food, culture society

02 Purhonen FCS 17.1:Layout 1

28/12/13

11:04

Page 27

Food, Culture Society

&

volume 17 issue 1 march 2014

Polarizing Appetites? STABILITY AND CHANGE IN CULINARY TASTES IN FINLAND, 1995–2007

Semi Purhonen University of Helsinki

Jukka Gronow University of Helsinki Abstract This paper presents an analysis of trends in culinary taste in Finland since the mid1990s, a period characterized by rapid socio-cultural change, including changes in the area of food and drink. What culinary taste patterns can be identified among food and drink preferences in Finland? Are these patterns differentiated by socio-demographic characteristics? Have the shapes of culinary taste patterns and the way they are socially structured changed in recent years? These questions are analyzed using data from two nationally representative surveys collected in 1995 and 2007. The results show that the basic structure behind Finnish culinary taste revolves around the distinction between “modern” light/ethnic eating and “traditional” (often national) heavy/meat eating. Both patterns have clearly differentiated social profiles in terms of gender, age, education and geographical region. Somewhat unexpectedly, the main results show a striking stability over time. However, a more pronounced change could be detected in table beverage preferences than in foods. Keywords: food, culinary taste, consumption, beverages, preferences, change, Finland

Introduction: Food, the Finnish Context and Cultural Distinctions DOI: 10.2752/175174413X13758634982047 Reprints available directly from the publishers. Photocopying permitted by licence only © Association for the Study of Food and Society 2014

In 2005, after Italy succeeded in having the headquarters of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) based in Parma instead of somewhere in Finland, Italy’s prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, “poured scorn on Finnish food, saying he had had to ‘endure’ it. ‘There is absolutely no comparison between culatello (a specialty ham) from Parma and smoked reindeer’, Mr. Berlusconi was quoted as saying”

27


28/12/13

11:04

Page 28

Semi Purhonen and Jukka Gronow ◊ Polarizing Appetites?

(BBC 2005). Besides attracting far-reaching attention in the international media, Berlusconi’s comments not surprisingly created a stir in Finland. Even though the general opinion was that the Italian prime minister had committed a major diplomatic gaffe, Finnish reactions fell into two camps: those who were insulted and defended Finnish culinary culture and those who agreed with Berlusconi’s view that Finnish food is really not on the same “level” as Italian cuisine.1 The attitude of this second camp held sway in Michaela DeSoucey’s recent classification of “culinary self-consciousness” in EU countries (DeSoucey 2010: 439–41), in which Finland along with Sweden and Denmark, for instance, was rated “low,” while countries like France and Italy were ranked “high” on the culinary scale. Finland is often identified as one of the Nordic welfare states (Esping-Andersen 1999). Compared with many other European countries, the industrialization, urbanization and modernization of Finnish society took place rather recently, after the Second World War. Finland’s largely agricultural and, in a sense, modest society (there was never a proper feudal social order in Finland, for instance), along with its harsh climate and geographical location on the periphery of Europe, are fully reflected in Finnish culinary culture. Traditional Finnish cuisine is comprised of rather heavy, simple local ingredients with little seasoning aside from salt. Rye bread, potatoes and other root vegetables, meat (mainly pork and beef) and fish as well as milk products in various forms were—and are still—the cornerstones of Finnish cuisine (see e.g. Mäkelä 2005). According to a Gallup poll carried out in 2009, the favorite dishes in Finland include, among other things, meatballs, schnitzel, fried fish, macaroni casserole and pizza (Ruokatieto 2009). Beyond its traditional elements, what is significant about Finnish culinary culture is that it has only very recently “opened up” and become internationalized and globalized (cf. Warde 2000). Initially, with a few exceptions, global and ethnic influences were limited to the metropolitan area of Helsinki (the capital of Finland). Apart from pizzerias, which became increasingly common during the 1970s and 1980s (the very first pizzeria in Finland was established in 1961), different types of ethnic restaurants, especially Chinese, began to spread only in the second half of the 1980s and especially the 1990s (see Gronow 1998; Sillanpää 2002). In 1986, there were only six Chinese restaurants in Helsinki; by 1992, the number had increased to about thirty (Karisto 1992; Ruoppila and Cantell 2000). In 1999, there were well over one hundred ethnic restaurants in Helsinki (Villanen 1999), and a decade later, the number probably ran into the several hundreds. The process by which ethnic restaurants have become relatively prevalent applies not only to Helsinki, but also to other regions of the country. It is with pizza—now commonly, if ironically, described as one of Finland’s “national dishes”—that the Berlusconi and Finnish food story reached its culmination. In 2008, a leading Finnish pizza chain launched the “Pizza Berlusconi,” which, among other ingredients, included smoked reindeer. “Pizza Berlusconi” became an immediate hit. To crown it all, “Pizza Berlusconi” was awarded the first prize in the America’s Plate International Culinary Pizza Competition in New York, edging out, among other competitors, the Italians (America’s Plate 2008).

28



&


28/12/13

11:04

Page 29

To emphasize the national characteristics of culinary cultures—or, aspects of what DeSoucey (2010) calls “gastronationalism,” with all its related political processes and of which the Berlusconi vs. Finnish food controversy would be an interesting case study—is without doubt sociologically important and illuminating (Goldstein and Merkle 2005). Focusing on national characteristics, however, tends to leave other important aspects of culinary cultures untouched, most conspicuously the ways in which culinary tastes are socially stratified and differentiated within nations. This is precisely the area to which the present study contributes. This paper has a dual aim: to analyze the extent to which culinary taste in Finland is culturally distinctive and differentiated, based on socio-demographic characteristics; and to examine changes in Finnish culinary taste over a fixed time period. We conduct our analyses by using comparable data from two representative social surveys conducted in Finland in 1995 and 2007. We will examine in detail the identical questions included in both sets of data about favorite foods and the table beverages most often consumed among the Finnish population in these two years. The results, we contend, are valuable and interesting because such data sets are extremely rare, and they allow the systematic study of culinary taste and its transformations in the population of a country as a whole.2 The time period analyzed is not very long, but it is a period of rather rapid social, political and economic change in Finland. Among these changes are, most notably, increasing urbanization, globalization and economic growth, the rise of information technology and the knowledge-based economy, as well as Finland’s accession to the European Union (1995). It is thus reasonable to assume that these changes would be reflected even in matters of culinary taste. Changes related to the area of food and eating include increasingly globalized food markets (not only the landing of ethnic restaurants discussed above, but the dramatic increase in the supply of different types of ethnic foods more widely), several important national health promotion campaigns undertaken by governmental organizations (see e.g. Puska 2009), and the rise of different types of light or fat-free products in food markets (see Mäkelä 2005), to name a few. Moreover, previous Finnish research analyzing longitudinal consumption expenditure surveys shows that non-meat or “semivegetarian” households have become more common in recent decades (Vinnari et al. 2010). Similarly, a recent study shows that significant proportion of Finns report an intention to decrease the consumption of meat in the future (Latvala et al. 2011). From these premises, one could hypothesize a trend away from traditional and heavy Finnish dishes towards “lighter” and more “ethnic” dishes, which would also be manifested in culinary taste preferences. There is a vast range of perspectives and research traditions in the social sciences that conceptualize the cultural and social dimensions of food and eating (see e.g. Lupton 1996; Warde 1997; Counihan and van Esterik 2007). The concept of “culinary culture,” for instance, has been defined very broadly as “the ensemble of attitudes and tastes that people bring to cooking and eating” (Mennell et al. 1992: 20). What we are analyzing here, however, is “culinary taste” or “culinary taste patterns,” a special form of cultural taste (cf. musical taste, literary taste and the like) expressed in the area of food and eating (see e.g. Gans 1974; Bourdieu 1984;

