The Family Meal as Pedagogy: Governing families through mythologies of mealtimes
Introduction
Consider the following scene from Tracy Letts’, August, Osage County.1 It is a hot summer evening and a family gather around the dinner table to commemorate the death of Beverly Weston, the family patriarch, with the sharing of a communal meal. The scene is busy as various family members prepare dishes and set them down upon the table. Mother Violet sits at the head of the table. Once everyone is seated, grace is said, multiple conversations commence and run along simultaneously as Letts captures something of the dynamism, the spontaneity and vibrancy generated through everyday family mealtime encounters. Conversations are heated, covering topics such as vegetarianism, marriage breakdown, infidelity, domestic abuse, alcoholism and substance misuse where every character’s particular proclivities, frailties and vulnerability are laid bare, probed and dissected. As conversations become increasingly fraught, views are aired, secrets revealed and emotional tension mounts. Around the family dinner table, the scene eventually culminates in an overt struggle for power; a display of physical violence and a full on wrestling match between daughter Barbara and her mother Violet.
Violet: You can’t do this! This is my house! This is my house!
Barbara: You don’t get it, do you? (With a burst of adrenaline, she strides to Violet, towers over her) I’M RUNNING THINGS NOW!
This scene represents a climactic point in the play where the audience recognises a shift in power relations. Power transfers from the bitterly acerbic Violet to her daughter Barbara. Part of the impact of the scene as it builds to its violent conclusion, emerges through Letts’ use of contrasting what the audience might imagine could and perhaps should happen as families come together around the dining table to share memories and experiences of grief, and what unfolds in these exchanges. This juxtaposition relies on the audience’s shared understandings and assumptions about the nature and function of the family meal which, whilst it might be imagined in an idealized form as a cohesive, supporting and nurturing experience bringing families together around the table, is often experienced as highly problematic, fraught with tension, anxiety and embroiled in complex relations of power. In this scene, the symbolic power of the family meal as a central element of healthy, cohesive family relations is subverted. Instead the cohesive meal time becomes a site of competing agendas and generational power struggle.
This article attempts to interrogate some of the mythologies that have arisen around the family meal and how these are deployed within various school programmes and policies, as a means to recruit children and young people to ‘police’ their family eating practices. Throughout the article we analyse how families are targeted via a number of pedagogical strategies and resources, that seek to cultivate and scuplt health[y] conduct. In considering the various initiatives at play, we explicitly focus our discussion on the ways in which certain pedagogies operationalise notions of family mealtimes suggesting that school-based programmes and pedagogical approaches position children and young people as key agents of change within their own families. In this regard we argue that schools function as key mediating spaces which enable governmental imperatives to extend beyond the school and to reach into the lives of families. Drawing on the field of Foucauldian inspired governmentality studies we suggest that the uncritical appropriation of the family meal as a means to improve children’s health and social outcomes not only does governmental work but is also imbued with a variety of moral imperatives. Our discussion will interrogate the various pedagogies through which children and young people are encouraged to shape eating practices in their own families, and which also reshape social relations within the family. The article is ostensibly divided into three parts. The first addresses the problem of defining the family meal, its forms and functions. Our analysis seeks to problematise some of the taken for granted assumptions related to the "family meal"; namely that families are not eating together anymore; that they really ought to be eating together more and that doing so would convey particular benefits on family members and on children and young people more specifically. The second section outlines our theoretical approach which frames the analysis in the remainder of the paper. The third section examines a range of formal and informal pedagogical strategies used within schools which mobilise idealised notions of family mealtimes to develop not only healthy eating behaviours amongst children, but also to encourage them to promote appropriate civilised modes of dining within their own families. We suggest that these pedagogical strategies and devices reinforce idealised notions of families that may occlude the complexities, tensions and power dynamics of intergenerational encounters and more significantly, that these strategies make children the agents of change within their own families and pedagogicalise them in new ways.
The mythology of the family meal
Over the last decade a growing concern over rates of childhood obesity in the OECD countries has led to increasing scrutiny over what and how families eat. Consequently, we have witnessed the re-emergence of a familiar discourse that expresses concerns that families are no longer sitting down to eat a "proper family meal" at the table. As Prue Leith the chair of the UK based charity The Children’s Food Trust (date- 2010) commented,2
Did you know that 80 per cent of households never sit down for a meal together? They don't even have a table.
