Reconsidering Individualisation of Eating:A cross-cultural analysis on determinants ofcommensality and solo-eating

Wakako Takeda

April 2016

A thesis submitted for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy at the Australian National University

Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and effort except where otherwise
stated.

————————————–
Wakako Takeda
Bangkok, April 2016

Acknowledgements
My four-year study is not a journey alone. The journey has succeeded based oncollaborations and dialogues with great individuals. With these thoughts in mind, I
express my sincere gratitude to those who share the thesis’s significant contributions
with me.
First and foremost, I am indebted to my supervisory panel –Cathy Banwell, Jane
Dixon, Melissa Melby, and Lauren Williams– for their continuous support, patience,and encouragement. Their experiences and knowledge of population health andfood studies are incredible. Cathy and Jane accepted me to ANU and made thiscomplex cross-cultural project feasible. Countless hours of discussions with these
two great scholars help deepen my thoughts, observations, and analyses. Despite thedistance from Canberra, Melissa and Lauren provided me helpful reviews, advices
and encouragements.
Secondly, I would like to thank those who kindly provided me an assistance fordata collection in Australia and Japan: Naomi Aiba, James Banwell, Martin Banwell, David Harley, Libby Hattersley, Helen Keane, Yumi Ohmori, Garry Palecek,
and Haruka Yokota. I also thank Glenda Roberts and Megumi Tsubota-Utsugi for
their advice during my fieldwork. More importantly, I thank all participants inAustralia and Japan for kindly providing their time and sharing experiences withme.
My time in Canberra was remarkable thank to wonderful friends and colleagues
who shared time with me. ANU was a great place to develop interdisciplinary dialogue and friendship. At NCEPH, besides Cathy and Jane, I am grateful to Adrian
Sleigh, Vasoontara Yiengprugsawan, Sam-ang Seubsman, and Matthew Kelly for
inviting me to work with the Thai Cohort project to explore my research topic.
I enjoyed countless hours of discussions and social activities with my friends at
NCEPH: Erlidia (Lee) Clark, Savitri Gurung, Ruth Kharis, Su Mon Kyaw-Myint,
Dintle Molosiwa, Syarifah Liza Munira, Wimalin Rimpeekool, Sarunya Sujaritpong,
Sifat Sharmin, Yanni Sun, Benjawan Tawatsupa, Katie Thurber, and Mami Wakabayashi. I also would like to acknowledge friends and staff members at the University House-Graduate House leadership team: Kimlong Chheng, Channa Razaque,v

vi
Belinda Vangchhia, Zhisong Qu, Anna Tsalapatanis, Alireza Khosravian, Eleonora
Quijada Cervoni, Kaori Oikawa, Gina Denman, Tony Karrays, and Peter Kanowski.
I have received generous financial support from NCEPH, ANU (Japan Alumni
PhD Scholarship, Residential Scholarship and Vice Chancellor’s travel grant), andMatsushita Kohnosuke Memorial foundation. I was fortunate to receive the financial
support to study in Australia and conduct a cross-cultural study in two countries.
Lastly, but not least, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my families
in Japan and Thailand for their selfless supports. In particular, I thank my parents
who always encourage me to pursue what I want and sent me overseas to pursue
my academic career, my parents-in-laws (papa and mum) who assisted me to starta new life in Bangkok, and my hero and my husband, Taweetham, who taught methat PhD is a life lesson for enhancing my skills to be intelligent, confident, andpatient.

Wakako Takeda
Bangkok, April 2016

Abstract
Sharing meals (commensality) is a common everyday practice and a symbol of sociality in many human societies. Growing industrialisation, urbanisation, and modernisation of lifestyles, however, has drawn public and academic attention to speculation that traditional and collective ways of eating such as family meals are being
replaced by individual dining, and this shift may contribute to global prevalence ofnutrition insecurity and mental health issues. Based on multi-method, qualitative,
cross-cultural analysis of young adults in urban Australia and Japan, this thesis
explores the socio-cultural dynamics lying behind everyday eating, working, andfamily practices in two urban societies, and examines which aspects of eating are individualised. Both Australian and Japanese groups viewed commensality as an ideal
eating practice and shared nostalgia for the middle-class domesticity. Nevertheless,differences between the two cultural groups were identified in timings of solo-eating,perceptions on solo-eating in public, gender conflicts associated with food provision
for commensality, and notions of individual autonomy. Additionally, differences between gender groups were identified. These cross-cultural findings demonstrate thatthe development of solo-eating is not as homogeneous as the individualisation theory has stressed. Instead, the growth of solo-eating is shaped by daily negotiation
with the following socio-cultural determinants (times, spaces, gender dynamics, andsocial relations) and their interactions with global trends (e.g. female participation
to labour force). This thesis asserts that the absence of critical understanding of
cultural variations within and across societies in current public health research andpolicies may expand rather than reduce the gulf between ideal behaviours promoted
by public health and everyday practices across the globe. This gulf is particularly
significant for less powerful groups (e.g. women and young single adults). Japaneseparticipants, in comparison to Australians, experienced difficulty conforming the
global ideal because they often had to apply translated knowledge and practices
from outside of their cultural context.

vii

Contents
Acknowledgementsv

Abstractvii

Abbreviation

xv

1 Introduction

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

I

Individualisation of eating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1.1.1

Research aim and objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

Cross-cultural perspectives and settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

1.2.1

A comparison between Australia and Japan . . . . . . . . . .

7

1.2.2

A cross-cultural observer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8Structure of this thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9Background11

2 Literature review

13

2.1

Reconsideration of human food sharing practices and sociality . . . . 13

2.2

Prevalence of commensality and solo-eating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.1

The prevalence of commensality and solo-eating in the late
1990s and 2000s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.2.2

The prevalence of commensality and solo-eating over time . . 17

2.2.3

Potential factors associated with the rise of solo-eating in postindustrial societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.3

2.4

Impact of commensality and solo-eating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.1

Impacts on meal intake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.3.2

Impacts on food choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.3.3

Impacts on physical health and psychosocial well-being . . . . 24

Review of qualitative studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28ix

x

CONTENTS
2.4.1

Qualitative insights on the practices of commensality from across-cultural perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.4.2

Social changes and transformation of commensality and soloeating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.5

Gaps in the present literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3 Research methods and design
3.1

39

Theoretical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1.1

Cross-cultural perspectives in cultural anthropology . . . . . . 39

3.1.2

Differences between cross-cultural and cross-national comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.2

3.3

II

3.1.3

Strengths of cross-cultural study design . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.1.4

Challenges of cross-cultural study design . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Units of analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2.1

Studying cultures from subjectivist and objectivist perspectives 43

3.2.2

Selection of cases for cross-cultural comparison . . . . . . . . . 44

3.2.3

Studying about young adults. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Research design and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.1

Study design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.3.2

Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

3.3.3

Data analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3.3.4

Participant demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.3.5

Ethical considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Contexual and comparative dimentions of culture

4 Macro-level comparison of two post-industrial societies
4.1

4.2

59
61

Economic System and globalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.1.1

Dominance of service industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.1.2

The evolution of service industries in Australia and Japan . . 62

4.1.3

Inter-industries development of service works . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.1.4

Female labour participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4.1.5

Impacts of international trade on agriculture and food security 66

Social system and inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.2.1

Low-cost welfare states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.2.2

Changes in Labour market without government’s regulations . 74

4.2.3

Welfare state and its transformation in Australia . . . . . . . 77

4.2.4

Welfare state and its transformation in Japan . . . . . . . . . 78

CONTENTS
4.3

xi

Health transition and public health policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.3.1

Health transition in Australia and Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

4.3.2

Social construction of obesity in Australia and Japan . . . . . 82

4.3.3

Social determinants of health in Australia and Japan . . . . . 84

4.3.4

Public health policies and campaigns for preventive medicine
in Australia and Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4.4

Transformation of culinary cultures and practices . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.4.1

Transformation of culinary cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4.4.2

Development of family dining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

4.4.3

Evolutions of family dining in Australia and Japan . . . . . . 95

5 Cultural domains of commensality and solo-eating

99

5.1

Distribution of free-list responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

5.2

Cultural consensus between and within groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

5.3

Culturally salient responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.3.1

Comparison between cultural groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

5.3.2

Comparison between gender subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

6 Time for commensality
6.1

6.2

6.3

119

Everyday meal structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.1.1

Time to eat commensally or alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

6.1.2

Regular lunch break . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Synchronisation for commensality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.2.1

Time-use for the transition from work to home . . . . . . . . . 123

6.2.2

From individual time to social time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Time pressure and work-life balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.3.1

Conceptualisation and measurements of WLB . . . . . . . . . 126

6.3.2

Participant’s evaluations on their WLB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

6.3.3

Individual experiences of WLB in the culture of flexible workand the culture of long working hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

7 Cultural economy of eating spaces

133

7.1

Eating space as a site of cultural economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

7.2

Locations for everyday eating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

7.3

Social distinction and morality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

7.4

Place for commensality and solo-eating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7.4.1

Commensality inside and outside of the home . . . . . . . . . 142

7.4.2

Solo-eating at home and in public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

xii

CONTENTS
7.5

Individualisation? another social space?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

7.5.1

Demographic changes and eating practices . . . . . . . . . . . 144

7.5.2

Cultural meanings of public spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

7.5.3

Expanding domains of eating spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

8 Gendered dynamics and commensality

149

8.1

Gender as a mediator of eating experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

8.2

Division of labours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

8.3

Practising gender in commensality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

9 Social relations: hierarchies and everyday interactions

157

9.1

Social relations in reflexive modernity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

9.2

Meanings of commensality and solo-eating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

9.3

9.2.1

Meanings of family commensality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

9.2.2

Meanings of friend commensality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

9.2.3

Meanings of commensality with work colleagues . . . . . . . . 164

9.2.4

Meanings of solo-eating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Individuality and sociality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
9.3.1

Individualism and social relativism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

9.3.2

Cultural construction of commensality: sharing the table or
sharing the food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

III

Implications and final remarks

10 Commensality and solo-eating in changing societies

173
175

10.1 Determinants of commensality and solo-eating . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
10.1.1 Overview of cross-cultural findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
10.1.2 Interactions with global cultural trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
10.2 Construction of culture and cultural differences . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
10.2.1 Discordance between cultural ideals and reality . . . . . . . . 182
10.3 Relationships with healthy eating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
11 Conclusion

18511.1 Consumption and culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
11.2 Consumption in other non-western societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
11.3 Implications for healthy eating campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
A English questionnaire for Study I

189

CONTENTS

xiii

B Japanese questionnaire for Study I

195

C English pre-interview questionnaire for Study II

201

D Japanese pre-interview questionnaire for Study II

207

E English interview questions for Study II

213

F Japanese interview questions for Study II

223

G English information sheet for Study I

233

H Japanese information sheet for Study I

235

I

English information sheet for Study II

237

J Japanese information sheet for Study II

239

K English informed consent for Study I

241

L Japanese informed consent for Study I

243

M English informed consent for Study II

245

N Japanese informed consent for Study II

247

O List of coding categories

249

Bibliography251Abbreviation
In this thesis, I have used the following abbreviation.

ABS

Australian Bureau of Statistics

BMI

Body Mass Index

BED

Binge Eating Disorder

CASA

National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse

CCA

Cultural Consensus Analysis

DSM

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

FAO

The Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

ICD

International Classification of Diseases

LDP

The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan

MAFF

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (JAPAN)

MEXT

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(JAPAN) = MECSST∗

MHLW

Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (JAPAN)

NCD

Non-Communicable Disease

NHK

Nippon Housou Kyoukai (Japan’s public broadcasting station)OECD

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development∗

MEXT is the acronym of MECSST and is used as the official name in English (Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2013).

xv

xvi

ABBREVIATION

TV

Television

WHO

The World Health Organization

WLB

Work Life BalanceChapter 1
Introduction
1.1

Individualisation of eating

Since the late twentieth century, the scholarship on food and eating has been increasingly rich in both public health and social science. It has been accepted thateating is not just about physiological but also social functions, and it is important toconsider both practical and symbolic aspects of eating (Warde and Martens, 2000).
One of the reasons for these interdisciplinary interests in food consumption was
the evidence that a large number of people were either under or over nourished andthat the cause of nutrition insecurity was social failure driven by rapid social changes
such as modernisation, urbanisation, and industrialisation. The Ottawa Charter, aninternational agreement to determine guiding principles for health promotion, wasan influential event which fosters the goals of health promotion from health education models focusing on individual behaviours to socio-ecological models addressing
structural determinants of health (Porter, 2007, 73).
Particularly, discussions over individualisation of eating developed from postmodernist and post-structuralist literature, which emphasised the breakdown of traditional systems and normative regulations fosters individual choices and diversity
in lifestyle (Germov, 1997). For example, Rotenberg (1981) noted that the reorganisation of industrial lifestyle and time allocations increased likelihood of soloeating. Sobal and Nelson (2003) maintained that “the rootlessness and alienationof post-industrial societies” loosen social meanings of commensality. According toFischler (2011), a number of elements of everyday life fall into the private sphere,
highlighting personal and individual choices. This tendency to individualisation offood overrides social dimensions of eating particularly the practice of commensality, which he referred to as “an essential dimension of the common meal and ... its
most salient expression in that particular, daily social occurrence” (Fischler, 2011,1

2

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

4). Fischler also noted that the negligence of social eating and emphasis on individual food intake in most public health campaigns elevated anxieties over food rather
than reducing the prevalence of obesity and other diet-related diseases (Fischler,
2011, 17). In reverse, some societies with strong cultural attachments to collective
commensal-eating showed lower prevalence of obesity (Fischler, 2011, 17).
Fischler’s theory as well as his other contributions to food studies benchmark
the bringing of culture and sociality into potential determinants of health, which are
predominantly limited to biomedical views of eating behaviours. His theory on impacts of cultural values on the prevalence of obesity may apply to certain age groups,social classes, and societies. As he argued, the impact of modelling phenomenon andsocial norms in the commensal context may regulate individual food intake and encourage people to have a positive relationship with food. Some empirical studies
showed that the frequent commensality with family members contributed to somehealthy eating behaviours (Gillman et al., 2000; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2003) andpsychosocial well-being of children and adolescents (Eisenberg et al., 2004). Not surprisingly, this is because more participants enjoy mealtimes taken in the company offamily than when eating alone. Parents tend to assist their children’s healthy foodintake in a commensal setting.
Having said that, I wish to offer a further investigation on individualisation ofeating from a post-colonial and cross-cultural perspective which centres on culturalprocesses associated with consumption. Firstly, I question the cross-cultural transferability of Fischler’s idea of “strong cultural attachments to commensality” in nonwestern contexts. Fischler made his argument based on the result of a cross-national
comparison of six countries (France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom,and United States), highlighting explicit differences between the French who viewed
eating as a social and collective affair, and the Americans who viewed eating as
an individual one (Fischler and Masson, 2008; Fischler, 2011). If he suggests thatstronger collectivist values on eating help sustain the culture of commensality andthe culture will prevent the worldwide prevalence of obesity, what about the situation in so-called “collectivist” cultures like Asia? Would there be more frequentcommensality and lower prevalence of obesity and diet-related diseases among collectivist Japanese than individualist Australians? If not, what kinds of theoreticaland methodological issues are associated with the discrepancy?
A major issue with most of literature about modernisation and individualisation of eating is to postulate a clear break between traditional collective eating andmodern individualised eating. However, there is no clear-cut dividing line sharedacross societies, and the idea of a single pathway to modernisation and individu-