29


28/12/13

11:04

Page 30


Schulze 1992; Bennett et al. 2009). We are interested in whether culinary taste follows similar socio-demographic patterns to tastes in other cultural fields such as music, literature and the visual arts. Can we identify something like “haute cuisine” or a “highbrow” culinary taste (that is, a culinary taste pattern that would be connected with high social status) in the same way as in the realm of the fine arts (cf. Warde 2009; Purhonen et al. 2011)? In Pierre Bourdieu’s Distinction (Bourdieu 1984), taste preferences and table manners are important aspects of the cultural distinctions that divide people into socially dominated and dominating classes. A preference for Chinese restaurants and for cocktails, for instance, is among the culturally distinctive features of the bourgeoisie mentioned in Bourdieu’s “space of lifestyles,” whereas buffet dinners are favored by those who have relatively less economic and cultural capital (see Bourdieu 1984: 128–9). Answers to questions about eating out seem to be distinctive in other studies as well, as the recent British study of cultural distinctions demonstrates (Bennett et al. 2009: 164–7; see also Warde and Martens 2000): French restaurants on the one hand and British pubs and fish and chips restaurants on the other form clearly opposite poles in British culinary taste. This dimension could be interpreted as reflecting the distinction between high and low, between foreign and national as well as between light and heavy.

Research Design Research Questions The purpose of this paper is, firstly, to determine what kinds of culinary taste patterns can be identified among food and drink preferences in Finland; and, secondly, to discover how these patterns are differentiated by socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, education, income, marital status, type of residential area and geographical location). In other words, is it possible to identify more or less clear taste patterns that characterize specific social groups in Finland? Thirdly, have these culinary taste patterns—their shapes and the ways they are socially structured—changed between 1995 and 2007?

Data and Variables This paper draws on two nationally representative Finnish surveys, “Finnish Lifestyles Survey 1995” (n = 2,537) and “Culture and Leisure in Finland, 2007” (n = 1,388) (see Alasuutari 1997; Purhonen et al. 2011).3 Each independently collected survey, conducted by post, studied Finnish lifestyles, tastes and leisure time activities very broadly, with questions from several cultural fields, including food and eating. The surveys included identical questions on favorite foods and the table beverages most often consumed, which we will examine here. The dependent variables analyzed are described and discussed in the sections dealing with taste for different foods and drinks. Both surveys also contained comprehensive data on the respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics. The independent variables included in the analysis are gender, age, family status, residential area, province of Finland, education and personal income level. The

30


28/12/13

11:04

Page 31

seven variables chosen are all obvious, socio-demographic characteristics connected with several research hypotheses, according to previous studies. All seven socio-demographic variables are categorical.4

Methods Our analysis is divided into two parts: first we analyze favorite foods and then beverages. The following steps in the analysis were conducted identically with each set of data, both from 1995 and 2007. The first step presents descriptive information about the frequency distributions of likes and dislikes of different foods. Next, in order to answer the question of how these foods are interrelated and patterned, the mutual relationships of the dishes are examined by principal component analysis. The hidden dimensions of different foods revealed by principal component analysis are then analyzed in the form of factor score variables (indices of specific taste patterns) according to the socio-demographic characteristics. This analysis is conducted by general linear model (see Garson 2011). Here, the effects of independent socio-demographic variables on the dependent taste patterns are taken into account simultaneously. In the second part, an analysis similar to that for favorite food patterns is conducted for the table beverages most often consumed. After the frequency distributions are given, the socio-demographic characteristics of major table beverages are examined by using logistic regression analysis (see Menard 2002); the response alternatives were mutually exclusive and thus the dependent variables are treated as dichotomous.

Results Favorite Foods


&


In both surveys, the respondents were asked to report on how much they liked or disliked seven separate well-known dishes using a five-point Likert scale with response alternatives ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (as well as an additional alternative “don’t know” or “have not eaten”).5 These alternatives were selected to include dishes that could be presumed to be distinctive in one way or another, for example, traditional Finnish dishes such as Karelian hotpot (a kind of meat stew) as well as dishes or foods that are relatively new in Finland, such as Chinese food, or a dish that has been typical of more fashionable “French” restaurants (Chateaubriand) and its more popular alternative, Wienerschnitzel, which is also of foreign origin, but has long been a part of standard Finnish restaurant fare. Pizza and Greek salad represent two foods commonly served in cheaper restaurants, cafés and snack bars. Pizza is the “unhealthy and heavier” alternative, Greek salad being usually regarded as light and healthy. Lastly, fried pike perch is a traditional dish in Finland, eaten both at home and in restaurants, but it is well known that many people have a distinct dislike of fish, particularly if the fish is not boned or at least deep fried (as in fish and chips). The basic pattern of likes and dislikes of these dishes is clear and shows remarkable stability over time: the frequency distributions are similar, both in 1995

31


28/12/13

11:04

Page 32


Table 1. Likes/Dislikes of Different Foods in Finland, 1995 and 2007. Like Like Neither very somewhat like nor % dislike much

%

Pizza 1995 2007

Dislike Dislike Don’t know/ somewhat very Have not % much eaten

%

%

%

Total (n)

45.4 42.5

40.5 45.4

8.2 8.9

3.3 1.7

1.7 1.0

0.8 0.5

100 (2,449) 100 (1,351)

Chateaubriand 1995 40.7 2007 31.1

20.4 19.6

13.7 13.6

2.2 1.1

2.1 1.5

20.8 33.0

100 (2,370) 100 (1,328)

Karelian hotpot 1995 51.6 2007 51.6

34.3 31.1

9.1 10.1

2.8 3.5

1.5 2.1

0.7 1.7

100 (2,482) 100 (1,354)

Greek salad 1995 37.1 2007 47.2

26.7 28.1

16.0 12.7

4.5 3.0

2.3 1.3

13.3 7.6

100 (2,394) 100 (1,335)