The decline of the family meal is a powerful discourse that has generated a range of campaigns hoping to encourage more families to eat together more frequently (see for example, Back to the Table campaign 2004-2009,3 Round the Table campaign sponsored by Quality Meat Scotland 20134 and The Family Dinner Project – ongoing5). However, as many have observed, the idea of the family meal, conceived of as a heterosexual nuclear family sitting and eating an evening meal together around a table is a relatively recent invention,6 and concerns over its demise have been circulating since the 1920’s.7 Consequently, it is problematic to assume that we are no longer sitting down to a family meal since "we" may never have done so. Furthermore, although it is assumed that there is a degree of consensus around the term family meal and proper meal, this is far from being the case: terminology is variously applied and the requisite structural components are frequently contested, particularly across generations and regions.8 A lack of agreement about the definitions a family meal, its constituent parts, the family members that should be present9 and the setting of the of the meal, means that the family meal is often considered as an event, in isolation outside the context of wider familial relations.10 Our suggestion is that concerns about the demise of the family meal may be emblematic of wider concerns about the family and that valorisation of the family meal may relate more to its ideological and symbolic power rather than lived experiences of everyday family mealtime encounters. In our opening vignette, bringing together family members that have done their best to avoid each for years, results in a fairly predictable family argument. As Wilk observes the realities of family mealtimes 'rarely live up to the ideal'.11 Despite increasing evidence that points to the complexities and ambiguities of family relations during family mealtimes, the idealised notion of the family meal proves remarkably resilient and indeed, has been invested with a bewildering range of beneficial attributes that position it as a panacea for contemporary social ills. Indeed, some suggest that the decline of the family meal is eroding the fabric of society effectively rendering it, 'dysfunctional'.12
It's shocking. Children never talk to their parents, they don't have a time when they sit down and discuss everything. It's one of the causes of our dysfunctional society, a reason why children behave so badly. It's not just that they're getting stuffed with junk food, they don't have a family meal that draws them together. If you never talk to granny you don't mind banging her on the head.
One would imagine that in August Osage County it is the very act of talking to ‘granny’, in this case Violet, that directly contributes to her getting banged on the head. Nevertheless, both the frequency and form of the family meal continue to be regarded as significant in the prevention of drug and alcohol use,13 anti-social behaviour,14 obesity,15 disordered eating,16 and poor communication skills. Engaging in family meals is thought to decrease the risk of children taking up smoking,17 bringing improvements in family relationships,18 improving nutritional intake,19 and academic performance,20 Despite a growing body of work that advocates the beneficial effects of family meals it is rather problematic to imply a correlation between the suggested range of beneficial outcomes and the family meal itself, rather than any other aspect of family life and relationships. Families that are cohesive, supportive and broadly functional may experience the family meal as a harmonious and joyful event. For families, such as the Westons in the opening vignette, such events are likely to magnify tensions and exacerbate grievances. Furthermore, the use of self-reported survey data in some of the research in this area can also be problematic and sometimes unreliable. Nevertheless, despite some of the conceptual and methodological challenges associated with defining and assessing the prevalence of family mealtimes, wildly ambitious and unsubstantiated claims are made for the family meal in which increasing its frequency and prevalence will 'nourish ethical thinking' 21, enhance social cohesion and generally address the causes of our 'dysfunctional society'. As Wilk points out, this way of thinking about the family meal is ultimately hegemonic so that any 'alternatives are unthinkable. There is no oppositional position, no shading of opinion, and no praise of solitary eating'.22 It is this hegemonic positioning of the family meal which occludes the complexities, tensions and ambiguities that characterise the everyday realities of family dining and which saturate the family meal with almost mythical properties for addressing social ills that is mobilised in schools to persuade children to do governmental work within families.
Governing family meals
Families are currently bombarded by a myriad of initiatives that seek to explicitly shape, sculpt, mobilize and work through the health choices, desires and aspirations, needs, wants and lifestyles of parents, children, and indeed the whole family unit.23 Historically, the family has long been a target for governmental intervention.24 However, Burrows 25 suggests that more recent times have been characterised by an intensification of such interventions which are directed towards the prescription of health[y] conduct, particularly when it comes to food practices. Foucault’s concept of governmentality offers a useful way to understand this proliferation of governmental strategies and in turn how they work to govern parental food practices, including modes of family dining. Foucault defined government as 'the conduct of conduct' arguing that government relates to the 'way in which the conduct of individuals or groups might be directed: the government of children, of souls, of communities, of families, of the sick … to govern in this sense, is to structure the possible field of action'.26 Throughout his analyses of government Foucault explored questions related to how conduct, and attempts to shape conduct, were imagined and enacted within different historical epochs, states and sites.27 In considering how this concept of government is deployed in schools we follow Mitchell Dean who suggests that government refers to:28
…any more or less calculated and rational activity, undertaken by a multiplicity of authorities and agencies, employing a variety of techniques and forms of knowledges, that seeks to shape conduct by working through our desires, aspirations, interests and beliefs, for definite but shifting ends and with a diverse set of relatively unpredictable consequences, effects and outcomes.
