See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261361721

Commensality in French and German young adults: An ethnographic study

Article  in  Hospitality & Society · January 2012

DOI: 10.1386/hosp.1.2.153_1

CITATIONS READS

20 293

1 author:

Giada Danesi
University of St.Gallen
23 PUBLICATIONS   117 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Food Coach: Societal Implications of Digital Receipt-based Diet Monitoring & Interventions enabled by Graph Analytics Techniques View project

Eating together. Forms and meanings of commensality among French, German and Spanish young adults. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Giada Danesi on 05 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 HOSP 1 (2) pp. 153–172 Intellect Limited 2011

Hospitality & Society

Volume 1 Number 2
© 2011 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/hosp.1.2.153_1

GIADA DANESI
Centre Edgar Morin-EHESS and Institute Paul Bocuse
Research Center

proof
Commensality in French and
German young adults: An
ethnographic study

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
1. Commensality is crucial to understanding the social organization of societies, and commensality
2. illustrates transformations in the relationship between humans and food. Societal eating habits
3. changes over the last 40 years in western countries have entailed a ‘destructuration’ meal
4. of eating patterns, an increase in the number of solitary food consumptions and of sociability
5. ‘snacking’. Using an ethnographic approach, this work investigates how and why young adults
6. young adults (18–27 years old) eat together, in an effort to explore forms and mean- ethnography
7. ings of commensality among peers in this age group. The article presents the theo-
8. retical and methodological frameworks of the study and some data collected in Lyon,
9. Paris and Berlin among French and German young adults. The focus is on four
10. commensal events observed during fieldwork: aperitif dînatoire, brunch, picnics
11. and barbecues. Several common aspects emerged from the comparison of these four
12. eating occasions: informal table manners, nomadic behaviours, sharing of costs and
13. tasks, intimate social relationships, and meal structure allowing freedom in food
14. choice and rhythms. These forms of commensality serve important social functions
15. in young adults’ lives and elucidate the nature of commensality in this age group.

153

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 153 11/14/11 11:48:41 AM

 Giada Danesi

INTRODUCTION 1.
The purpose of this article is to explore how and why young adults eat together 2.
through the analysis of four commensal occasions – aperitif dînatoire, brunch, 3.
picnics and barbecues – observed among French and German young adults 4.
living in Lyon, Paris and Berlin. The three main goals are to explore forms of 5.
commensality among peers between the ages of 18 and 27, to contribute to 6.
the current debate on the nature of commensality in contemporary societies, 7.
and to highlight the importance of considering sociocultural factors associated 8.
with commensality. This research therefore presents a ‘picture’ of commensal 9.
occasions among young adults without a diachronic perspective. 10.
Commensality refers to the act of eating together. Since the end of the 11.
nineteenth century, a variety of authors in social sciences have studied meals 12.
and discussed the functions and meanings associated with the sharing and 13.
offering of food. By focusing on commensality, they illustrated that eating 14.
together promotes communal solidarity, sociability and socialization, and 15.
reflects the social organization of societies. 16.
More recently, commensality seems to be relevant in illustrating changes 17.
in the relationship between humans and food in western countries. Several 18.
studies have also highlighted that eating with others is healthier than eating 19.

proof
alone or with strangers, and have emphasized the importance of family meals 20.
in nutritional policies (Sobal and Nelson 2003), and in the prevention of 21.
obesity and drug or alcohol abuse (Berlin 2001; Neumark-Sztainer et al. 2003; 22.
Mestdag 2005; Fitzpatrick et al. 2007). 23.
Studies of contemporary eating patterns emphasize a decline in norma- 24.
tive pressure surrounding eating practices – ‘gastro-anomy’ (Fischler 1979) 25.
– and a multiplication of contradictory sources of information about food – 26.
‘dietary cacophony’ (Fischler 1990). Several authors therefore claim that soci- 27.
etal changes have led to an increase in the number of instances of eating 28.
alone and have enhanced ‘snacking’ and the ‘destructuration’ of eating 29.
patterns (Douglas and Nicod 1974; Fischler 1979; Rotenberg 1981; Charles 30.
and Kerr 1988; Mennell et al. 1992; Murcott 1997; Poulain 2002a, 2002b; 31.
Latreille and Ouellette 2008). They consider the decline of shared meals a 32.
general trend and have opened a debate around this topic. This led to an 33.
increase in studies collecting empirical data in order to elucidate contem- 34.
porary eating patterns, and also to shed light on social and cultural differ- 35.
ences in attitudes and practices related to eating and its evolution over time 36.
(Herpin 1980, 1988; Rotenberg 1981; Charles and Kerr 1988; Prättälä and 37.
Helminen 1990; Grignon 1993; Devault 1994; Kjærnes 2001; Larmet 2002; 38.
Poulain 2002b; Mestdag 2005; Récours et al. 2005; De Saint Pol 2005, 2006; 39.
Hébel 2007; Warde et al. 2007; Fischler et al. 2008). 40.
Surveys have revealed social and cultural diversity in the decline of shared 41.
meals. The individualization of eating patterns does not have the same 42.
magnitude across cultures. Indeed, there is evidence of differences between 43.
attitudes towards food amongst Anglo-Saxons and Nordic European countries 44.
on the one hand, and France and south European countries on the other (Rozin 45.
et al. 1999; De Saint Pol 2005; Warde et al. 2007; Fischler 2008). Moreover, 46.
younger generations and urban populations seem to be particularly impacted by 47.
these phenomena (Récours et al. 2005; De Saint Pol 2005, 2006; Bartsch 2006; 48.
Hébel 2007; Diasio et al. 2009). Most of these studies used declarative data and 49.
quantitative methods. These methods are problematic in relation to collecting 50.
real practices, given that people commonly adapt their reported behaviours 51.
52.

154

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 154 11/14/11 2:04:44 PM

 Commensality in French and German young adults

1. in relation to cultural norms (Poulain 2002b), and the discordance between

2. practices in performance and practices in talk (Martens 2011).
3. The present study focuses on young adults, who are in a transitional
4. period of life that appears to be especially affected by recent changes (Torres
5. et al. 1992; Sobal and Nelson 2003). Because recent studies illustrate that the
6. individualization of eating patterns does not impact all western countries in
7. the same way, this work also aims to explore possible influences of cultural
8. heritages on attitude towards food and eating practices. This is the reason
9. for exploring forms of commensality amongst young adults in France and in
10. Germany. I chose a qualitative ethnographic methodology, using primarily
11. interviews and direct observation, to explore and ‘thick describe’ (Geertz 1973)
12. the topic.
13. The cross-cultural perspective is not the core of this article. The focus is on
14. similarities noticed through comparing four crucial commensal occasions that
15. elucidate the nature of commensality and social meanings of sharing meals
16. amongst young adults.
17. First, the theoretical and methodological frameworks of the study are
18. presented. The theoretical framework deals with socio-anthropological litera-
19. ture on sociocultural meanings and functions of commensality, and the current

proof
20. debate on the changing nature of commensality in contemporary western
21. society. The second part of the article highlights the design of the study. Third,
22. four commensal eating occasions observed during fieldwork are presented in
23. detail and similarities between them are underlined. The fourth part is a short
24. discussion with the aim of highlighting social meanings of eating together and
25. social organization among young adults, but also the links between common
26. aspects of the four commensal occasions presented and other recent studies
27. interested in contemporary forms of commensality and changes in eating
28. patterns. Finally, in the conclusion, the main aspects of the article are summa-
29. rized and further developments of the present research are delineated.
30.
31.
32. STUDYING COMMENSALITY IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
33. Meanings and functions of the sharing and offering of food
34.
Many authors in the social sciences have highlighted the importance of
35.
eating and sharing food in societies. Georg Simmel in Soziologie der Mahlzeit
36.
(1910) pinpointed the fundamental paradox of food. Eating is essentially
37.
an individual act, and at the same time, it is a catalyst of social life. Food is
38.
incorporated by the eater and passes the body’s barriers, to become the eater
39.
himself. The eater becomes what he or she eats, and by eating, he or she is
40.
integrated in a cultural sphere. Food practices are not just forms of expression
41.
and affirmation of identity; they are at the core of the construction of identity
42.
(Fischler 1990). Anthropological and sociological literature clearly shows that
43.
eating and commensality are ‘total social facts’, as Mauss (1954) theorized for
44.
the gift: an activity that simultaneously involves the aesthetic, economic, legal,
45.
political, religious, moral and family spheres (Mars 1997).
46.
The literature underlines three main functions of commensality in society:
47.
communal solidarity linked to the concept of identity and alterity (Bloch 1999);
48.
socialization into group morality and local understanding of the world (Ochs
49.
and Shohet 2006); and sociability, which allows the establishment of new
50.
relationships and the promotion of established relationships by building and
51.
reinforcing mutual bonds of reciprocity (Sobal 2000).
52.

