Download The Role of Food in Building Intercultural Family Relationships and more Study notes Relativity Theory in PDF only on Docsity!
Intercultural household food tensions: a relational dialectics analysis
Abstract Purpose: Recent global migration trends have led to an increased prevalence, and new patterning, of intercultural family configurations. This paper is about intercultural couples and how they manage tensions associated with change as they settle in their new cultural context. The focus is specifically the role food plays in navigating these tensions, and the effects on the couples’ relational cultures. Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative relational-dialectic approach is taken for studying Polish-Irish intercultural couples. Engagement with relevant communities provided multiple points of access to informants. Findings: Intercultural tensions arise as the couples jointly transition, and food consumption represents implicit tensions in the household’s relational culture. Such tensions are sometimes resolved, but sometimes not, leading to enduring tensions. Dialectical movement causes change, which has developmental consequences for the couples’ relational cultures. Research limitations/implications: This study shows how the ways that tensions are addressed are fundamental to the formation of a relational family identity. Originality/value: Dealing simultaneously and separately with a variety of dialectical oppositions around food, intercultural couples weave together elements from each other’s cultures and simultaneously facilitate both relational and social change. Within the relationship, a stability-change dialectic is experienced and negotiated, while at the relationship’s nexus with the couple’s social ecology, negotiating a
conventionality-uniqueness dialectic enables them reproduce or depart from societal conventions, and thus facilitate social change. Key words Relational dialectics; Intercultural families; Food consumption
1. Introduction
Significant shifts in global migration over recent decades have led to the increased formation of intercultural families, forged through the blending of cultures, and resulting in new family formations facing challenges as they settle in their cultural context (Lindridge et al. , 2016; Castles and Miller, 2009). Around 3.3% of the world’s population is settled outside their country of birth, and in many western countries the figure is 14% and rising (United Nations 2017). Several studies have indicated that immigration, globalization and acculturation are important macro- factors influencing the likelihood of meeting, interacting with and marrying someone from another culture (Berry, 1997; McFadden and Moore, 2001; Qian and Lichter, 2007). Thus, it has become increasingly appropriate to speak of transnational or intercultural couples and families. There have been several calls for researchers to account for the dynamic changes in culture that result from the increasingly frequent and complex interactions between the people, products and practices from several cultures (Luedicke, 2015, 2011; Yaprak, 2008). Yet, as a cultural and social phenomenon, intercultural families represent an under-researched family or household form (Bystydzienski, 2011; Cross and Gilly, 2013). Within consumer research, there has been a shift towards viewing the family as a relational unit. Epp and Price (2008) advocate a greater emphasis on how bundles
tensions associated with food consumption. Finally, we discuss our findings, considering the implications for theory and public policy in this domain.
2. Literature review
2.1. Relational dialectics Building on Bakhtin’s work on dialogism (1981; 1984), relational dialectic theory is used to explore the tensions between unity and difference in all aspects of social life. Bakhtin argues for the simultaneous presence of opposing forces within each utterance and therefore more broadly across social life. Centripetal forces drive towards unity and operate to establish a common, standardised ground of communication and action, while centrifugal forces emphasise difference, stratification and the plurality of perspectives on the ideal or correct way of living (Baxter, 2004). The notion of simultaneous conflicting forces towards unity and distinctiveness forms the basis of relational dialectic theory, which has been used extensively to examine various aspects of family relational dynamics (e.g. Baxter et al ., 1999; Sabourin, 2003), and more recently in a study of family consumption dynamics (Davies and Fitchett, 2015). The core insight arising from the application of relational dialectic theory to family lies in seeing the family as a site where different, opposing and unified voices come together, regarding the tension between unity and difference as a key aspect of the formation of family units, rather than an abrasion or flaw. Dialectical opposites are interdependent with one another and in this way opposites are accommodated to enable adequately unified position in a relational system. From our theoretic perspective we treat tensions as a fundamental feature of relationships (Baxter and Montgomery, 1996), and regard the interplay of competing