In this way it is possible to understand some of the programmes operating within schools that promote the family meal as governmental technologies that provide a ‘contact point’ for government29 connecting questions of government, politics, and administration to the space of bodies, lives, selves and persons.30 Some of the pedagogical work that is done in schools, particularly that which draws upon idealised notions of family meals provides an opportunity to mobilise children to explicitly shape, sculpt, mobilize and work through the food choices, desires and aspirations, needs, social relations and lifestyles of parents and families.
In what follows in this article, we attempt to demonstrate that whilst traditionally students have been the targets of school governmental interventions, some of the strategies that promote the family meal, position families and more specifically mothers as the objects and targets of these pedagogies and children as the vehicle. Not only do schools encourage future generations to become self-regulating citizens, but they also to extend their reach beyond the school gates through increasingly porous boundaries to reach out to mothers and families.31 In this sense, there is an increasing emphasis on the significant pedagogical work that families do. Furthermore, the championing of the family meal as the preferred mode of dining constitutes a new line of force that traverses school dining rooms, classrooms and other school spaces, bringing family pedagogies 'closer in' than ever before.
The imperative to 'educate' parents and families with regard not only to what their children eat but also how they eat it, is a key driver for contemporary policy and practice. Indeed, children themselves are increasingly tasked with performing this governmental work, influencing and regulating modes of dining at home. While there are many different sites that perform this work, it is the role of schools, as appropriate spaces for the 'pedagogicalisation' of parents and families that is the focus of this paper.
Modelling the family meal
In the section that follows, we explore a variety of pedagogical approaches and resources that aim to teach children the "proper way" to eat as a family, to suggest those modes of dining that are not considered "proper" and to encourage them to educate their families regarding appropriate models of eating. For the purposes of this article our specific focus is centred upon on three worksheets used by Health and Physical Education teachers within primary schools in Australia. These provide illustrative examples of the ways in which the mythological family meal functions pedagogically. The first worksheet was developed by the Bakers IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute (2003) and is part of a larger resource package called ‘Primary fight back: healthy eating and physical activity: a resource for teachers, students & their parents’. The second and third worksheets discussed below were developed by teachers as part of their lessons that focus on 'eating well'. Despite the different origins of the worksheets, we suggest that the same pedagogical force drives all three. This force, as we have suggested above, consists of a constellation of discourses about food, health, risk, morality and changing family structures and in turn invokes particular approaches to learning about how families should (and should not) eat. The worksheet entitled Family Eating (below) forms part of a larger resource pack designed to teach primary school aged children about eating well and exercising. The worksheet features a character called Popcorn Man or PC Man (see top right hand corner of the worksheet) who provides advice to children to help them make appropriate choices about what and how to eat.
©2003 Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, all rights reserved.
In this scenario Bill (an eight-year-old boy) is unhappy because his family do not eat together. Based on the worksheet we can surmise the following: Mum makes the dinner without any help and prepares two different meals to account for different generational tastes. Dad is more often than not, late home from work. And so instead of eating together Bill and his siblings eat their meals in front of the TV. They then have their bath and do their homework. Upon reading through the problem students are then invited to help PC man advise Bill on how to make it easier for his family to eat together more regularly. Students are then asked ‘Why it is important for families to eat together as often as possible?’
The second worksheet, which was developed by a health education teacher, adopts a similar approach to the worksheet discussed above. In this instance the family depicted is The Simpsons. The title of the worksheet is What is wrong with this picture? The picture features The Simpsons eating a meal in front of the television. Marge, Homer and Lisa sit on the couch eating their dinner from trays placed on stands. Bart lays on his stomach on the floor, wearing his underwear, fork poised near his mouth. Maggie and Snowball (their cat) sit on the floor and Santa’s Little Helper (the family dog) is asleep. The children all stare intently at the TV screen as does Snowball. Marg looks disapprovingly at Homer’s can of beer and Homer gazes longingly at the food on Lisa’s plate. The image functions as a prompt for analysis by students. Directly below the image are three questions for students to consider: 'What is wrong with how The Simpsons are eating their dinner?", "List the health effects of eating dinner in this way?' and finally, 'How could The Simpsons change how they eat the family meal so that it is better?'
The third worksheet consists of various pictures that capture different approaches and ways of eating. The worksheet was developed by a primary classroom teacher for her grade four class as part of a classroom exercise on food. The pictures on the worksheet are all drawn by hand and feature the following: someone eating in front of the TV alone, someone walking into McDonalds, a nuclear family sitting around a kitchen table eating dinner (on a plate, meat and vegetables are clearly discernible), a young girl sitting on her bed eating cake (alone and apparently upset ), someone snacking out of the fridge, a couple eating a junk food dinner in front of the TV, a man sitting alone at the table eating dinner on a plate (again meat and vegetables), and a nuclear family sitting around a dinner table eating junk food. The instructions direct students to make a series of judgements, inviting them to place a tick next to the images that they consider to be good, and crosses next to the ones that they consider to be bad.