155

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 155 11/14/11 2:04:52 PM

 Giada Danesi

Dealing with sacrifice, totemic religion and religious proscriptions, 1.

Robertson Smith highlighted the function of commensality in establishing and 2.
maintaining social relations. ‘Those who eat and drink together are by this 3.
very act tied to one another by a bond of friendship and mutual obligation’ 4.
(Robertson-Smith 1889: 247). Durkheim wrote that in many societies, shared 5.
meals create an artificial blood relationship (1912). Van Gennep notes in his 6.
discussion of rites of passage that ‘the rite of eating and drinking together 7.
[…] is clearly a rite of incorporation, of physical union […] the sharing of 8.
meals is reciprocal, and there is thus an exchange of food which constitutes 9.
the confirmation of a bond’ (1960: 29). Eating habits are ‘social markers’ 10.
(De Garine 1976) and also ‘boundary markers’ (Sutton 2001). Sharing food 11.
signifies equivalence among insiders within a group, and simultaneously it 12.
defines social boundaries with outsiders, but also marks a boundary between 13.
members (Mennell et al. 1992; Sutton 2001; Counihan 2004). 14.
Food and the sharing of it are pivotal in social life, and the meal regulates 15.
social life and individual behaviours on both the symbolic and biological 16.
level. Food is redistributed to the group in accordance with implicit or explicit 17.
rules of solidarity and social justice. Rules about allocation, sharing, meal 18.
composition and behaviours govern eating. There are clearly rules govern- 19.

proof
ing commensality because there are rules governing society and the rela- 20.
tionship between the gods and humans, between members of a society and 21.
between different societies (Douglas 1971, 1975; Goody 1982; Fischler 1990; 22.
Simmel [1910] 1997). 23.
‘Interactions at meals provide opportunities for a myriad of types of 24.
communication, including sociability and socialization’ (Sobal 2000: 125). 25.
Mealtime is a cultural venue for the socialization of people into members of 26.
a society. Eating together allows the social integration of the commensals. 27.
During structured events like meals (Douglas and Nicod 1974), people learn 28.
social structure and norms by interiorizing group morality and local under- 29.
standings of the world. Every culture and group has a system of socializa- 30.
tion through commensality. Eating with people socializes participants into the 31.
sociocultural embodiments of age, gender and other social positions (Ochs and 32.
Shohet 2006). ‘It represents an occasion on which cooperation and conflict, 33.
harmony and disharmony may and should be displayed’ (Mars 1997: 190). 34.
‘Commensal relationships are not set or fixed but rather are continually 35.
considered, assessed, evaluated, negotiated, and managed. […] Sharing food 36.
in commensal eating builds and reinforces mutual bonds of reciprocity that 37.
express shared sociability’ (Sobal 2000: 123–24). Sociability operates through 38.
ideals of hospitality, which defines the practice of welcoming strangers by 39.
offering them food, shelter and companionship (Julier 2002; Counihan 2004). 40.
Hospitality is consequently used to establish a relationship or to reinforce an 41.
already established relationship by converting strangers into acquaintances, 42.
enemies into friends, friends into better friends, outsiders into insiders, non- 43.
kin into kin (Selwyn 2000; Lugosi 2008). 44.
This article will examine how communal solidarity, socialization and 45.
sociability are lived out among French and German young adults through 46.
eating together. A person sharing food, even if it is just for a limited period of 47.
time, belongs to the group and participates in togetherness. Young adults also 48.
share a common identity as members of the same age group. Their identity is 49.
constructed, experienced and celebrated through commensal eating occasions 50.
that have common aspects and important social meanings. In turn, sharing 51.
meals with peers is an important time of sociability and socialization into 52.

156

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 156 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Commensality in French and German young adults

1. youth culture. It also functions as rite of passage into adulthood, forcing youth
2. to cook and perform hospitable behaviours considered necessary in adult life.
3. Moreover, through studying forms of commensality amongst young adults,
4. several aspects of their social organization appear.
5.
6.
7. Commensality in the current debate dealing
8. with changes in eating patterns
9. Basic eating habits have been transformed by profound changes in the social
10. organization in western societies over the last 40 years. The sharp increase in
11. the number of women who work outside the home, in the distance between
12. home and work, urbanization, and changes in household structure and
13. lifestyle have redefined the relationship between humans and food and the
14. associated social rules (Poulain 2002a; Latreille and Ouellette 2008). Moreover,
15. food value in society has changed because the mode of food production has
16. become increasingly industrialized and processed. The abundance of choice
17. had engendered diverse tastes and eating styles.
18. In order to explain recent sociocultural changes in eating patterns in
19. western countries, Fischler introduced the concept of ‘gastro-anomy’, which

proof
20. means the disaggregation or ‘destructuration’ of normative systems and
21. social control that regulates traditionally eating practices and representations
22. (Fischler 1979). ‘Modern individuals are left without clear socio-cultural cues
23. as to what their choice should be, as to when, how, and how much they should
24. eat’ (Fischler 1980: 948). Therefore, fewer ‘social forms’ (Simmel [1910] 1997)
25. of food consumption tend to be favoured by modern lifestyles.
26. Today, scholars use the concept of the ‘destructuration’ of eating
27. patterns with the aim of describing the destabilization of the system of meals
28. (Herpin 1988), and precisely, the decline of the meal as a highly socialized
29. and codified way of eating and its substitution with the practices of graz-
30. ing or snacking (Poulain 2002a; Mestdag 2005; Latreille and Ouellette 2008).
31. These terms mean eating without norms prescribing what, when, where and
32. how to eat, and involve a greater breaking up of food intakes (Fischler 1979;
33. Poulain 2002a). The absence of rules and norms regulating food intakes does
34. not seem to encourage the sharing of meals.
35. This evolution occurred earlier in North America than in Europe and
36. deeply transformed mealtimes (Fischler 1979). Some European sociologists
37. and anthropologists suspected that similar trends were possible in Europe
38. (Fischler 1979; Herpin 1988), whereas others claimed that it was impos-
39. sible to generalize, noting the lack of empirical data on meal ‘destructura-
40. tion’ in Europe (Grignon 1993). Recent studies provided the empirical data
41. necessary to confirm trends – evolution in meal regularity by the power
42. of individual rhythms over social rhythms and influences on temporal
43. and spatial ‘destructuration’ on the meal content and the possibility of
44. sharing meals – in a diachronic perspective, in specific social groups and
45. countries.
46. Because the combination of temporal, spatial and activity foci (Ochs
47. et al. 1989 cited by Sobal 2000: 126) allows the social setting within mealtime
48. interactions to exist (Feiring and Lewis 1987 cited by Sobal 2000: 126), several
49. studies were carried out considering these dimensions. In France, for example,
50. studies with the aim of measuring the impact of changes over the last 40 years
51. paid particular attention to hours of meals, duration of time spent eating,
52. places where meals occur and activities during mealtime.

