Sustenance and Equality

Sustenance and Equality

This photo is a promotional tool, both for the organization FEAST, and for 5th Season. The partnership formed by these pillars of Asheville represents the collective effort, put forth by our community, in order to promote everyone’s access to fresh and healthy food. I believe that by sponsoring everyone’s interest in creating a healthier community, this photo represents one view of food in Asheville.

In their pieces “If They Only Knew The Unbearable Whiteness of Alternative Food” and “Want Amid Plenty: From Hunger to Inequality” authors Janet Poppendieck and Julie Guthman draw attention to inequalities in the distribution of nutritious foods. Poppendieck focuses specifically upon socioeconomic inequalities, associated with hunger, using provocative political rhetoric to gain, and hold her reader’s attention. Focusing on racial inequalities, Guthman employs sociological rhetoric to highlight the underrepresentation of minorities in various alternative food circles. Both authors use the importance of food to expound upon inequality in society.

Poppendieck uses political rhetoric to focus her reader’s attention on the economic inequalities surrounding access to food. Poppendieck brings up the concept of “privation” which she then uses to criticize the political assumption that “hunger-[is]-the-problem” rather than the class inequality which creates it. This demonstrates one way in which Poppendieck uses political rhetoric to draw attention to the concepts she wishes to communicate. Another example of Poppendieck’s strategic use of political rhetoric comes about as she accuses the American tax system of promoting the inequality, which causes hunger, by concentrating “ever greater resources at the top.” These quotes are all examples of the politically charged rhetoric which Poppendieck employs to draw her reader’s attention to the inequality which generates hunger.

Guthman makes use of sociological rhetoric to discuss the unequal representation of minorities in alternative food circles. Guthman uses “existing research” (268) and “stud[ies] of  farmers markets” (268) to assert that minorities are missing from the healthy food phenomenon. Methods and phrases such as these are often reserved for use in the social sciences, a fact which backs up my argument, that Guthman employs sociological rhetoric to reinforce the assertions of her piece.

These authors’ use of food to draw attention to the inequalities in society subtly reinforces the claim that food is an important means of promoting sameness among people. By using food and its availability, or lack thereof, to comment upon conditions of society, both authors recognize the ability of sustenance to separate or unite individuals. The ability of food to serve in this capacity highlights its importance.