It is evident from three worksheets described above, that eating around a table, with all members of the nuclear, heterosexual family in attendance, is regarded as the preferred mode of dining. It is good. Students are invited to classify all other modes of eating that do not conform to this model - solitary eating, eating in front of the television, parents and children eating separately - as "bad". Furthermore, students must also consider the health implications of these ways of eating and why they are wrong. The categorisation of different eating practices into distinct binaries of 'good' and 'bad' not only prevents any ‘shading of opinion’32 but it further performs an important governmental function whereby the family meal becomes a necessary and unquestionable intervention in order to produce particular health and social outcomes. Students are then invited to consider how the 'bad' eating scenarios might be improved, i.e. more like a family meal. In the first example, 8-year-old Bill is tasked with the responsibility of making it easier for his family to eat together, presumably by intervening in those areas where he is able to exert some influence, for example helping to prepare the meal, set the table or clear the dishes. However, students may also suggest that Bill could challenge his mother who mistakenly 'thinks it is easier to feed all the children first…' or to challenge his father to return promptly from work since all family members in this scenario contribute to the failure to uphold the family meal model. Such encouragements overlook the generational and gendered power dynamics which operate in many families, particularly around mealtimes and food provision,33 and might potentially result in the kind of family meal conflict that unfolds in August Osage County. Furthermore, as we have suggested elsewhere, students that do challenge conventional wisdom in these kinds of scenarios often find themselves met with exasperation from teachers, having to repeat the exercise ad nauseam or even removed from the class, should their challenge include creatively used profanity.34
In classifying particular modes of eating into discrete binary categories – either good or bad, it is apparent that children are encouraged to do far more than simply pass judgement on the eating practices of others; they are also required to identify with Bill or Lisa and Bart Simpson and to judge their own family eating practices accordingly. By raising the question ‘How could The Simpsons change how they eat the family meal so that it is better?’ students are also encouraged to reflect upon how they might do the same within their own homes. Following Michel Foucault, Vaz and Bruno suggest that:35
…the classification of each individual along the polarity ranging from normal to abnormal achieves its goal if it is active in the interior of individuals, if it makes them judge and conceive themselves according to this polarity.
The pedagogical use of these scenarios then might be understood as an attempt to encourage children to evaluate eating practices within their own home against the normative model of family meals and, if necessary, to intervene to change how their own families eat. However, there is also an enticement to internalise these judgements and remodel oneself according to the family meal ‘good’, other ways of eating ‘bad’, binary. In attempting to cultivate these particular modes of conduct and types of subject, schools become an important governmental technology in shaping the conduct of children and their families. Children become responsible for regulating what and how family members eat and for regulating the conduct of individual members. The use of family scenarios in the worksheets described above reveals how the mythological family meal is conceptualised within the pedagogical resources used by teachers in their day-to-day practice. However, what is less clear is how teachers deploy these resources in the classroom and how the discursive construction of family mealtimes is taken up, modified or challenged by students. It is difficult to imagine, given the simplistic, binary renderings of the family meal that students would not raise further questions. For instance, students who are familiar with the Simpsons might notice that Homer is not wringing Bart’s neck in the TV dinner scenario: in the Simpson’s household this is common practice when the family gathers around the table. Or they may challenge the dominant construct of the family and the gender roles being portrayed in Bill’s family. Research suggests that students do challenge what they are taught about food,36 and that when students problematise the intended ‘message’, teachers can find it difficult to allow the contradictions, complexities and tensions to emerge, flourish and flow.37 As we have argued elsewhere, within the classroom better food practices are those that support prevailing hegemonic discourses so that 'students that make "bad" food choices are regarded as irrational, ill-disciplined and susceptible to temptation whereas those making 'good' food choices are regarded as virtuous, disciplined and capable'.38 Questioning the preferred model of the family meal detracts from the imperatives and forces driving the pedagogical strategy.