157

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 157 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Giada Danesi

1. Research Centre for the Comparing two years of Time-Use surveys (1986, 1998) and CREDOC1 1.
Study and Observation
of Living Conditions.
surveys, French sociologists noted an important synchronization in mealtime in 2.
the two periods and confirmed that French meals still last a long time and are 3.
2. The United States,
the United Kingdom,
mostly eaten at home (Larmet 2002; Récours et al. 2005; De Saint Pol 2005, 2006; 4.
France, the Hébel 2007). Given that the French mainly eat at home in the evening, the spatial 5.
Netherlands and conditions ensure the possibility of sharing dinner (Hébel 2007). However, the 6.
Norway.
watching of television during dinner (Hébel 2007) suggests that people may be 7.
3. France, Italy, eating at the same time, but without social interactions. 8.
Switzerland, the United
Kingdom, Germany and Comparative analyses of Time-Use surveys highlighted cultural differences 9.
the United States. in temporal and social meal ‘destructuration’. De Saint Pol observes that 10.
eating times in England are more evenly distributed throughout the day 11.
than in France (De Saint Pol 2006). Comparing the Time-Use surveys from 12.
the 1970s to the 1990s in five countries,2 a team of sociologists observed a 13.
general decrease in time spent cooking, although the time spent eating has 14.
not decreased over the last forty 40 in France (Warde et al. 2007). 15.
International comparisons illustrated the strong impact of the country 16.
of residence on attitudes towards food, which could explain differences in 17.
sharing the same meal content, in addition to the practice of eating together. 18.
The survey Manger conducted by Fischler et al. (2008) compared the meanings 19.

proof
of eating in six countries.3 The scholars noticed two opposing conceptions of 20.
food that seem to have a direct impact on commensality: (1) a tendency to 21.
conceptualize food in individualistic and nutritional terms, centred on the 22.
possibility of choice and individual responsibility, which is prevalent in the 23.
United States and in some Nordic European countries; and (2) a commensal 24.
or social conception where the notions of sharing are central, which is more 25.
characteristic of France, and the French-speaking regions of Switzerland 26.
and Italy. Another comparative survey (Rozin et al. 1999) highlighted that 27.
nationality and gender were the most relevant variables differentiating a 28.
pleasure- or health-oriented attitude towards food. The group that was the 29.
most food-pleasure-oriented were men and French people. Whereas women 30.
show a pattern of attitudes similar to North Americans, for whom food is most 31.
associated with health and with pleasure. 32.
Surveys have reported that there is a correlation between the practice 33.
of eating together and the age group and cohort. Less regular food intakes, 34.
increase in nomadic behaviours and number of food intakes have been 35.
recorded more commonly amongst young people and newer generations 36.
(De Saint Pol 2005; Récours et al. 2005; Hébel 2007). Even if a few qualitative 37.
studies focused on teenagers’ eating habits and family meals have been carried 38.
out, young adults do not appear to be an age group of particular academic 39.
interest, and very few cross-cultural studies using qualitative methods exist 40.
today. Moreover, in national surveys, young adults are sometimes ranged with 41.
teenagers and sometimes with adults. Thus, it is difficult to identify eating 42.
practices and representations of this specific age group. 43.
Even if societal changes in western countries encourage an individualization 44.
of eating patterns, it is important to keep in mind the fact that these changes 45.
do not have the same impact on all socio-demographic profiles, countries 46.
and generations. In addition, other studies underlined that inviting people 47.
to a meal at home and going out to restaurants are important aspects of 48.
contemporary social life (Warde and Martens 2000; Julier 2002). Therefore, 49.
it is important to investigate deeper the social dimension of eating in specific 50.
social groups, countries and contemporary society in order to understand the 51.
phenomenon. 52.

158

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 158 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Commensality in French and German young adults

1. As we have seen previously, commensality has important sociocultural

2. functions and meanings. I suggest that commensality among modern youth
3. has partly retained its social values. These are exemplified through adapted
4. forms of commensality, which correspond with new lifestyles, forms of
5. sociability, evolution of food offer and local uses.
6. I carried out fieldwork with young adults between the ages of 18 and 27,
7. living in large cities, the majority of them having already left their family home.
8. The choice to target young adults is linked to findings presented in this section.
9. Youth seem especially influenced by recent changes. Leaving the family home,
10. young adults experience increased independence and autonomy in food
11. choice, and they develop a larger social network composed of peers. These
12. elements tend to encourage specific forms of consumption (Torres et al. 1992;
13. Sobal and Nelson 2003), such as a high variability of eating contexts, the use
14. of convenience food, nomadic behaviours, and several sociable occasions with
15. peers where food may be present (Récours et al. 2005; De Saint Pol 2005, 2006;
16. Bartsch 2006; Hébel 2007; Diasio et al. 2009). This age period generally ends
17. when individuals begin living with their partner, get married or have children.
18. The fieldwork countries – France and Germany – were chosen because
19. recent findings suggest significant differences in attitude towards food and in

proof
20. commensal practices between these countries (Fischler et al. 2008).
21.
22.
23. METHODS
24. This study is purely qualitative and uses an interpretative approach (Geertz
25. 1973) to explore and describe the phenomenon. Data were collected though
26. participant observation and in-depth interviews. As an ethnographer, I was
27. simultaneously observing and involved in the topic of study. My attention
28. during fieldwork was not only focused on the practices I was studying, but
29. also on the social context in which practices were performed, through long
30. phases of fieldwork and researcher embeddedness (Laplantine 1996; Augé
31. and Colleyn 2004). The choice of complementary methods – observation and
32. interviews – is related to the discordance between practices in performance and
33. practices in talk (Martens 2011). Practices in talk are culturally dense (norma-
34. tivity, rules, goals, etc.) and practices in performance allow an understanding
35. of the role of infrastructure, tasks, sequentially and routine (Martens 2011).
36. Interviews therefore allowed me to explore the participants’ eating practices
37. and social representations linked to them. Observations are useful for investi-
38. gating practices in real contexts and in interaction, but may also identify prac-
39. tices that do not appear in discourse, because they were overlooked or were
40. not considered important enough by the informants to be described during
41. interviews.
42. I chose an ethnographic approach because it permits the description of a
43. phenomenon. Furthermore, the proximity to the informants allowed a close
44. relationship with them and therefore enabled me to collect rich data. This
45. methodology of course has certain limitations. My sample is not representa-
46. tive of the entire population of the countries investigated. My own presence
47. also influenced the behaviours I was able to observe. I was systematically
48. faced with questions concerning my presence during collective eating events.
49. Nonetheless, I attempted to give the informants the opportunity to express
50. themselves as naturally as possible, in order to be accepted by the groups I was
51. observing as if I were a new friend. At the same time, I assume the fact that
52. ethnography is the interaction between the observer and the informants. In

159

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 159 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Giada Danesi

addition, I was not very much older than them and I consider myself a young 1.
adult. This facilitated the task of being accepted by the groups as a new friend. 2.
Fieldwork was carried out in 2009 and 2010, in Lyon, Paris and Berlin. 3.
The recruitment of participants was initially based on my own social relations, 4.
and I was introduced to other participants afterward by the first informants I 5.
met. In an effort to recruit interlocutors, the ‘snowball’ effect worked well. I 6.
attempted to diversify the pool informants in order to have a variety of socio- 7.
demographic profiles. A total of 46 young adults between the ages of 18 and 8.
27 were interviewed. I met 23 French young adults in Paris and Lyon and the 9.
same number of German informants in Berlin. The sample was heterogene- 10.
ous. I tried to diversify my informants in the two countries based on five crite- 11.
ria: age (eleven between 18 and 21 years old, 21 between 22 and 24 years old, 12.
fourteen who were 25 years old or older); gender (24 women and 22 men); 13.
activity (24 students, twelve working people, eight in internships, two unem- 14.
ployed people); living situation (seven with their parents, nine alone, 22 in 15.
shared flats, eight with their partner); and region of origin (various regions in 16.
the countries). 17.
The interviews lasted between 45 minutes and two hours and were 18.
integrally recorded and later transcribed. In France, interviews were conducted 19.

proof
in French. In Germany, I gave participants the choice between speaking 20.
German or English. In the end, all participants felt comfortable doing the 21.
interview in English. I prepared an interview guideline with several open- 22.
ended questions, concerning general information (age, profession, region of 23.
origin, etc.); role of food in participants’ lives; meanings of eating well and 24.
badly; description of their eating practices; changes in their way of eating in 25.
recent years (e.g. as compared to when they were living in the family home, 26.
in different living situations, etc.); eating practices observed during a long stay 27.
abroad; ideal meal; feelings and occasions of solo eating; role of and feelings 28.
on sharing meals with people. 29.
Participant observations of eating events were carried out in several eating 30.
settings: homes, parks, streets, public transport, universities, restaurants and 31.
fast-food establishments. 32.
33.
34.
RESULTS 35.
During fieldwork, four commensal eating occasions emerged as crucial in 36.
social gatherings within this age group. Two of the chosen examples took 37.
place at home, when friends were invited to eat: the apéritf dînatoire in France 38.
and the brunch in Germany. The other two eating events upon which I will 39.
focus took place in public spaces: the picnic in France and the barbecue in 40.
Germany. 41.
Aperitifs dînatoires are similar to cocktail parties. They are aperitifs, but 42.
with enough food to substitute for a dinner. They generally take place in the 43.
early evening and in the living room, but also in the kitchen if people do not 44.
have a living room. The starting time is not rigid, because there is no need for 45.
everyone to be there to begin the meal. Guests may also come after having 46.
already eaten, because the main objective of the gathering is not necessarily 47.
eating, but rather spending time together and drinking. The aperitif dînatoire 48.
may be organized for special occasions, such as birthdays, but it is also organ- 49.
ized for ordinary and leisure occasions. The difference between ordinary and 50.
extra-ordinary occasions is that for the latter, the food proposed is perhaps 51.
more elaborate, more guests are invited, the event may last longer and there 52.

