The Politics of Food: An Introduction 83Governmentality, Risk, Embodiment, Nature
What connections are illuminated through an empirical focus on food? Most issues
below have been developed theoretically by other scholars and from other topical
angles. They are included here because they are particularly relevant for analyses of
contemporary power relations surrounding food.
One such connection is captured by the term governmentality (Foucault,
1991; Coveney, 2000) referring to the emergence in Europe of a concern for the
governance of a complex of ‘men and things’ through a range of techniques for
knowing about populations (statistical surveys, medicine, demography) and for
managing populations through such knowledge. In the book Food, Morals and
Meaning, John Coveney makes a powerful link between a Foucauldian concept of
governmentality and the 20th-century discourse on food and nutrition, arguing
convincingly that nutrition is:
a government of food choice which situates the individuals within a field of knowledge
for explicit objectives, and, at the same time, provides them with a way of constituting
themselves as ethical subjects through a decipherment of their pleasures and fulfilments.
(Coveney, 2000, p177)Coveney’s use of Foucault helps us to trace how food mediates relations between
the state and the individual, or between the nation and ‘its’ human bodies. Most
importantly, he demonstrates how governmentality in relation to food involves the
socialization of family members as ‘good’ parents, ‘good’ children and ‘good’ citi-
zens, and thus involves the construction of ethical subjects.
Another set of issues relevant to the study of food and social connections is
captured by the recent emphasis on institutional reflexivity (Giddens, 1991), risk-
society (Beck, 1992) and related terms like radical doubt, uncertainty and (lack of )
trust. Although these descriptions of high modernity are somewhat eurocentric
and hardly applicable on a global scale, they draw attention to a range of dilemmas
that are strongly felt along the North Atlantic rim. Because they transcend the
physical boundaries of the body, food and eating practices are highly sensitive to
shifting configurations of risk and trust (Fine and Leopold, 1993). Furthermore,
since what is harmful in food often escapes the senses (i.e. toxic substances cannot
always be seen, smelled or tasted), trust in relation to food is abstract, involving
social relations that are often distant, and often more imagined than real (Lien,
1997). Consequently, changing configurations in the relation between the state
and its citizens, or between supplier and consumer, are likely to be expressed as
uncertainty about food and risk. Similarly, as the case of BSE has shown, food
scandals can bring about significant changes in the organization of safety regulations
and systems of provision. In recent years, scientific authorities have been losing pub-
lic trust. Although European countries differ greatly in this respect (Poppe and
Kjærnes, 2003), there is a general trend in which science and experts no longer offer
the sense of certitude they once did. One aspect of this ‘post-enlightenment’ turn