Conclusion
This paper has attempted to describe and analyse some of the ways in which the family meal is constructed by a selection of pedagogical resources used to promote healthy eating in schools in Australia. We suggest that the valorisation of the family meal as a panacea for a range of social ills, and the concomitant attempts to persuade, entice or cajole families into these preferred norms of consumption, is problematic on a number of counts. First, as we have suggested in our initial vignette and subsequent discussion, the reality of family mealtimes is often very different from the imagined and idealised constructions of family meals deployed by educators. Such a construction of family mealtimes ignores the wider social context in which they occur and overlooks the power relations and dynamics which characterise everyday family mealtime encounters. Promoting the family meal as the preferred and "proper" mode of dining not only occludes other possible ways of eating, but it is taken as a signifier of healthy consumption, effective parenting and functional family relations, a ritual where loving, nurturing, healthy family relationships are enacted and performed. Those that do not or cannot engage in such rituals are somehow regarded as ineffective parents raising problem children. Second, the perceived health and social benefits of family meals are predicated upon tenuous assumptions. The claims that family mealtimes can protect against such a wide range of detrimental health and social outcomes are conceptually ill defined and methodologically flawed. Such claims are embedded in discourses of crisis, reflecting contemporary concerns around young people’s health - obesity, eating disorders, substance misuse, crime and general concerns over young people’s moral character or lack thereof. As we have suggested in the first part of this paper, evidence that the prevalence of family mealtimes is declining in modern times is far from persuasive. Third, attempts to shape family dining practices pedagogicalise families in new ways that extend beyond the school gates. Family mealtimes become a site for intervention where family members must judge and regulate their own and each other’s eating practices against a highly normative model. The knowledge and expertise of parents in terms of what works best for their family, is inferior to the expertise of the school. Finally, children are positioned as both target and technology of government and encouraged to take responsibility for how family mealtimes are structured. This has important implications which appear to be overlooked within the pedagogical resources described, as the mythology of the family meal is upheld without question. Given the tensions and complexities of family dynamics depicted within the family meal scene in August Osage County it is difficult to see how children such as Bill might intervene to shape family eating practices. While 8-year-old Bill might help with setting the table, preparing food, cleaning the dishes, the effective strategies in other families may more closely resemble wrestling a parent to the ground, towering over them and bellowing 'You don’t get it, do you? …..I’M RUNNING THINGS NOW!'
End Notes
Go to footnote reference 1.Tracy Letts, August, Osage County. New York: Theatre Communications Group USA, 2008.
Go to footnote reference 2.Prue Leith, 2007. Prue Leith's radical recipe: free school meals and eating with a knife and fork accessed online 3rd February 2017 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Go to footnote reference 3.Back to the Table Campaign. No longer Available at www.raisingkids.co.uk
Go to footnote reference 4.Round the Table campaign sponsored by Quality Meat Scotland 2013.
Go to footnote reference 5.The Family Dinner Project.Org (nd). The Family Dinner Project.Org accessed online 3rd February 2017 http://thefamilydinnerproject....
Go to footnote reference 6.Benedetta Cappellini, and Elizabeth Parsons, ‘Sharing the meal: food consumption and family identity, Research in Consumer Behavior, 14, (2012) 109-128 and Simone Cinotto ‘“Everyone would be around the table”: American family mealtimes in historical perspective 1850–1960’ New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 111, (2006) 17–33.
Go to footnote reference 7.Anne Murcott, ‘Family meals - a thing of the past?’ in: Pat Caplan, ed. Food, Health and Identity. London: Routledge, 1997, 32-49.
Go to footnote reference 8.See Mary Douglas ‘Deciphering a meal’ Daedalus. 101, 1 (1972) 61-81; Nickie Charles and Marion Kerr, Women, Food and Families. Manchester: Manchester University Press 1988; Claude Levi-Strauss, ‘The Culinary Triangle’ in Carol Counihan and Penny Van Esterik, eds. Food and Culture: A Reader. London: Routledge 1997, 28-35; Janet Mitchell, ‘The British main meal in the 1990's: has it changed its identity?’ British Food Journal, 101, 11 (1999) 871-883; and Murcott, 32-49.
Go to footnote reference 9.Eliza Cook and Rachel Dunnifon, Do Family Meals Really Make a Difference? Parenting in context. New York: Cornell University 2012.
Go to footnote reference 10.Benedetta Cappellini, and Elizabeth Parsons, ‘Sharing the meal: food consumption and family identity, Research in Consumer Behavior, 14, (2012)109-128.
Go to footnote reference 11.Richard Wilk, ‘Power at the Table: Food Fights and Happy Meals’ Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies. 10, 6 (2010), 428.
Go to footnote reference 12.Prue Leith.
Go to footnote reference 13.James White and Emma Halliwell, ‘Alcohol and Tobacco Use during Adolescence; The Importance of the family meal time environment’ Journal of Health Psychology 15, 4, (2010) 526– 532.
Go to footnote reference 14.Marla Eisenberg, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer and Shira Feldman. ‘Does TV viewing during family meals make a difference in adolescent substance use?’ Journal of Preventive Medicine. 48, 6, (2009) 585- 587.