1.1. INDIVIDUALISATION OF EATING

3

alisation masks diverse processes of socio-cultural changes which have embedded
and accumulated in each society. Arjun Appadurai (1996, 72) argued for the needto examine both histories and genealogies of consumption, because the rise of consumerism in non-western societies is not always accompanied with particular temporal sequences (e.g. mass merchandising and class conflicts) and specific historicalsequences and conjunctures (e.g.literacy) which England, France, and the UnitedStates went through in the past three centuries. In globalisation, the developmentof electronic media (e.g. television) accelerates compression of time and space, andrenders the logic of consumption widely spread around the globe (Appadurai, 1996,85). Appadurai (1996, 74) distinguishes history as an outward perspective to linkchanges with larger universes and genealogy as an inward one to describe culturaldispositions and styles embedded in local institutions and histories of local habitus.
Applying Appadurai’s view on periodicities of consumption, I argue that individualisation of eating, including solo-eating and individual choice, is intertwinedwith various sequences and conjunctures of socio-cultural determinants embedded
in histories and genealogies of societies and people. The previous individualisation
thesis indicates a break between collectivism and individualism. The notion of dichotomous break between individualism and collectivism is problematic, especiallywhen it is used to describe characteristics of culture as if the whole culture is either
individualistic or collectivist. Individualism refers to value orientations emphasisingindividuality over group identity, and collectivism refers to value orientations emphasising group identities over individuality (Ting-Toomey, 2012, 67). The frameworkof Individualism-Collectivism (I-C) often treated the characteristics of individualism (i.e. autonomy and separateness) and of collectivism (i.e. heteronomy, actions
influenced by others, and relatedness) as opposite and conflicting, and these characteristics as mutually exclusive (Kagitcibasi, 2005). It assumed that autonomy is notvalued in collectivist cultures, and relatedness is not valued in individualist cultures.
Fischler also noted that “eating retains fundamental dimension of heteronomy... anda social, public dimension (Italics added)”(Fischler, 2011, 15). This indicates that
French eating culture falls into the domain of collectivism and American culture
does not.
The dichotomy of individualism and collectivism is widely used to describe distinct differences between cultures particularly those between the West and non-West,or the East. However, uncritical utilisations of the dichotomy for cross-cultural comparisons ignore actual processes of how similarities and differences are constructed(Cangia, 2010). In so doing, a collection of phenomena in the West and the East
stays polarised, and this polarisation leads to misunderstandings of similar and dif-

4

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

ferent attributes across cultures as well as continuity and discontinuity of these.
Furthermore, focusing on differences between cultures of societies may mask potential variations and bias by other cultural variables like gender (Kato and SleeboomFaulkner, 2011). Characteristics of culture are not always dichotomous but dynamic,
and they can be observed differently in different levels of culture like self, self-otherrelations and social behaviours.
Secondly, I question the moral biases associated with promoting commensalityand demoting solo-eating, and their impacts on different groups of people. Publichealth research and campaigns have not always neglected the social importance of
eating. Indeed, promoting family meals is increasingly common in many developed
countries (Victoria Health Promotion Foundation, 2012; Forthun, 2012; National
Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 2012). However, such promotion does
not necessarily address fundamental problems of everyday eating, and results in
imposing certain ideas and needs of specific groups to people of diverse backgrounds.
Wilk (2010, 434) noted that the campaigns in the United States represent “white,
heterosexual, middle-class, middle-age, and able-bodied European Americans, andmask painful and difficult parts of family meals. In Japan, discourses of family
meals are extended to imposing national identities. In 2011, the Japanese Shokuiku
policy started to introduce promoting family meals to its population. Its policy
discourses linked the individualisation of eating and decline of family togetherness
with westernisation (oubei-ka) of Japanese society and lifestyle and stimulated thepeople’s ethos, even though the idea of the family meal was recently introduced fromthe West (Omote, 2010). Rather than reforming all domains of individualisation at
the structural level, the policy rhetoric focused on the responsibility of individuals
and family, similar to most recent public health policies in developed societies (Mah,2010, 403).
Such a moral view of sharing meals has generated different types of social stigma
among different groups of people. Eating alone at an individual toilet stall amongsome university students in Japan, called benjo-meshi (toilet meal), drew the attention of the Japanese media in the 2000s. The term benjo-meshi was introduced
by sociologist Daisuke Tsuji in the Asahi Newspaper (Tsuji, August 30, 2008): heasserted that these students eat alone at the toilet stall, because they do not want togive the impressions to their peers that they do not have anyone to have a meal with.
The Japanese media and some experts immediately pathologised the practice andclaimed communication and mental health problems of these students (Ninomiya,2011). In response to growing concern for ‘the issue’, some universities began toprovide a comfortable eating space for solo-eaters at their cafeteria (Sato, 2013).

1.1. INDIVIDUALISATION OF EATING

5

Although there is no direct relationship between the Shokuiku policy and the benjomeshi, this phenomenon indicates that these students stigmatise eating alone as
representing being isolated from their peer groups, so they wish to eat unwatchedby their peers when they need to eat alone. This stigmatised view of eating alone
was developed in response to social expectations for commensality. Australian writer
Rebecca Huntley (2008a) noted that many Australian singles work hard to overcomesocial stigma of eating alone in public. Thus, some groups of people often need toeat alone and struggle to overcome its social stigma. There is a substantial gap
between ideals and realities of eating.
More importantly, commensality is not always a convivial moment but it indicates the exclusion of others. It has been pointed out that commensality plays
as the cultural mechanism to distinguish the intimate from the distance (Douglas,1972). The dominant discourses and practices of eating “help define, exclude, anddo violence to marginalised groups” who are not included in the circle of commensality (Goldstein, 2012, 37). At the same time, the inclusion of commensality ethicalobligations to be included (Goldstein, 2012).
The discussions on the individualisation of eating tend to focus on issues of individual choice and the rise of consumerism, and ignore the meaning of commensality
and its social implications (Goldstein, 2013, 5). Therefore, promotion of certain
aspects of social eating without holistic, in-depth understanding of the issues would
result in expanding the gap between ideal and realities that many people struggle
to eat together, and developing fragmented landscapes of eating as well as social
stigma among certain groups.

1.1.1

Research aim and objectives

Based on discussions over cross-cultural understanding of the individualisation theory, I developed the following research aim and objectives of my thesis. The aimof my thesis is to explore the socio-cultural dynamics lying behind everyday eating,working, and family practices in urban societies, and examines which aspects of eating are individualised including the prevalence of solo-eating and individual choices
among different cultural groups. Three objectives are set to reach the aim:

1. What kinds of social and cultural factors determine the everyday practice ofcommensality and solo-eating in urban Australia and Japan?
2. What constitutes similarities and differences of Australian and Japanese experiences of eating?

6

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
3. What are the relationships between determinants of commensality and soloeating and healthy eating?

I examine these three questions through cross-cultural analyses of young adults inurban Australia and Japan.

1.2

Cross-cultural perspectives and settings

I conceive of the practice of commensality and solo-eating as the venue where various
global cultural processes are intertwined. I employ Appadurai’s concept of culture
which defines culture as contextual, heuristic, and comparative dimensions of human
lives rather than substances. Appadurai (1996, 12) suggested that comparison is “auseful heuristic that can highlight points of similarity and contrast” between all
kinds of categories including age, gender, lifestyle, and nation-states. This viewnot only prevents us from framing culture as the discursive realm of race, but also
encompasses facts of inequality and differences in lifestyle and beliefs.
All sorts of comparative studies have risks to consign asymmetric dichotomies
between groups. In fact, there is a history of comparative studies deploying an
asymmetric view of culture such as reinforcing civilisational superiority and cultural
exceptionalism (Stam and Shohat, 2009, 495). In cultural anthropology, there havebeen intensive debates about the relationships between observers and subjects: validity of ethnography by observers from outside and native observers and legacy ofcolonialism (p’Bitek, 1970; Trask, 1991; Kuwayama, 2004). Jones noted:
There is no escape from the idea that outsiders and insiders view social
reality from different points of view and that no matter how hard eachtries, neither can completely discard his preconceptions of what thatsocial reality is or should be (Jones, 1970, 257).
Thus, the most important thing is whether findings are beneficial for subjects andable to add new knowledge to the topic than which perspective is better than theother. In this view, a comparison of cases in different societies can reduce ideological biases embedded by single-culture analysis, such as framing a phenomenon as
unique to a society and culture (Ochiai, 2000). Moreover, cross-cultural analyses
can contribute to critically examine existing social theories (Liamputtong, 2010) byperforming analytical dislocation through construction and deconstruction of global
systems of power (Stam and Shohat, 2009). Thus, cross-cultural analyses can also
provide a useful framework to incorporate culture into public health research acrosssocieties.

1.2. CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES AND SETTINGS

1.2.1

7

A comparison between Australia and Japan

Comparison of Australian and Japanese societies provides an interesting insight into
the transformation of eating and social environments in the era of globalisation.
Australia and Japan are not geographically close to each other and do not sharecultural traditions or the history of intense diplomatic and trade relations until theend of the Second World War. In other words, the post-war relationships between
Australia and Japan are not the same as Australia’s relationships with the United
Kingdom and New Zealand, and Japan’s relationships with East Asian countries andthe United States which are salient in the foundation of each nation’s ethos. The
relationship between Australia and Japan has rather rapidly developed along with
post-war economic globalisation. For example, the post-war strategic regime in the
Asia-Pacific region, driven by the United States has drastically changed AustraliaJapan relations to predominantly focus on security alliance and trade agreements(Jain, 2006). Figure 1.1 shows the transformation of Australia-Japan trades inAustralian dollars. Total values of exports and imports between Australia andJapan has rapidly increased from the 1950s to the early 2000s.
Figure 1.1: Transformation of total values of Australian imports from and exports
to Japan

Billion Australian dollars

25

20

15

10

5

0
1950-1951

1960-1961

1970-1971

Import from Japan

1980-1981

1990-1991

2000-2001

Export to Japan

Source:(Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2002)
These political and economic relations between two nation-states in Asia-Pacifichas also impacted on socio-cultural change in each society. At the macro-level, Australia and Japan share core features of socio-economic structures including dominance of service industries, rise of female labour force participation, liberal welfare
states, and egalitarian ideals of middle-class society. However, some aspects of cul-

8

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

tural traditions and accumulation of historical events remain in people’s ethos andreflect in their everyday eating practices, and such differences play important rolesof shaping in-depth contexts of a range of socio-cultural transformations within twosocieties.

1.2.2

A cross-cultural observer

Cross-cultural analyses and ethnography are closely related with subjectivity ofobservers. Personal history of an observer and his/her interactions with subjects
influence the way in which writing of culture is constructed and draw the line between
true and imaginary (Nazaruk, 2011). Sherry Ortner noted subjectivity as “culturaland historical consciousness”, because observer’s representation of subjects in texts
is associated with some degree of reflexivity of observers, their state of mind, andthe power that saturate everyday life (Ortner, 2005).
This thesis is the product of my four year PhD journey as an international student
from Japan in an Australian university, as well as my own cross-cultural experiencesand dialogues with individuals. My childhood memories of family meals in Japan are
New year’s feasts with my extended families or everyday dinners with my mother andtwo brothers. What many in English and Japanese literature described as family
meals rarely happened because my father came back home at the time when mybrothers and I had gone to bed. In contrast to the daily routines of my childhood,
Japanese television dramas like sazae-san and advertisements in the 1990s haveshown a range of images that all family members were eating together at the sametable and having a lively conversation. I believed that the images on television were“the average” representation of the Japanese family, and therefore that my family
was extremely unusual.
From 2010 to 2011, I interviewed about 100 Japanese men and women between
20 and 80 years of age as a research assistant, and learned that their experiences offamily meals are diverse and far from the common image presented in mass media,
literature, and Shokuiku policy documents. Many participants struggled to find atime to eat with family but they tried their best to find the time with family dining.
Some expressed their disappointment and guilt with the situation. One participant
asked me, “Is it wrong if family members do not eat together regularly?” This
question made me think where the image of happy family meals came from and how
did it develop as a norm of ‘proper’ ways of eating across societies, even though it
conflicts with contemporary lifestyles and emerging notions like gender equality.
My relationships with Australia and Japan are not symmetrical. I am a native
anthropologist to Japan, even though my native status is not fully legitimate. I1.3. STRUCTURE OF THIS THESIS

9have spent seven years outside of Japan, in the United States and Australia, as aninternational student, and I now reside in Thailand. For Japanese participants, I
was not the person who lived through the same time and space as them. As a native,
I was not able to fully obtain non-native and cross-cultural perspective on Japan
which many anthropologists have cultivated to describe the life of others. Native
anthropologists tend to be in favour of the insider’s own social group (Jones, 1970;
Dresch, 2000). Instead of relying on the ethnography of Japan, I explored a conventional anthropological perspective through studying about Australia in comparison
to Japan. I worked with two supervisors who are native to Australia and have studied about Australian culinary cultures for many years. For Australian participants,
I am an international student from Japan who is interested in culinary culture ofAustralia. They shared their vivid experiences of everyday life so far as I was able
to grasp complex bits and pieces of their living experiences.

1.3

Structure of this thesis

This thesis divides into three parts and comprises of 11 Chapters.
Part I provides backgrounds on the topic and methodology. In Chapter 2, I
present an overview of quantitative and qualitative studies about commensality andsolo-eating from various academic fields. Throughout the review, I examine characteristics of these eating practices as well as methodological issues of current foodstudies. In Chapter 3, I discuss strengths and challenges of qualitative cross-culturalresearch, and explain how cross-cultural analyses are conducted through four research methods: literature review, free-listing survey, time diaries, and in-depth
interviews.
Part II presents findings from a range of cross-cultural analyses from the macroand the micro level. In Chapter 4, based on the literature, I present macro-levelcomparisons of economies, social system, and environments around food and eatingin contemporary Australia and Japan, and examine socio-economic structures andcultural systems shaping young adult’s lifestyles and perceptions on food and eating.
In Chapter 5, employing free-listing, I explore cultural domains of commensality andsolo-eating among participants, and examine cross-cultural variations and similarities of the domains within and across cultural groups. From Chapters 6 through 9, I
explore socio-cultural interactions and determinants of commensality and solo-eating
among young adults in urban Australia and Japan. In Chapter 6, I combine timeuse diaries and in-depth interviews, and examines the experience of time-pressure
and time constraints to commensal eating. In Chapter 7, I focus on the diverse de-

10

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

velopment of eating out in Australia and Japan, and explore the cultural economy ofeating spaces in two societies. In Chapter 8, I examine gender dynamics particularly
gendered division of household labours, and discuss how commensality becomes asite of gender conflict. In Chapter 9, I focus on the impacts of social relations on
subjective meanings of commensality and solo-eating, and explore how cross-culturaldifferences are constructed through individual reflexivity of social relations.
Part III brings all cross-cultural findings together and discusses implications tostudies about modernisation and consumption in social science and public health.
Chapter 10 returns to the three research questions/objectives and discusses implications of cross-cultural findings in Part II in global cultural economy. The final
Chapter (Chapter 11) summarises cross-cultural findings and discusses implications
to socio-cultural determinants of consumption as well as healthy eating campaigns.
In this Chapter, I also discuss limitations of the current study and implications for
future cross-cultural investigations.

Part I
Background11

Chapter 2
Literature review
2.1

Reconsideration of human food sharing practices and sociality
We should look for someone to eat and drink with before looking forsomething to eat and drink, for dining alone is leading the life of lion orwolf (Epicurus).