Wienerschnitzel 1995 55.5 2007 50.8

31.0 31.5

7.4 10.6

1.6 2.6

1.6 1.8

2.9 2.7

100 (2,436) 100 (1,346)

Fried pike perch 1995 55.1 2007 60.5

25.7 23.6

8.5 6.8

2.8 1.7

3.1 1.5

4.8 5.8

100 (2,452) 100 (1,342)

Chinese food 1995 30.7 2007 35.0

28.2 28.9

14.2 15.2

5.1 4.5

2.6 1.9

19.3 14.6

100 (2,404) 100 (1,338)

and in 2007 (see Table 1). In both years, all seven dishes were liked by a clear majority of the respondents, and the share of those who disliked the dishes somewhat or very much did not even come close to one-tenth of any category. The most popular dishes were Karelian hotpot, Wienerschnitzel, fried pike perch and pizza. The dishes liked the least, namely Chateaubriand and Chinese food, also showed the largest number of respondents who either had not tasted the dish or did not know it at all. In 2007, familiarity with Chinese food as well as Greek salad had increased somewhat in Finland as compared with 1995. There were also some (rather small) changes in food likes; notably, Greek salad and Chinese food had become more popular, while Chateaubriand had lost some of its fans. The Finnish classic, Karelian hotpot, had stubbornly preserved its popularity. To determine how the likes and dislikes of different dishes are interrelated, we examined their relationships using principal component analysis.6 Both in 1995 and

32


28/12/13

11:04

Page 33

Table 2. Principal Component Analysis for Different Food Preferences in Finland, 1995 and 2007. Factor I

Factor II

Factor III

h2

1995 (n = 2,329) Chinese food Greek salad Chateaubriand Wienerschnitzel Karelian hotpot Fried pike perch Pizza Eigenvalue % of variance explained

0.79 0.76 0.62 0.05 –0.04 0.38 0.42 1.91 27.30

–0.12 –0.04 0.28 0.84 0.81 0.21 0.11 1.53 21.80

–0.05 0.14 –0.14 –0.09 0.18 0.73 –0.72 1.13 16.10

0.65 0.60 0.48 0.72 0.69 0.72 0.66

2007 (n = 1,292) Wienerschnitzel Karelian hotpot Chinese food Greek salad Chateaubriand Pizza Fried pike perch Eigenvalue % of variance explained

0.84 0.79 –0.11 –0.04 0.47 0.16 0.29 1.67 23.90

–0.10 –0.05 0.75 0.74 0.49 0.23 0.34 1.53 21.80

0.10 –0.12 0.06 –0.03 –0.03 0.83 –0.64 1.13 16.20

0.73 0.64 0.57 0.55 0.46 0.78 0.61

Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.


&


in 2007, the analysis produced three factors that are strikingly similar and rather easy to interpret (with eigenvalues over 1, together accounting for more than 60 percent of the variance; see Table 2). The main result of the principal component analysis is that in both years, the same dishes are patterned together into three distinct underlying dimensions— only the order is slightly different. In 1995, three dishes—Chinese food, Greek salad and Chateaubriand—had high loadings on the first and most powerful factor. All of these dishes represent “modern” or even “exotic” cuisines (as opposed to traditional Finnish dishes), and all are cuisines that are foreign to Finland and most likely eaten in restaurants. Chinese food and Greek salad are relatively new on Finnish tables (even though they have been generally available in the urban parts of Finland since the 1980s). This first factor combines three disparate dishes: a light vegetarian dish, a meat dish characteristic of French haute cuisine and usually served in a restaurant, and a more modern, ethnic cuisine more often associated with cheaper fast-food restaurants in Finland. All belong to distinctive ethnic or national cuisines. In 2007, however, these same three foods were loaded, not on the first, but on the

33


28/12/13

11:04

Page 34


second factor (that is, they are similarly ranked, with Chinese food having the highest loading). Henceforth, we refer to the first factor as the “light and ethnic” factor. In 1995, the second factor combined Wienerschnitzel with Karelian hotpot, both rather traditional and heavy, everyday meat dishes well known to most Finns, the first more often served in restaurants than at home. In 2007, however, these same two dishes, ranked in the same order, formed the first and most powerful factor (in 2007 the first and second factors are in fact equal in terms of the variance explained). This factor can be called the “heavy meat” factor. Finally, the third factor shows the same two items—pizza and fried pike perch—in both surveys, but with opposite loadings. In other words, while in 1995 the third factor reflected a liking for fried pike perch and a dislike of pizza, the situation was reversed in 2007, the factor this time reflecting a liking for pizza and a dislike of fried pike perch. Hereafter, this third factor will be referred to as “fried pike perch, no pizza.” In any case, the main result is robust: on the one hand, “light and ethnic” dishes are grouped together, and on the other hand, traditional “heavy meat” dishes are also grouped together. Meanwhile, the taste for pizza and fried pike perch forms a separate dimension in both years. The culinary taste patterns thus revealed by the principal component analysis can be further analyzed to identify how these taste patterns are socially structured in Finland by using specific factor score variables that stand for precise measures for each dimension.7 Before analyzing these factor scores more closely, we shall take a brief look at the changes that took place between 1995 and 2007 in different favorite food taste combinations. Table 3 shows changes in the percentages of the different taste combinations, based in part on the previous factor analysis. Here we have divided the taste combinations into five categories. “Likes heavy meat” includes all respondents who liked both Karelian hotpot and Wienerschnitzel (i.e. as in the factor produced by principal component analysis earlier). The combination “likes light ethnic” includes all those who like both Chinese food and Greek salad. The combination “likes all” (a kind of literal omnivore) includes all respondents who liked every dish, pizza and fried pike perch included. In addition, to make our categories more distinctive, we included two categories that are mutually exclusive opposites: “likes light ethnic, but does not like heavy meat” and “likes heavy meat, but does not like light ethnic.” Table 3 shows that the changes over the years surveyed are not very remarkable. We can observe only weak evidence of a trend towards “light and ethnic” because the share of those who liked “light ethnic” and who liked “light ethnic, but not heavy meat” had both increased. The category that is their opposite, “likes heavy meat, but not light ethnic,” had meanwhile decreased in popularity. These changes, however, are rather small (5–7 percent units each). The results therefore give only weak—or partial—support to the hypothesis that Finnish tastes became significantly “lighter” in the twelve years covered by our study. Our next question—reflected in the main title of our article, “polarizing appetites”—was whether the taste for “heavy meat” (especially the combination “likes heavy meat, but doesn’t like light ethnic”) had lost popularity and also whether

34


28/12/13

11:04

Page 35

Table 3. Changes in Different Culinary Taste Combinations in Finland, 1995 and 2007. Year Likes heavy meat Likes light ethnic Likes heavy meat and doesn’t like light ethnic Likes light ethnic and doesn’t like heavy meat Likes all: heavy meat, light ethnic, pizza and fried pike perch