and unifying positions and voices as an energizing source of vitality that shapes the continuously emergent relationship (Baxter, 2004). Many theorists view relational change as omnipresent and on-going (Baxter and Montgomery 1996; Brown et al ., 1998; Bochner et al ., 1996). The dialectic position has also been used to show relationship development as a relatively stable trajectory, yet one that is punctuated by periods of instability (Conville 2008). Some envision relational change as a spiral (e.g. Baxter and Montgomery, 1998; Conville, 2008), arguing that relational transitions transform the relationship into its next developmental phase. To explain how change occurs in a relationship, Conville (2008) distinguishes two dialectical pairs that reflect the stages of a relationship (security-alienation and disintegration-resynthesis) as meta-dialectics. For Conville (2008), this change process involves relationship partners responding to one dialectical opposite (e.g. need for intimacy and closeness), which in turn creates pressure to attend to the opposite (e.g. need for space and time alone). Over time, the relationship couple or pair cycle back and forth between responsiveness to the opposing demands, but importantly they never return to the same place as before. The dialectical movement results in relational transformation and development, moving the relationship through stages of interdependence, certainty and closeness (Brown et al., 1998; Conville, 2008). Taking this perspective, consumer stories are not representational accounts of their relationships, but, as Bochner et al. (1996) argue, an instrument of being, shaping how participants become who they are. The meta- dialectics transforms the relationship through multiple developmental phases (Conville, 2008). Relational dialectics analysis therefore builds from the notion of simultaneous centrifugal and centripetal forces to provide a theory of family communication. This
(Baxter, 2004). Dialogue is a centripetal-centrifugal flux and in dialogue, voices interpenetrate one another and thereby constitute and change one another. When an intercultural couple seeks to resolve consumption-related tensions, probing “the interplay of reciprocal bundles of identities within the family” (Epp and Price, 2008 p.60) helps reformulate the way we think about such tension or conflict resolution. Davies and Fitchett (2015) showed that a dialectic approach helped overcome the problems of cultural transmission down family chains, acknowledging how mother-daughter relations were not fixed identity positions, but rather continually emergent within the context of these relationships. Within an intercultural couple the dialectic approach helps reveal how the partners seek similarity through difference but also difference through similarity. Identity positions are not fixed, rather they are interwoven as the interplay of competing identities is negotiated and managed. Given the complexity of the interaction of culture with family relational culture, it is important to recognise that tensions and contradictions surrounding change are located in a variety of social units - the individual, the relationship, the family, the social group and the culture (Brown et al. , 1998). The relational dialectic approach provides a way to examine intercultural couples managing their relational culture in the context of tensions, contradictions and change. 2.3 Relational dialectics and the intercultural family Understanding acculturation and enculturation is important for revealing how cultural elements are incorporated into the relational culture, this providing insights into the couple’s enculturation. Acculturation describes how a person copes or
manages the tensions inherent in settling in a new socio-cultural context (Berry, 1997). Enculturation involves incorporating cultural elements during socialization (Weinrich, 200 9); in a consumption context, enculturation describes the non-deliberate learning that occurs within a relationship. A premise of dialectic analysis is that tension related to a component of family life deemed central to the family or intercultural identity (e.g. food consumption) must be resolved satisfactorily for smooth family relations. Such tensions require a ‘both/and’ approach, leading to a fusing of perspectives, while sustaining and embedding uniqueness in the relational identity. A synthesized solution around food, for example, may serve particular identity