As Epicurus, a Greek philosopher who lived from 341–270 BC, indicated, eating
together with others is a symbol of human ways of living in contrast to other animals. However, non-human primates share food with their family and peers. But,
throughout their evolution, humans have developed unique food sharing systems
which are different from other animals. Japanese primatologist∗ Juichi Yamagiwa(1994) noted that human food sharing practices are different from other primates
for three reasons. First, human transport food away from where they are obtained
to share with others. Secondly, they distribute food based on their social rules.
Thirdly, food sharing plays an important role for sociality and negotiations (Yamagiwa, 1994, 38–39). Kaplan et al. (2005) also remarked that human food sharing
is built upon a division of labour by age and gender primarily enforced by marriage
leading man and woman share food throughout their life (Kaplan et al., 2005, 75).
Although some primates practice food sharing, they practice less frequently and actively than humans (Jaeggi and Van Schaik, 2011; Jaeggi et al., 2010). Therefore,∗

Japanese primatology developed its own academic discipline with a long history of separation from western primatology. Compared western primatology, Japanese primatology has focused on the society and culture of primates rather than individuals and the evolution as species(Asquith, 1991). This feature of Japanese primatology may be related to its cultural history of
the relationship between humans and monkey in Japanese society. According to anthropologist,
Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, the Japanese used macaques, a monkey native to Japan, as a metaphor
to deliberate their behaviours and minds rather than separate animals from human cosmology(Ohnuki-Tierney, 1990, 90–91).

13

14

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

human food practices are shaped by social norms rather than by only physiologicalneeds such as hunger.
For many years, the familiarity with food sharing practices among humans has
normalised the practice of eating together rather than eating alone. Until recently,
the practice of eating together has rarely been investigated from a critical perspective, but rather taken for granted in many academic disciplines including history(Kirkby et al., 2007, 3), anthropology (Kaplan et al., 2005, 75) and sociology (Germov, 1997, 35). Both definitions and word usage of food sharing practices varied:some studies focused on sharing the same meal with family at home, and otherstudies encompassed broader meanings of food sharing including eating together
regardless of sharing the same food or not, or sharing the same food regardlessof sharing the same space or not. The term commensality literally means eating
together at the same table, derived from the Latin mensa (Fischler, 2011, 529).
However, some scholars did not embrace this original meaning when they used theterm, and applied this term to refer to sharing the same food in different timing
and place, with no physical share of a table. Because a number of questions about
eating together remain unclear for many years, it is significant to investigate theliterature about related topics from various academic disciplines. At the same time,a plenty of literature have published in the late twentieth century and explore thetopics from various perspectives.
Why are there many concerns about eating together and eating alone today?
What are implications of these eating practices? Laments and anxieties over the
decline of eating with others are expressed throughout mass media, popular writing, and policy documents in many industrialised societies (Cabinet Office, 2011;
Huntley, 2008a; Ferrazzi and Raz, 2014). Similarly, some sociologists and anthropologists also assume that eating alone have taken over eating together with others.
For example, Claude Fischler (1988, 1979) suggested that sociality of meals has been
replaced by gastro-anomie where social and cultural norms of eating no longer exist.
Based on their reviews on literature about the reorganisation of eating behaviours,on the one hand, Mennell et al. (1992) remarked that “the importance of taking
meals together waxes and wanes”(Mennell et al., 1992, 116) along with individualisation and industrialisation. On the other hand, they also noted that there wasneither strong evidence that more people ate together in the past nor more people
ate alone than before (Mennell et al., 1992, 116). Is the presumption of the declineof eating with others based on empirical facts or social imagination?
In this Chapter, I review literature of both quantitative and qualitative studies
available in English and Japanese, and explores several discussions over the prac-

2.2. PREVALENCE OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

15

tice of eating together and eating alone in contemporary human societies. Firstly, I
review studies and reports about the prevalence of eating together and eating alone
in contemporary post-industrial societies, and consider a popular discussion on the
decline of eating together. Secondly, I examine studies about impacts of these eating
practices on food intake, choices, and some health outcomes, and elucidate motivations behind these studies. However, the majority of quantitative studies tend toframe eating alone as “a contrast or counterpoint or control for the more usual social eating” (Pliner and Bell, 2009, 169). Its reductionist approach overlooks various
potentials of eating together and eating alone. Therefore, in Section 2.4, apart fromquantitative studies, I draw attention to qualitative studies exploring the variations
and transformation of eating together and eating alone from cross-cultural perspectives. At the end, I outline a conceptual framework of this dissertation which fills
the gap of what has been missing from current literature.

2.2

Prevalence and transformation of commensality and solo-eating

One of the major questions is whether the practice of eating alone overtakes eatingwith others. In order to explore this question, I examine empirical studies andreports available in English and Japanese languages. Most of these studies andreports were conducted in so-called post-industrialised societies such as U.S. Europe,
Australia, and Japan, and published in the late 1990s and 2000s. Based on available
literature, I discuss following topics:
1. The prevalence rate of these eating practices reported in late 1990s and 2000s
2. The change of the prevalence rate of these eating practices from mid and latetwentieth century to the present
3. Potential social factors associated with the change.

2.2.1

The prevalence of commensality and solo-eating in thelate 1990s and 2000s

There have been many attempts to measure and quantify the prevalence of eatingwith others and eating alone in many societies since the late 1990s. The majorityof studies focused on frequency of eating alone in comparison to eating together
with others, and discovered the frequency varies depending on meal occasions. A
survey study of American adults by Sobal and Nelson (2003) examined how often the

16

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

participants ate alone and ate with others such as family, friends, work colleagues,
and neighbours. 58% of the participants reported they ate alone “more often” forbreakfast, 45% for lunch, 19% for dinner, and 14% for all three meals. Mestdag
studied a group of Flemish respondents for two years, 1988 and 1999, reported that
27.8% ate alone for the first meal on Tuesday, the rate was 25.8%, 12.1%, 10.5% on
Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday respectively (Mestdag, 2005). For the second meal,
the rate was 14.8% on Tuesday, 13.1% on Thursday, 8.9% on Saturday, and 3.1%
on Sunday. For the third meal, the rate was 10.1% on Tuesday, 9.7% on Thursday,
3.3% on Saturday, and 3.5% on Sunday. This study found that people ate alone
more on the first and second meals on weekdays due to their working schedule.
Some studies in two Asian societies reported characteristics of people who frequently ate alone. Tsubota-Utsugi et al. (2013)’s study of a group of Japanese university students living in urban area reported that 40.7% ate alone more than twice
a day. Attributes associated with frequent eating alone was living alone, scholarship
recipients, higher income as a student, and waking up early. Yiengprugsawan et al.
(2015)’s study about nationwide cohort of Thai adults reported that 11.1% of theThai participants ate alone more than half of the main meals per week. Attributes
associated with frequent eating alone was being male, older age, divorced, separated, widowed, having lower income, working as office assistants or skilled manual
workers, and residing in urban areas.
The prevalence of eating alone has also reported by studies of family meal whichis the archetype of eating with others (Sobal et al., 2002). Most of family mealstudies, including impacts of family meal discuss in Section 2.3, focus on young
children and adolescents, and the most common alternative to family meals for thispopulation is eating alone (Pliner and Bell, 2009, 171). National Center on Addictionand Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA) in the United States has
surveyed about the prevalence of family dinners every year from 1999. According
to their reports, over the last 10 years, about 50–60% of teens consistently reported
having dinners with their family members five or more times per week (National
Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 2011, 2012). Zaborskis et al. (2007)’s
study reported that about 80% of male and female children of 13 and 15 years old
in six European countries ate with family every day of most days, though type ofmeals were not specified.
Since the late 2000s, there are some reports looking at adults, but they focusedon the prevalence of family meals among those who lived with family members andexclude those who lived alone. The nationwide survey of 1,000 Australian parents
reported that 77% of them aged 18–64 ate with family members more than five

2.2. PREVALENCE OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

17

times per week (Huntley, 2008b). Stated differently, almost a quarter of Australianfamilies did not regularly eat together (Sydney Morning Herald, 2008). The Japanese
government started to survey the prevalence of family meals nationwide every year
from 2010. According to the survey, the rate of those who lived with a family
and had breakfast almost every day (6–7 times per week) was 50.7% in 2010 and
53.5% in 2013. The rate of dinner consumed in this manner was 56.8% in 2010 and
60.1% in 2013. The national average did not change drastically over four years. Not
surprisingly, the survey indicated that the rate was higher among those in their 60s
and 70s and lowest among people in their 20s (Cabinet Office, 2013a).
Since the late 1990s, there have been a variety of surveys about the prevalence of
eating together and eating alone from from government and non-government reports
to peer-reviewed scientific articles. The prevalence rates reported by these studies
are different depending on questions and targeted populations (i.e. children vs.
adults, living alone vs. living with family, Americans vs. Europeans). However,these prevalence rates are not comparable for two reasons. One is that definitionsof frequent eating alone and eating with others were varied across the studies, andmost of them focused on main meals particularly dinners only. Another is how
the prevalence rate was calculated were also varied. For example, some studies
calculated the prevalence rate by dividing self-report prevalence of eating with others
or eating alone by the number of total participants. Others such as family mealstudies calculated the prevalence after they excluded participants who lived alone.
Therefore, the prevalence rate of most family meal studies was higher than that ofstudies which included those who lived alone. Nevertheless, one of the important
contributions of these studies is that the practice of eating alone prevailed acrosssocieties to some extent particularly for weekday breakfasts among adults.

2.2.2

The prevalence of commensality and solo-eating overtime

Despite the public discourse over the rise of eating alone, there is handful of empiricalevidence to prove the decline of eating together with others and rise of eating alone
over time. These reports were published in the late 1990s and 2000s. Miyuki Adachi
and a Japanese public broadcaster (NHK) surveyed 1,067 school children aged 10
and 11 in 1981 and 2,067 students 1999 in seven regions of Japan, and reported
that those who ate breakfast alone on the day of the survey have increased 17.8%
in 1981 to 26.4% in 1999, though there was a slight increase of those who ate dinneralone. Instead, those who ate breakfast with all family members have decreased
from 22.4% in 1981 to 12.6% in 1999. Those who ate dinner with all family members

18

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

decreased from 40.5% to 33.3% (Adachi, 2008, 2014). In contrast to other studies
about eating alone and eating together which focus on frequency per day or week,
this study focused on the prevalence of these eating behaviours on the day and thepreceding day of the survey.
Mestdag and Glorieux (2009) compared and contrasted Belgian time-budget data
between 1966 and 1999, and found a statistically significant increase of eating alone
on the average of all meals among Belgian adults participants over three decades.
The increase was more evident in meals on the weekdays from 14.3% in 1966 andto 25.8% in 1999 than weekends (Mestdag and Glorieux, 2009, 709–710). Breakfast
was the meal which showed the highest increase of eating alone and decrease ofeating with others (Mestdag and Glorieux, 2009, 713). Unlike lunch and dinnerwhich showed some increase of eating with non-family members, they observed thatbreakfast was eaten either alone or with family members (Mestdag and Glorieux,
2009, 713). Although there is little empirical evidence about the evolution of eating
alone over time, the practice of eating alone has evolved particularly in weekday
breakfasts, and the practice of eating together persists more in lunch and dinner on
the weekends.

2.2.3

Potential factors associated with the rise of solo-eatingin post-industrial societies

Using Flemish time-use surveys in 2004, Mestdag and Glorieux (2009) also quantitatively investigated factors associated with this increase, and identified that theincrease of people living alone was the most important factor rather than the development of self-catering and the number of working hours (Mestdag and Glorieux,
2009, 723). Indeed the increasing numbers of people living alone was reported inmany societies (US Census Bureau, 2011; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011;
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 2012b). Associations between living alone
and eating alone were widely studied among the elderly (Torres et al., 1992), because they were more vulnerable to social isolation and adverse health conditions
than the younger generation. However, living alone is not a single and absolutefactor influencing eating alone. There are some reports in Japan that the elderly
who lived with someone ate alone frequently and had poor dietary intake (Kimura
et al., 2012), and the relation was more evident among those who live with family
members other than their spouse than those who live with spouse (Tsubota-Utsugi
et al., 2015). Thus, these studies about the elderly suggested that there are several
factors leading eating alone other than living alone.
There are plausible explanations about factors associated with the develop-

2.3. IMPACT OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

19

ment of eating alone other than living alone. One alternative explanation is “deroutinisation of everyday life”(Warde et al., 1999). Transformation of time-use ineveryday life changes the experience of time. Castells (2011) argued that the experience of time and space in an information era is deviant from clock-time and therhythms of nature, and reconstructs the new form of time and space called “timeless time”, “the space of flows”(Castells, 2011, 12). This change also influence on
individual’s eating practices. Based on their interview study of three generations ofAustralian families, Dixon et al. (2014) observed that the development of variabilityof individual employment and time schedules generates de-synchronisation of social
lives which restrict opportunities to eat with others.
Furthermore, there was an empirical report that people spent less time for meals
than before. Warde et al. (2007) investigated time use surveys in France, United
Kingdom, United States, Norway and Netherlands, and found that time spendingon eating at home has decreased over three decades (the 1970s to late 1990s–early
2000s) in all nations except France. Although international variations were reported,
they noted that time use for eating showed “a more internationally similar pattern”
than other daily activities, and was subject to global forces and trends such asincreasing female labour participation and flexible employment (Warde et al., 2007,
380).

2.3

Impact of commensality and solo-eating

More than discussions over the rise of eating alone, more researchers had investigatedconsequences of eating together with others and eating alone since the mid-twentiethcentury. Most of studies were derived from social psychology, clinical psychology,
nutrition, and public health, and focused on statistical associations with three areas:meal intake, food choices, and psychosocial well-being. Some studies expanded their
discussions to social and health implications such as social isolation, obesity andeating disorders including anorexia and binge eating. However, they did not sharethe common roots, nor did they reach common conceptual frameworks and researchquestions. This section introduces this various studies in an attempt to examine
impacts of eating with others and eating alone, and discuss things we know and wewant to know.

2.3.1

Impacts on meal intake

Since the late 1970s, there have been a great deal of research examining the impactsof social circumstance on meal intake and eating behaviours. Most of studies were20

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

conducted in laboratory setting (Clendenen et al., 1994; Hetherington et al., 2006;
Baker et al., 2003; Salvy et al., 2007) and some were based on observation (Belland Pliner, 2003; Klesges et al., 1984) and food diaries (de Castro and de Castro,
1989; de Castro, 1990; Redd and De Castro, 1992). Psychologist John de Castro
de Castro (2000), who conducted a number of studies about this topic by fooddiaries, pointed out that laboratory setting may unintentionally remove “real-world
constraints” on eating. Despite the limitation of laboratory studies about social
impacts on eating, both laboratory studies and non-laboratory studies constantly
showed that the presence of others encouraged more meal intake than their absence(Bell and Pliner, 2003, 215). The impact so-called “social facilitation effect” wasmore robust than eating less when eating with others compare with “social inhibition
effect” (Pliner and Bell, 2009, 177). Pliner and Bell (2009, 178) also suggested reframing this effect as “solitary inhibition effect”, because aversive images of eating
alone make a greater impact on individual behaviours than the influence of others.
Regardless of whether “social facilitation” or “social inhibition” is stronger, one ofcontributions of these studies is to demonstrate that social context in which food isconsumed has a greater influence on human behaviours and decision-making thanthe basic physiological functions of hunger and satiety on diet (Herman et al., 2003).
In other words, individual meal intake (i.e. quantities and choices) were influenced
by a wide range of social factors from whom to eat with to where to eat. Whatkinds of social factors influencing meal intake was a central discussion of the topic.

