . Instead, perceptions relating directly to the environment and overall societal sustainability might play an even larger role than previously assumed when determining what foods to eat or not.
This is perhaps especially true for organic foods, as the procurement of these is never done entirely on price. If this were the case, very few, if any, organic food products would probably be available outside of home gardening; instead organic food is highly dependent on the perceptions of the consumers choosing these: “Perceptions of organic food are affected by their beliefs about the safety and quality of conventional food production and subsequent attitudes to conventional versus organic products. Purchasing behaviour is affected by their perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and the ability to pay premiums for organic products” . The perceptions – not necessarily knowledge – consumers have of agricultural production and its effects on the environment, in general, exercise considerable influence over their final food choices. These issues of place and related values will be explored next. If we are to believe contemporary theory, we live in a “post-modern” “post-industrial” world with all the ontological insecurities this can cause, as already briefly mentioned . The values and meanings inherent in societies are, apparently, shaped not by the present as much as what came before, which probably, also, speaks to the ambiguity of using post-modernism as a “unique” historical category. Indeed, the initial experiences of early twentieth-century industrialization share thematic similarities with the early experience of the, arguably, post-modernist “knowledge” society in the twenty-first century. The alienating effects of urbanity witnessed by Engels and Marx comes into play in the post-modern societies, where the fear of loosing both industry and nature are prevalent. We live in a time where development/progress, be it technical or social, is moving faster than ever before, but also, it seems, is fuelled with more anxieties than before. It is perhaps not surprising if people participating in such societies are looking for authenticity, and associated/related events. Farmers markets, for instance, at once represent something old and something new. It is a re-imagination of the past, legitimized by the beliefs in its intrinsic and real capabilities to effect change in our contemporary food consumption and production. Interestingly, new food experiences and/or consumptive initiatives are, often, legitimized by narratives/perceptions imagined or replicated from the past – they are, in other words, deemed authentic. Authenticity does not have to adhere specifically to linear time, rather place and frequency are significant parameters.
Starbucks is older than New York’s Union Square Farmers Market for instance. But visitors might attach greater authenticity value to the latter than the former due to its “pre-modern” spatiality and perceived sociability. Though it could, reasonably, be argued that Starbucks is a more authentic representation of consumption than the farmers market. Perhaps therefore, or thereof, much attention for the last 10-15 years has been afforded to document the discursive and performative meanings of farmers markets , alternative food systems and outlets often coupled with notions of an emerging “creative countryside,” and not infrequently postulated as part of the perceived development of agriculture in most advanced countries, moving from a productivist to a post-productivist regime , though this concept is, rightly, not without its critics . The recognition and use of authenticity as a concept of meaning and therefore potential agent of change is widespread in contemporary literature, on food experiences , food services , in a tourist perspective , on hospitality , on governance and mediatisation , consumer culture , consumption and consumers , event studies , and within many more areas of research. Its critics are often quick to dismiss authenticity as a backward concept, or a form of left-wing conservatism or defensive localism, reducing ‘the search for authenticity’ to mere marketing strategies, or even a hoax as described by popular author Andrew Potter or in classical Marxist terms an advanced form of “commodity fetishism” or a commodifica-tion of culture – and sometimes rightly so, as authenticity can be utilized for monetary means . But, again, authenticity and its uses is not such a new thing. Outka , in her “Consuming Traditions,” shows how the concept of authenticity was used and misused by different manufacturers and retailers as early as the nineteenth century in order to increase sales and as a promotional tool. Importantly, in the case of Cadbury Outka also shows that the ideal of the authentic was at times, actually, translated into concrete better social conditions for its workers: ‘Wages were better, benefits were greater, the housing was better built’ . The point being, that though food is not something we can very easily ever establish as something completely authentic, its associated values and/or perceptions of authenticity still influence how we understand them and how we choose to consume, for instance. The attempts to bridge the two separate environments of food consumption and production also seem particular to recent times. The huge mainstream success of food writer Michael Pollan and his books is surely an indicator of such holistic interest, along with the mediatisation of “celebrity” alternative farmers like Joel Salatin in a US context. The sentiment guiding these attempts to re-connect food production with its end-consumers, if only on a perceptual level, is eloquently summed up by Vileisis: “Typically, the history of America’s remarkable food system has been recounted as a singularly progressive tale. Yet for many of us, the marvel of fresh leafy lettuce in the winter nests right aside the uneasiness that our children don’t know milk comes from cows” .