&

volume 17 issue 1

1995 2007 1995 2007 1995 2007 1995 2007 1995 2007

Yes (%) No (%) 73.6 70.0 44.1 51.7 39.9 34.1 10.4 15.7 28.2 30.5

26.4 30.0 55.9 48.3 60.1 65.9 89.6 84.3 71.8 69.5

Total (n) 100 (2,537) 100 (1,388) 100 (2,537) 100 (1,388) 100 (2,537) 100 (1,388) 100 (2,537) 100 (1,388) 100 (2,537) 100 (1,388)

its social profile had become more distinctive and polarized. In other words, we wanted to know whether the least educated men and those living in rural areas had been even more over-represented than before. Likewise, we wanted to investigate whether the taste for “light and ethnic” had become not only more popular, but also less socially distinctive. Thus, the next step in our analysis was to study the extent to which the preference for different taste patterns might be explained by sociodemographic factors and to what extent we can observe changes in these patterns over time. Have preferences for “light and ethnic” food become less pronounced during the last fifteen years, and have preferences for “heavy meat” become more sharply differentiated? The answer to both questions is a very cautious yes. As can be seen from Table 4, socio-demographic factors best explain the preference for “light and ethnic” and “fried pike perch, no pizza” with about 20 percent of the variance explained in both years. In the case of “heavy meat,” the rate of variance explained is rather low, but somewhat better in 2007 (12 percent) than in 1995 (7 percent). Gender clearly had the strongest effect on the taste patterns of “light ethnic” as well as on “heavy meat,” with the former dominated by women and the latter by men. Female domination in “light and ethnic” became weaker in 2007, while males increased their dominance in liking “heavy meat” dishes, a finding that is in accordance with our “polarization” hypothesis. The effect of age is remarkable on “fried pike perch, no pizza”: the oldest Finns liked it the most, while the youngest Finns liked it the least. Age was actually the only important social determinant of that particular culinary taste pattern. The impact of age is quite small on all the other culinary patterns. Family status had very little impact on anything at all. The urban/rural distinction was important to the preference for “light and ethnic,” which is dominated by those living in cities. While in 1995, rural inhabitants were dominant among those who liked “heavy meat,” in 2007 this difference had

march 2014

35


28/12/13

11:04

Page 36


Table 4. Favorite Food Factor Scores by Socio-Demographic Variables in Finland, 1995 and 2007. Unstandardized Coefficients (β ) with Standard Errors in Parentheses and F-Statistics from OLS Regression.

“Light and ethnic” 1995 2007 Gender (F) Female

112.65*** 0.44 (0.04)*** Age group (F) 9.69*** 18–24 –0.19 (0.08)* 25–34 0.04 (0.06) 45–54 –0.08 (0.06) 55–64 –0.27 (0.07)*** 65–74 –0.50 (0.09)*** Family status (F) 1.08 Single –0.06 (0.06) Married or cohabiting, 0.06 no children (0.07) Divorced or widowed 0.03 (0.07) Residential area (F) 31.92*** Urban 0.25 (0.04)*** Province of Finland (F) 12.96*** Western Finland –0.21 (0.05)*** Eastern Finland –0.16 (0.06)* Oulu and Lapland –0.36 (0.07)*** Education (F) 18.66*** Vocational 0.27 (0.06)*** College 0.36 (0.07)*** University 0.57 (0.08)*** Personal income level (F)15.53*** Middle 0.09 (0.05) High 0.35 (0.07)*** Constant –0.56 (0.09)*** 0.20 Adjusted R2

30.54*** 0.29 (0.05)*** 5.43*** –0.03 (0.10) –0.15 (0.08) –0.12 (0.08) –0.29 (0.08)** –0.44 (0.10)*** 2.47 –0.20 (0.07)** –0.07 (0.08) 0.02 (0.09) 28.26*** 0.30 (0.06)*** 12.84*** –0.26 (0.06)*** –0.42 (0.08)*** –0.31 (0.09)*** 23.11*** 0.14 (0.08) 0.46 (0.09)*** 0.66 (0.10)*** 1.12 0.06 (0.06) 0.12 (0.08) –0.32 (0.12)** 0.19

“Heavy meat” 1995 2007 42.08*** –0.30 (0.05)*** 4.30** –0.14 (0.09) –0.19 (0.07)** 0.06 (0.07) 0.15 (0.08) 0.10 (0.10) 3.50* –0.21 (0.07)** 0.12 (0.08) 0.07 (0.08) 10.12*** –0.16 (0.05)** 1.43 0.10 (0.05) 0.09 (0.07) 0.06 (0.07) 5.55** 0.05 (0.07) –0.05 (0.07) –0.25 (0.09)** 2.01 0.09 (0.06) 0.00 (0.07) 0.30 (0.10)** 0.07

60.39*** –0.44 (0.06)*** 7.57*** –0.34 (0.11)** –0.05 (0.09) 0.11 (0.09) 0.27 (0.09)** 0.28 (0.10)* 1.47 –0.11 (0.08) –0.01 (0.08) –0.16 (0.09) 0.40 –0.04 (0.06) 4.45** 0.12 (0.06) 0.31 (0.09)*** 0.15 (0.09) 3.63* –0.02 (0.09) –0.11 (0.09) –0.28 (0.10)** 5.01** 0.21 (0.07)** 0.08 (0.09) 0.11 (0.12) 0.12

“Fried pike perch, no pizza” 1995 2007 0.37 –0.03 (0.04) 81.66*** –0.76 (0.08)*** –0.35 (0.06)*** 0.42 (0.06)*** 0.65 (0.07)*** 0.89 (0.09)*** 0.74 0.05 (0.06) 0.07 (0.07) 0.08 (0.07) 0.14 0.02 (0.04) 6.66*** –0.12 (0.05)** –0.03 (0.06) –0.27 (0.06)*** 0.59 0.08 (0.08) 0.08 (0.06) 0.05 (0.06) 0.20 –0.01 (0.05) 0.03 (0.07) –0.08 (0.09) 0.23

0.80 0.05 (0.05) 46.62*** –0.36 (0.10)*** –0.35 (0.08)*** 0.37 (0.08)*** 0.61 (0.08)*** 0.86 (0.10)*** 1.63 –0.10 (0.07) 0.02 (0.08) 0.13 (0.09) 1.16 0.06 (0.06) 1.71 –0.09 (0.06) 0.09 (0.08) –0.05 (0.08) 0.81 –0.04 (0.08) 0.05 (0.08) 0.07 (0.10) 0.98 –0.08 (0.06) –0.01 (0.08) –0.18 (0.12) 0.21

Notes. The reference categories (β=0) are as follows: gender: male; age group: 35–44 years of age; family status: married or cohabiting with children; residential area: rural; Province of Finland: Southern Finland; education: no/basic; personal income level: low. In 1995, n =2,012; in 2007, n =1,312. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

36


28/12/13

11:04

Page 37


&


Fig 1: The Taste for “Light and Ethnic” Food According to Gender and Education in 1995 (Above) and 2007 (Below)—Estimated Marginal Mean Values.