When people eat more in commensal settings
The relationship between the presence of others and eating more was not straightforward. Possible mediators of the effect were reported by several studies. The
most studied explanation was that people ate more because they tended to spend
more time for eating when they ate with others than they ate alone (Klesges et al.,
1984; Edelman et al., 1986; de Castro and de Castro, 1989; de Castro, 1990; Reddand De Castro, 1992; Pliner et al., 2006). Another explanation was the number ofpeople present. On one hand, de Castro and de Castro (1989) reported that themore people presented, the more food was eaten by individuals. On the other hand,
Pliner et al. (2006) reported that there was no significant effect of group size on mealintake. Bell and Pliner (2003) reported that meal intake was mediated not only bymeal duration and group size but also by eating venues. Klesges et al. (1984)’sobservation study reported that participants consumed more calories at fast-foodrestaurants, and they ate more calories when in a group than alone. Thus, groupsize may be a potential mediator, but there is no strong evidence to identify strong2.3. IMPACT OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

21

associations with eating more.
Other than meal duration and group size, menu and kinds of commensal partners
were also reported as mediators to encourage more meal intake. Redd and De Castro(1992) reported alcohol consumption and Clendenen et al. (1994) reported having
desserts as mediators to eat more. In terms of commensal partners, some studies
reported that people were more likely to eat more when they eat with intimate otherssuch as family and friends (Clendenen et al., 1994; Hetherington et al., 2006; Salvy
et al., 2008; Conger et al., 1980). In short, the relationships between the presence ofothers and more meal intake were reported by several studies but the relationshipwas conditional.

When people eat less in commensal settings
There were some social circumstances of eating with others which encouraged eating
less than when they ate alone. One common case of the effect was that individuals
ate less when there was the presence or company of others who ate less or did noteat. There were three accepted explanations about the effect to eat less (Herman
et al., 2003; Pliner and Bell, 2009; Fischler, 2011). One was that people tended
to imitate their company’s behaviours (modelling). The second was that people
intended to manage their good impressions to others if there were other people
around (impression management). The third was the influences of strong social andcultural norms on eating.
The modelling effect demonstrated that meal intake and eating behaviours weremore likely to be influenced by other people’s behaviours. Therefore, some people
may eat more when they eat with others who eat a large quantity. Pliner and Mann
(2004)’s experimental study reported that participants ate more food when they
were told that other participants ate a great amount than when they were told that
other participants ate a small amount or when no information was provided. Pliner
et al. (2006)’s experimental study found that participants eating in two-person groupate more similar amounts than those who ate alone or in four-person groups. Salvy
et al. (2008) conducted observation study on children, and found that meal intake
were alike when children ate with strangers than when they ate with their siblings.
The impression management effect was observed when individual’s behaviours
are influenced by his/her desire to manage their impressions to others. The effect wasreported when individuals ate with those who were not close: strangers (Clendenen
et al., 1994; Hetherington et al., 2006; Salvy et al., 2008), opposite sex individuals(Mori et al., 1987; Pliner and Chaiken, 1990; Hetherington et al., 2006), and noneating observers (Conger et al., 1980; Roth et al., 2001). In these circumstances,

22

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

individuals tended to eat less because they become more self-conscious about theirimpressions on others.
In addition to the circumstances to be self-conscious, there were some reports
about tendency to become more self-conscious about their eating behaviours andmeal intake in front of others. A number of studies reported that more overweight
and obese individuals (Maykovich, 1978; Zdrodowski, 1996; Salvy et al., 2007) andthe patients of binge eating disorders (BED) (Johnson and Larson, 1982; Nasser
et al., 2004) inhibited eating in front of others more than normal individuals. Mostof these studies about obesity originated from Schachter’s externality hypothesis ofobesity (Schachter et al., 1968; Schachter, 1971). This theory argued that obese
individuals were more responsive to external cues and less sensitive to physiologicalreactions such as hunger and satiety than normal weight individuals. Althoughearlier studies tested the hypothesis by external sensory stimuli in the laboratory,
some later studies demonstrated that social identities to be obese, social stigma
for obesity, and gender identities may be another external factor to encourage obese
individuals to eat less in front of others (Maykovich, 1978; Salvy et al., 2007). Similar
to obese individuals, sensitivity to social evaluations and public scrutiny were also
reported in binge eating literature (Heatherton and Baumeister, 1991).
Associations between the habit of eating alone and abnormal binge eating are
more complex. The habit of eating alone is one of behavioural characteristics of binge
eating disorders (Fairburn et al., 1993) and one of diagnostic criteria introduced
from Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM5) (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). In fact, some studies supported thatbinge eating occurred when the patients were alone and had negative affects (Polivy
and Herman, 1993; Grilo et al., 1994). However, Grilo et al. (1994)’s study showedthat binge eating also occurred in social settings. Thus, it is problematic to draw theline between normal and abnormal eating based on behavioural characteristics only,
and attitudinal variables are also necessary to be considered in order to confirm therelationships between eating alone and binge eating (Connors and Johnson, 1987).
The last explanation was strong social and cultural norms govern individual’s
eating behaviours and meal intake. Similar to the modelling effect, norms may encourage eating more or less depending on the contents of norms. Baker et al. (2003)’s
two-week longitudinal study of adolescent participants reported that social norms
shared with peers and parents play an important role in participant’s attitudes toeating behaviours and food choices. Fischler (2011) focused on social and cultural
norms shared within the society and suggested that social norms may prevent fromovereating when they valued moderate eating. Based on his cross-cultural study2.3. IMPACT OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

23

of American and European adults, Fischler (2011, 16-17) asserted that “strict social norms” in commensal-setting contributed to prevent from excessive meal intake
in France, whereas in the US, individual will predominant individual choices andbehaviours. However, another cross-cultural study of 1,649 Korean and Japanese
university students, which I worked with researchers in Korea, showed a different result from Fischler’s study: more Korean students than Japanese students expressedstronger attachment to commensally and reported that they tend to eat more when
they eat commensally than when they eat alone (Cho et al., 2015). These different
results in two cross-cultural studies suggest that social norms about commensality
are different in society and culture and encourage different eating behaviours in
different society.

2.3.2

Impacts on food choiceThis Section focuses on what kinds of food are more likely to be chosen in the context of eating with others and eating alone. John De Castro and his colleagues’
studies about university students and adults reported that eating with others encouraged eating more calories, with intake consisting of more carbohydrate, fat,and protein intake (de Castro and de Castro, 1989) and alcohol intake (Redd and
De Castro, 1992). They also assessed the degree of satiety and deprivation, anddemonstrated that eating with others were associated with lower deprivation ratio
and higher satiety ratios than eating alone (de Castro and de Castro, 1989, 245).
Furthermore, “unhealthy food choices” such as fast-food when eaten with friends
were also reported in studies about adolescents (Baker et al., 2003; Voorend et al.,2013). Voorend et al. (2013) observed that food sharing among friends is not only
a representation of friendship but also a transmission of healthy and unhealthy
behaviours. Like peer pressure in narcotic consumption, the environment with unhealthy foods available and affordable for adolescents encouraged more unhealthy
food choices among adolescents (Voorend et al., 2013, 565).
Food choices may be different when adolescents and young children ate with theirparents. Family meals are often considered as “the preeminent space for the culturaltraining of children in manners, social skills and nutrition” (Chrzan, 2009, 252),
where parents’ food preferences can overtake children’s ones most of time. Somestudies reported that more frequent family meals were associated with higher intake
of vegetables, fruits, important nutrients (e.g. fibre, calcium, iron, and vitamins),
and low intakes of soft drink and saturated fat (Gillman et al., 2000; Videon andManning, 2003; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2003). Kusano-Tsunoh and her colleagues’
study about Japanese school children reported that more frequent family meals were24

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

associated with higher intake of rice and fishes (Kusano-Tsunoh et al., 2001). Larsonand her colleagues’ longitudinal study indicated having more frequent family meals
during adolescence is associated with better nutrition intake during young adulthood(Larson et al., 2007; Burgess-Champoux et al., 2009). However, higher frequencyof watching TV during family meals was associated with lower vegetables and fruit
intake as well as higher fat intake (Boutelle et al., 2003). Furthermore, higher
frequency of having fast-food for family meals was associated not only with higher
availability of soft drink and chips at home, but also with higher intake of fast-foodand salty snack food for both parents and adolescents (Boutelle et al., 2007). Thesefamily meal studies indicated that parents’ food choices influence their children’s
food intake and nutrition status through the frequent family meals. However, thesestudies did not indicate that family meals solve all kinds of nutrition and healthproblems.
Associations between inadequate food and nutrition intake and frequent eating
alone were also reported among the elderly (Davis et al., 2000; Donkin et al., 1998;
Kimura et al., 2012; Tsubota-Utsugi et al., 2015). Unlike younger generation, lowenergy intake and inadequate nutrition intake among the elderly are caused by eithersocial or physiological factors due to ageing, or a combination of both (Donini et al.,2003). However, according to Bofill (2004), eating alone was viewed as a strong
experience of loneliness and social isolation among her elderly participants. The
aversive views of eating alone may discourage them to choose adequate food items.

2.3.3

Impacts on physical health and psychosocial well-being

Some researchers started to expand the discussion to implications to some healthoutcomes particularly obesity. Yuasa et al. (2008)’s cross-sectional study reported
that eating main meals with family members everyday was associated with lower
rate of obesity as well as eating balanced meals and having enough sleep among
school children in Japan. They anticipated that parents’ involvement through family meals is important to develop health-promoting eating and lifestyle habits andprevent the development of obesity (Yuasa et al., 2008, 75-76). Derived from thefact that Italy and France maintained relatively lower obesity rates among European
countries (De Saint Pol, 2010) and his own cross-cultural study, Claude Fischler argued that strong cultural norms valuing commensality, eating together at the sametable, rather than individual choices contributed to maintain a lower level of obesity in these societies (Fischler, 2011, 542-545). However, there are three reasons to
refute their arguments. First, both arguments retained profound structuralist bias:
overlooking variations within the societies and changes over time. Secondly, they

2.3. IMPACT OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

25

demonstrated associations, but causal pathways and detail mechanisms between
obesity and eating alone were not confirmed by their finding. These studies reliedon self-report data about dietary intake only. In order to identify causal pathways
to physical health outcomes, it is necessary to access physiological reactions anddysfunctions caused by eating with others and eating alone. Lastly, as discussed in
the Section 2.3.1, eating with others could associate with both extensive eating andinhibited eating depending on the contexts of eating. Therefore, there are probabilities that eating with others and eating alone are associated with other weight issues
like underweight.
On the contrary, reports about implications to psychosocial well-being were more
directional than physical health outcomes. The notion of psychosocial well-being
does not refer to specific consequences, but rather encompass broader meanings ofthe influences of various social factors on individual’s beliefs and behaviours (Martikainen et al., 2002). Eisenberg et al. (2004) reported that frequent family meals
were associated with various kinds of psychosocial well-being among adolescents:
lower tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use, higher grade point average, lower depressive symptoms, and lower suicide attempt. Similarly, CASA’s short briefing
report indicated strong associations between frequent family dinners and lower rateof alcohol drinking, smoking, and illicit drug uses among teens (National Centre on
Addiction and Substance Abuse, 2007). A study about Chinese and Japanese junior high school students showed positive associations between frequent family meals
and self-report mental health conditions (Konishi and Kurokawa, 2001). Other thanstudies about adolescents and elderly (Kimura et al., 2012), there was a study about
associations with well-being among working populations too. Yiengprugsawan et al.
(2015) reported that those who reported the majority of main meals alone weremore likely to report being unhappy, and frequent eating main meals alone werealso strongly associated with being unhappy in four years later. However, similar
to studies about obesity, relationships between eating with others, especially withfamily, and positive psycho-social well-being are not confirmatory, but statisticalprobability. Table 2.1 summaries impacts of commensality in comparison to eating
alone discussed in existing literature.

Impact

Study

MethodSubjects

26

Table 2.1: Summary of findings from existing literature on impacts of commensality in comparison to eating alone
Conditions/Results

Klesges et al. (1984)

Observation in town

539 adults (USA)

N/A

Edelman et al. (1986)

Experiment

50 normal and overweight adult men (USA)N/A

de Castro and de Castro (1989)

Food diaries

63 adults (USA)

Influenced by group sizede Castro (1990)

Food diaries

82 adults (USA)

Influenced by meal duration, group size,& individual conditions (i.e. hunger)

Eating more quantity
Redd and De Castro (1992)

Food diaries

30 university students (USA)

N/A

Clendenen et al. (1994)

Experiment120 female students (Canada)

When eaten in large group

Bell and Pliner (2003)

Observation in town

1,124 customers (USA)

Influenced by meal duration and venues

Pliner et al. (2006)

Experiment

132 adults (USA)When eaten in four-person group

Salvy et al. (2008)

Observation in lab

44 children (USA)When eaten with siblings

Cho et al. (2015)

Questionnaire

1,649 university students (Korea & Japan)

Korean participants only

Conger et al. (1980)

Experiment

114 university students (USA)With non-eating peers

Clendenen et al. (1994)

Experiment120 female students (Canada)

When eaten with strangers(Social facilitation effect)

Pliner et al. (2006)

Experiment

132 adults (USA)When eaten in two-person group

Hetherington et al. (2006)

Experiment

37 students and staff (UK)

When eaten with strangers

Salvy et al. (2008)

Observation in lab

44 children (USA)When eaten with strangers

Fischler (2011)

Theory*About 6,000 participants in six countries

French participants

Eating less quantity

Maykovich (1978)

Observation in town

553 adults (USA)When eaten with normal individuals(Social inhibition effectSalvy et al. (2007)

Experiment

32 children (USA)When eaten in groupde Castro and de Castro (1989)

Food diaries

63 adults (USA)More calories, fat, & protein intake

Redd and De Castro (1992)

Food diaries

30 University students (USA)More food, water, sodium & alcohol intake

Gillman et al. (2000)

Questionnaire

16,202 children & adolescents (USA)Lower saturated and trans fat intake(Social inhibition effectamong normal individuals)

among obese individuals)
Nutrient intake (adults)
Nutrient intake in family meals(children & adolescents)

Higher intake of several important nutrients (i.e. fibre)
Continued on next page

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Eating less quantity

StudyMethodSubjects

Conditions/Results

Kusano-Tsunoh et al. (2001)

Questionnaire

6,199 school children (Japan)

Higher rice & fish intake

Nutrient intake in family meals

Videon and Manning (2003)

Structured interviews

18,177 adolescents (USA)Higher vegetable, fruit & dairy intake(children & adolescents)

Neumark-Sztainer et al. (2003)

Questionnaire

4,746 adolescentsHigher vegetable, fruit, grain & calcium-rich food intake
Lower soft drink intake

Donkin et al. (1998)

Structured interviews

369 elderly (UK)

Davis et al. (2000)

Structured interviews

6,525 adults over 50 (USA)

Nutrient intake (the elderly)

Lower vegetable & fruit intake among men living alone
Lower nutrient intakes
The effect varied by race groups

Kimura et al. (2012)

Questionnaire

853 elderly (Japan)

Lower diversity of food items among those living alone

Tsubota-Utsugi et al. (2015)

Questionnaire

1,542 adults over 60 (Japan)

Lower vegetable & fruit intake among men living alone

Konishi and Kurokawa (2001)

Questionnaire

676 adolescents (Japan)

Better mental health conditions

Eisenberg et al. (2004)

Questionnaire

4,746 adolescents (USA)Lower depressive symptom

CASA2007

Structured interviews

1,063 teens (USA)Lower alcohol drinking, smoking, and illicit drug uses

Kimura et al. (2012)

Questionnaire

853 elderly (Japan)

Psycho-social well-being
Lower depressive symptom
Higher level of quality of life
Yiengprugsawan et al. (2015)*

Questionnaire

39,820 adults (Thailand)

Higher level of happiness

Fischler (2011) argued the potential social inhibition effect based on the finding from his cross-cultural project in six countries which indicated the presence of strong social norms in France in comparison to the United States.

