Bio-Cultural Diversity and Good Food Conventions Comparing Engaged Eaters in Germany, Italy and Norway
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4564-9412
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3429-5092
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5024-8480
Abstract
This paper examines how highly invested food consumers in in Italy, Germany and Norway navigate the tensions between cultural food traditions and environmental sustainability. Drawing on French conventions theory and focus group discussions, we examine how these consumers justify their food choices in light of biocultural diversity – understood as the interplay between food traditions, ecological concerns, and the use of natural resources. Our analysis reveals three primary justification frameworks, or 'worlds of worth': the Domestic World, which is grounded in tradition and trust-based relationships with producers; the Green World, which focuses on ecological responsibility; and the Inspired World, which prioritises creativity and personal fulfilment. While these worlds often coexist in everyday food practices, they also generate conflicts, for example between ethical ideals and convenience, or sustainability and cultural heritage. Italian participants in our study emphasised domestic and convivial food traditions, Germans expressed a strong commitment to creative and waste-conscious eating, and Norwegians balanced ecological awareness with self-sufficiency and national food identity. Our findings demonstrate that food choices are not shaped by fixed national cultures, but by context-dependent justifications reflecting multiple, and sometimes conflicting, values. We conclude by emphasising the importance of acknowledging these tensions in order to better integrate cultural and environmental priorities in sustainable food systems.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
good food, biocultural diversity, conventions
Andersen AH (2011) Organic food and the plural moralities of food provisioning. Journal of Rural Studies 27(4): 440–450. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.07.004.
Andreola M, Pianegonda A, Favargiotti S and Forno F (2021) Urban food strategy in the making: Context, conventions and contestations. Agriculture 11(2): 177. DOI: 10.3390/agriculture11020177.
Boltanski L and Thévenot L (1991) De la Justification: Les Èconomies de la Grandeur. Paris: Gallimard.
Boltanski L and Thévenot L (1999) The sociology of critical capacity. European Journal of Social Theory 2(3): 359–377. DOI: 10.1177/136843199002003010.
Boltanski L and Thévenot L (2006) On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brandl J, et al. (2024) How you value shapes whom you value: The contribution of apprenticeships to sustainable development goals. German Journal of Human Resource Management 38(2): 231–256. DOI: 10.1177/23970022241239257.
Diaz-Bone R (2010) Die Soziologie der Konventionen: Die Theorie der Konventionen als ein zentraler Bestandteil der neuen französischen Sozialwissenschaften. Trivium 5: 1–18. DOI: 10.4000/trivium.3557.
Diaz-Bone R (2018) Die »Economie des conventions«: Grundlagen und Entwicklungen der neuen französischen Wirtschaftssoziologie, 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Ditlevsen K, et al. (2019) Healthy food is nutritious, but organic food is healthy because it is pure: The negotiation of healthy food choices by Danish consumers of organic food. Food Quality and Preference 71: 46–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.001.
Ermann U, Langthaler E, Penker M and Schermer M (2018) Agro-food studies: Eine Einführung. In: UTB. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag.
Evans D (2011) Consuming conventions: Sustainable consumption, ecological citizenship and the worlds of worth. Journal of Rural Studies 27(2): 109–115. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.02.002.
Forssell S and Lankoski L (2017) Navigating the tensions and agreements in alternative food and sustainability: A convention theoretical perspective on alternative food retail. Agriculture and Human Values 34: 513–527. DOI: 10.1007/s10460-016-9741-0.
Forssell S and Lankoski L (2018) Shaping norms: A convention theoretical examination of alternative food retailers as food sustainability transition actors. Journal of Rural Studies 63: 46–56. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.04.015.
Halkier B (2008) Fokusgrupper, 2nd edn. Frederiksberg: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur.
Halkier B (2010) Focus groups as social enactments: Integrating interaction and content in the analysis of focus group data. Qualitative Research 10(1): 71–89. DOI: 10.1177/1468794109348683.
Halkier B (2017) Normalising convenience food? The expectable and acceptable places of convenient food in everyday life among young Danes. Food, Culture & Society 20(1): 133–151. DOI: 10.1080/15528014.2016.1243768.
Knoll L (2015) Organisationen und Konventionen: Die Soziologie der Konventionen in der Organisationsforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Ponte S (2016) Convention theory in the Anglophone agro-food literature: Past, present and future. Journal of Rural Studies 44: 12–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.019.
Stamer NB (2018) Moral conventions in food consumption and their relationship to consumers’ social background. Journal of Consumer Culture 18(1): 202–222. DOI: 10.1177/1469540516668224.
Swaffield J, Evans D and Welche D (2018) Profit, reputation and ‘doing the right thing’: Convention theory and the problem of food waste in the UK retail sector. Geoforum 89: 43–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.01.002.
Thévenot L, et al. (2000) Forms of valuing nature: Arguments and modes of justification in French and American environmental disputes. In: Lamont M and Thévenot L (eds) Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–272.
Thorslund CAH and Lassen J (2017) Context, orders of worth, and the justification of meat consumption practices. Sociologia Ruralis 57(S1): 836–858. DOI: 10.1111/soru.12143.
Torjusen H and Vittersø G (2023) Sustainability conventions in a local organic consumer cooperative in Norway: Hope and trouble of participants. In: Morrow O, Veen E and Wahlen S (eds) Community Food Initiatives: A Critical Reparative Approach. London and New York: Routledge, Chapter 7.
Vittersø G, et al. (2024) Conditions for sustainable food consumption: A comparative study of Europeans' valuations of chicken meat. In: Jacobsen E, Strandbakken P, Dulsrud A and Skuland SE (eds) Consumers and Consumption in Comparison (Comparative Social Research, Volume 37). Leeds: Emerald, pp. 115–138. DOI: 10.1108/S0195-631020240000037006.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
How to Cite
