Evolution of Social Ties around New Food Practices

The interactions between these different elements sometimes make it possible to maintain the practice of eating together even when conditions are not optimal.

As the previous sections show, the meanings associated with eating together are essential in maintaining this practice, especially when it is associated with a fulfilling and healthy family/social life:

“It’s still nice to share a meal” (Camille), “Eating alone quickly becomes a mess” (Marion).

These quotes summarize how conviviality is, quite intuitively, a positive aspect of eating. However, in other cases, eating together can be seen as a constraint:

– The constraint would be to do a lot, in fact?

– Yes, to do a lot and to do it in a very repetitive way every day, every day, every day […]. I knew that in my family – because we were a large family – so I always remember my mother saying to herself, “What am I going to do tonight?” I know that I have things and so it’s the desire to eat something at a given moment, well, I say to myself, “I want this, how am I going to prepare it” […], that’s why I put pleasure in the middle because there is the pleasure of touching the products, mixing them and the smells, the colors, the heat, etc., and then preparing something pretty (Esther).

Thus, this quote confirms that eating together requires logistics and upstream work for the person in charge of the meal, and that eating alone can sometimes relieve this burden without affecting the quality of the food. Moreover, it illustrates that eating alone does not exclude taking care of our diet and enjoying eating well.

Earlier, the chapter identified that eating together refers to a set of more or less tacit rules, and eating alone would allow freedom from them, which may, for some, be seen as a benefit:

My diet has become more chilled, in the sense that the fact that living with my parents has changed the way I eat, because in a way we are infantilized when we live with our parents as adults and we are subjected to “don’t do this, don’t do that, we eat at such and such a time, we do this, we do that” (Bérengère).

This may allow the pursuit of certain objectives, which are more difficult to achieve during shared meals:

I realized that I lose weight more easily when I am alone because I manage my rhythm, I let go, I am not managed anymore because of the look of others, not that of my daughter, nor that of my boyfriend, nor that of my family, I manage myself calmly, I am at ease and I have the impression that the weight goes away by itself too (Amélie).

These findings invite the question of well-being related to eating together , echoing the work of Mugel et al . (2019). This work employs the concept of eudemonic food well-being, according to which well-being is not only about pleasure (hedonic well-being) but also about the role of experience and the meaning given to actions. In light of this concept, we understand that eating together is not an absolute guarantee of well-being, and that it is necessary for the experience to be in line with the meanings of individuals for it to be a source of well-being. More broadly, particular circumstances, such as the lockdowns experienced by the French from March 2020, make it possible to qualify the fact that eating together is always a vector of well-being: in circumstances as constrained as the lockdowns were, preparing a meal every day for a household in which relationships are not always easy can be a major challenge, and the shared meal does not always have the power to generate conviviality and shared well-being. This invites consideration of a complex relationship between eating together and well-being that takes into account the constraints: eating together can increase well-being, but it is also necessary that some form of well-being (e.g. good understanding between guests) precedes – or is associated with – eating together .

The objective of this chapter was to better understand the conditions that influence the implementation of eating together , in order to reinforce the recommendations made in the PNNS. In particular, it allows us to distinguish the different practices of eating together (festive vs. daily, systematic vs. flexible). Moreover, this work shows that meanings play a major role in the emergence of eating together practices. In order to contribute to the maintenance or acquisition of a positive meaning for consumers, encouraging them to maintain this practice even when the material conditions are not necessarily present, it is essential to address all consumers, taking into account the various practices that exist: eating together to meet, eating together to exchange ideas about cooking and eating together in the face of different constraints or in different contexts. The practice-based approach allows for a good understanding of eating together according to the context, making it possible for several forms of eating together to be adopted by a given individual, as shown in the study presented.

In order to foster eating together , the public authorities could broaden the scope of the PNNS recommendations by not limiting themselves to the discourse on the website. A first step could be a real communication campaign, like the one undertaken for fruit and vegetable consumption. In connection with the results presented in this chapter concerning the importance of the meanings associated with eating together , such a communication would promote maintaining the institutionalized shared meal time in society. But communication alone cannot guarantee the emergence or maintenance of a practice (Keller et al . 2015); it requires concrete relays, particularly to counter changes in society that erode the practice of eating together . Thus, maintaining times and spaces dedicated to eating together would materially contribute to the implementation of this practice. We could thus ensure that meal breaks are maintained during the work day, and that workplaces are equipped with rooms adapted for shared meals (tables and chairs, microwave oven to bring our own food, etc.). Outside of the workplace, initiatives such as “ Voisins solidaires ” could provide an opportunity for people who are unable to eat with family and friends even if they want to. The association Neighborhood Solidarity ( Voisins solidaires 2 ), launched by the founders of the Fête des Voisins (part of www.world-neighbours-day.org), is developing a national mobilization scheme to strengthen local solidarity throughout the year. The actions are carried out through seasonal meetings (back to school, Christmas, etc.) and thematic meetings (extreme cold, waste sorting, etc.). We could imagine making these meetings even more regular and developing a theme targeting meal sharing in order to offer regular opportunities to eat together . Such a system could be the relay of the recommendations made by the public authorities within the framework of the PNNS, from a real perspective of accompanying consumers.

Other initiatives could also address the issue of screens, which are currently one of the major competitors of shared consumption times. In order to eat together , we must not be parasitized by screens, which capture attention to the detriment of the attention paid to the guests. The PNNS website recommends: “no screens at the table”. To accompany this, phones could now be equipped with a “meal” mode like the “airplane” mode, which would allow for selecting the notifications to be filtered (e.g. we can keep the possibility of being called in case of emergency and receiving notifications on the news, but cut the notifications of social networks). This would also have a strong incentive dimension, legitimizing the fact that meal times should not be interfered with.