However, empirical data on food intake in commensal and solo-eating settings was not reported in his literature.

2.3. IMPACT OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

Table 2.1 – Continued from previous page
Impact27

28

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEWThis Section (Section 2.3) provides an overview of various literature discussing

impacts of eating with others and eating alone. The review reveals that not only
methodologies but also backgrounds of these reports and studies varied across academic disciplines. Social psychologists investigated the impacts of social factors onfood intake and food choices. Some clinical psychologists looked at how being selfconscious due to the presence of others influenced eating behaviours among patientsof binge eating disorders and obesity. Public health nutritionists viewed family meal
as a preventive factor for unhealthy behaviours as well as unsocial behaviours. Sociologists and anthropologists focused on social functions of eating behaviours (functionalism) as well as the influence of social and cultural structures on behaviours(structuralism). The diversity of research backgrounds and methodology may influence the result of studies. Furthermore, relationships between eating with othersand eating alone with social, cultural, health, and psychological variables are associations and do not necessarily explain direct causal relationships. Mechanisms ofimpacts to physical and mental health are little studied. Although there are manythings we do not know about the impacts of eating with others and eating alone, theover-representation of certain studies may reconstruct and embed normative viewsof these eating behaviours (Morimoto, 2009).

2.4

Qualitative understanding of commensality andsolo-eating: Cultural diversity and transformation

The literature discussed in the previous Sections presented narrow views of thepractice of eating together and eating alone for two reasons. Firstly, most literature
focuses on the measured reality of eating with others and eating alone such as
frequency of these behaviours. Meanings of eating with others and eating alone
were defined by researchers to be measurable, and variations of these behaviours
were minimised. Secondly, this literature discussed the practice of eating with othersand eating alone in the late twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century
in developed societies such as Europe, United States, Australia, and Japan. It is
in line with the time that eating practices gained ardent attentions from various
academic fields.
Cultural and social anthropology have studied about the topics from the nineteenth century (Mintz and Du Bois, 2002). Anthropologists try to explore the relationships between food and other dimensions of cultures (Yan, 2005). Anthro-2.4. REVIEW OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES

29

pology’s strong inclusivist ethics such as cultural relativism encourage to consider
cross-cultural and historical variations in food and eating (Mintz and Du Bois, 2002).
However, structuralist approach, which had been dominant in mid-twentieth century, focused on historical, cultural, and exotic aspects of food and eating practices(Germov, 1997), and tended to undermine the transformation of these eating habits
over time Mennell (1991). Furthermore, intangible aspects of sociability like hospitality were often entangled with gift-giving practices and absent from the recent
discussions over sociability including hospitable commensality (Candea and Da Col,2012).
Rather than relying on anthropological literature alone, I also reviewed recentsocial science literature to examine transformation of commensality and solo-eating.
The Section is divided into two parts. The first part of the Section focuses ontheoretical development of reciprocity and hospitality closely related to eating withothers, and examines qualitative insights about the practices of eating together invarious societies. Then the second part of this Section examines how these eating
practices have changed and been influenced by social changes like modernisation,
urbanisation, and globalisation.

2.4.1

Qualitative insights on the practices of commensality
from a cross-cultural perspective

Social reciprocity and solidarity
Anthropology has been interested in systems and motivations associated with social
reciprocity and the exchange of materials including food to establish human sociality. The importance of food sharing and social reciprocity associated with food has
also studied in anthropology throughout the twentieth century. Although economic
and psychological analysis of reciprocity focused on universal practices and decisionmaking processes of exchanging things for mutual benefits, anthropologists viewed
reciprocity as a foundation of human sociality and looked at cultural variations(Hann, 2006). Through his dedicated participant observation, Malinowski (2002)
documented social construction of two separate exchange system called kula andgimwali in the Trobriand society. Kula was a ceremonial exchange of materials consisting of complicated rules and hierarchy, and the possession of kula items indicatedhigh status of people. In contrast, gimwali was a utilitarian exchange system which
provided the very different sphere from kula. Malinowski (2002, 173) argued thatthe kula exchange was motived by social and psychological stabilities rather thaneconomic considerations which had often emphasised by economists. Drawing on the

30

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

work of Malinowski, Mauss (1970) examined reciprocal gift-exchange practices. In
contrast to Malinowski who emphasised exchange system among individuals, Mauss(1970) suggested the exchange system for social solidarity and stability rather thandriven by individuals’ motivations to benefit from others.
Food is a substantial and material mediator of social reciprocity and hospitable
human relationships in many societies. Based on her fieldwork in the Sherpa community in Nepal, Ortner (1978) showed how the whole process of the rituals of eating
together including seating order, eating manners, and the process of preparing food,
not only encouraged the people to cooperate with each other, but also force themto normalise these reciprocal practices. Similarly, Heatherington (2001) found thatreciprocal practices through eating together, and its positive image as a cultural
tradition, encouraged economic cooperation and political solidarity among residents
in late 1990s in Sardinia, Italy. Traditional local foods played a symbolic role topromote positive local identity and conceal criminality and the experience of tragic
violence (Heatherington, 2001, 334).

Value making and social differentiation
Not only modifying and reinforcing social order through social reciprocity, the practice of eating together facilitates social construction of group identity as well as
inclusion or exclusion of others. Lee (2011) described unique characteristics of thelove feast, or agape, of the Brethren church in the late nineteenth and early twentiethcentury in the United States. Due to rapid urbanisation during the late nineteenth
century, along with a dramatic increase of international immigration and emigrationof rural population, many others churches struggled to maintain moral and social
engagement with their communities. They served to educate the poor to adopt tablemanners, hygienic behaviours, and spiritual beliefs. Although the Brethren church
maintained certain connections with the mainstream American culture by embracing
hygiene and temperance, they developed its own love feast practices which sustained
the spirit of unity, harmony, and peace.
Appadurai (1981) showed how the practice of eating together in public served todemonstrate social relations in Hindu South Asia, based on his observation of threeareas: household, marriage feast, and temple. In all three areas, food transaction by
manipulating food itself or the practice of eating together reinforced and generated
ranks, roles, and privileges, but also emphasised contrasts between host and guest,
givers, and receiver, and insiders and outsiders (Appadurai, 1981, 508). Alongwith South Asian cosmology that food encoded a complex set of social and moral
proposition, he also argued that food transactions can either homogenise individuals

2.4. REVIEW OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES

31

in the form of equality, intimacy, and solidarity or heterogenise them in the form ofrank, distance, and segmentation (Appadurai, 1981, 507–8).
Places to eat together also represent spaces for social differences. Cashmere(2007) showed that taverns and cabarets functioned to teach and negotiate complex
rules and expectations to young men of rural villages in the seventeenth century
France. Sharing food was rather a fraught experience than a representation of
hospitality, and caused some conflicts among those who shared or did not sharefoods (Cashmere, 2007, 115–6). Although women involved in taverns and cabarets
for certain extent, women did not allow behaving as freely as men at these publicdrinking spaces. Therefore, taverns and cabarets produced greater impacts on men’ssociability than women’s in the seventeenth century rural France.
Specific food items are selected for the practice of eating together rather thaneating alone due to its symbolic and religious meanings associated with items. In
Christianity, bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ, and are servedat the Eucharist or Holy Communion to remember Christ’s sacrifice. In many societies, meat is a symbol of gender (Sobal, 2005) as well as class identity (Mennell,
1985; Tapper and Tapper, 1986). However, Ohnuki-Tierney (1993) argued that riceand millets were also capable to be food for commensality due to its spiritual relations with gods and the nature in rice-eating societies. Ohnuki-Tierney (1993, 119)also pointed out that many of anthropological works on food pay more attention tomeats than plant foods, because of its higher socio-cultural value in western societies
where many anthropologists came from. Thus, sharing specific food items indicates
cultural and religious identities and values, and how the values are different fromothers.

Communions with spirits and deities
In some cultures, eating together does not only refer to the communions with otherpeople but also refer to the communions with deities, the nature, or spirits of people
who are apart. Kunio Yanagita, a founder of Japanese ethnology, recorded commensal and gift-giving practices in various rural societies before the Second World War.†In Meiji Taisho shi seso hen (Social history of Meiji and Taisho era), he recorded
sharing the same meal through bento, a boxed home-cooked meal, represented virtualcommensality with family members who were apart from home (Yanagita, 1993).
In Shokumotsu to shinzo (Food and heart), he showed the Japanese believed the†

Anthropologist Harumi Befu pointed out a methodological issue of Yanagita and his school offolklore study. Yanagita and his students collected similar practices in many different regions ofrural Japan. It is hard to examine how these practice have changed from the past to the present
from their analyses (Befu, 1968, 446).

32

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

contagion of supernatural powers, such as connections with deities and the nature,through the practice of eating together as well as through gifts of food (Yanagita,
1940).
Connections to supernatural powers were also reported by Lawrence Babb’s
study of Chhattisgarhi rituals. He emphasised “commensality in ritual is not merely
a matter of the group or community sui generis but, rather, of the definition of
the group in relation to something else” (Babb, 1970, 298). In other words, relationships with supernatural powers provide additional values on the groups. For
example, sharing jutha, leftovers, of the deity masked differences within groups, andobtained the most profound honour to the god. As examples from two Asian societies show, local cosmologies also shape meanings of food and commensal practices.
The literature mostly from anthropology and history asserted how social relations
and belief systems determined distributions and exchanges of food. They demonstrated that food is a mediator of social solidarity, stability, inequality, conflicts, andconnections with nature and supernatural powers. The practice of eating together
provides and enforces spaces for embedding cultural meanings of food and social relations. This approach is in contrast to biomedical studies which rather elaborated
how individual’s behaviours and choices determine distributions and exchanges offood. The next part presents how two different approaches are not mutually exclusive.

2.4.2

Social changes and transformation of commensality
and solo-eating

In the second half of Section 2.4, I examine discussions over how the practices of
eating together and eating alone have evolved and transformed in response to socialand cultural changes together with social changes. Eating together is practised inany societies and any time periods and has never been extinct unless humans giveup sociality over meals. However, the environments around the practices have beenchanged over time. Therefore, the second part focuses on the discussions of howsocial relations and meaning associated with the practices have been transformedin response to these social changes, and how the practices represent the changes
as mediators. Firstly, I provide an overview of the evolution of middle-class family
dinners in western societies. Secondly, I examine how the standardised notions offamily dinners or family meals have been introduced and embedded in non-western
societies like Japan and India, and discuss the discourse around the changes. Then,I examine literature about transformation of the practices of commensality and soloeating in contemporary societies.

2.4. REVIEW OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES

33

Transformation of family meals in western societies

The image of happy family meals has been a widely shared notion in many western
societies. However, there is a huge discrepancy between people’s beliefs and theireveryday realities: few people actually have achieved this ideal every day yet the idea
has endured as a powerful mythology (Wilk, 2010, 434). Murcott (1997, 38) asserted
that the idea of family meals is an idea, and “potentially redolent of ideology, socialprescription and ideals”, which were not always accorded with realities.
Historian Abigail Carroll (2013, 6) remarked that what most Americans believed“America’s meals” was not invented until the mid-nineteenth century. Dinner was
not a meal for family gathering, but a midday activity in the colonial era. Dinner
became a regular family event when it moved to the evening. She argued that theshift occurred due to two social changes during industrialisation: work schedules
encouraging family to have evening meal together, and the rise of public awarenessto consider family meal as a space for social training (Carroll, 2013, 58). Also in
the early twentieth century Australia, family dinner was regimented and structured
by gender and age, but social and class differences were not explicitly presented
through family dinners (Banwell et al., 2012). Banwell et al. (2012, 36) asserted
that food choices and preference become varied among individuals over time rather
than class-based differences, and food imposed an ethic of egalitarianism among theAustralian Lucky generations, those who were born in the 1920s, grew up in thetime of Great Depression and the second world war, and enjoy economic prosperityof Australia later in life (Mackay, 1997).
Discourses of food changed from utilitarian necessity to pleasure during the adultyears of the Baby boomers, children of the Lucky generation, in the 1960s and1970s in Australia (Banwell et al., 2010). During the economic prosperity, many
Australians enjoyed the introduction of supermarkets, the ownership of private automobiles, and the practice of dining out. Rise of pleasure in food was a greattransition from the childhood and adulthood of the Lucky generation, because they
were taught food for utilitarian necessity which was influenced by hardships during Depression as well as early Christian’s thought of stigmatising pleasure in food
(Coveney, 2006). However, cross-cultural studies of the western population showedthat pleasure in food was more expressed by French and Italian participants thanEnglish-speaking populations such as American and British (Rozin, 2005; Fischler,2011).

34

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Globalisation and localisation of middle-class commensality
The notion of middle-class family meals has been introduced to some non-western
societies along with other western ideas and commodities, and unlocked local people’s imaginations. In Japan, both the idea of happy family meals and the practiceof sharing a dining table is newly adopted ideas and practices. Although they wereintroduced to Japan earlier times separately, it took a century or more to naturalise both the idea and practices, and become a cultural icon in modern Japanesesociety. The idea and practice of commensality were realised in Japan during thepost-war economic development along with the emergence of post-war democracy,
modern nuclear family with full-time housewives, and household technology including cooking devices and Television. Ishige (2005) argued that the development ofhousehold technologies contributed the dynamic shift of family meals from patriarchal to housewife-centred (Ishige, 2005, 175). I will discuss detailed evolution of theideology and practice of family meals in Japan in comparison to Australia’s cases in
Chapter 4.
Compared with the Japanese case driven by collective social ideology of egalitarian commensality, contemporary middle-class commensality in Madras, India
involves more complex considerations of choices of menu and manner of serving(Caplan, 2008). Caplan (2008, 129) observed that the complexity is shared not
only by caste, gender, age, but also by religious preferences including vegetarian or
non-vegetarian and spatial distinctions between inside and outside the household.
Domestic commensality focused on hygienic, health, and religious implications offood rather than enhancing emotional ties among family members. For example,
his food diaries and questionnaire showed that many families ate together only inthe evening, and wife/mother ate alone at midday. More than family togetherness,
who cooked and served food was emphasised, and preparing proper food is an important responsibility of women and mothers. Caplan (2008, 140) also added thatthe household division between vegetarians and non-vegetarians influenced how tohandle commensality and sociality. Being vegetarian or not is no longer a trait offamily, caste, gender, and ethnic groups, but personal choices (Donner, 2008, 176).
Thus, middle-class Indian families developed various kinds of commensal practices
either by sharing the same food or by sharing time together. For example, some family members shared the same food with family members by bring food from home,and enjoy sociality at work or school by sharing mealtimes together with their peers(Caplan, 2008, 140). Interestingly, overeating and unhealthy food consumption byoutside commensality in contrast to inside commensality was pointed out by Wilson(Wilson, 2010, 268-270). How to manage between the culture of eating and health2.4. REVIEW OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES

35

risks would be potential additional discussions at middle-class Indian households.
Cases from Japan and India illustrated how domestic commensality became aparticular space for accommodating global ideoscapes of middle-class domesticity
like sharing tables and domestic surveillance of food and health. At the same time,
domestic commensality is also shaped by other flows of globalisation such as household technology and notions of personal choices, as well as religious and cultural
traditions and gender roles.