160

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 160 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Commensality in French and German young adults

1. is more organization beforehand. The food can be special, for example when
2. the host and/or the guests cook some quiches or other special finger food.
3. Alternatively, the food can be simple, for example pre-packaged, store-bought
4. foods like cheese, bread, and chips and dips, or even some takeaway food,
5. such as pizza or ethnic food. The food and drinks are generally laid out on
6. the coffee table or at the dinner table. There is generally only finger food, but
7. sometimes the host prepares salads and provides cutlery. The meal does not
8. have a diachronic structure, because all the dishes are served at the same time
9. on the table and the guests can take whatever they prefer without a codified
10. order. Furthermore, people consume food throughout the evening. During
11. this event, participants talk, eat and drink, and participate in leisure activities,
12. such as listening to music and playing board games. People have informal and
13. dynamic body positions. They sit on the floor, canapés, armchairs and chairs.
14. They may be standing and moving around the room. When the food is laid
15. on the coffee table, people generally gather around it. If the food is placed
16. on a higher table such as a buffet, people go to the buffet to take food, and
17. consequently more people are standing and are at liberty to wander around.
18. The host buys most of the food, but the guests are invited to or spontaneously
19. bring some food and drinks.

proof
20. Brunches observed in Berlin have several elements in common with the
21. apéritifs dînatoires in France. Brunch is consumed in the home, usually in the
22. kitchen or in the dining room between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 or 4 p.m. As
23. in the case of the aperitif dînatoire, there is no fixed time to begin eating: guests
24. may arrive at different times. People eat at the table, but food can be laid in the
25. middle of the table or on a buffet. The food is generally not cooked, for exam-
26. ple bread, jam, cheese, sausage and fruits; in some cases, people cook eggs,
27. cakes and other warm preparations. There is no sequential structure of the
28. meal as in the aperitif dînatoire. Sweet and salty food are eaten simultaneously
29. rather than according to a specific order, and everyone does not necessarily eat
30. the same foods. The main activities during this event are talking, eating and
31. possibly other social activities. People can move around the room or go to the
32. buffet and talk to people in other places in the room. Most of the time, tasks
33. and costs are shared between the participants. Guests prepare something at
34. home or buy some ingredients before going to the event location.
35. Picnics are set in the evening or in the afternoon. In Paris and Lyon,
36. picnics are in parks or on the walkways close to rivers. The occasion may be
37. spontaneous or previously planned; in either case, guests may arrive without
38. announcing their presence in advance. The food is cold and easy to eat, with
39. fingers or plastic cutlery. The food is bought in the supermarket before going
40. or prepared at participants’ homes. The custom is that everyone brings some-
41. thing to eat that will be shared among the participants. People sit or lie down
42. on the ground or in the grass in a kind of circle; the food is generally set in
43. the middle and circulates among guests. The structure and table manners are
44. informal and relaxed. People may bring some games (e.g. Frisbee or pétanques)
45. and they enjoy the open-air activities as well as eating and talking, especially
46. when the event lasts all afternoon.
47. Barbecues in Berlin take place in public spaces usually during the day.
48. Barbecues require more organization than picnics. First, it is fundamental to
49. determine who will bring the grill and the charcoal. Second, it is necessary to
50. determine whether one person should buy meat for everyone and for costs
51. to be shared afterward, or whether everyone should bring their own meat or
52. meat that will be shared between participants. Everyone buying his or her own

161

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 161 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Giada Danesi

4. Translated from French, meat seems to be preferred by German young adults because it is easier and 1.
original sentence: ‘Moi,
j’adore cette ambiance,
does not require the commitment and organization necessary if participants 2.
tu piques à gauche à are to pay in advance. People bring meat and beer and those who do not eat 3.
droite, ah moi j’adore, meat (or not much of it) – often women – are responsible for bringing salads 4.
je trouve ça super’.
and bread. It is generally men who stay near the barbecue, grilling the meat, 5.
5. Translated from French, although sometimes women help. In groups of friends who regularly barbecue 6.
original sentence:
‘Enfin c’est sympa together, participants have established roles, and it is generally the same 7.
aussi, bon tu manges people who bring the grill each time, cooking the meat and bringing salads. 8.
un peu de ce que tu Alcohol is consistently present, which is not the case during picnics. People sit 9.
veux et quand tu veux’.
or lie down on the ground, and others stay near the barbecue in order to help 10.
grill and talk with those grilling the meat. People do not eat at the same time, 11.
but do so gradually in relation to when the meat is ready. During a barbecue, 12.
people often graze throughout the day and/or the evening. As in the case of 13.
picnics, participants generally engage in more activities than just eating and 14.
talking, such as cooking and playing. 15.
These four eating events display several common elements, with a few 16.
exceptions. They take place at different times of the day. Only during the aperi- 17.
tifs dînatoires and barbecues do participants systematically consume alcohol, 18.
and only during barbecues does food preparation necessarily take place during 19.

proof
the gathering. The table as a space for eating is only necessary at brunches. 20.
For the other events, people eat finger food or use a plate if necessary, but 21.
this can be held rather than placed on a table. The similarities between the 22.
four eating events presented are the informal table manners, the meal’s struc- 23.
ture, the nomadic behaviours, the sharing of costs and tasks, the possibility 24.
of improvisation, the food simplicity, and, at the same time, the possibility of 25.
cooking something more elaborate. The use of fingers and plastic cutlery and 26.
the nomadic behaviours are evident marks of informality in table manners. 27.
These eating events are composed of several dishes rather than one main 28.
dish. Food is not served in individual portions, but on common plates. All the 29.
dishes are served at the same time and laid in the middle, and people share 30.
the food set out in common dishes without a sequential order. ‘I love this 31.
ambiance: you pick a little here and a little there, yeah I love it, I think it’s 32.
great’,4 said a French young woman (23 years old), describing why she likes 33.
the structure of the meal during apéritifs dînatoires. 34.
The choice between several dishes is considered an asset, as it allows 35.
young adults to pick and choose their food, to try new flavours, and to 36.
include dishes that satisfy everyone. Moreover, the absence of a sequential 37.
order allows everyone to eat at his or her own rhythm. The meal structure 38.
also allows participants to choose, to eat only what one likes or what one can 39.
eat, and it is not too strict regarding the time to start eating and the rhythms 40.
of the meal. For example, while describing inviting people for brunch, a 41.
German young woman (19 years old) explained why she likes this kind of 42.
meal: ‘Because everyone can just take what they want to, the dishes are not 43.
prepared in advance by the host, maybe someone doesn’t like something 44.
or does like another thing’. A male French informant (24 years old) gives a 45.
similar explanation of the positive aspect of the apéritif dînatoire: ‘Yeah it’s nice 46.
too, you just sort of eat what you want when you want’.5 Another German 47.
young woman (25 years old), while speaking about the brunch she organized 48.
for her birthday, said something concerning the rhythm of beginning to eat 49.
explained, ‘I said at 11 o’clock, it turns out to be. And also I said to 2 friends, 50.
that I already said at 11, to come at 1, because 11 for a brunch is too early, 51.
and so they came at 1 and few people were there, and then 2 other friends 52.