needs such as expressing the relational identity of the family. In their study of second generation South Asian women living in Britain, Lindridge et al., (2004, p231) found that food consumption was one source of conflict between the immigrants’ in-home and out-of-home consumption. While within home consumption was not a source of tension, consumption outside the home was more complex, since it often required conforming to the wider British culture. Cross and Gilly (2013) also show a similar movement as couples use compromising strategies around food consumption. Cross and Gilly (2013, p454) describe the “mixing up – the compromise – is a matter of a little of his and a little of hers”, acknowledging the importance of maintaining a cultural equilibrium in the relationship. Any unresolved tensions can prevent re-synthesis and, by implication, relational transition (Basseches, 1984). Conville’s particular approach (using meta- dialectics) helps illuminate the interdependence among the dialectical opposites, and therefore the interdependent learning (enculturation) that is a feature of the relationships. This contrasts with Cross and Gilly (2014, p.135) who focus on intercultural learning as being “through the cultural understanding of the native
We adopted a flexible approach to our research to reflect multivocality (Baxter, 2006, p.140), using a combination of methods (see Table 3.2). INSERT TABLE 3.2 HERE The aim of the Stage 1 interviews was to give voice to people’s lives and worldviews (Belk et al ., 2013). Stage 2 joint interviews allowed us to explore the jointly constructed meanings based on the emerging themes from Stage 1. Our approach acknowledges that families communicate at relational levels, so their conflicts around consumption may be especially revealing (Yerby, Buerkel-Rothfuss and Bochner, 1998). Family researchers have debated the issues and merits of interviewing family members together or apart (Wong et al., 2016; Hertz, 1995). We chose both, to facilitate private and individual consideration of acculturation experiences, and then a deeper joint reflection on the changes in consumption over the course of their relationship. All interviews were conducted over a one-year period (2015/ 2016 ). The individual interview used open-ended discussion points (Hill and Somin, 1996) to enable the participants to convey meaning in their own terms (Belk et al. , 198 9 ; McCracken, 1988, Thompson et al., 1989). Initial “grand tour” questions (McCracken,
- encouraged talk about food consumption, including discussion of changes (or not) after setting up home together. Open-ended questions followed, to develop insights into the intercultural relationship, how this related to food consumption practices, and the differences and tensions over food. Individual interviews took place in participants’ homes, workplaces or other mutually agreed locations, lasting between 60 - 90 minutes. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded, and from this, discussion themes for the joint interview emerged. Joint interviews were also conducted in locations chosen by participant, with discussion focused on the tensions
around food consumption revealed in the individual interviews. Analysis of the joint interview narratives focused aspects of food consumption important to them, often prefaced with the word “we”. The joint interview allowed for the production of a jointly constructed narrative (with partner interacting, negotiating, contradicting or supporting each other) (Newholm and Hopkinson, 2009), yielding insights into the couples’ unique relational cultures. Consistent with an interpretive approach, all interviews were analysed using comparative analysis (Fischer and Otnes, 2006). As the data gathering progressed we constantly compared informants and emerging themes. This iterative process tacked back and forth between the data and the literature (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Bradford and Sherry, 2014; Cross and Gilly, 2014). Full ethical approval was established. Participants were given an information sheet, and were asked for informed consent and permission to have the interviews recorded. All participants were given pseudonyms, as were any family/friends mentioned. While it is not unusual for interviews with couples to accidentally expose tensions in the relationship between household members thereby creating discord (Gill, 1999), we sought to minimise such tensions by emphasising before each interaction that the discussion was limited to food consumption.
4. Results
Our analysis identifies a range of relational dialectic tensions around food, illustrating the strategies used to address these tensions as they relate to wider relational development. Analysis is framed around key tensions related to food practices that our intercultural families face.