Transformation of the practice of commensality and solo-eating
There are some studies about the transformation and modification of the practicesof commensality and solo-eating. An ethnographic study of French and German
young adults demonstrated that the structure of commensality among young adults
became more egalitarian and democratic, and this allows them to choose what toeat and whom to eat with (Danesi, 2011). Furthermore, she also reported that someyoung adults’ perceptions of commensality can be negative when they were judged
by others and when there were obligations to stimulate conversation, rigid norms
and manners (Danesi, 2012, 9). Although the discourses of comfort and informality
centred on contemporary sociability, people use the occasion to draw boundaries
between intimate and distance relationships as well as social distinctions by gender,class, and race (Julier, 2013)
The practice of dining out provides special spaces for self-representation and the
mediation for social relations (Finkelstein, 1999, 3) which are different from meals
at home or mainstream spaces for eating. Yan (2005) studied about McDonald
in Beijing showed that female customers enjoyed choosing their own meals, talking with their female friends, or eating alone. These practices are often considered
as unusual or abnormal at formal Chinese restaurants. Similarly, dining out alone
may transgress social and cultural boundaries around single women on periphery infamiliarist societies like East Asia. A popular term from late 1990s Japan, ohitorisama, a single person, presented various lifestyle means to overcome taboos of beinga single woman and to diminish discomfort feelings associated with solo activities including combating the stigma of eating alone in public (Dales, 2014, 229). However,
Dales (2014, 234) argues that the model of ohitorisama may challenge the notion of
marriage as a universal goal of women, but it was not anti-marriage ideology andcreated “other exclusivities” of womanhood. The exclusivities may be produced by
the practice and space of dining out, because dining out provides existing manners
and customs which allow customers “to act in imitation of others, in accord with images, in response to fashions, out of habit, without need for thought or self-scrutiny”

36

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW(Finkelstein, 1999, 5).
Lastly, there was an argument that today’s solitary eating was not always beingalone or lonely. Juliette Rogers noted that a person eating alone tended to be“engaging in constructing her (globalized) social world as much as if she were eatingwith family or neighbours” (Rogers, 2008, 103). A tele-communication technology
like mobile phones is available to create a sense of connectedness around a meal
and to alleviate the loneliness of solitary eating. This technology did create not
only a space for people to share their time together in distance but also a new formof commensality (Grevet et al., 2012, 103). Therefore, boundaries between social
eating and eating alone became blurred and contested, and were no longer explainedby the difference of eating practices between humans and non-humans.

2.5

Gaps in the present literatureThis Chapter overviews various literature of both quantitative and qualitative studies available in English and Japanese, and examines a range of discussions and concerns about the practice of eating together and eating alone in contemporary humansocieties. The review reveals that although all studies appears to deal with the samepractice of eating together and eating alone, these do not necessarily examine thesame practices nor share the same conceptual framework to understand them. For
example, the majority of studies in psychology and public health focused on narrowaspects of eating together and eating alone. First, they focus on direct associations between the presence of others and food intake or specific health outcomes(i.e. obesity and eating disorders), without elaborating pathways of the associations. Secondly they tend to study about the population considered as vulnerable
to social isolation and health risks: young children, adolescents, university students,
the elderly, and patients of obesity and eating disorders. These approaches tend
to frame eating alone as abnormal and anti-social behaviours or health risk rather
than one of everyday human eating practices. At the same time, many studies inanthropology and history focused on cultural structures and functions of the practices for many years. However, there were few studies investigating transformationand cross-cultural variations of these practices.
Without having common definitions and comprehensive frameworks about eating
together and eating alone, it is impossible to argue the universality of these practices
from both quantitative and qualitative findings. From quantitative points of view,
definitions of eating togetheric and eating alone varied in studies and academic fields,
and it is hard to verify transferability of each finding worldwide. From qualitative

2.5. GAPS IN THE PRESENT LITERATURE

37

points of views, the majority of studies attempted to capture these eating behaviours
without elaborating cross-cultural variations and in-depth pathways between eating
behaviours and health outcomes.
Lack of elaboration on what consists of eating together and eating alone was also
discussed in some recent studies. Modern historian Elliot Shore (2011) questioned
whether or to what extent the practice of dividing the bill up but sharing meals together at a restaurant often observed in Germany retains meanings of commensality.
Skafida (2013, 907) indicated that most studies about family meals did not elaborate what it is about eating together and what aspects of family meals contributed
healthy eating.
Furthermore, although most literature acknowledged that eating is a symbolof human sociality as well as religious and cultural identities, few studies aboutcommensality examined the interplay between various social and cultural factors.
Outside of commensality studies, there are some studies examining the interplay
between various social and cultural factors around eating practices in contemporarysocieties. For example, according to Reitzig (2014), a group of German researchers
examined the interactions of culture, economy, physiology, locations, and time inhousehold management of the meal supply (Leonhuser et al., 2009, 40). Researchfindings from Melby and Takeda (2014) illustrated the interplay between lifestyle
constraints and the tensions between global and local values. The study found thattime constraints were a major reason among urban Japanese for choosing a western
style breakfast over Japanese style, even though they viewed Japanese cuisine ashealthy and ideal. I therefore employ holistic cross-cultural approaches with multiple research methods to explore the complexity of commensality and solo-eatingin this thesis. The next Chapter (Chapter 3) describes theoretical background andcharacteristics of cross-cultural analysis as well as research design.

38

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEWChapter 3
Research methods and design
On the surface, everyday eating practices appear to be similar across cultures. Yet,as the previous Chapter shows, the practices of commensality and solo-eating arevaried by socio-cultural and historical contexts, and what constitutes these practices
are not well studied. In order to understand the complexity of these eating practices,
I employ cross-cultural analysis of everyday lives of young adults living in urban
Australia and Japan as the primary method of the dissertation. This Chapter
presents the theoretical backgrounds of cross-cultural analysis and research methods.
The first half of the Chapter elucidates epistemology and theoretical perspectives
underlying cross-cultural analyses. The second half of the Chapter shows research
designs, data collection procedure, and participant’s profiles.

3.1

Theoretical framework

3.1.1

Cross-cultural perspectives in cultural anthropology

Cross-cultural comparison is the centre of anthropological understanding of human
lives. Cultural anthropology is distinct among sciences for “its perspective” consisting of holism, cultural relativism, and cross-cultural and comparative views (Eller,
2009, 12). The first two elements are ultimate goals to understand cultures inclusively. Holism is the understanding of society and culture as a whole rather thana collection of parts. This represents anthropology’s commitment for studying thewhole of human conditions in the past, present, and future. Ethnography, written
accounts and descriptions about ways of life in a particular culture, embodies theholism by encompassing a wide range of issues like political and economic systems,
kinships, and religious beliefs (Eller, 2009, 14). Cultural relativism is the proposition that each culture has own ways of living, meaning, and judging, and there isno superiority and inferiority among cultures. However, having cross-cultural and39

40

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN

comparative views is rather a research technique to achieve holism and cultural relativism. Cross-cultural comparison helps researchers to discover what is similar andwhat is not among studied cultures. Besides this, researchers can discover universalities and variations of cultures by exposing themselves to “the plethora of humancultures” (Eller, 2009, 13).

3.1.2

Differences between cross-cultural and cross-national
comparisons

Cross-cultural comparison is different from cross-national comparison for two reasons(Ember et al., 2014, 566).
One is that cross-national comparison tends to focus on limited variables observed only within specific nation-states. The data often used for cross-national
study is not ethnographic but secondary data like national census and other nationally collected surveys. Although cross-cultural psychologists collect their own data,
their analysis on cross-cultural comparison is limited.
Another reason is transferability of comparison. Ember et al. (2014) argued thatcross-national comparison can explain “only to a limited range of cross-cultural comparison” such as a society or country having higher levels of cultural homogeneity.
In contrast, cross-cultural comparison can apply to all types of cultures and societies
regardless of specific time periods and structures (i.e. hunter-gathering and postindustrial societies). Because of these reasons, cross-cultural comparison provides abroader range of comparison than cross-national comparison.
I do not deny influences of unique structures and borders of nation-states. Nation’s political legitimacies, geographical territories, both human and natural resources play an important role in shaping everyday life of the people. This thesis
considers macro-level structural factors in Chapter 4. However, the scope of crossnational comparison are limited to discuss cultural variations and transformations
outside the border of nation-states.

3.1.3

Strengths of cross-cultural study design

Other than maximising anthropological “perspectives”, there are other methodological strengths particularly compared with single-culture analyses. Three major kindsof strengths were also discussed by cross-cultural psychologists and political scientists (Whiting, 1968; Berry, 2002; Ember, 2009; Ilesanmi, 2009; Ross, 2011).
Firstly, cross-cultural study provides rich resources of data to test hypothesis
across the populations, and enhance transferability of theories as well as reliability

3.1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

41

of observation. Kleinman (1987, 453) argued that critical understanding of languages, categories, taxonomies, and different hierarchies of relevance involved withcross-cultural study can contribute to examine not only existing theories to describe
observations of a phenomenon, but also meanings of observations in particular societies and research settings (i.e. laboratory or naturalistic observations).
Secondly, it maximises the amount and range of variations within studied variables. Variations of data not only show if there are an implication for tendency ornot, but also prevent from misleading conclusion often generated by single-culture
analysis (Ember, 2009, 19). For example, when we focus on examining the transformation between agrarian to industrial only, we tend to assume that the economic
development will reduce socio-economic disparity by social class and gender. However, expanding comparison with hunter-gathering societies rejects this hypothesis,
because socio-economic disparity in the societies was lower than agrarian and industrial societies (Ember, 2009). Therefore, it is significant to examine wide rangeof variations about a phenomenon, in order to prevent misleading conclusion.
Lastly, valid cross-cultural comparison minimises ethnocentrism. We tend to uncritically accept our own way of life and value system, and assume our cultures are
better than others without knowing about them. The ethnocentric view limits ourunderstanding of the world. Kluckhohn (1953, 521) contended that careful crosscultural comparison “can escape from the bias of any distinct culture by taking as its
frame of reference natural limits, conditions, clues, and pressures”. Therefore, combating ethnocentrism helps develop more comprehensive understanding of humanways of life and value system.

3.1.4

Challenges of cross-cultural study design

There are three types of challenges which cross-cultural studies may encounter.
The first challenge is the conflict between individual differences and culturaldifferences. The confusion between individual differences and cultural differences
occurs when researchers are not familiar with individuals in the studied populations(Ember, 2009, 21). However, based on his observation and empirical studies, Rozin(2003, 274–276) argued that the differences between cultures tend to be bigger than
individual differences within cultures, because most of times, cultural values are
more powerful to shape individual behaviours and beliefs than individual preferences.
The second challenge is the linkage of theories and data across different levels ofanalyses. More specifically, Ross (2011) addressed four types of cross-level tensions
that cross-cultural researchers should be aware. The first is the definition of the units

42

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGNof analysis in cultures which have different cultural and linguistic constructions of
meanings. The second is the selection of the unit of analysis. Unlike laboratory
studies, real world studies may violate critical features of comparability such as
random sampling, independence of cases, and discrete independent variables. The
selection of cases and time for comparison has to be carefully conducted to avoid
comparing incomparable variables. The third is that macro-level and micro-level
evidence constitute different constructions of theories. In practice, many crossnational and cross-cultural studies treats society or country as a unit, and focus
on macro-level interpretation of similarities and differences of cultures. Micro-level
data are often neglected from theories. Therefore, careful attentions to existing
theories, codes, and measurements are necessary. The fourth is theoretical conflicts
between structuralism and constructivism. Similar to the second one, macro-level ofcomparison tended to focus on structural differences between cultures which often
conflict with constructivist view often employed in micro-level of analysis.
However, the first two types of challenges were discussed in non-anthropologicalstudies which did not have a tradition of ethnography from small-scale societies
for worldwide comparison. These cross-cultural studies have relied on macro-levelcomparison conducted by research teams consisting of individuals who may have different understandings of problems. Ross (2011, 92-93) argued that the integrationof different levels of data requires shared frameworks and definitions of problems.
Thus, holistic approaches by ethnography or multiple method approaches can mediate boundaries between macro- and micro level of data as well as structuralist andconstructivist views.
The third challenge is that cross-cultural comparison always has a risk to reinforce asymmetric descriptions of culture shaped by researcher’s subjectivities. Although all social studies cannot stay away from this issue, comparative perspectives particularly render asymmetric relations between groups stand out. Historically, cross-national and cross-cultural comparisons deployed asymmetric view ofculture like reinforcing civilisational superiority and cultural exceptionalism (Stamand Shohat, 2009, 495). For example, historical and political circumstances before and after the second world war foster the development of psychological crosscultural studies between the United States and Japan (Burman, 2007). However,
the asymmetric views can be unified under trans-cultural aims for enhancing thewhole theories of modern culture. In this sense, cross-cultural comparison can also
serve to critically examine existing social theories (Liamputtong, 2010) by performing analytical dislocation through construction and deconstruction of global systemof power (Stam and Shohat, 2009).

3.2. UNITS OF ANALYSIS

43

3.2

Units of analysis

3.2.1

Studying cultures from subjectivist and objectivist
perspectives

Unlike other academic disciplines, anthropology has a unique background influenced
by two very different intellectual traditions: science and humanity. Both of them
have contributed anthropological understanding of human diversity and cultures
without having major conflicts with each other (Bernard, 1988, 11). The coexistence of science and humanity also influenced to establish various definitions ofculture within anthropology. Some viewed culture as shared knowledge and values,
something in individual’s heads and mind, and others understood as collections ofreal facts, or social facts, including observable behaviours, rules, and institutions(Eller, 2009, 25).
Cognitive anthropology inherited objectivist perspectives from psychology andhas explored fundamental principles around specific behaviours observed from ethnography. This objectivist inquiry is distinct from mainstream anthropology which has
focused on how ethnographic data is “to be interpreted” and to have historical evidence (Blount, 2011). Although the objectivist and subjectivist inquiries may conflict with each other due to different epistemology, cognitive anthropologists view
culture as shared knowledge and values which are in line with traditional definitionsof cultures in cultural anthropology, and demonstrate the shared knowledge andvalues utilising quantitative methods.
Cultural Consensus Analysis (CCA) is a major research approach to explore
cultural domains of topic. A cultural domain refers to “an organized set of words,
concepts or sentences”shared among a group of people (Weller and Romney, 1988).
Originated from their idea of culture as shared knowledge or consensus, it focuses on
examining the amount and distribution of cultural knowledge among a group of informants in an objectivist point of view (Romney et al., 1986). Unlike data collection
by interviews and questionnaires, the researcher does not need to be knowledgeable
in the domain (Quinlan, 2005). In CCA, the distribution of cultural knowledge
within a group is estimated on the extent of agreements between individuals andindividual’s knowledge about specific topics (Weller, 2007). Free-listing is one of major research techniques of CCA, and provides more flexibility to respondents thanclose ended questionnaire and prevent from enforcing researchers’ preconceptions
which often identified in constructivist research (Brubaker et al., 2004). Therefore,
free-listing is appropriate for exploring emic data (views of insiders) rather thanetic data (views of outsiders) (Schrauf and Sanchez, 2008). Other than cognitive

44

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN

anthropology, CCA is widely used to examine issues in ethnobotany (Quinlan, 2005),
resource management (Stone-Jovicich et al., 2011), clinical psychology (Fiks et al.,2011), public health (Chavez et al., 1995; Smith et al., 2004).
However, relying on free-listing data only may mislead conclusion. Weller andRomney (1988, 15) noted that some participants may report the same concepts bydifferent phrasing, and it was desirable to identify the variations of phases and terms
that represent the same concept before coding. Furthermore, one emic term represents more than one etic entity and vice versa (Quinlan, 2005, 12). To avoid thesemisunderstanding of data, Quinlan (2005, 11) suggested cross-checking between freelisting data and ethnographic interviews or obtaining free-listing data from a larger
sample. The combination of multiple research methods and the integration of bothobjective and subjective approaches are important to establish more holistic andin-depth understanding of cultures. In this research project, I employed in-depth
interviews to explore detailed meanings of free-list responses.