In a globalized world with increasing trade of food products, foods might appear to have become more homogenous and standardized as part of the McDonaldization of Society , which, in sentiment, mirrors the “mythic roots” of “massification” , which is often invoked to illustrate the perpetual decline of society. These are perceived developments that have instigated food movements – now themselves globally present – whose primary role is to support local alternatives to what they perceive as a threat to not just nutritional standards and traditional cuisine but also to local culture and communities, to which local food, both its production and consumption, is perceived to have a stabilizing and positive effect, which can counter the influences of the global markets. Again we find a dichotomous and oppositional interpretation of market and community, and the close alignments between global structures as market driven and local structures based and orientated in community. These perceptions of global homogenization and standardization might be influenced by the fact that the global food systems have not brought us less choice but much more, which in itself might trigger responses of insecurity and even anxiety – or the paradox of choice .We apparently live in an “Experience Economy” ,maceta de plastico cuadrada where services and experiences are replacing production as primary economic pursuits, or perhaps more correctly, because of increased productive capabilities and gained efficiencies, more time and money can be spent in the service and leisure industries. Significantly, only eight years should pass until an addition to Pine and Gilmore’s hugely successful book was apparently needed; it was titled “Authenticity: What consumers really want” . “The only thing constant is change” an old saying goes, and in contemporary society in the developed world where knowledge, communication, values and meaning are mediated and often interwoven, the planned event and or experience becomes simultaneously, and paradoxically, the symbol of authenticity and/or something “real” because it is requires a spatial reality and an accelerator/medium for further mediation, change and increased consumption of services and experiences . This call for spatiality could, also, partly, work as an explanatory factor contributing to the rise of food as a symbol and medium. “Food is not only a metaphor or vehicle of communication; a meal is a physical event” reads Mary Douglas’ cautionary warning when food is overtly loaded with cultural symbolism and discourses. Ironically it seems to be exactly the physicality of food that makes it such a potent symbol and/or medium in present society. It both transgresses boundaries and establishes them, and by its tropic nature is always in flux, changeable but stable, intimate to the extreme but part of the mundane features of everyday life. In other words food as medium and mediator is perfect in the experience economy exactly because of these qualities – imagined or otherwise. Food and related experiences can thus be perceived as the perfect “Levinisian” bridge to the “other,” or the closest one gets to an intimate, yet still impersonal, experience in public. Farmers markets, as already mentioned, could thus be perceived as, and actually work as, promoters of community in urban areas, promoting “gemeinschaft”/community but using the cloaks of “gesellschaft”/business for implementation – trying to bridge the dichotomous divide between “gemeinschaft” and “gesellschaft” according to the now classic divide described by Tönnies and Simmel .
This division can, also, reenforce withdrawal. Indeed, the making, of two separate spheres of public and private interaction is noted by Elias, as a “basic condition” of modern civilization: “[W]ith the advance of civilization the lives of human beings are increasingly split between an intimate and a public sphere”. This sentiment, again, carries with it some notions of the supposed decline of community values, or the urban realm as an anti-environment for community, due to its fragmented nature and general anonymity of its participants/inhabitants. It should be noted that Simmel did, also, see the anonymity of urban life as liberating for its participants, exactly due to its impersonal nature. This is a sentiment also found in more recent “urban” sociologist Richard Sennet’s work for whom the complexity and the many different roles afforded to those willing to accept the impersonal nature of urban public life is very rewarding, as it furnishes the self with the complexity of the surrounding objects and people: “[T]he experience of urban life can teach people to live with multiplicity within themselves. The experience of complexity is not just an external event, it reflects back on individuals’ sense of themselves” . Farmers markets, and other related food experiences like food festivals etc., could thus be seen as a contributing factor to the diversity and community of life as they, supposedly, differ from mainstream food outlets in both aesthetics and possible social interaction, as these are often viewed derisively as “non-places” and “Like going to the movies, shopping engaged them in a public culture – but in a private space of their own” . But farmers markets can also work as tools for urban gentrification and symbols of inequality, as participation in these markets often come with a costly prize tag compared to mainstream food outlets like supermarkets: “Their desire for alternative foods, both gourmet and organic, and for ‘middle class’ shopping areas encourages a dynamic of urban redevelopment that displaces working-class and ethnic minority consumers” . Again, the medium of food is shown not to be either inherently good or bad for community, but rather dependent on the context, implementation and aims of its instigators.