37


28/12/13

11:04

Page 38


disappeared. The home province is important (even if the urban/rural dimension has been controlled for): “light and ethnic” is clearly less popular in all provinces other than southern Finland. Living in eastern Finland in turn was important in the liking for “heavy meat” in both years. This can probably be explained by the fact that one of the dishes included in this combination, Karelian hotpot, originates in eastern Finland, though it is popular nationwide. In the category of “fried pike perch, no pizza” the differences between the provinces disappear by 2007. These results give further indirect support to our interpretation of “light and ethnic” as modern and “heavy meat” as the traditional alternative in present-day Finnish food culture. As expected, the level of education had a strong positive effect on the preference for “light and ethnic.” The impact, although weaker, is the opposite in the case of “heavy meat” (those with the most education liked “heavy meat” the least). These differences were more or less the same in 1995 and in 2007. In 1995, high income had a positive effect on “light and ethnic,” but not in 2007, indicating once more that the social distinctiveness of preferring “light and ethnic” had decreased. Two interesting and statistically significant interaction effects were found in predicting the culinary taste patterns with the general linear model (see Figure 1): in the liking for “light and ethnic,” the interaction between gender and education was significant (p < 0.05), both in 1995 and in 2007. Education had a stronger impact on men than on women, or, to put it another way, the “gender gap” existed only among the less educated; the difference between genders diminished in bettereducated groups and in both years was smallest among the university educated. In 2007, the difference had completely disappeared: university-educated men favored “light and ethnic” just as much as university-educated women, while men and women in all other categories of education differed. University-educated men have, in a sense, “come up” to the same level as women as far as the modernity and lightness of their favorite dishes is concerned.

Most Common Table Beverages Each survey, in 1995 and 2007, also included questions about the beverages most often consumed, during normal weekday meals as well as during the main Sunday meal in Finland. In both years, respondents were asked to pick one drink from similar list of beverages for a normal weekday meal and for a main Sunday meal (in other words, the response alternatives were considered mutually exclusive). The response alternatives in the two surveys had small differences—the 1995 questionnaire including more choices—but for purposes of our analyses, the beverages could be combined into meaningful and identical categories in both years without any problem. The results are reported in Table 5. The most common drinks both in 1995 and 2007, both on weekdays and on Sundays, were milk and sour milk as well as water or mineral water. Whereas milk drinkers were a clear majority in 1995 on weekdays, their share had somewhat decreased by 2007, replaced mainly by water drinkers. If the tendency continued at the same rate after 2007, by now water drinkers should be in the majority among the Finns. On weekdays, the only drink other than milk or water that was consumed to any great degree was juice. Its popularity has rather surprisingly decreased since

38


28/12/13

11:04

Page 39

1995. Beer or wine hardly figured at all among the beverages accompanying weekday meals in the two survey years. In both years, the variation among the drink favorites was somewhat greater on Sundays than on weekdays. The share of milk drinkers on Sundays has diminished remarkably since 1995, and this from a position that was already lower on Sundays than on weekdays in 1995. This decrease has been less to the benefit of water, as on weekdays, but mostly has given way to wine, the share of which increased during our measuring period from about 8 percent to 18 percent. Rather surprisingly, beer drinking at meals has not become more popular. Even though Finland is not one of the heavy beer-drinking nations of Europe, such as Germany, Belgium or the Czech Republic, beer drinking is very popular, to judge from consumer statistics. It appears that beer is usually consumed in pubs, at home or at summer cottages rather than to accompany a meal. All three major observable changes—the decrease in milk drinking, the increase in water drinking on weekdays and the increase in wine drinking on Sundays— could reasonably be interpreted as signs of the modernization or the Europeanization of Finnish eating habits. The preference for milk, and especially for sour milk, which until recently was enjoyed among Finnish adults as the drink to accompany major meals both on weekdays and Sundays, has been one of the main peculiarities of the Finnish cuisine. This interpretation receives further support if we calculate the correlations between the most common drinks on Sundays and the major food taste patterns studied earlier. As we expected, milk and sour milk correlate positively with a liking for “heavy meat” and negatively with a liking for “light and ethnic” food, whereas water correlate positively with the preference for “light and ethnic” and negatively with the preference for “heavy meat.” In addition, wine correlates positively with a liking for “light and ethnic.” However, there were no remarkable differences in these simple two-way correlations between the surveys in 1995 and 2007.8

Table 5. Most Commonly Consumed Beverages for a “Normal” Weekday Main Meal and for a Sunday Main Meal in Finland, 1995 and 2007. Weekday main meal 1995 2007


&

volume 17 issue 1

Milk or sour milk (%) 54.0 Water or mineral water (%) 34.5 Juice (%) 7.7 Soft drink (soda) (%) 0.5 Beer (non-alcoholic) (%) 1.8 Beer (%) 1.3 Wine (%) 0.2 Total (%) 100.0 (n) (2,451)

44.4 47.3 5.5 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.1 100.0 (1,377)

Sunday main meal 1995 2007 47.9 28.0 7.1 0.8 2.2 6.3 7.8 100.0 (2,463)

36.0 29.1 5.8 3.0 1.6 6.7 17.8 100.0 (1,311)

march 2014

39


28/12/13

11:04

Page 40


As we observed interesting changes in the most common beverages with Sunday meals in 1995 and 2007, we decided to analyze these changes using a logistic regression model with the same socio-demographic variables as we used to analyze favorite dishes (see Table 6). The degrees of predictive power in this model were quite low, however, at around 10 percent. As noted previously, milk or sour milk and water were the main beverages consumed with meals in Finland. Noteworthy changes could be observed in the popularity of these drinks from 1995 to 2007. There are also clear differences in the likelihood of different social groups to choose certain drinks, which have changed over time as well. For instance, women drank milk much less often than men, both in 1997 and in 2007, but the dominance of men in milk drinking had diminished remarkably by 2007. The differences among the income groups have likewise disappeared. Curiously, the difference between the urban and rural residential areas has remained almost the same, but the earlier, rather large differences among the provinces have disappeared. In other words, city tastes differ from those in the countryside, but the previous distinctive differences between southern Finland and the other provinces no longer exist. The differences due to educational levels in favor of the less educated being foremost in drinking milk are large and have remained essentially the same. Water drinking is strongly dominated by women in both years. Neither age nor residential area nor province made any difference. The impact of education on water drinking on Sundays in favor of the higher educated is the same in both years. The effect of family status is a bit strange and rather difficult to interpret, singles being more likely to drink water and less likely to drink wine on Sundays than any other group. One could perhaps speculate that singles are more likely to eat alone than others and appear less likely to drink wine while eating alone. The social pattern of wine drinking in Finland is curious, wine being a relatively modern drink among the population as a whole. As shown above, drinking wine with Sunday meals became much more common during our study period, although it is still relatively rare. We can assume that wine is a socially and culturally distinctive drink in Finland. Whereas women were much more likely to drink wine in 1995 than men, in 2007 they no longer differed from men in this respect. In 1995, the age groups between 45 and 64 drank wine more often than all other age groups. People belonging to these age groups in 1995 had clearly preserved their winedrinking habits, as they drank more wine than others in 2007, at which time they represented the two oldest age groups over 55. This would seem to support the finding made in alcohol research in Finland showing that the generations born after the Second World War tend to drink more than others. This demographic has been known for decades as the “Wet generation” (Sulkunen 1981). In contrast to 1995, in 2007 the respondents between 45 and 54 years of age did not differ from those between 35 and 44. The differences in wine consumption based on residential areas clearly diminished or disappeared between 1995 and 2007. The only remaining difference is that those living in eastern Finland drink wine less often than respondents from the rest of the country. In fact, the northern Finns have increased their wine drinking