3.2.2

Selection of cases for cross-cultural comparison

Selection of appropriate cases is crucial for a valid comparison of a range of local
and emic observations. To establish comparability, “there must be some common
baselines upon which the local variation takes place” (Berry, 1978, 98). Researchers
need to consider both similarities and variations of cultures which they want tocompare. In particular, cross-cultural comparison of a behaviour can be done only
when the behaviour has developed in the different cultures in response to similar
problems (Berry, 1969, 1978; Sekaran, 1983). If similar behaviours have different
functions in different cultures, the comparison may lead misleading the problems
and, therefore, the parameter cannot be compared. At the same time, the variationsof samples do not necessarily exist by cultural differences of samples. Some variations
can exist due to gender, race, education, political orientations. Unlike laboratory
experiments, non-laboratory research tend to violate independence of studied cases.
To ensure the independence of sample units, many cross-cultural studies have chosen
the societies which did not have high levels of interactions with each other in thepast (Ross, 2011).
Individualisation of eating are considered to be affected by the process of modernisation, urbanisation, industrialisation, and globalisation. To explore culturalcomplexity of these social change, I choose Australia and Japan which share a similar stage of modernisation and industrialisation, but have different cultural traditions. In terms of eating circumstances in both societies, commensality is a symbolof sociality, and the rise of eating alone is one of major public concerns regarding3.3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

45

food and family. At the same time, these two cultures have very different history
and development of national food system and local culinary cultures as well as social
relations around food practices. Thus, the comparison between Australia and Japanurban societies is adequate for comparing the impacts of local culinary cultures andsocial relations on everyday eating practices. I will present more extensive comparison of Australian and Japanese societies at the macro-level in the next Chapter(Chapter 4).

3.2.3

Studying about young adults

Another major characteristic of this thesis is the focus on young adulthood. Thiswas done for two reasons. One reason is that young adults are the most affected
population of globalisation in every day basis (Bourn, 2008). Exposure to global
technology and information from their childhood urged them to be aware of alternative lifestyles, and their culture is more homogeneous than older generations (Rozin,2003). These global impacts become distinct young adults’ lifestyles and culinary
cultures from older generations who viewed eating as cultural habits or sometimes
religious rituals. So, their everyday food-related experiences are more likely to be influenced by social changes driven by globalisation than their parents, grandparents,
and their ancestors. Another reason is that young adulthood is a transition period
to develop their identities and lifestyles. Danesi (2011) indicated that commensality
functions as “rite of passage into adulthood” as well as sharing common identity as
the same generation. The definition of young adulthood is contested, because transition to adulthood has been delayed or extended in post-industrial societies (Arnett,
2004; Irwin, 2013). Young adults in a similar age group take different forms of life
course transitions from older generations including transition from school to work,
the changes of living arrangements and marital status, and the timing of child rearing. In this thesis, I consider the impact of various life course transitions on theirfood related practices as well as how young adults negotiate traditional culturalvalues with individual choices and global values.

3.3

Research design and analysis

3.3.1

Study design

Cross-cultural analyses between Australian and Japanese young adults are drawn on
four methods. These methods are literature review, free-listing survey, two-day time
diaries, and in-depth interviews. Firstly, macro-level comparison of Australia and46

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGNJapan was conducted by examining exiting literature including reports from national
governments and international organisations. Secondly, free-listing survey was employed to access a range of images and meanings associated with commensality andsolo-eating among participants, and identify what kinds of views are either morecommon within and across groups or more unique to individuals. Thirdly, two-day
time diaries were employed to understand everyday time-use of participants including their everyday work and food-related activities. Eight multiple-choices questions about the experience of time were employed from time use survey in Australia(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008), and translated into Japanese for Japaneseparticipants (see Appendix C & Appendix D). Lastly, in-depth interviews were employed to obtain detailed descriptions of participant’s responses to other two data
as well as their subjective experiences about their everyday food-related activities
and work-life balance.

3.3.2

Data collection

Data collection was divided into two phases.
The first phase which I call, Study I, was a free-listing survey of university students in urban Australia and Japan. Study I was conducted as a part of researchcollaboration chaired by Professor Naomi Aiba at Kanagawa Institute of Technology,
and designed to understand a range of images and meanings of commensality andsolo-eating among young adults in two societies from homogeneous samples. CCA
shows higher validity with socially homogeneous group like students (Romney et al.,1986). The recruitment replied on convenient sampling at university classrooms.
The data collection of Study I in Australia was conducted by myself, but the one
in Japan was conducted by Professor Aiba and her research team at the Kanagawa
Institute of Technology. The result of Study I was used to develop interview questions for the second phase. All data collection of Study II in Australia and Japanwas conducted by myself.
The second phase, Study II, entailed 30-120 hours of face-to face interviews with
40 Australians and 31 Japanese young adults consisting of a time-use questionnaire
before the interview, five free-listing questions, and open-ended questions about theirlifestyles and everyday eating. Interviews were conducted at participant’s house andworkplace, and public cafe where were assigned by participants. I employed both
snowballing and quota sampling to recruit young adults from diverse backgrounds to
Study II. I set minimum quotas for gender, age, and occupation groups, and enables
me to recruit participants of diverse backgrounds from small sample size. Therefore, contrary to Study I, participants in Study II consisted of young adults who

3.3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

47

had a wider range of lifestyle, marital status, occupations and employment status.
Non-probability sampling including convenience, quota, and snowball sampling isoften considered to have lower external validity, compared to probability sampling.
However, non-probability sampling can also represent voices from the population by
maximising quality of data. Bernard (1988, 95) asserted that supplemental information by ethnographic data like in-depth interviews and observations can improvecredibility of these non-probability sampling.
Study I was conducted in 2011 at the Australian National University, University of Canberra, and Kanagawa Institute of Technology in Japan. A total of 64
Australian students and 135 Japanese students who studied different majors agreed
to take part in this study. All data collections were conducted in group at several
university classrooms during and right after the lecture. The subject of each lecture
were general chemistry, gender studies, education, population health, and nutrition
science. Those who did not wish to participate were allowed to leave the classroom
early without any penalty. After brief explanation about the study and written
informed consent, a questionnaire (Appendix A & Appendix B) was distributed toeach participant. All participants were asked to list words related to question I (eating with others), II (eating with family), III (eating with friends), and IV (eating
alone) in one minute per question. After the 60 seconds have passed, participants
were asked to stop listing words and move on the next question. At the end of
the survey, participated were asked to fill out a half page questionnaire about theirdemographic information.
As noted earlier, data collection of Study I was conducted by two sets of researchers, because Kanagawa Institute of Technology only allowed their employees
to access the classroom and their students. I supervised the whole process of datacollection and data entry conducted at the university, in order to make the process
consistent to the one in Australia. However, I would like to note a issue which
may affect the data collection conducted by two sets of researchers. Although theparticipation to the study is voluntary and anonymous, some participants in Japan
may feel obligated to participate in the study due to their ongoing relationship withinvestigators who were a professor and staff members of their university. In contrast, there was not a prior contact between Australian participants and me. In fact,
more numbers of Japanese students than Australian students agreed to participate
in Study I. However, Wilson et al. (2008) noted that the presumption that participants feel obligated to participate in research is not necessarily justifiable, andsome of them feel comfortable to participate in the study if they know and trust theinvestigator.

48

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGNIn Study II, 71 young adults aged from 20 to 40 were recruited from Canberra,

Australian Capital Territory and Sydney, New South Wales of Australia and the
Kanto (eastern) area of Japan including Tokyo, Saitama, Chiba, and Kanagawa
prefectures. Recruitment for interviews was conducted through online advertisement
and introduction from participants and my acquittance in Japan and Australia. The
face-to-face interview was conducted in Japan from September to December 2012,
and the one in Australia was from June to August 2013.
All participants of Study II were asked to fill out the questionnaire about twodays time diaries (Appendix C & Appendix D) before they met me for an interview.
The questionnaire was sent by email or post to participants at least a week before theinterview, which provides enough time for participants to record one of their workday’s and work-off day’s schedules. Similar to Study I, all participants were asked
to listed words associated with question I-IV in addition to the question V (eatingwith work colleagues) in one minute per question. The question V was assigned
only to participants who were working at the time of interview. The interview questions (Appendix E & Appendix F) were a range from participant’s detailed views
and actual practices of commensality and solo-eating to their everyday life practices(i.e. work-life balance and food-related practices). All interviews were recorded byan audio recorder and field notes with consent of participants. All data collectionof Study I and II in Japan was conducted in Japanese and the one in Australia
were conducted in English. All Australian participants were Australian citizens andall Japanese participants were Japanese citizens. Table 3.1 summarises differences
between Study I and II.
Table 3.1: Methods in Study I and II
MethodFree-list survey
Time-diary
In-depth interview

3.3.3

Study I
(Student group)
Yes (Question I-IV)
No
No

Study II
(Young adult group)
Yes (Question I-V)
Yes
Yes

Data analyses

Qualitative analyses
All free-listing data collected from Study I and II were coded by similarities in meanings of responses. First, all Japanese responses were translated to English. Phrases
and words which represent similar concepts in English were identified. The seman-3.3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

49

tic similarities in English were determined by English thesaurus (Oxford University
Press, 2015). For example, all similar words to pleasure such as enjoyment and fun
were categorised as pleasure. All words related to alcohol such as wine and beer werecategorised as drinking. The collection of English codes was reviewed by my PhD
supervisors. All coding processes followed the grounded theory, and each response
was coded in as specific terms and topics as possible (Charmaz, 2008). Coding was
conducted manually three time after data collection of Study I and II in order to
identify semantic variations and similarities of responses within and across different
linguistic and cultural groups (i.e. Australian and Japanese).
All interview data were transcribed in the language used for the interviews (English and Japanese), and coded by thematic categories in English. Most of thematic
categories were applied from the codes of the free-list survey. In addition to thecodes from free-list survey which focused on eating, work stress, work-life balance,intergenerational conflicts, gender inequality, and lifestyle changes were emerged as
new codes to in-depth interviews. Data management and coding of qualitative data
was conducted using nVivo 10.

Quantitative analyses
The distribution of data from free-list survey and time-diaries is presented by numbers and proportion to the total samples, especially because sample sizes of each
cultural group and gender subgroup are different. χ2 test with Yate continuity
correction and Fisher’s exact test were used to assess differences in distribution ofdemographic backgrounds and responses between cultural groups and subgroups likegender. For the data which contains a cell less than ten, I employed Fisher’s exact
test because it is considered as more accurate than χ2 test (McDonald, 2014). For
comparison of multiple responses, I correct p-value from Fisher’s exact test by Bonferroni test. Two-sample t-test was used for comparing means between two groups.
ANOVA and Turkey multiple comparison were used for comparing means between
more than three groups. P -value less than 0.05 considers as significant difference.
All employed tests are noted at the bottom of tables.
For examining consensus within each cultural group, I employed principal component analysis in SPSS. Before the analysis in SPSS, dataset was transposed fromthe usual structure so that respondents were the columns and the responses were
the rows (Weller, 2007, 355). The formal consensus analysis is available in ANTHROPAC and UCINET without transposing dataset. The ratio of the first to thesecond largest eigenvalues from the principal component analysis indicate whether
there is a single coherence of responses. The ratio>3.00 considers as consensus.

50

3.3.4

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN

Participant demographics

The major demographic characteristics of 270 young adult participants in Study I(N =199) and II (N =71) by numbers and percentages are shown in Table 3.2 andTable 3.3 respectively. Missing data are excluded from these tables.

Australian (N =64)

Sample by gender

Age

Japanese (N =135)

Differences between groups (p-value)

Total

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female63 (98.4%)

25 (39.1%)

38 (59.4%)

135 (100.0%)37 (27.4%)

98 (73.6%)

Mean (SD)23.2 (3.5)

23.4 (3.5)

23.0 (3.5)

Alone

12 (18.8%)

7 (28.0%)

5 (13.2%)

Family27 (42.2%)

9 (36.0%)

18 (47.4%)

Partner

2 (3.1%)1 (4.0%)1 (2.6%)

Share house

17 (27.0%)

6 (24.0%)

Dormitory

5 (7.8%)Others19.0 (1.3)

Study I Gendera
0.083*
A1 Gendera

J1 Gendera

Study I Mb

Study I Fb

19.4 (1.8)

18.8 (1.0)

0.664**

0.061**<0.05**<0.05**

57 (42.2%)

15 (40.5%)

42 (42.9%)

0.620

0.510

<0.05

<0.05

70 (51.9%)

20 (54.1%)

50 (51.0%)

0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)11 (28.9%)

0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)2 (8.0%)3 (7.9%)4 (3.0%)2 (5.4%)2 (2.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)4 (3.0%)0 (0.0%)4 (4.0%)Total

63 (100.0%)25 (100.0%)38 (100.0%)

135 (100.0%)37 (100.0%)

98 (100.0%)

18-25

51 (79.7%)

19 (76.0%)

32 (84.2%)

134 (99.3%)

36 (97.3%)

98 (100.0%)

0.682

0.274

<0.05

<0.05

26-30

9 (14.1%)

5 (20.0%)

4 (10.5%)

1 (0.7%)

1 (2.7%)0 (0.0%)31-35

3 (4.7%)1 (4.0%)2 (5.3%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)36-40

0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)Total

63 (100.0%)25 (100.0%)38 (100.0%)

135 (100.0%)37 (100.0%)

98 (100.0%)<18.5

2 (3.1%)0 (0.0%)2 (5.3%)17 (12.7%)

4 (10.8%)

13 (13.3%)

0.384

0.968

<0.05

0.351

18.5-24.9

47 (73.4%)

17 (68.0%)

30 (78.9%)

105 (77.8%)

30 (81.1%)

75 (76.5%)

25.0-29.9

10 (15.6%)

6 (24.0%)

4 (10.5%)

10 (6.7%)

3 (8.1%)7 (7.1%)>30.0

4 (6.3%)2 (8.0%)2 (5.3%)2 (1.5%)0 (0.0%)2 (2.0%)Total

63 (100.0%)25 (100.0%)38 (100.0%)134 (100.0%)37 (100.0%)

97 (100.0%)

Students

64 (100.0%)25 (100.0%)38 (100.0%)

135 (100.0%)37 (100.0%)

98 (100.0%)

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)63 (100.0%)25 (100.0%)38 (100.0%)

135 (100.0%)37 (100.0%)

98 (100.0%)

Livingarrangements

Age group

Body Mass Index

3.3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

Table 3.2: Demographics of participants in Study I

Main
Non-students
occupation
Total

Differences among categorical variables frequencies were assessed by Fisher’s exact test unless otherwise stated. *Yate’s χ

test.**Two sample independent t-testa Men vs. Women; b Australian and Japanese

51

2

52

Table 3.3: Demographics of participants in Study II
Australian (N =40)

