Gastronativism: Food as an ideological tool in a globalized world

Present-day gastronativism differs from previous manifestations. It inevitably reflects not only the structure and flows of the global food system but also the social, economic, and political power relations that underpin it and determine its mechanisms.

“The way food is  currently entangled with national and local debates, as well as certain commonalities of themes and approaches that can be observed around the world, points to something qualitatively different from what we have just dis- cussed, often dubbed culinary nationalism, gastronationalism, or gastrodiplomacy, which tend to prioritize the nation as their strategic or ideological horizon.

Food plays an important role in nation-building and nationalism, and the attachment to nation-states is still significant in food-related debates and controversies. Forms of food chauvinism have existed for as long as the nation has been a central organizing factor in social life. National allegiances are important, as refugees or people without their own country, Roma, Tibetans, Palestinians, or Rohingyas, can attest. However, nationality is not the sole discriminant determining what and how we eat. Our lives have become too complicated for that. We are witnessing phenomena that point to political positions and strategies that cannot be fully explained by nationality and nationalism only. The nation is just a factor, although a powerful one, among many that shape what we think and experience about our identity, while determining our sense of belonging.

Additional explanations are necessary to make sense of current developments. As individuals and communities find themselves operating at scales ranging from the local to the international, their preferences and decisions are the result of many overlapping and intersecting aspects of their identities, whether they are aware of it or not. The same person can make decisions and act according not only to their nationality and geographical location but also to their gender, class, education, occupation, origin, preferences as consumers, and travel experiences, just to mention a few. All these elements dynamically interact with each other, depending on the situation. Building on these ever-shifting loyalties and identifications, social movements and political organizations turn to food to voice their discontent with their current circumstances or to imagine the future they desire. Once again, debates about food are not just about food. To describe these attitudes, strategies, and practices, I introduce the concept of gastronativism: the ideological use of food in politics to advance ideas about who belongs to a community (in any way it may be defined) and who doesn’t.

Present-day gastronativism, however, differs from previous manifestations. It inevitably reflects not only the structure and flows of the global food system but also the social, economic, and political power relations that underpin it and determine its mechanisms. Food systems have been deeply impacted by the rapid and overwhelming changes connected to the specific processes of globalization that have emerged since the 1980s, particularly following the fall of the Berlin Wall. These transformations are closely connected with the neoliberal ideologies of the Washington Consensus and the economic policies that have emerged from it. More precisely, we can identify the root of contemporary gastronativism in the forms that globalization and the resistance against it have taken since the 2008 financial crisis, the long economic stagnation  that ensued, and more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic.

The term neoliberalism has been criticized as all-encompassing and for that reason useless. It has certainly been evoked in ways that obscure its meaning, especially because it does not constitute a clear ideology explicitly embraced by politicians, parties, or social movements. In this book, neoliberalism refers to contemporary dynamics of globalization based on free trade, meant to achieve unrestricted flows of goods, people, ideas, money, and technology. Until recently, such arrangements flourished within a framework of multilateral international relations and organizations through a single logic of rule and a global form of sovereignty that Michael Hardt and Tony Negri described as empire, as opposed to imperialism based on national sovereignty. The effects of neoliberal globalization as a political project are amplified by always faster and more pervasive technology and communication tools, from computer networks and big data to the Internet of Things and social media. At the national level, the role of governments has been downsized through deregulation, the privatization of public companies and services, and the weakening of welfare networks. The market is supposed to work at its best when left alone, allowing individuals and firms to express their preferences while providing the best guidance not only to maximize resources, but also to political management.

Against this background, local food systems all over the world have been integrated in ever-expanding networks, experiencing long-term structural changes brought about by technological innovation, industrialization, financialization, as well as the consolidation and expansion of transnational corporations. This state of affairs could be described as an emerging corporate “food regime.” The new rules of the game have brought about the delocalization of production and the transfer of jobs to locations where labor is less expensive. Inevitably, these transformations on the supply side end up influencing consumer choices at the supermarket, behaviors at the table, and discussions about the value and meaning of ingredients, dishes, and gastronomic traditions. 

These epochal shifts have created winners and losers. While the global elites have profited from this state of affairs, a large part of the world’s population has found itself excluded from the gains associated with neoliberal globalization. Income inequality has increased, including in high-income countries. Liberal democracy, which allows elected majorities to govern while protecting minorities and asserting the rule of law, has been increasingly attacked as a tool the elites use to keep the rest down. Swift technological advances and job offshoring damage those who do not have the capacity to adjust or to make a transition to other sectors, especially in the absence of public safety networks. The success of an economy is frequently measured by the performance of its stock market, to which only a tiny percentage of the population has access, or by its gross domestic product (GDP), which does not take into consideration the quality of life of citizens. Without any prospect of influencing or resisting globalization, whole areas of the world suffer from its consequences. The environmental impact is enormous and the social cost is stunning. Even in the richest countries, large segments of citizens are left without recourse, which generates resentment and grievances. The excluded and the victims, as well as those who fear their quality of life will worsen, resent those who have been able to take advantage of the changes thanks to their education, social relationships, or access to cap- ital. Expanding unemployment, a sense of cultural loss, and the deterioration of social status have become common experiences for individuals and communities, which understandably feel threatened and overwhelmed by phenomena like climate change, mass migrations, terrorism, and pandemics. After all, these are just different facets of the same globalization processes.”