40


28/12/13

11:04

Page 41

Table 6. Most Commonly Consumed Beverages for a Sunday Main Meal by SocioDemographic Variables in Finland, 1995 and 2007. Odds Ratios and Wald Statistics from Logistic Regression Analysis. Milk/ sour milk 1995

2007 7.88** 0.70**

Water/ mineral water 1995

2007

29.61*** 0.58***

Age group (Wald) 18–24 25–34 45–54 55–64 65–74

11.30* 0.99 0.85 0.84 1.27 1.38

10.64 1.46 1.00 0.78 0.80 0.65

7.67 1.05 1.23 1.05 0.81 0.70

6.13 0.65 1.12 1.22 0.97 1.02

Family status (Wald) Single Married or cohabiting, no children Divorced or widowed

6.28 0.94 0.70*

1.27 1.11 1.21

1.10 1.09 1.13

10.65* 1.56* 0.82

6.55 0.72 1.40

11.80** 0.44** 0.70

0.83

0.97

1.15

1.28

1.44

0.64

Residential area (Wald) Urban

10.35*** 0.72***

1.40 1.15

2.22 1.25

5.79* 1.69*

2.25 1.31

Province of Finland (Wald) Western Finland Eastern Finland Oulu and Lapland

40.05*** 1.61*** 1.21 2.35***

8.96* 0.79 0.73 0.64*

0.30 1.05 1.10 0.98

14.07** 0.58* 0.71 0.29**

6.18 0.84 0.49* 0.80

Education (Wald) Vocational College University

21.53*** 0.73* 0.61** 0.43***

Personal income level (Wald) Middle High Nagelkerke Pseudo R2

20.10*** 0.94 0.54*** 0.13

2.40 1.19 1.25 1.02

12.14** 12.66** 10.40* 0.75 1.22 1.39 0.67* 1.61** 1.39 0.43*** 1.79** 2.20** 2.51 0.77 0.99 0.07

1.77 1.04 1.23 0.09

5.01 0.78 0.70* 0.09

5.54* 1.54*

2007

Gender (Wald) Female

11.84*** 0.63***

65.36*** 37.15*** 2.44*** 2.32***

Wine 1995

0.76 1.15

20.20*** 17.36** 0.87 0.90 0.93 0.72 2.19*** 1.20 1.97* 1.67* 0.86 2.20**

15.86*** 11.43* 2.21** 1.20 1.93* 1.94* 3.68*** 2.21* 8.58* 0.92 1.75* 0.13

18.59*** 1.64* 2.95*** 0.13

Notes. The reference categories (odds ratio coefficient = 1) are as follows: gender: male; age group: 35–44 years of age; family status: married or cohabiting with children; residential area: rural; Province of Finland: Southern Finland; education: no/basic; personal income level: low. In 1995, n = 2,108; in 2007, n = 1,325. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.


&


more than other Finns; they no longer differ from southern Finns, who as late as 1995 drank wine three times more often. Education is still an important factor, but its impact has become weaker. In 2007, those with university degrees drank wine only twice as often as other respondents. In 1995, this figure was 3.5 times as often. There is also a clear change in the impact of income levels: in the later study, the main dividing line in wine drinking runs between the middle and low income levels, whereas in 1995, only those with the highest income drank more wine than other groups. In 2007, even people with middle levels of income drank wine almost

41


28/12/13

11:04

Page 42


three times more often than those with low income. Apart from this increased effect of income, our results point rather to the conclusion that wine drinking, though still rare in Finland, even with Sunday meals, as compared with drinking milk or water, has become less clearly differentiated by social group.

Discussion The results of this study show that the basic structure of Finnish culinary taste patterns is organized around the distinction between “modern” light/ethnic foods and “traditional” (often national) heavy/meat dishes. This seems to be a very robust finding, supported by two national surveys. Moreover, the social profiles of both main culinary taste patterns are clearly differentiated: “light and ethnic” is strongly influenced by being female, living in an urban area and/or southern Finland, having a high level of education and—negatively—by old age. A preference for “heavy meat,” on the other hand, is associated above all with the male gender. In addition, it has an association with not having a university degree, living in eastern Finland and old age. What we found was a striking stability over time: we could detect only a very small trend away from “heavy meat” and towards “light and ethnic.” Similarly, there was only a small change in the social profiles of these two main culinary taste patterns—towards less distinctiveness in the case of “light and ethnic” and towards more sharp differentiation in the case of “heavy meat.” This can also be interpreted by focusing only on gender, the overwhelmingly strongest determinant of these two major culinary taste patterns. Between 1995 and 2007, the preference for “light and ethnic” food has become less pervasively female-dominated, whereas the preference for “heavy meat” has become an even more male-dominated taste pattern than before. The more salient change could be detected in the preferences for beverages to accompany meals than was the case with favorite foods. Wine and water, both strongly related with a liking for “light and ethnic” food and thus representing the “modern” culinary taste pattern, have become more popular at the cost of the “traditional” Finnish favorites, milk and sour milk, which, in turn, are positively related to the preference for “heavy meat.” At the same time, some of the traditional dividing lines between geographic areas, gender and age groups have also lost at least some of their importance. Whereas women as well as urban residents of southern Finland have been in many ways pioneers or in the vanguard of the change in food culture towards light and ethnic food, men and rural citizens have to some degree caught up with women. Age naturally still plays a central role, older Finns being those who more often do not prefer “light and ethnic.” On the other hand, the age groups who were over 55 in 2007 were the ones who started drinking wine with their Sunday meals. They have also been loyal to their old habits, whereas younger Finns have not followed their example as eagerly. The earlier sharp geographical distinctions in the preferences for wine had also clearly evened out. One rather surprising result from the point of view of previous literature (e.g. Jansson 1995; Roos et al. 1998) was that the family status seems to be of only very minor importance in shaping culinary taste in Finland.

