Abstract
We report qualitative findings from a study in a multi-ethnic, multi-faith city with high levels of deprivation. Primary research over 2 years consisted of three focus groups and 18 semi-structured interviews with food insecurity service providers followed by focus groups with 16 White British and Pakistani women in or at risk of food insecurity. We consider food insecurity using Habermas’s distinction between the system and lifeworld. We examine system definitions of the nature of need, approved food choices, the reification of selected skills associated with household management and the imposition of a construct of virtue. While lifeworld truths about food insecurity include understandings of structural causes and recognition that the potential of social solidarity to respond to them exist, they are not engaged with by the system. The gap between system rationalities and the experiential nature of lay knowledge generates individual and collective disempowerment and a corrosive sense of shame.
Highlights
This paper considers differential perspectives on food insecurity using critical theory, Habermas’s distinction between the lifeworld and the system
Primary research over 2 years consisted of three focus groups and 18 semi-structured interviews with food insecurity service providers followed by focus groups with 16 White British and Pakistani women in or at risk of food insecurity
We address the question, ‘how can a Habermasian framework assist an understanding of food aid and food insecurity?’ Drawing on interviews and focus groups conducted over 2 years with both food insecurity service providers and women in or at risk of food insecurity, we present conflicting perspectives on food insecurity informed by, on the one hand, neoliberal political economy and instrumental rationality and, on the other, the lived experience of food in the context of poverty
Summary
This paper considers differential perspectives on food insecurity using critical theory, Habermas’s distinction between the lifeworld and the system. The political and ethical implications of food insecurity have been considered largely in relation to food banks and, concomitantly, have been assessed through three inter-related critical frameworks: neoliberal political economy (Poppendieck 1999; Riches 2002; Tarasuk and Eakin 2003; Power et al 2017a); food insecurity (Dowler and O’Connor 2012; Baglioni et al 2017) and, more recently, economies of care (Cloke et al 2017; LambieMumford 2017). The scope, performance and political positioning of food insecurity service providers other than Trussell Trust foodbanks, as well as the role of public health professionals in the governance and provision of food aid, have been relatively neglected. Minimal attention has been allocated to the experiences of those who, despite food insufficiency, do not access formalised food charity or who seek food charity other than Trussell Trust foodbanks
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