162

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 162 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Commensality in French and German young adults

1. come 2 hours later and there was still something left’. When she recalled this 6. Translated from French,
original sentence:
2. episode, it was clear that it was not a problem at all for her that these two
3. friends were late. This meal format easily allows for this kind of situation. Voilà, soit des quiches,
des pizzas, parfois je
4. Even though food can be very simple, including convenience or takeaway vais à Auchan, j’achète
5. food, it does not mean that the consumption is quick and that people do not des tartes flambées
6. care about the way to set out food. They still have the opportunity to surprise toutes faites, j’adore
quand on fait ça,
7. guests with some original and special food, attractive decorations, funny or chacun prend des
8. news games, etc. For example, a French young man (22 years old) described bouteilles de vin blanc,
9. how he tried to do something special using the pre-packaged and frozen food après on fait des
soirées, parfois on fait
10. he bought. des soirées à thème,
11. soit on se fait soirées
asiatiques, on s’achète,
12. Look, we can do quiches, pizzas, and sometimes, I go to Auchan (a on amène, on achète
13. French supermarket), I buy tartes flambées already prepared, I love when de nems et tout ça ou
14. we do it. Everyone brings some bottles of white wine, after we do some soirées alsaciennes,
on achète des tartes
15. dinner parties, sometimes themed parties, like Asian dinner parties, flambées puis vin
16. we buy, spring rolls and all this stuff or Alsatian dinner parties, we buy blanc.
17. tartes flambées and white wine.6 7. Translated from French,
18. (French young man, 22 years old) original sentence:
19. Avec les amis si tu as

proof
20. The nomadic behaviour of this kind of meal allows people to feel comfortable un grand tablier, tu
21. moving around the room to get food or just to talk with other people, and vas te parler avec les 4
qui sont autour de toi.
22. consequently to have social interactions with more people than would be the Ensuite, les autres tu
23. case if seated at a table with designated places and interlocutors. The follow- dis ‘Bonjour’ au débout
et ‘Au revoir’ à la fin et
24. ing is an extract in which an informant describes her preference for meals puis c’est tout, donc tu
25. where people can wander. les vois pas, c’est ça qui
26. me gêne et le fait que
je préfère quand c’est
27. With friends if you have a big table, you will speak with the four people plus un apéro est que
28. who are around you and then the others you say ‘Hi’ at the beginning tout le monde bouge
29. and ‘Good-bye’ at the end and then that’s all. So you don’t see them et tout le monde se
voit et tout le monde
30. that’s what bothers me and that’s why I prefer when it’s more aperitif discute avec tout le
31. style because everyone wanders around and everyone sees each other monde.
32. and everyone talks to everyone. 7 8. Translated from French,
33. (French young woman, 23 years old) original sentence:
34. Tu fais un petit apéritif,
35. Beyond the opportunity to interact with a larger number of people when the un apéritif dînatoire,
c’est vraiment plus
36. meal has a buffet format, I noticed that rather than a discussion between all sympa, je pense que c’est
37. participants, discussions between small groups are preferred when eating in plus convivial, parce que
38. buffet format. Nevertheless, the interlocutors could mingle during the events. on est tous assis dans
le canapé, à discuter,
39. This is not the case for dinner at the table, where if the table is not too big a à manger avec temps
40. discussion between all participants is possible, or in the case of a big table, et après on peut sortir,
41. people generally speak only with their close neighbours without having the souvent c’est ça quoi ou
même sans sortir, ça fait
42. chance to change interlocutors. une soirée cool.
43.
9. Translated from French,
44. You have a little aperitif, an apéritif dînatoire, it’s much nicer, I think it’s original sentence:
45. more convivial, because we all sit on the sofa to discuss, to eat taking ‘J’aime surtout faire
des apéros dînatoires
46. our time, and afterward we can go out, that’s usually what it’s like, but et puis je trouve que
47. even if we don’t go out, it makes for a cool evening.8 ça permet de passer
48. (French man, 22 years old) un plus long moment
tous ensemble et puis
49. la possibilité de faire
50. and ‘I especially love doing apéros dînatoires and then I think it allows to autre chose, de faire
51. spend more time all together and lets us do other things, to play games or to des jeux, d’écouter la
musique’.
52. listen to music’9 (French young woman, 23 years old). As can be seen in these

163

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 163 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Giada Danesi

10. Translated from French, two extracts, it is possible during these eating events for people to participate 1.
original sentence:
in other activities, as an alternative to only eating, drinking and discussing. 2.
Que la nourriture soit This kind of social interaction creates a relaxed event and combines several 3.
prête quand les gens
sont là parce que c’est
leisure activities at the same time. 4.
pas génial de passer 5.
son temps en cuisine, I try to make sure the food is ready when people arrive, because it’s not 6.
pendant que les gens
sont là, donc en général nice to spend your time in the kitchen, when people are at your place. 7.
nous on essaie de So generally we [he and his girlfriend] try to prepare something that we 8.
préparer des choses qui can make quickly or just heat up before serving it. We never do things 9.
se font vites ou qui se
réchauffent, comme ça, that we have to do at the last minute. The secret to a good party, is also 10.
juste avant de servir. to see people that you invite over to eat. 10 11.
On ne fait jamais des
trucs, comme ça qu’il
(French man, 25 years old) 12.
faut faire à la dernière 13.
minute. Une réussite This extract suggests that one of the reasons for choosing the structure of 14.
d’une soirée, c’est aussi
voir les gens qu’on a these meals is that the host does not have to stay in the kitchen. A meal that 15.
invités pour manger. is quickly and easily prepared and does not need to be eaten warm allows the 16.
11. Translated from French, host to enjoy time with guests, instead of being isolated in the kitchen. 17.
original sentence: Thanks to this meal format, there is also a communal division of tasks and 18.
‘Souvent j’allais chez costs, where all the members contribute to the preparation and organization 19.
les autres, alors

proof
j’emportais, jamais, of the meal. ‘I’m bringing the grill and somebody else is bringing the char- 20.
jamais, jamais on arrive coal, and everyone buys his own meat and his own drinks’, reports a German 21.
à les mains vides ou
c’est très rare’.
young man (19 years old), describing the procedure of barbecues among his 22.
group of friends. 23.
12. Translated from French,
original sentence:
24.
Yeah, I said to friends of mine ‘Bring buns’ and I wrote an email so I told 25.
Si il y a beaucoup de
monde, c’est bien
them ‘We have stuff to eat but maybe you could bring juice or some- 26.
plus pratique de se thing’, so a friend of mine bought some fruits and we had a fruits salad. 27.
retrouver autour d’une (German young woman, 25 years old) 28.
table basse que de se
mettre 8 chaises autour 29.
d’une pauvre table (on As can be seen in this extract, in the case of brunch, hosts ask the guests to 30.
rigole). Déjà il faut les participate by bringing some food. Or guests may arrive spontaneously with 31.
avoir les 8 chaises ! (elle
rigole) Et puis, oui, c’est some food and drinks, because it is the custom, as illustrated in the following 32.
plus pratique et j’ai pas extract: ‘I often go to other people’s places and take something, you never, 33.
l’équipement et la table
qui va avec.
never, never go with nothing or it‘s really rare’11 (French young woman, 23 34.
years old). Hosts do not have to take on all the costs and the preparation for 35.
this kind of meal occasion. 36.
Additionally, thanks to this meal format, it is not necessary to have a 37.
well-equipped kitchen, with many chairs, cutlery and a big table, as for a meal 38.
at the table, and it offers the opportunity to invite more people easily. For 39.
example, a French young woman said, 40.
41.
If there are a lot of people it’s more comfortable to meet each other 42.
at the coffee table than to put 8 chairs around the poor little table [we 43.
laugh]. First, you have to have 8 chairs [she laughs]! And then, it’s more 44.
comfortable and maybe it’s because I don’t have the equipment and the 45.
table that you have to have.12 46.
(French young woman, 23 years old) 47.
48.
This extract underlines the fact that it is not only a choice in terms of preferences 49.
based on the desired social interactions, splitting of costs, wide food choice, 50.
etc, but that it is also necessary due to inadequate material equipment for 51.
dinner receptions. 52.