42



&


28/12/13

11:04

Page 43

The more educated, in particular, the university educated, were more likely to prefer lighter and more exotic dishes to heavy “classic” meat dishes in both years. Moreover, they were more likely to drink either wine or water with their Sunday meals instead of milk. In this respect, our results resemble what has been discovered about cultural consumption understood in the more usual sense, meaning in reference to tastes in literature, music, theatre, cinema and so on (see Purhonen et al. 2010, 2011); these results show that middle-aged and highly educated women have proven to be the major consumers and admirers of traditional “highbrow” culture, as well as being more likely to be cultural omnivores, that is, to express their preferences widely for both high and low cultural forms at the same time. However, in these previous studies on highbrow culture and cultural omnivorousness in Finland, it has not been possible to make any systematic comparisons over time, owing to the lack of empirical data. As such, the studies could only speculate about cultural change. For this reason our results on food and beverage preferences, despite being somewhat limited in nature, are very useful. Most significantly, the gender differences in food and beverage tastes, even though still important, have either diminished or almost disappeared, at least among the most highly educated groups in Finnish society (cf. Figure 1). These kinds of possible interactions between gender and education—or class—could be an important area for future research (Roos et al. 2001). Generally, it appears that Finnish culinary tastes have become more modern or more international over the last two decades; however, the process of that change has been slow. The reasons behind the cultural inertia are probably many (see Mäkelä 2005; cf. also Prättälä et al. 1993). Nevertheless, we should be careful not to be too general or too vague in our interpretations of the changes in culinary tastes within the grand narrative of modernization. Our intention is not to say that those Finns—usually men, old, less educated and living in rural areas—who like “heavy meat” or drink milk or sour milk are somehow “not modern.” Rather, in the context of Finnish culinary culture and its history, the preference for Karelian hotpot or drinking sour milk can be seen as “traditional.” As is well known, traditions are all but dead in modern societies (see e.g. Giddens 1994), and particularly in the areas of food and eating we can find vibrant living traditions as well as newly “invented” ones. For these reasons, we should remember to qualify “modern” as used in this context, namely in the sense of urban, European, international, middle class and healthy. Rather than taking the relative stability of Finnish culinary tastes (a kind of “nonfinding”) at face value, however, we should keep in mind many issues that could explain our results, at least in part. Firstly, the time period covered was rather short—only twelve years. Secondly, we have to acknowledge the possibility that the items about which we asked were too few and not very distinctive. In other words, if we had selected other types of foods, would the results have been different? That said, we think it is rather unlikely that certain “hidden” foods exist for which the expressed changes in taste preferences would have been more dramatic than with the foods analyzed here. This is even more unlikely for the table beverages we studied. Thirdly and most important, it should be remembered that

43


28/12/13

11:04

Page 44


we have not measured actual eating practices, but only self-reported taste preferences. It may well be that practices have changed more than preferences, mainly due to availability; for instance, ethnic or lighter fare—foods or dishes in which “heavy” meat is not the most distinctive feature—may have become more popular during the period of our study, but at the same time, the reported preferences for such fare have not entirely followed the same trend.

Acknowledgments This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 25th Conference of the Nordic Sociological Association, Working Group Consumption and Lifestyles, Oslo, Norway, August 4–7, 2011; and at the 10th Conference of the European Sociological Association, Research Network of the Sociology of Consumption, Geneva, Switzerland, September 7–10, 2011. We are grateful to all those who commented on the earlier versions of the manuscript, especially Glenda Goss, Keijo Rahkonen and Alan Warde. The research carried out in this study has been made possible by financial support from the Research Council for Culture and Society at the Academy of Finland (project numbers 114819 and 139813). Semi Purhonen is Adjunct Professor (Docent) in Sociology and Postdoctoral Researcher at the Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki. Besides cultural sociology, consumption and social stratification, his research interests include age and generation, social theory, and methods of social research. Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki, PO Box 18, Snellmaninkatu 10, FI-00014, Finland (semi.purhonen@ helsinki.fi). Jukka Gronow is Professor of Sociology at the University of Helsinki. He works on the sociology of consumption, especially food consumption, and social theory. His books include: The Sociology of Taste, Ordinary Consumption (edited with Alan Warde); and Caviar with Champagne: Common Luxury and the Ideals of Good Life in Stalin’s Russia. Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki, PO Box 18, Unioninkatu 35, FI00014, Finland ([email protected]).

Notes 1 No systematic reviews of media or other public reactions to Berlusconi’s comments are available, but overall, the incontestable picture is rather easy to reconstruct by consulting practically any of the major Finnish discussion forums on the internet. 2 There are some previous Finnish studies, for instance, analyzing eating practices by using household expenditure surveys (Toivonen 1997; Vinnari et al. 2010), in which case the data are indeed representative and from different time points but the dependent variables relatively broad and culturally insensitive. On the other hand, there have been studies using other types of more restricted data (e.g. Prättälä et al. 1993). In any case, the subject of analysis in this paper—change trends in culinary taste preferences using nationally representative data—is very different than in any of these previous studies.

44



&

28/12/13

11:04

Page 45

3 Both surveys were collected by Statistics Finland. The 1995 data were based on a sample of 5,000 persons aged 18–75 years randomly selected from Finland’s population register. The response rate was 52.4 percent. The 2007 data were based on a random sample, which included 3,000 persons aged 18–74 years from the Finnish population. The response rate was 46.3 percent. 4 For the purpose of this paper, some technical work was done in order to make the two data sets as comparable as possible. Despite some differences in data collection and after corrections were made, the two samples are very similar in terms of the respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics. Many of the small differences, such as more emphasis on older age groups as well as a slight increase in higher education levels and urbanization, for instance, actually reflect concrete changes in the Finnish population between 1995 and 2007. Frequency distributions of all independent variables are available on request from the authors. Gender is treated as a dichotomous variable in the analyses, with males being the reference category. Age is divided into six age groups. We preferred to use age as a category, as that enabled us to observe possible non-linear relationships between age and the dependent variables. Family status was divided into four categories: respondents who are currently single; respondents who are married or cohabiting with no children; respondents who are married or cohabiting with children; and divorced or widowed respondents. The types of residential areas were divided into two major categories: urban (which includes city centers and suburbs) and rural (including small villages and rural areas). The geographical location of residence was determined on the basis of Finland’s provinces, which are: southern Finland (including the Helsinki metropolitan area), western Finland, eastern Finland, and the northern province, which encompasses Oulu and Lapland. Education was measured using four categories. The first category (“no/basic”) includes those respondents with only compulsory basic education or less. The second category (“vocational”) includes respondents with different types of vocational school education as well as those with upper secondary school studies and no further education. The third category (“college”) is comprised of those with higher vocational diplomas or degrees from different types of colleges and polytechnics. The last category (“university”) includes only those with university degrees (MA or higher). Last, our admittedly crude measure of income divides samples into three proportional income levels: low, middle and high. “Low” income includes approximately 31 percent of the lowest earners in both samples. “Middle” income includes approximately 46 percent of the respondents, and “high” income is comprised of approximately 23 percent of the highest earning respondents in both samples. 5 There was one difference in the response alternatives in these surveys. In 1995, the respondents could choose “cannot say,” whereas in 2007, the alternative was “I have not eaten.” The second wording is, of course, somewhat more restrictive and specific. 6 Before the analysis was conducted, the response alternative “have not eaten/don’t know” was coded with the neutral category “neither like nor dislike.” Hence the remaining categories constituted an ordinary five-point Likert scale. 7 These variables are in standard units (mean = 0, standard deviation = 1). 8 More detailed information about these correlations is available on request from the authors.


