Food has come to embody the ubiquitous signs of globalization and transnationalism. Globalization has afforded the world an opportunity for the accelerated movement of people, of goods and of information (Wiseman 1998:17). Borders have become more permeable and cultures of all varieties have become increasingly interrelated and interdependent. The American hamburger and french fries, Japanese sushi, Italian pizza, Chinese springrolls, Mexican tacos and Coca Cola, to name a few, have all come to be part of a globally based popular food culture. You find these foods everywhere, regardless of country or continent. You can buy sushi in Africa and pizza in the Pacific Islands, foo foo in Australia and Coca Cola in Morocco. We tend to think that globalization is an unidirectional process where there is an increasing domination of capitalist ideals that impose and perpetuate a form of hegemony. This process disseminates or at least contributes to a globalized culture in which differences are homogenized into a set of common codes and practices (Ritzer & Malone 2000:98) and in our case, common culinary offerings. Many argue that globalization has shrunk the world creating an interdependent model of local ecologies, economies and societies.
There are those that believe that the preponderance of fast food restaurants like McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Starbucks are symbols of modern industralized society that is Western civilization. Not only do the foods from these symbols such as Big Macs, Coca-Cola and Pizza Hut pizza represent Western society, they also create a mono-food culture by suppressing regional food differences in favour of Western ideal consumption patterns and habits. They insidiously create a monoculture by disseminating values embodied in such foods that are reflected through these restaurants, namely speed, efficiency and conformity (See Ritzer & Malone's theory on McDonalization;Fieldhouse 1995:207). As Appadurai (in Wiseman 1998:14) argues, commodities carry powerful loaded social messages and given that food is so intimately connected with culture, the consumption of food, is the consumption of the ideals that, that food embodies. As James Watson, who has studied McDonald's (1997) articulates, people do not sell food, they sell ideologies and discourses. Thus, when individuals consume foods, they consume particular ideologies associated with those foodstuffs.
The argument is that globalization has allowed for the increasing domination of capitalist ideals of production, commoditization and bureaucratization (Waterman 1998:46) in the political and economic realms. Large multinational companies like Coca Cola, Heinz, Del Monte and Nestle dictate the direction of the world economy by owning, controlling and playing a pivotal role in food production on an economically and geographically massive scale (Abraham 1991:133). But is the notion of the global as all-consuming as we think? Does it indeed create a monolithic culinary culture?
While one certainly cannot negate the export and prevalence of North American, European and Asian culture as reflected in film, television, videos, fashions and food to other parts of the world, one cannot, by extension assume that food can create and maintain the existence of a unified global culture. To assume such is premature given the innumerable means to imaginatively construct oneself outside of one's dictated boundaries (Waterman 1998:225). Food, like the globalization process, is not resistant to local influences and beliefs. While the exportation of a "culturally imperialistic" framework may be plausible, what is imported and internalized by the receiving cultures is not a direct cultural imposition, but rather a culture's own representation and interpretation of that generic cultural imperialism. Local sensibilities, local preferences, local interpretations of culture and local histories all inscribe themselves onto a macro-cultural template. Thus, while foods like sushi, Big Macs and pizza, may be a product of the globalization process, each culture has its own interpretation of the constitutive nature of that food. Big Macs can be made from teriyaki sauce or anchovy paste, pizza can have pesto instead of tomato sauce and sushi can have mayonnaise instead of wasabi. In other words, food accommodates itself to local conditions.
Certainly globalization is a relevant force that aids in the dissemination of food culture and influences the construction of culture itself. But, globalization as an explanation, is somewhat problematic when addressing food issues. Transnationalism is a more appropriate term to use in describing the process of how food has come to influence culture construction. Unlike globalization which assumes the predominance of one particular culture, transnationalism is the process through which ideas, commodities and people cross national boundaries (Watson 1997:11). Rather than one hegemonic cultural conception sublimating all others, transnationalism promotes a heterogeneous cultural pastiche (Ritzer & Malone 2000:98) by encouraging the interdependence of local, regional and national economies, ecologies, societies, goods and cultural ideas (Appadurai in Wiseman 14/15). For Appadurai, the global situation is an interactive process, rather than a one-sided dominated movement. It is no longer assumed that the original producers of a commodity control its consumption (Appadurai in Watson 1997:11). For example, sushi's availability is not limited to Japan and Chinese food is not only a product of China. Transnational cultural transmission is readily reflected in food. Not only does the West transmit its ideas and products to other cultures, but other cultures impact upon the everyday existence of other nations. One need only look to the wide embrace of sushi, dim sum, falafels, tofu, pizza, pasta and burritos in virtually every nation. Food's availability and transmittable qualities render it an integral agent in transnational cultural transmission.
So where do the global and local meet? The interaction between the two must be conceptualized as a dual process (Watson 1997:6). Consumption is ultimately an experience, a political process that allows individuals to reconstitute culture. Not only is the local culture modified by the introduction of new foods and new styles of cuisine (Watson 1997:37), but so too is the imposing culture affected in its ability to impose that new cuisine. As new foods are introduced into a culture, the receiving culture reconstitutes its cultural materiality by embracing new objects and their associations. But, the incorporation of these material goods into a culture is often associated with a concomitant change in a culture's perspective of itself. As Friedman (1990:314) argues, consumption within the bounds of the world system, is always a consumption of identity. With new objects and associations, a receiving culture re-imagines it's constitutive identity and the embrace of a new foodstuff and its values is often accepted, evaluated, interpreted and projected into other realms of life such as religion, class and gender (Friedman 1990:313). Food, like any other commodity is absorbed and then transformed into a locally relevant commodity (Watson 1997:40). For example, in France, McDonald's were infrequently visited. It was not until the French McDonald's renovated their space to refit restaurants with chic interiors and extras such as music videos that "le fast food" began to sell (Business Week 2003:50). In this example, McDonald's the chain (global) was influenced by local sensibilities (refitting to French styles) in order to accommodate. So while the global template was there, the local influence exerted itself. Social groups transmute acts, substances and the relationships among them into units of different meaning (Mintz 1985:172).
When the global meets the local, the two processes negotiate. Food initiates change, maintains it and in some instances impedes it within a cultural community. Nothing is as monolithic as it seems, especially not food. Food is an avenue in which to contest dominant meanings. So the next time somebody says, "globalization is creating a monoculture; you get the same goods everywhere." Perhaps in response, you could show them a Terriyaki Burger from Japan, or Beijing Fried Duck (KFC) from China, McKroket from the Netherlands, or sushi pizza from North America.
References
Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Arjun Appadurai, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Business Week. 2003. What's This? The French Love McDonald's? January 13.
Fieldhouse, Paul. 1995. Food and Nutrition: Customs and Culture. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Mintz, Sidney. 1985. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. Vermont: Elisabeth Sifton Books.
Ritzer, George & Elizabeth Malone. 2000. Globalization Theory: Lessons from the Exportation of McDonaldization and the New Means of Consumption. American Studies. Summer-Fall. 41(2-3):97-118.
Waterman, Peter. 1998. Globalization, Social Movements and the New Internationalisms. London: Mansell.
Watson, James, ed. 1997. Golden Arches East: McDonald's In East Asia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wiseman, John. 1998. Global Nation? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
