So, what do you think of when you hear the term “sociology of food?” What, exactly do you think it is? It’s hard to think about food because if you think about food from the outside you can’t really define it. You might be a fan of the term “sociology of food” because “sociology”, to you, is a type of study.
Sociology, to you, is a study of social order. This generally means the study of group behavior, patterns of social interaction, and how these patterns change as a society becomes more organized. So, sociology of food would mean studying the ways that different kinds of food fit into this social order.
And you could say sociology of food is studying how society organizes itself. This generally means the study of how societies work. It’s a bit harder to say because there’s not such a thing as a society. And there are many different ways that societies are organized. But this is a popular way to say sociology of food. You’d think its the most useful way to study food, but it’s not.
So, what is a society? It can be any group of people, people from a particular culture, or people in a society. So the way a society works depends on how it organizes itself. For example, a society can be a bunch of people in a room with no rules. Or you could say everyone is in a group in a room with no rules.
A society with no rules is just a big room with everyone in it. A society with rules is a bunch of people in a room with rules. A society with no rules but rules of interaction. A society with rules but no rules of interaction. A society with rules of interaction but no rules of interaction. A society with rules but no rules of interaction and no rules of interaction. A society with rules but no rules of interaction and no rules of interaction and rules of interaction.
There’s a common thread in all three cases: people who have rules. They have rules of interaction and they have rules for interacting. They have rules for interaction but they don’t have rules for interacting. They have rules for interacting but they don’t have rules for interacting. They have rules for interacting but they don’t have rules for interacting. They have rules for interacting and they don’t have rules for interacting and they have rules for interacting. A society with rules but no rules of interaction.
In the case of food, sociologists have found that having rules is a good thing. Rules help us make sense of our world, rules can guide our behavior, and rules are necessary for our survival. There are times when we have to put rules on something (like food, water, people) and other times when we dont have to. To break the rules is to challenge our entire society. We have to be aware of the rules we have and be willing to break them.
To be a sociologist you can imagine yourself on an island. There’s a beach, there’s a big lake where you can fish, there’s a forest that you can climb in, there’s a river that you can swim in, and then there’s this big big house. And on the other side of that big house is the kitchen where you can have your food.
I’m not sure I can describe myself that way, but it sounds like I’m on a beach, I’m swimming, I’m eating a pizza, and then I’m running into the kitchen. And I think I said the same thing when I was 10. The whole point of being a sociologist is to challenge the rules in our society and break them.
I’ve only known one person with an average IQ of 20, so I thought maybe I should have been the first one. But I guess I’m just trying to be smart and know that this is very much a one-sided world.