cultural difference, exemplified by Aldona describing her changing food habits since arriving in Ireland. This narrative highlights the ‘knot of contradictions’, with the internal (within the dyad) intersecting with the external (relations with extended family): Aldona:... we grew everything at home, everything organic… when I came here, I could not believe... it was only a matter of opening 2 packets... pasta and another packet for a sauce... So, that for me was like step back ... but I was trying to more mix in Irish (foods)... so, I would be chancing things to try different foods... and then I would be trying to cook them... but sure that’s how I learned... Yeah it was hard at the start... James: You see after we got married, there were no Polish shops here... but now there are five and I just took to the Polish foods straight away, so when there’s anything on here, like when my family come to visit... some of them even go in and shop in the Polish food shop and get the sausage that they liked... and that opened their eyes to it... when they used to come for parties here, it was all Polish food... Aldona: Introducing it... like I say, I respect your traditions, you have to respect mine... I love it (the Polish shop), it’s not that I’m shopping there every (day)... I go if I need it... if I have a taste for sausages I just go and buy it, I know I have the option... James: But I was kind of in on the traditions of your culture before that... Dialectical tensions arise when partners are drawn to one pole of the opposition and then the other; such tensions introduce dynamism to the relationship (Conville, 2008). Through their food choices, James and Aldona manage the competing demands of
their two identities. The food served on visits by extended family and friends is non- conventional (in relation to Irish foods), and this departure marks the couple’s identity as unique, thereby facilitating social change. James has lost something of his birth culture but has also gained an intercultural relationship, which helps redefine him. Aldona, through immigration, has gained an intercultural relationship where her foods can be re-located and shared. The couple is not in some idealized state of balance; rather they have fulfilled competing needs simultaneously, though this is only a temporary moment in their on-going adaptation to dialectical flux (Montgomery, 1993). James and Aldona do not demonstrate dualistic thinking, or compromise, rather they demonstrate change - the food served is non-conventional, and this departure marks out the couple’s identity as unique, thereby facilitating social change. As Baxter (2004 p187) puts it, “the parties’ selves are given shape through relating”, representing a form of “co-construction of selves” (p187). In negotiating this loss and gain dialectic, we see an example of the dialectic strategy of integration. Inherent in this interplay is reciprocal learning, demonstrated at the nexus of the couple’s relational culture with extended family. While the Polish participants emphasized difference and strangeness in their accounts of Irish food culture, many Irish partners focused on similar features, using these to assert the essential similarity of cultures. Several Irish partners spoke of Polish foodstuffs as somehow resurrecting an authentic Ireland that had been lost from the plate, a form of an external tension, shown here in Tony’s comments: Tony: It’s very traditional... their hams, their cheeses... their meats... much cheaper... and far tastier... just because it is... proper food... it is all processed on the Irish market...
Kasia: At the beginning I was struggling to find a bread that I would like … remember the soda bread that I was always buying when you met me? I always had it at home… Kevin: McCambridge’s… Kasia: Yes, so that was one brand that for me…has some meaning, one Irish brand that if I wanted to buy a…good healthy bread, I would kind of buy that one… it kind of has good memories as well, because we used to eat that together... This is a very personal and individualized take on the tension around finding ‘good’ and ‘healthy’ bread, resolved by Kasia finding a bread that worked for her. ‘Bread’ came to symbolize aspects of their shared culture when they first met. Throughout our study, in similar accounts of how both partners have been confronted by unfamiliar notions of what it is ‘right’ to eat and when, both have adapted, demonstrating simultaneous processes of acculturation and enculturation. In other instances greater autonomy is maintained. Patrick and Magda approached bread consumption differently and, since Patrick did not like Polish bread, the two “don’t compromise it”, instead making individual and separate food choices around bread. Patrick: You know...I don’t like their bread...that’s one thing...kind of a minor disagreement. I just don’t like it... so we will go our separate ways... she will eat the Irish bread, but she prefers the Polish, so she will get that in the Polish shop, there wouldn’t be arguments over it or anything, we just don’t compromise it...