Go to footnote reference 15.See Jayne Fulkerson, Martha Kubik, Mary Story, Leslie Lytle and Chrisa Arcan. ‘Are there nutritional and other benefits associated with family meals among at-risk youth?’ Journal of Adolescent Health. 45, 4, (2009) 389 – 395; Amber Hammons and Barbara Fiese, ‘Is Frequency of Shared Family Meals Related to the Nutritional Health of Children and Adolescents?’ Paediatrics, 127, 6, (2011) 1565 -1574 and Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Peter Hannan, Mary Story, Jillian Croll, and Cheryl Perry, ‘Family meal patterns: Associations with sociodemographic characteristics and improved dietary intake among adolescents’ Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 103, 3, (2003) 317 – 322.
Go to footnote reference 16.See Hammons and Fiese, and Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Marla Eisenberg, Jane Fulkerson, Mary Story and Nicole Larson, ‘Family meals and disordered eating in adolescents: longitudinal findings from project EAT. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 162, 1, (2008) 17-22.
Go to footnote reference 17.Marla Eisenberg, Rachel Olson, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Story, M., and Linda Bearinger, ‘Correlations between family meals and psychosocial well-being among adolescents’ Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 158, 8, (2004) 792 – 796.
Go to footnote reference 18.See Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Melanie Wall, Mary Story, and Jayne Fulkerson. ‘Are family meal patterns associated with disordered eating behaviors among adolescents?’ Journal of Adolescent Health. 35, 5, (2004) 350 – 359; Matthew Jacobs and Barbara Fiese ‘Family mealtime interactions and overweight children with asthma: Potential for compounded risks?’ Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32, 1, (2007) 64-68; and Barbara Fiese, Kimberly Foley and Mary Spagnola, ‘Routine and ritual elements in family mealtimes: Contexts for child well-being and family identity’ New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 111 (Spring 2006) 67–89.
Go to footnote reference 19.Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Peter Hannan, Mary Story, Jillian Croll, and Cheryl Perry, ‘Family meal patterns: Associations with sociodemographic characteristics and improved dietary intake among adolescents’ Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 103, 3, (2003) 317 – 322.
Go to footnote reference 20.Eisenberg, Olson, Neumark-Sztainer et al. 792 – 796.
Go to footnote reference 21.The Family Dinner Project.Org
Go to footnote reference 22.Wilk, 428-436.
Go to footnote reference 23.See Mitchell Dean, Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (2nd ed.). London: Sage, 2010 and Jo Pike and Deane Leahy ‘School food and the pedagogies of parenting’ Australian Journal of Adult Education. 52, (2012) 434-460.
Go to footnote reference 24.Jacques Donzelot, The Policing of Families. New York: Random House 1979.
Go to footnote reference 25.Lissette Burrows, ‘Pedagogizing families through obesity discourse’ in Jan Wright and Valerie Harwood, eds. Biopolitics and the obesity epidemic: Governing bodies. New York: Routledge 2009, 127-140.
Go to footnote reference 26.Michel Foucault, ‘The subject and power’ in Herbert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, eds. Michel Foucault, Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1982, 220-221.
Go to footnote reference 27.Colin Gordon, ‘Governmental rationality: An introduction’ in Graham Burchell, Colin. Gordon and Peter Miller, eds. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1991, 1-52.
Go to footnote reference 28.Dean, 18.
Go to footnote reference 29.Graham Burchell, ‘Liberal government and techniques of the self’ in Andrew Barry, Thomas. Osborne and Nikolas. Rose, eds. Foucault and political reason Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1996, 19-37.
Go to footnote reference 30.Dean, 20.
Go to footnote reference 31.Jo Pike and Derek Colquhoun. ‘Lunchtime lock in: territorialisation and UK school meals policies’ in Peter Kraftl, John Horton and Faith Tucker, eds. Critical geographies of childhood and youth: Contemporary policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press 2012, 133-150. Deana Leahy, Lissette Burrows, Louise McCuaig, Jan Wright, and Dawn Penney, School Health Education in Changing Times: Curriculum, Pedagogies and Partnerships. New York: Routledge, 2016.
Go to footnote reference 32.Wilk, 428-436.
Go to footnote reference 33.See Rebecca Emerson Dobash and Russell P Dobash, Violence Against Wives. Shepton Mallet: Open Books, 1980; Jacqueline Burgoyne and David Clark, ‘You are what you eat: food and family reconstitution’ in Anne Murcott ed. The Sociology of Food and Eating, Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company Ltd. 1983, 153 – 163; Rhian Ellis, ‘The way to a man's heart: food in the violent home’ in Anne Murcott ed. The Sociology of Food and Eating, 164 – 17; and Nickie Charles and Marion Kerr, Women, Food and Families. Manchester: Manchester University Press 1988.
Go to footnote reference 34.Deana Leahy and Jo Pike, ‘Just say no to pies: Food pedagogies, health education and governmentality’ in Rick Flowers and Elaine Swan eds. Food Pedagogies. Surrey: Ashgate 2015, 169–184.