164

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 164 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Commensality in French and German young adults

1. The insufficient material equipment, the sharing of costs and tasks, and 13. Translated from French,
original sentence:
2. the participation of guests during meal invitation at home are also reasons ‘Pique-niques, on l’a fait
3. explaining the custom of young adults to eat in public spaces. A French deux ou trois fois au
4. young man (20 years old) described the space available in public spaces in parc de la Tête d’Or, je
ne sais pas, quand il y
5. the case of a special meal: ‘Picnics, we did 2 or 3 times at the park of Tête avait un anniversaire,
6. d’Or, when there were some birthdays, things when there were too many quelque chose qu’on
7. of us to go to the restaurant or to someone’s place’13. A German informant était vraiment trop
nombreux pour aller au
8. highlights the possibility that more people can take part in the event when it restaurant ou aller chez
9. is in a public space. quelqu’un’.
10. 14. Translated from French,
11. We do it especially in the summer, because, there are really a lot of original sentence:
12. parks and we just meet and do this, it got really big last time, because Etre dehors, on est
13. we met in a group of 5 or 6 people, I have a barbecue in my balcony at généralement pas
loin d’un point d’eau,
14. home. Often it’s like, there are more than 20 people and everyone is prendre de l’air quoi.
15. eating with this tiny barbecue. Les pique-niques, on en
16. (German informant man, 19 years old) a fait un ce dimanche,
c’est pareil, quand
17. tout le monde amène
18. A French young woman highlights in this extract how the tasks are quelque chose, on
19. redistributed during picnics and another reason for having meals in public s’organise par mail,
machins prend le

proof
20. spaces, such as the opportunity to enjoy the open air. rosé, l’autre prend une
21. salade de riz, bidoulle
fait une tarte et après
22. Being outside, we are generally not far away from water, we enjoy the chacun arrive avec son
23. air. The picnics, we’re doing one this Sunday, it’s always the same, plat.
24. everyone brings something, we organize by email, someone brings the 15. Terms conventionally
25. rosé, the other brings a bowl of rice salad, another one makes a cake used in the case of
26. and everyone arrives with a plate.14 consuming alcohol
in order to prepare
27. (French young woman 24 years old) oneself for social
28. interaction. I choose
29. Finally, I observed that young adults often go to public spaces frequented this expression here
to underline the role
30. by other young people, which could explain the desire to meet other young of food sharing in an
31. people who are not participating in the meal and thus create the opportunity effort to create the
feeling of togetherness.
32. to easily interact with them or only stay in a place of young people.
33.
34.
35. DISCUSSION
36. Even if quantitative surveys presented previously suggest that young people have
37. been strongly affected by recent social changes, which entail an individualization
38. of eating patterns, the choice of an ethnographic approach highlights that the
39. aim is not just to determine whether or not the shared meal has disappeared and
40. which sociocultural groups are most influenced. The aim is also to explore and
41. understand in which way recent changes in the relationship between humans
42. and food impacts forms of commensality of specific sociocultural groups.
43. This study highlights that young adults still share meals with peers, but
44. above all it describes the nature of sociable commensality in this age group.
45. This point supports the idea that the sharing of meals has important social
46. meanings that are not completely rejected. Sharing food has the function of
47. ‘social lubricant’15 enabling social relations to be established and maintained.
48. ‘Who someone shares the intimacy of eating with is an important dimension of
49. the sociability of meals. […] Socially, eating communicates information about
50. what, how, when and where, and with whom a person ate’ (Sobal 2000: 122).
51. It may be that features of the commensality evolve in relation to changes in
52. societies, the lifestyles of specific social groups, and cultural heritages.

165

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 165 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Giada Danesi

16. North American, A In both countries, I noticed that young adults have sociable meals and the 1.
meal or party to which
each of the guests
investigated commensal occasions exhibit several common features: no rigid 2.
contributes a dish (in time to start eating, informal structure and atmosphere, dynamic behaviours, 3.
Oxford Dictionary). the possibility of serving simple and convenient food, several food choices set 4.
in the middle of a circle or on a table, a group of intimate people eating with 5.
fingers from the same common plates, the egalitarian sharing of tasks and 6.
costs, and the possibility of inviting or meeting a large social network. 7.
The structure of the four eating events observed here shares more features 8.
with the past service à la française than with more recent ones: service à la russe 9.
and service à la carte (Mennell 1985), ‘when the guest can choose from a large 10.
number of dishes served at the same time in each course’ (Mäkelä 2000: 9). This 11.
structure (several dishes laid out on common plates in the middle of the table 12.
and people taking the food they prefer without a defined order) is also found 13.
in some Asian countries (e.g. China) or in Mediterranean (e.g. tapas in Spain) 14.
or Middle Eastern countries (e.g. meze in Turkey) as regards the presentation 15.
of starters. In addition, reported forms of commensality of young adults show 16.
several similarities to domestic hospitality in British (Warde and Martens 2000) 17.
and North American middle-class culture (Julier 2002) that deal with buffet 18.
parties, potluck suppers16 and barbecues. The similarities concern especially the 19.

proof
possibility of serving takeaway food or commercial foods for sociable occasions; 20.
the structure of the meal; the possibility of sharing tasks between hosts and 21.
guests; the desire to give guests the opportunity to feel comfortable with infor- 22.
mal settings and table manners in order to establish intimacy and sociable ties. 23.
The meal structure of the commensal occasions presented might be 24.
suggestive of recent changes in the relationship between humans and food. It 25.
reveals that people do not eat the same meal content, the same quantity and 26.
at the same time. Moreover, eating is not always the main activity. Because 27.
the meal is not composed of a diachronic order of dishes, people do not 28.
compulsorily eat a structured meal, a social occasion answering to a series of 29.
rules of times, place and sequence of actions (Douglas and Nicod 1974). This 30.
meal structure could be interpreted as a way to allow freedom in food choice 31.
and rhythms, creating the opportunity to share a meal and at the same time to 32.
engage in sociability and intimacy by eating from common plates. By compar- 33.
ing this structure with the service à la carte at a restaurant, the importance of 34.
individual choice is observable in both. However, the latter makes it impossi- 35.
ble to share the same food, because it is served in individual portions. 36.
37.
The dominant Western commercial trend is to make food choice ever 38.
more individualistic. A la carte tends to replace table d’hôte, offering 39.
each individual a choice of dishes independent of others at the table. 40.
The sharing of food therefore recedes. There are however some coun- 41.
tertendencies. The spread of Indian and Chinese restaurants offers 42.
increasing opportunity to share food, to eat parts of the same dishes as 43.
companions, as too does the buffet. […] Arguably, one of the reasons 44.
for the marginally greater appreciation of food at private dinner parties 45.
is that the sense of sharing the same meal and being served from the 46.
same plate is heightened. 47.
(Warde and Martens 2000: 206–07). 48.
49.
‘The sequence, rules, and ranking of the meals are vital to social life because 50.
they are part of a system of intimacy and distance’ (Mäkelä 2000: 11). Informal 51.
social forms with a potentially egalitarian division of tasks and relaxed 52.

166

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 166 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Commensality in French and German young adults

1. structures, table manners, social interactions, and the availability of simple 17. Concept used by Mauss
in Les techniques du
2. and convenient food show the desire to construct close relationships that are corps (1934) in order to
3. not necessarily rooted in the obligations associated with kinship (Julier 2002). describe ‘techniques
4. The possibility of sharing tasks and meeting people around an informal eating of the body’ as highly
developed body actions
5. event shows the need for intimacy in social relationships enacted in everyday that embody aspects of
6. life between non-kin people. a given culture. In this
7. By observing the social organization of these gatherings, some shared research, it refers to the
body techniques that
8. values of young adults appear. The sharing of costs and tasks shows that young adults learn/
9. values of solidarity and reciprocity are common in this age group, probably develop by eating in
particular positions
10. related to the fact that relationships to be enacted are based on friendship. (standing, sitting on
11. With the exception of barbecue, where the women were mostly in charge of the floor without a
12. salads and men of grilling meat, gender, age or social status did not determine table) and eating food
that is not necessarily
13. the sharing of tasks, costs and food, nor the position at the table or in space. It designed as finger
14. is possible to note in their commensal events the absence of hierarchical struc- food.
15. ture, which is observable, for example, in seating arrangements (Sheringham
16. and Daruwalla 2007) or food sharing (Schmitt Pantel 1992). During these
17. commensal occasions, everyone has a role as a member of the group, and
18. an egalitarian and democratic structure is displayed. In an article on hospi-
19. tality spaces (2008), Lugosi studied relationships between guests or consum-