Going on to talk about their food practices more generally: Patrick: We go to Poland and we come back with great intentions and then we... Magda: Yeah...in the first year (together) we put more effort into it...but then our son was born... Patrick: We used to go shopping together but now that doesn’t really work that well... Magda: No it doesn’t.... one of us stays to look after (son)... but I would think about Patrick (in the Polish shop)... I would always think... Patrick: It’s funny I think the way we split brands... I mean... there’s certain things where it doesn’t bother us and we would probably buy in Aldi^1 , but there’s certain things where it does bother us and you will stick to Dunnes^2_._ In the interplay of oppositions described in the narratives we get an insight into the dynamic interplay of opposing forces (Montgomery, 1993). The partners seek to fulfil the competing tendencies (satisfying individual tastes vs. connection with partner) that are a feature of their relationship. Patrick is clear about what foods he does not like, and through their shopping and food consumption, Patrick and Magda manage these contradictory demands simultaneously. A dualistic balance is not achieved (on some choices the couple remain on opposite poles of the contradiction), and there is not a permanent resolution of the various dialectic tensions. Indeed, relationship maintenance is practiced as the partners adapt and change. Canary and Stafford (1994) defined relationship maintenance as the communications practices by which (^1) German international discount retailer, primarily sells food, clothes and household wares (^2) Irish multinational retail chain, primarily sells food, clothes and household wares
Oliver: We eat fairly Irish food really...earlier on in the relationship we would have eaten more Polish stuff Amalja would cook; she doesn’t seem to do it now as much... now we are... basic meat and two veg. Amalja describes the different assumptions she and her Irish partner, Oliver, hold in relation to what constitutes a meal, while also raising different expectations in relation to food provision roles. A source of tension in the early days, these tensions are now resolved and habituated for her. Though her partner notices the shift from ‘tension’ to ‘resolution’, he downplays this, apparently not recognising the extent of the issue for Amalja. However, Oliver also pointed out that he missed particular Polish dishes: Oliver: There is one dish... it’s a chicken, a whole chicken and they bone it and stuff it with mince and sage and onion and it is just …ah it’s fantastic ...I’m dying for her to cook it...the little dumplings as well, pierogi, they’re very nice. While this household’s food consumption has evolved and is not strongly influenced by Polish ingredients, Oliver’s comments suggest a movement towards the opposing pole of the dialectic. Putnam (1999, p 148) noted that there can be cultural pressures to subsume differences through “joint life projects”, and in the case of intercultural couples, there may be moments when one partner relinquishes their own preferences in deference to their partner’s tastes (as with Amalja). In the following excerpt, David and Jozephina talk about how food consumption changed, but also how it led to relational change around trust. David: At the beginning there was a problem with food alright... Jozephina: Yeah... it was garlic (Laughs)... I like garlic and I like it everywhere...
David: Everything tasted the same... and I said...you don’t allow the food’s own taste to emerge... Irish dinner... like the potatoes, the bacon and the cabbage... and that all has its own flavour... but Polish have to mix it up, oh you have to have some onions, some garlic... herbs... and I found this was a big problem at the start... so I cooked some foods and said eat it just the way it is... there were new tastes, like I brought you haddock and you never had haddock before... Jozephina: Yeah I loved it... now I don’t use as much herbs... David: It took a long time for Jozephina to trust my opinion I think... she used to argue with me about everything... (Laughs) I don’t know, I suppose she didn’t know me long enough... Jozephina: Well (laughs)... he thinks that I... you know, don’t trust him... you see, I had to get used to it in some kind of way… David: Yes, I like to try different things... I used to go to the Polish shop before I met you... just because I was curious... We’re both quite open too like... to experience new things... so it works very well. Through this couple’s narrative, an example of an internal tension within the relationship, we see a movement from stability to disintegration. Jozephina prioritised foods familiar to her, reflecting her own personal taste and culture, but not taking account of David’s taste. This represented a source of tension for the couple (“ I found this a big problem from the start ”), and they reached a critical turning point (“ eat it just the way it is ”), reflecting the dialectic attributes of contradiction, dynamism (towards change) and interdependence (“ It took a long time for Jozephina to trust my opinion” ). Re-synthesis occurred because both are open to change (an openness-