Go to footnote reference 35.Paulo Vaz and Fernanda Bruno, ‘Types of Self-Surveillance: from abnormality to individuals ‘at risk’’ Surveillance and Society. 1, 3, (2003), 272-291.
Go to footnote reference 36.See Deana Leahy and Emily Gray, ‘Popular pedagogical assemblages in the health education classroom’ in Phil Benson and Alison Chik, eds. Popular Culture, Pedagogy and Teacher Education: International perspectives. London: Routledge 2014, 184-208 and Leahy and Pike, 169 – 184.
Go to footnote reference 37.See Ken Cliff and Jan Wright, ‘Confusing and contradictory: Considering obesity discourse and eating disorders as they shape body pedagogies in HPE’ Sport, Education and Society, 15, 2 (2010) 221 – 233 and Leahy and Gray, 184-208.
Go to footnote reference 38.Leahy and Pike, 169 – 184.
Bibliography
Graham Burchell. ‘Liberal government and techniques of the self’ in Andrew. Barry, Thomas. Osborne and Nikolas. Rose, eds. Foucault and political reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press 1996. 19-37.
Jacqueline Burgoyne and David Clark, ‘You are what you eat: food and family reconstitution’ in Anne Murcott ed. The Sociology of Food and Eating, Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company Ltd. 1983. 153 – 163.
Lissette Burrows, ‘Pedagogizing families through obesity discourse’ in Jan Wright and Valerie Harwood, eds. Biopolitics and the obesity epidemic: Governing bodies. New York: Routledge 2009. 127-140.
Benedetta Cappellini and Elizabeth Parsons, ‘Sharing the meal: food consumption and family identity, Research in Consumer Behavior, 14, (2012) 109-128.
Nickie Charles and Marion Kerr. Women, Food and Families. Manchester: Manchester University Press 1988.
Simone Cinotto ‘“Everyone would be around the table”: American family mealtimes in historical perspective 1850–1960’ New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 111, (2006) 17–33.
Ken Cliff and Jan Wright, ‘Confusing and contradictory: Considering obesity discourse and eating disorders as they shape body pedagogies in HPE’ Sport, Education and Society, 15, 2 (2010) 221 - 233.
Eliza Cook and Rachel Dunnifon. Do Family Meals Really Make a Difference? Parenting in context. New York: Cornell University 2012.
Mitchell Dean. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage 2010.
Rebecca Emerson Dobash and Russell P Dobash. Violence Against Wives. Shepton Mallet: Open Books 1980.
Jacques Donzelot. The Policing of Families. New York: Random House 1979.
Mary Douglas, ‘Deciphering a meal’ Daedalus. 101, 1 (1972) 61-81.
Marla Eisenberg, Rachel Olson, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Story, M., and Linda Bearinger, ‘Correlations between family meals and psychosocial well-being among adolescents' Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 158, 8, (2004) 792 – 796.
Marla Eisenberg, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer and Shira Feldman, ‘Does TV viewing during family meals make a difference in adolescent substance use?’ Journal of Preventive Medicine. 48, 6, (2009) 585- 587.
Rhian Ellis, ‘The way to a man's heart: food in the violent home’ in Anne Murcott ed. The Sociology of Food and Eating. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company Ltd. 1983, 164 – 17.
The Family Dinner Project.Org (nd). The Family Dinner Project.Org. accessed online 3rd February 2017 http://thefamilydinnerproject.... [Accessed
Barbara Fiese, Kimberly Foley and Mary Spagnola, ‘Routine and ritual elements in family mealtimes: Contexts for child well-being and family identity’ New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 111 (Spring 2006) 67–89.
Michel Foucault, ‘The subject and power’ in Herbert. Dreyfus and Paul. Rabinow, eds. Michel Foucault, Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1982, 208-226.
Jayne Fulkerson, Martha Kubik, Mary Story, Leslie Lytle and Chrisa Arcan. ‘Are there nutritional and other benefits associated with family meals among at-risk youth?’ Journal of Adolescent Health. 45, 4, (2009) 389 – 395.
Colin Gordon, ‘Governmental rationality: An introduction’ in Graham Burchell, Colin. Gordon and Peter Miller, eds. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1991, 1-52.
Amber Hammons and Barbara Fiese, ‘Is Frequency of Shared Family Meals Related to the Nutritional Health of Children and Adolescents?’ Paediatrics, 127, 6, (2011) 1565 -1574.
Matthew Jacobs and Barbara Fiese, ‘Family mealtime interactions and overweight children with asthma: Potential for compounded risks?’ Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32, 1, (2007) 64-68.
Nicole Larson, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Peter Hannan, and Mary Story, ‘Trends in adolescent fruit and vegetable consumption, 1999-2004: project EAT’ American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 32, 2, (2007) 147-50.