proof
20. ers and proposed the notion of communitesque experiences: this describes the
21. temporary sense of unity or sociality between individuals during hospital-
22. ity moments through disruption and renegotiation of social statuses. In his
23. opinion, this status characterizes hospitable moments during which convivial
24. interactions and mutual entertainment are easily performed when all people
25. are social actors and differences are tempered in particular moments.
26. Common features in the reported forms of commensality of young adults
27. seem also to be symptomatic of their lifestyle and living conditions. These
28. meals allow young adults to combine their diverse time schedules, limited
29. budgets and material equipment, different eating styles and diets (ethical,
30. religious, health or aesthetics norms or values), and nomadic behaviours with
31. the need to socialize with peers through leisure activities.
32. Peers have a great influence on eating behaviours amongst young adults.
33. Eating with peers is an opportunity to construct identity by socializing through
34. practices, norms and values shared within the age group. It is a stage of life
35. where young people become independent of their family and are initiated into
36. adulthood. It is a kind of liminal phase (Van Gennep 1960) of the coming
37. of age, when young people are separated from the family group and child-
38. hood and face several tests before being reintegrated in society as adults. This
39. age group could be defined as a sort of communitas (Turner 1969). During
40. commensal occasions, members discover new food flavours and learn culinary
41. skills by cooking together, eating the same food, and discussing food and
42. cuisine. Additionally, it is not only food that is involved during eating events,
43. but also ‘body techniques’,17 contexts of consumptions, forms of communica-
44. tion, topics of discussion, leisure activities, etc. These events are therefore not
45. only forms of expression and affirmation of identity, but are at the core of the
46. construction of identity.
47.
48.
49. CONCLUSIONS
50. This article has focused on forms of commensality amongst young adults in
51. which communal solidarity, socialization and sociability are constructed and
52. performed by sharing and offering food. Even if recent societal changes and

167

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 167 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Giada Danesi

transformations in food offering encourage an individualization of eating 1.

patterns, this article has emphasized the fact that eating together continues to 2.
be an important activity and has important social meanings and functions in 3.
young adults’ lives. 4.
Nonetheless, the characteristics of the four eating occasions presented reveal 5.
the nature of sociable meals and commensality in this age group. Similarities to 6.
other recent works (Warde and Martens 2000; Julier 2002) may illustrate trends of 7.
the nature of commensality in contemporary western society. Even if it is possible 8.
to list a variety of forms of commensality, several tendencies are common: infor- 9.
mality, intimacy, communal organization, freedom in food choice and rhythms. 10.
The four eating occasions described underline the difficulty of studying 11.
eating practices. Nevertheless, the choice of an ethnographic approach and 12.
focusing on a few eating events allowed me to explain features of commensal- 13.
ity in this age group and show dimensions of commensality that are important 14.
to consider in order to understand eating patterns: the temporal and spatial 15.
contexts; the food, table manners and meal structure; the social interactions 16.
(number of people, relationship between them, shared activities); and the 17.
social organization (the sharing of food, tasks and costs). This study provides 18.
a conceptual framework that may be helpful in studying commensality as a 19.

proof
‘total social fact’ (Mauss 1954), and thus in taking into account the relation- 20.
ship between humans, food and context. 21.
In this study, several social and cultural variables appeared that have 22.
not been dealt with in this article, but that deserve further development. 23.
Commensality merits future investigations by taking into account sociocul- 24.
tural representations of food that influence eating practices. For example, 25.
concerning the commensal occasions reported here, it was also interesting to 26.
underline differences in the social organization (sharing costs and tasks) in 27.
the two countries. It was also possible to highlight the differences between the 28.
habit of barbecuing and having brunch in Germany and picnics and aperitif 29.
in France, with regard to the hours of the day when they take place (after- 30.
noon or evening) and the type of meal (breakfast, lunch or dinner). Analyzing 31.
discourses of the informants or comparing this with other studies on family 32.
meals and eating practices in institutions in the two countries, these aspects 33.
appear to be strongly related to cultural traditions and heritages, which deter- 34.
mine the social settings of meals and codes or norms expected. 35.
Because food consumption now embodies new meanings, due to the 36.
changes in social organization and the transformation in the relationship 37.
between food and humans, there is a need for new ‘food for thought’ on food 38.
and in everyday practices. 39.
40.
41.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 42.
The author thanks Claude Fischler for his valuable advice and the SIRHA and 43.
the Institute Paul Bocuse Research Center for their support for this research. 44.
She is grateful to the informants, without whose availability and hospitality 45.
this study would never have been possible. She especially thanks Catherine 46.
and Chelsie for reviewing the article. 47.
48.
49.
REFERENCES 50.
Audehm, K. (2007), Erziehung bei Tisch: Zur sozialen Magie eines Familienrituals, 51.
Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. 52.

168

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 168 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Commensality in French and German young adults

1. Augé, M and Colleyn, J. P. (2004), L’anthropologie, Paris: Puf.

2. Bartsch, S. (2006), Jugendesskultur: Bedeutungen des Essens für Jugendliche im
3. Kontext Familie und Peergroup, Heidelberg: Pädagogische Hochschule.
4. Berlin, L. (2001), ‘TV and mealtime: A healthy mix?’, The Corn and Berry,
5. Spring 1.
6. Bloch, M. (1999), ‘Commensality and poisoning’, Social Research, 66: 1,
7. pp. 133–49.
8. Charles, N. and Kerr, M. (1988), Women, Food, and Families, Manchester:
9. Manchester University Press.
10. Counihan, C. M. (2004), Around the Tuscan Table. Food, Family and Gender in
11. Twentieth-Century, New York and London: Routledge.
12. Diasio, N., Hubert, A. and Pardo, V. (2009), Alimentations adolescents en France,
13. Paris: Cahiers de l’OCHA.
14. De Garine, I. (1976), ‘Food, tradition and prestige’, in D. Walcher,
15. N. Kretchmer and H. Barnett (eds), Food, Man and Society, New York and
16. London: Plenum Press, pp. 150–73.
17. De Saint Pol, T. (2005), ‘Le dîner des Français: étude séquentielle d’un emploi
18. du temps’, Document de travail, Rapport du CREDOC 19.
19. —— (2006), ‘Le dîner des Français: un synchronisme alimentaire qui se main-

proof
20. tient’, Economie et Statistique, 400, pp. 45–69.
21. Devault, M. (1994), Feeding the Family, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. Douglas, M. (1971), ‘Deciphering a meal’, in C. Geertz (ed.), Myth, Symbol and
23. Culture, New York: Norton, pp. 61–81.
24. —— (1975), Environment at Risk, London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan
25. Paul.
26. Douglas, M. and Nicod, M. (1974), ‘Taking the biscuit: The structure of British
27. meals’, New Society, 19, December, pp. 744–47.
28. Durkheim, E. (1912), Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse, Paris: Alcan.
29. Fischler, C. (1979), ‘Gastro-nomie et gastro-anomie’, Communications, 31,
30. pp. 189–210.
31. —— (1980), ‘Food habits, social changes and the nature/culture dilemma’,
32. Social Science Information, 19: 6, pp. 937–53.
33. —— (1990), L’homnivore : le goût, la cuisine et le corps, Paris: O. Jacob.
34. Fischler, C., Masson, E. and Barlösius, E. (eds) (2008), Manger: Français,
35. Européens et Américains face à l’alimentation, Paris: O. Jacob.
36. Fitzpatrick, E., Edmunds, L. and Dennison, B. (2007), ‘Positive effects of family
37. dinner are undone by television viewing’, Journal of the American Dietetic
38. Association, 107: 4, pp. 666–71.
39. Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic.
40. Goody, J. (1982), Cooking, Cuisine, and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology,
41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Grignon, C. (1993), ‘La règles, la mode et le travail: la genèse sociale du
43. modèle des repas français contemporains’, in M. Aymard, C. Grignon and
44. F. Sabban (eds), Le temps de manger: Alimentation, emploi du temps et rythmes
45. sociaux, Paris: Ed. Maison des sciences de l’homme-INRA, pp. 275–323.
46. —— (2001), ‘Commensality and social morphology: an essay of typology’, in
47. P. Scholliers (ed.), Food, Drink and Identity: Cooking, Eating and Drinking in
48. Europe Since the Middle Ages, Oxford, NY: Berg, pp. 23–33.
49. Hébel, P. (2007), Comportements et consommations alimentaires en France,
50. France: Ed. Tec and Doc.
51. Herpin, N. (1980), ‘Comportements alimentaires et contraintes sur les emplois
52. du temps’, Revue française de sociologie, 21: 4, pp. 599–628.