45


28/12/13

11:04

Page 46


References Alasuutari, P. 1997. Kulttuuripääoma summamuuttujan valossa. Sosiologia 34(1): 3–14. America’s Plate, The. 2008. Meet the Champion. Available from: http://www.americasplate. com/meetchamp08.htm (accessed 7 October, 2011). BBC. 2005. “Playboy” Berlusconi Irks Finland. June 23 Available from: http://news. bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4122596.stm (accessed 7 October, 2011). Bennett, T., Savage, M., Silva, E., Warde, A., Gayo-Cal, M. and Wright, D. 2009. Culture, Class, Distinction. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Counihan, C. and van Esterik, P. (eds) 2007. Food and Culture: A Reader (2nd edn). New York and London: Routledge. DeSoucey, M. 2010. Gastronationalism: Food Traditions and Authenticity Politics in the European Union. American Sociological Review 75(3): 432–55. Esping-Andersen, G. 1999. Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gans, H. 1974. Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste. New York: Basic Books. Garson, G.D. 2011. Univariate GLM, ANOVA, and ANCOVA. In Statnotes: Topics in Multivariate Analysis. Available from: http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/statnote.htm (accessed October 7, 2011). Giddens, A. 1994. Living in Post-Traditional Society. In U. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash (eds) Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 56–109. Goldstein, D. and Merkle, K. (eds) 2005. Culinary Cultures of Europe: Identity, Diversity and Dialogue. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Gronow, J. 1998. Maku muovaa kaupunkia: Lounasruokaa Helsingissä 60-luvulta nykypäivään. In L. Knuuti (ed.) Aistien kaupunki. Espoo: Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja C47, pp. 23–34. Jansson, S. 1995. Food Practices and Division of Domestic Labour: A Comparison between British and Swedish Households. The Sociological Review 43(3): 462–77. Karisto, A. 1992. Maailmanruoan tulo, olo ja omaksuminen Helsingissä/De utländska kökens ankomst till Helsingfors. Kvartti, No. 3: 23–39. Latvala, T., Niva, M., Mäkelä, J., Pouta, E., Heikkilä, J., Koistinen, L., Forsman-Hugg, S. and Kotro, J. 2011. Meat Consumption Patterns and Intentions for Change among Finnish Consumers. Paper presented at the EAAE 2011 Congress “Change and Uncertainty: Challenges for Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources,” Zurich, August 30–September 2. Lupton, D. 1996. Food, the Body and the Self. London: Sage. Mennell, S., Murcott, A. and van Otterloo, A. 1992. The Sociology of Food. London: Sage. Mäkelä, J. 2005. Finland: Continuity and Change. In D. Goldstein and K. Merkle (eds) Culinary Cultures of Europe: Identity, Diversity and Dialogue. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, pp. 147–56. Prättälä, R., Pelto, G., Pelto, P., Ahola, M. and Räsänen, L. 1993. Continuity and Change in Meal Patterns: The Case of Urban Finland. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 31(1/2): 87–100.

46


28/12/13

11:04

Page 47

Purhonen, S., Gronow, J. and Rahkonen, K. 2010. Nordic Democracy of Taste? Cultural Omnivorousness in Musical and Literary Taste Preferences in Finland. Poetics 38(3): 266– 98. Purhonen, S., Gronow, J. and Rahkonen, K. 2011. Highbrow Culture in Finland: Knowledge, Taste and Participation. Acta Sociologica 54(4): 385–402. Puska, P. 2009. Fat and Heart Disease: Yes We Can Make a Change—The Case of North Karelia (Finland). Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism 54(1): 33–8. Roos, E., Lahelma, E., Virtanen, M., Prättälä, R. and Pietinen, P. 1998. Gender, Socioeconomic Status and Family Status as Determinants of Food Behaviour. Social Science & Medicine 46(12): 1519–29. Roos, G., Prättälä, R. and Koski, K. 2001. Men, Masculinity and Food: Interviews with Finnish Carpenters and Engineers. Appetite 37(1): 47–56. Ruokatieto. 2009. Suomalaisten suosikkiruoat. Available from: http://www.ruokatieto.fi/ ruokakulttuuri/suomalaisten-suosikkiruuat (accessed 7 October, 2011). Ruoppila, S. and Cantell, T. 2000. Ravintolat ja Helsingin elävöityminen. In Stadipiiri (ed.) Urbs: Kirja Helsingin kaupunkikulttuurista. Helsinki: Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus & Edita, pp. 35–53. Schulze, G. 1992. Die Erlebnisgesellschaft: Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart. Frankfurt: Campus. Sillanpää, M. 2002. Säännöstelty huvi: Suomalainen ravintola 1900-luvulla. Helsinki: SKS. Sulkunen, P. 1981. The Wet Generation, Living Conditions and Drinking Patterns in Finland: Continuities in a Reanalysis of Finnish Drinking Survey Data. Helsinki: Reports from the Social Research Institute of Alcohol Studies, No. 155. Toivonen, T. 1997. Food and Social Class. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics 21(4): 329–47. Villanen, S. 1999. Etnisyyden malleja globalisoituvassa kaupungissa: Helsingin etniset ravintolat. Janus 7(3): 236–54. Vinnari, M., Mustonen, P. and Räsänen, P. 2010. Tracking Down Trends in Non-Meat Consumption in Finnish Households, 1966–2006. The British Food Journal 112(8): 836– 52. Warde, A. 1997. Consumption, Food and Taste. London: Sage. Warde, A. 2000. Eating Globally: Cultural Flows and the Spread of Ethnic Restaurants. In D. Kalb, M. van der Land, R. Staring, B. van Steenbergen and N. Wilterdink (eds) The Ends of Globalization: Bringing Society Back in. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 299–316. Warde, A. 2009. Imagining British Cuisine: Representations of Culinary Identity in the Good Food Guide, 1951–2007. Food, Culture & Society 12(2): 151–71. Warde, A. and Martens, L. 2000. Eating Out: Social Differentiation, Consumption and Pleasure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


&


47