Deana Leahy, Lissette Burrows, Louise McCuaig, Jan Wright, and Dawn Penney. School Health Education in Changing Times: Curriculum, Pedagogies and Partnerships. New York: Routledge 2016.
Deana Leahy and Jo Pike, ‘Just say no to pies: Food pedagogies, health education and governmentality’ in Rick Flowers and Elaine Swan eds. Food Pedagogies. Surrey: Ashgate, 2015, 169 – 184.
Deana Leahy and Emily Gray, ‘Popular pedagogical assemblages in the health education classroom’ in Phil Benson and Alison Chik, eds. Popular Culture, Pedagogy and Teacher Education: International perspectives. London: Routledge 2014, 184-208.
Prue Leith, 2007. Prue Leith's radical recipe: free school meals and eating with a knife and fork accessed online 3rd February 2017 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Tracy Letts. August, Osage County. New York: Theatre Communications Group 2008.
Claude Levi-Strauss, ‘The Culinary Triangle’ in Carol Counihan and Penny Van Esterik, eds. Food and Culture: A Reader. London: Routledge 1997, 28-35.
Janet Mitchell, ‘The British main meal in the 1990's: has it changed its identity?’ British Food Journal, 101, 11 (1999) 871-883.
Anne Murcott, ‘On the Social Significance of a “Cooked Dinner” in South Wales’ Social Science Information, 21, 4-5, (1982) 677-696.
Anne Murcott, ‘Family meals - a thing of the past?’ in: Pat Caplan, ed. Food, Health and Identity. London: Routledge 1997, 32-49.
Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Marla Eisenberg, Jane Fulkerson, Mary Story and Nicole Larson, ‘Family meals and disordered eating in adolescents: longitudinal findings from project EAT. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 162, 1, (2008) 17-22.
Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Peter Hannan, Mary Story, Jillian Croll, and Cheryl Perry, ‘Family meal patterns: Associations with sociodemographic characteristics and improved dietary intake among adolescents’ Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 103, 3, (2003) 317 – 322.
Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Melanie Wall, Mary Story, and Jayne Fulkerson. ‘Are family meal patterns associated with disordered eating behaviours among adolescents?’ Journal of Adolescent Health. 35, 5, (2004) 350 – 359.
Quality Meat Scotland (nd). Campaign encourages family to get back ‘Round the Table’, accessed online 3rd February 2017 http://www.qmscotland.co.uk/ne...
Jo Pike and Derek Colquhoun.. ‘Lunchtime lock in: territorialisation and UK school meals policies’ in Peter Kraftl, John Horton and Faith Tucker, eds. Critical geographies of childhood and youth: Contemporary policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press 2012, 133-150.
Jo Pike and Deane Leahy ‘School food and the pedagogies of parenting’ Australian Journal of Adult Education. 52, (2012) 434-460.
Paulo Vaz and Fernanda Bruno, ‘Types of Self-Surveillance: from abnormality to individuals ‘at risk’’ Surveillance and Society. 1, 3, (2003) 272-291.
Tami Videon and Carolyn Manning, ‘Influences on adolescent eating patterns: The importance of family meals’ Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, (2012) 365 – 373.
James White and Emma Halliwell, ‘Alcohol and Tobacco Use during Adolescence; The Importance of the family meal time environment’ Journal of Health Psychology 15, 4, (2010) 526– 532. Richard Wilk, ‘Power at the Table: Food Fights and Happy Meals’ Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies. 10, 6 (2010) 428-436.
Jo Pike is Senior Lecturer in Childhood Studies at Leeds Beckett University.
Jo's research interests centre on children and young people’s health and well-being, space and spatiality. Her work is concerned with the construction of young people's health as a moral problem and can be broadly located within the Foucauldian inspired field of governmentality studies. She has contributed theoretical and empirical journal articles in the field of Children's Geographies and her most recent books include Neoliberalism, Austerity and the Moral Economies of Young People's Health and Well-Being (2016) and The Moral Geographies of Children, Young People and Food: Beyond Jamie’s School Dinners (2014). Outside of academia, Jo is best known for her work on free school meals with Professor Derek Colquhoun which was used to inform school meals policy in England, Scotland and the USA.
Deana Leahy is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at Monash University, Australia. Her research interests are framed by a concern about the
political and moral work that is 'done' under the guise of improving health. Her research is interdisciplinary, drawing from a range of social and cultural theories to study the intended and unintended effects of attempts to govern and educate about health. Whilst her work has a strong school focus, she has recently begun to explore the possibilities of a number of other pedagogical spaces that seek to address health including museums and exhibits, gardens, digital media and online games. She is currently on the editorial team of Health Education Journal and co-convenor of CHESS (Critical Health Education Studies).