169

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 169 11/14/11 11:18:27 AM

 Giada Danesi

—— (1988), ‘Le repas comme institution: Compte rendu d’une enquête explo- 1.
ratoire’, Revue française de sociologie, 29: 3, pp. 503–21. 2.
Holm, L. (2001), ‘The social context of eating’, in U. Kjærnes (ed.), Eating 3.
Patterns: A Day in the Lives of Nordic peoples, Lysaker: National Institute for 4.
Consumer Research, pp. 159–198. 5.
Julier, A. P. (2002), ‘Feeding friends and others: Boundaries of intimancy 6.
and distance in sociable meal’, Ph.D. thesis, Anherst: University of 7.
Massachusetts. 8.
Kaufmann, J. (2005), Casseroles, amour et crises: ce que cuisiner veut dire, France: 9.
Hachette Littératures. 10.
Kjærnes, U. (ed.) (2001), Eating Patterns: A Day in the Lives of Nordic peoples, 11.
Lysaker: National Institute for Consumer Research. 12.
Laplantine, F. (1996), La description ethnographique, France: Ed. Nathan. 13.
Larmet, G. (2002), ‘La sociabilité alimentaire s’accroît’, Economie et Statistique, 14.
352: 53, pp. 191–212. 15.
Latreille, M. and Ouellette, F. (2008), Le repas familial, Recension d’écrits, 16.
Montréal: Centre Urbain Culture et Société-INRS. 17.
Lugosi, P. (2008), ‘Hospitality spaces, hospitable moments: Consumer 18.
encounters and affective experiences in commercial settings’, Journal of 19.

proof
Foodservice, 19:2, pp. 139–49. 20.
McIntosh, A. (1999), ‘The family meal and its significance in global times’, 21.
in R. Grew (ed.), Food in Global History, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 22.
pp. 217–39. 23.
Mäkelä, J. (2000), ‘Cultural definitions of the meal’, in H. E. Meiselman (ed.), 24.
Dimensions of the Meal. The Science, Culture, Business and Art of Eating, 25.
Unites States: Aspen Publication, pp. 7–18. 26.
Mars, L. (1997), ‘Food and disharmony: Commensality among Jews’, Food and 27.
Foodways, 7: 3, pp. 189–202. 28.
Martens, L. (2011), ‘Visualising domestic kitchen practices: Connecting the 29.
ontology and epistemology of practices’, BSA Annual Conference, LSE 30.
London, 6 April. 31.
Mauss, M. (1954), The Gift, London: Cohen and West. 32.
Meiselman, H. L. (ed.) (2009), Meals in Science and Practice: Interdisciplinary 33.
Research and Business Applications, US: Hardcover. 34.
Mennell, S. (1985), All Manners of Food: Eating and Taste in England and France 35.
from the Middle Ages to the Present, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 36.
Mennell, S., Murcott, A. and Van Otterloo, A. (1992), The Sociology of Eating: 37.
Food, Diet and Culture, London: Sage Publications. 38.
Mestdag, I. (2005), ‘Disappearance of the traditional meal: Temporal, social 39.
and spatial destructuration’, Appetite, 45:1, pp. 62–74. 40.
Morin, E. (1962), L’esprit du temps 1: Névrose, Paris: Bernard Grasset. 41.
Murcott, A. (1997), ‘Family meals – a thing of the past’, in P. Caplan (ed.), 42.
Food, Health and Identity, New York: Routledge, pp. 32–50. 43.
Neumark-Sztainer, D., Hannan, P. J., Story, M., Croll, J. and Perry, C. (2003), 44.
‘Family meal patterns: Associations with sociodemographic characteristics 45.
and improved dietary intake among adolescents’, Journal of the American 46.
Dietetic Association, 103: 3, pp. 317–22. 47.
Ochs, E. and Shohet, M. (2006), ‘The cultural structuring of mealtime 48.
socialization’, New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 111, 49.
pp. 35–49. 50.
Poulain, J. P. (2002a), ‘The contemporary diet in France: “De-structuration” or 51.
from commensalism to “vagabond feeding”’, Appetite, 39: 1, pp. 43–55. 52.

170

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 170 11/14/11 11:18:28 AM

 Commensality in French and German young adults

1. —— (2002b), Manger aujourd’hui : attitudes, normes et pratiques, Toulouse:

2. Privat.
3. Prättälä, R. and Helminen, P. (1990), ‘Finnish meal patterns’, Bibliotheca nutri-
4. tio et dieta, 45, pp. 80–91.
5. Récours, F., Hébel, P. and Gaignier, C. (2005), ‘Exercice d’anticipation des
6. comportements alimentaires des Français. Modèle Âge-Période–Cohorte’,
7. Cahier de recherche, CREDOC 222, December.
8. Richards, A. (1932), Hunger and Work in a Savage Tribe: A Functional Study of
9. Nutrition among the Southern Bantu, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
10. Robertson-Smith, W. (1889), Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, New York:
11. Appleton.
12. Rotenberg, R. (1981), ‘The impact of industrialization on meal patterns in
13. Vienna, Austria’, Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 11, pp. 25–35.
14. Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A. and Wrzesniewski, A. (1999),
15. ‘Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the U.S.A., Japan, Flemish
16. Belgium and France: Possible implications for the diet-health debate’,
17. Appetite, 33: 2, pp. 163–80.
18. Schmitt Pantel, P. (1992), La cité au banquet : histoire des repas publics dans les
19. cités grecques, Roma: Ecole française de Rome.

proof
20. Selwyn, T. (2000), ‘An anthropology of hospitability’, in C. Lashley and A.
21. Morrison (eds), Search in Hospitality: Theoretical Perspectives and Debates,
22. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 18–37.
23. Sheringham, C. and Daruwalla, P. (2007), ‘Transgressing hospitality: Polarities
24. and disordered relationship?’, in C. Lashley, P. Lynch and A. Morrison (eds),
25. Hospitality: A Social Lens, Oxford and Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 33–45.
26. Simmel, G. ([1910] 1997), ‘Sociology of the meal’, in D. Frisby and
27. M. Featherstone (eds), Simmel on Culture, London: Sage, pp. 130–35.
28. Sobal, J. (2000), ‘Sociability and meals: Facilitation, commensality and interac-
29. tion’, in H. E. Meiselman (ed.), Dimensions of the Meal. The Science, Culture,
30. Business and Art of Eating, United States: Aspen Publication, pp. 119–133.
31. Sobal, J. and Nelson, M. K. (2003), ‘Commensal eating patterns: A community
32. study’, Appetite, 41: 2, pp. 181–90.
33. Sutton, D. E. (2001), Remembrance of the Repasts: An Anthropology of Food and
34. Memory, Oxford, NY: Berg.
35. Torres, C., McIntosh, W. and Kubena, K. S. (1992), ‘Social network and social
36. background characteristics of elderly who live and eat alone’, Journal of
37. Aging and Health, 4: 4, pp. 564–78.
38. Turner, V. (1969), The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure, Chicago:
39. Aldine.
40. Van Gennep, A. (1960), The Rites of Passage, Chicago: University of Chicago
41. Press.
42. Warde, A. and Martens, L. (2000), Eating Out. Social Differenciation, Consumption
43. and Pleasure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Warde, A., Cheng, S., Olsen, W. and Southerton, D. (2007), ‘Changes in the
45. practice of eating: A comparative analysis of Time-Use’, Acta Sociologica,
46. 50: 4, pp. 363–85.
47.
48.
49. SUGGESTED CITATION
50. Danesi, G. (2011), ‘Commensality in French and German young adults: An
51. ethnographic study’, Hospitality & Society 1: 2, pp. 153–172, doi: 10.1386/
52. hosp.1.2.153_1

171

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 171 11/14/11 11:18:28 AM

 Giada Danesi

CONTRIBUTOR DETAILS 1.
Giada Danesi is a Ph.D. Student at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences 2.
Sociales (IIAC-Centre Edgar Morin) in Paris. Her thesis deals with forms of 3.
commensality amongst young adults in France, Germany and Spain. Her 4.
Ph.D. research is in collaboration with the Institue Paul Bocuse Research 5.
Center (Ecully) and is funded by SIRHA (Lyon). 6.
7.
Contact: Institut Paul Bocuse, Château du Vivier – BP 25, 69131 Ecully, France. 8.
E-mail: giada.danesi@institutpaulbocuse.com 9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

proof
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.

172

HOSP_1.2_Danesi_153-172.indd 172 11/14/11 11:18:28 AM

View publication stats