Sample by gender

Age

Japanese (N =31)

Differences between groups (p-value)

Total

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female40 (100.0%)

16 (40.0%)

24 (60.0%)31 (100.0%)

15 (48.4%)

16 (51.6%)

Study II Gendera
0.480*
A2 Gendera

J2 Gendera

Study II Mb

Study II Fb

30.0 (5.3)

30.3 (5.7)

29.8 (5.1)

32.1 (4.3)

33.0 (5.2)

31.3 (3.3)

0.061**

0.274**

0.178**

0.293**Alone

4 (10.0%)

1 (6.7%)

3 (12.0%)

8 (25.8%)

5 (33.3%)

3 (18.8%)

0.261

0.554

<0.05

0.364

Family22 (55.0%)

7 (46.7%)

15 (60.0%)

22 (71.0%)

10 (66.7%)

12 (75.0%)

Partner

5 (12.5%)

1 (6.7%)4 (16.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)Share house

9 (22.5%)

6 (40.0%)

3 (12.0%)

1 (2.5%)0 (0.0%)1 (6.3%)

0.105

0.068

<0.05

0.300

0.830

<0.05

<0.05

0.6818

1.000

0.484

1.000

0.143

Livingarrangements

Age group

Dormitory

0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)

Others0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)Total

40 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)25 (100.0%)31 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)

16 (100.0%)

18-25

11 (27.5%)

6 (40.0%)

5 (20.0%)

1 (3.2%)

1 (6.7%)0 (0.0%)26-30

7 (17.5%)

0 (0.0%)7 (28.0%)

12 (38.7%)

5 (33.3%)

7 (43.8%)

31-35

17 (42.5%)

7 (46.7%)

10 (40.0%)

9 (29.0%)

2 (13.3%)

7 (43.8%)36-

5 (12.5%)

2 (13.3%)

3 (12.0%)

9 (29.0%)

7 (46.7%)

2 (12.5%)

Total

40 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)25 (100.0%)31 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)

16 (100.0%)<18.5

2 (5.2%)0 (0.0%)2 (8.6%)3 (9.6%)0 (0.0%)3 (18.8%)

18.5-24.9

26 (68.4%)

11 (73.3%)

15 (65.2%)

24 (77.4%)

13 (86.7%)

11 (68.8%)

25.0-29.99 (23.7%)

4 (26.7%)

5 (20.0%)

2 (6.2%)0 (0.0%)2 (12.5%)>30.0

1 (2.6%)0 (0.0%)1 (4.3%)2 (6.5%)

2 (13.3%)

0 (0.0%)Total

38 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)23 (100.0%)31 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)

16 (100.0%)

Body Mass
Index

Students

6 (15.0%)

2 (13.3%)

4(16.0%)1 (3.2%)

1 (6.7%)0 (0.0%)Non-students

34 (85.0%)

13 (86.7%)

21 (84.0%)30 (96.8%)

14 (93.3%)

16 (100.0%)

Total

40 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)25 (100.0%)31 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)

16 (100.0%)

Main
occupations
Continued on next page

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN

Mean (SD)Sample by gender

Japanese (N =31)

Differences between groups (p-value)

Total

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female40 (100.0%)

16 (40.0%)

24 (60.0%)31 (100.0%)

15 (48.4%)

16 (51.6%)

Single17 (42.5%)

8 (50.0%)

9 (37.5%)

18 (58.0%)

9 (60.0%)

9 (56.3%)

MaritalDe facto

8 (20.0%)

3 (18.8%)

5 (20.8%)

0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)statusMarried15 (37.5%)

4 (25.0%)

11 (45.8%)

13 (42.0%)

6 (40.0%)

7 (43.8%)

Total

40 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)25 (100.0%)31 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)

16 (100.0%)

Full-time (Permanent)

16 (40.0%)

7 (43.8%)

9 (37.5%)

16 (51.6%)

8 (53.3%)

8 (50.0%)

Full-time (Contract)

5 (12.5%)

2 (12.5%)

3 (12.5%)

4 (12.9%)

2 (13.3%)

2 (12.5%)

6 (15.0%)0 (0.0%)6 (25.0%)

1 (3.2%)0 (0.0%)1 (6.3%)2 (5.0%)2 (12.5%)

0 (0.0%)3 (9.7%)

3 (20.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (2.5%)1(6.3%)

0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (2.5%)1 (6.3%)0 (0.0%)1 (3.2%)1(3.2%)

0(0.0%)

4 (10.0%)

2 (12.5%)

2 (8.3%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)2 (5.0%)0 (0.0%)2 (8.3%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)

Seek employment

1 (2.5%)0 (0.0%)1 (4.2%)

1 (3.2%)0 (0.0%)1 (6.7%)Full-time housewife

0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)4 (12.9%)

0 (0.0%)4 (25.0%)

On leave

2 (5.0%)0 (0.0%)2 (8.3%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)40 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)25 (100.0%)31 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)

16 (100.0%)

Part-time work &Study II Gendera
0.480*
A2 Gendera

J2 Gendera

Study II Mb

Study II Fb

0.484

1.000

0.317

0.182

0.088

0.075

0.841

0.071

ParentingSelf-employed
Self-employed &3.3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

Table 3.3 – continued from previous page
Australian (N =40)

Part-time student
Self-employed &Employment

Part-time work
Full-time student &Not working
Full-time student &Part-time work

Total

53

Continued on next page

54

Table 3.3 – continued from previous page
Australian (N =40)

Sample by gender

Secondary

Japanese (N =31)

Differences between groups (p-value)

Total

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female40 (100.0%)

16 (40.0%)

24 (60.0%)31 (100.0%)

15 (48.4%)

16 (51.6%)

3 (7.5%)1 (6.3%)2 (8.6%)3 (9.7%)1 (6.7%)

2 (12.5%)

College

5 (12.5%)

2 (12.5%)

3 (13.0%)

3 (9.7%)0 (0.0%)3 (18.8%)

Bachelor

21 (52.5%)

9 (56.3%)

12 (52.2%)

19 (61.3%)

9 (60.0%)

10 (62.5%)

Master8 (20.0%)

3 (18.8%)

5 (21.7%)

4 (12.9%)

3 (20.0%)

1 (6.3%)

Doctorate

2 (5.0%)0 (0.0%)2 (8.7%)2 (6.5%)

2 (13.3%)

0 (0.0%)Total

40 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)25 (100.0%)31 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)

16 (100.0%)<20,000

4(10.3%)1 (6.7%)3(12.5%)3 (9.7%)

2 (13.3%)

1 (6.3%)20,000-30,000

5 (12.8%)

2 (5.1%)2 (12.0%)

6 (19.4%)

1 (6.7%)5 (31.3%)

Study II Gendera
0.480*
A2 Gendera

J2 Gendera

Study II Mb

Study II Fb

0.973

0.236

0.634

0.646

0.055

0.165

0.467

0.271

Education

1 (2.6%)0 (0.0%)1 (4.2%)2 (6.5%)1 (6.7%)1 (6.3%)40,000-50,000

6 (15.4%)

0 (0.0%)6 (25.0%)

7 (22.6%)

2 (13.3%)

5 (31.3%)

50,000-60,000

3 (7.7%)2 (5.1%)1 (4.2%)5 (16.1%)

2 (13.3%)

3 (18.8%)

60,000-70,000

7 (17.5%)2 (5.1%)5 (20.8%)

4 (12.9%)

4 (26.7%)

0 (0.0%)70,000-80,000

3 (7.7%)1 (6.7%)2 (8.3%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)80,000-90,000

2 (5.2%)

1 (6.7%)1 (4.2%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)

Annualincome (AUD)

90,000-100,000

3 (7.7%)1 (6.7%)2 (8.3%)3 (9.7%)

2 (13.3%)

1 (6.3%)<100,000

5 (12.8%)

5 (12.8%)

0 (0.0%)1 (3.2%)

1 (6.7%)0 (0.0%)Total

40 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)25 (100.0%)31 (100.0%)

15 (100.0%)

16 (100.0%)

Differences among categorical variables frequencies were assessed by Fisher’s exact test unless otherwise stated.*Yate’s χ2 test **Two sample independent t-testa Men vs. Women; b Australian and Japanese

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN

30,000-40,000

3.3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

55

Comparison between Study I and Study II
Major differences between Study I and II are the proportion of students to nonstudents: all participants of Study I were students, but the majority of participantsof Study II are non-students. Those in Study II are older than those in Study I
and majority of them engaged with paid employment. In terms of the proportion ofmale and female participants, more women participated in Study I and II than men.
The gender imbalance is larger in the Study I with convenience sampling (p=0.083)
than the Study II with quota sampling (p=0.480). The majority of Australian andJapanese participants reported that they lived with someone, and most of cohabitants were family members. More Australian participants lived with non-family
members like friends, partners, and sharing a house with someone: 38.1% in the
study I and 35.0% in the Study II. In contrast, more Japanese participants lived
alone: 42.2% in the Study I and 25.8% in the Study II. Differences are significant
between male and female groups in Study I and male groups in Study II (p<0.05).
The student cohort of Study I is younger than the young adult cohort from
Study II. Among the student cohorts of Study I, Japanese cohort is younger andhad smaller age variations than the Australian cohort. The distribution of bodymass index (BMI) is calculated based on self-report height and weight. The distribution is relatively similar across four groups: about 70% of participants in eachgroup are fallen into the range of 18.5≤BMI≤25.0. However, comparison of gendergroups shows significant differences between Australian and Japanese male groupin Study I and Japanese male and female groups in Study II (p<0.05). In Study I,
more Japanese men (81.1%) are the range of 18.5≤BMI≤25.0 than Australian men(68.0%), and 10.8% of Japanese men were BMI less than 18.5 but no Australian
man belongs to the category. In Study II, more Japanese men (86.7%) belong to
the range of 18.5≤BMI≤25.0 than Japanese women (68.8%).
Comparison between Australian and Japanese groups in Study II
The Japanese group in Study II is older than the Australian: mean of Japanesegroup is 32.1 years and that of Australian group was 30.0 years old. In particular,
the distribution of age group of Japanese group was significantly different from
Australian male group (p<0.05). As stated earlier, more Japanese participants(25.8%) live alone than Australian participants (10.0%). More Japanese (71.0%)
live with family members than Australians (55.0%).
Comparison of Australian and Japanese groups indicates more diverse lifestylebackgrounds among Australian than Japanese participants. Among Japanese participants, being married or single is a stronger indicator of living arrangements as

56

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN

well as employment status than Australian participants who have more alternative
lifestyles such as having de facto relationship, living in shared house, and taking morethan one occupation. More Japanese participants (64.5%) were engaged with one
full-time permanent or contract employment, or being a full-time housewife (12.9%)
than Australian participants (52.5%). In contrast, more Australians (40.0%) engaged with part-time employment than Japanese (6.5%) and reported more than
one occupations or roles including being a student and a parent. Majority of themwere women.
Majority of Australian and Japanese participants hold a bachelor degree orhigher education attainment. Mode of annual income among Australian participants are between 60,000 and 70,000 Australian dollars and mode range among
Japanese participants were between 40,000-50,000 Australian dollars (approximately
4,000,000-5,000,000 Japanese yen). The mode range is higher among Australians
than Japanese. Although it was not significant difference, there was a different distribution of annual income between male and female subgroups in both Australian(p=0.055) and Japanese (p=0.165) groups. Most of Australian and Japanese participants engaged with professional, managerial, and administrative work in sedentary
working environments.

Comparison with general populations in Australia and Japan
Compared to the general populations in Australia and Japan, both Australian andJapanese groups have much higher education attainment and relatively high income.
In total, 87.5% of Australian and 80.6% of Japanese participants hold a Bachelor
degree or higher degrees such as Master and Doctorate. In Australia, 24.1% of thetotal Australian population held Bachelor degree or higher in 2014, and the rate
was higher in New South Wales (25.6%) and Australian Capital Territory (40.4%)
where Sydney and Canberra belong to (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014a). In
Japan, 19.9% of Japanese population held Bachelor degree or higher in 2010, andthe rate was higher in Tokyo (23.1%)(Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2010). Thus,
both Australian and Japanese participants are highly educated groups compared togeneral populations of Australia and Japan.
Although income level is difficult to compare due to different currencies, costsof living, and reporting systems, most of Australian and Japanese participants earnmore than the national average. In Australia, the average weekly total earnings of all
Australian employees were 1128.70 excluding overwork and bonus in November 2014,
and it is equivalent to 58,692 per year (52 weeks) (Australian Bureau of Statistics,
2014e). In Japan, the average annual earnings (kyu-yo) of all Japanese employees

3.3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

57

were 4,136,000 yen (approximately 40,000 dollars) including bonus (sho-yo) but
overtime was excluded (National Tax Agency, 2013).
In terms of cultural diversity within groups, 20.0% of Australian participants
were born outside of Australia, and 92.5% of them were European descents. According to census (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011), 26% of Australia’s population
was born overseas, and eight out of ten leading ancestries, which consists a cumulative sum of 94.6% including multiple ethnicity, were either Australian or European
descents. All Japanese participants were born in Japan and identified themselves asJapanese ethnicity and citizens. Unlike Australian, statistics on the distribution of
ethnicity in Japan are not available. Instead, participant’s hometown and regional
diversity play a significant role to shape the diversity within the Japanese group as
well as the development of culinary culture in Japan (see Chapter 4 for detail). A
total of 58.1% Japanese participants were brought up in Tokyo and its neighbouring prefectures (Saitama, Chiba, Kanagawa), and 41.9% of them (72.2% of thosewere born outside of the Tokyo area) migrated from outside of the areas for theireducation or jobs.

3.3.5

Ethical considerations

The two fieldwork research studies were approved by the Human Research Ethics
Committee of the Australian National University. Study I with university students
was approved on the 11th November 2011 (Protocol 2011/574), and Study II wasapproved on the 25th June 2012 (Protocol 2012/127). Participation in both studies
was completely voluntary, non-coercive, and confidential. Information sheets (Appendix G & Appendix H for Study I and Appendix I & Appendix J for Study II) anda written consent form (Appendix K & Appendix L for Study I and Appendix M& Appendix N) were provided to all participants before they participated in eachstudy. All participants were allowed to stop or withdraw from studies at any time
during their participation.
An overview of theoretical perspectives underlying cross-cultural analyses andmethods, and the design and procedure of multiple-method data collections conducted in urban Australia and Japan are discussed in this Chapter. Applying anthropological perspectives on holism and cultural relativism, the current project isdesigned to examine multivariate aspects of commensality and solo-eating based onliterature and field research from a cross-cultural perspective.

58

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGNPart II
Contexual and comparative
dimentions of culture

59Chapter 4

Macro-level comparison of two
post-industrial societies

It was demonstrated in Chapter 2 that eating is crucial for physiological homoeostasis as well as human sociability. It is also heavily shaped by the transformation ofsocieties including their politics, economy, and demographic changes as well as arange of individual and cultural contacts within and across the nation-states. In
particular, contemporary employment and public health policies reflect a number ofsocio-economic and political structures and moral values in global as well as local
contexts, and have a great impact on everyday eating practices in two societies.

In this Chapter, I examine the context of societal transformations in contemporary Australian and Japanese societies at the macro-level, and investigates social andcultural construction of everyday eating among people in these societies. In particular, I focus on the transformation within Australian and Japanese societies in four
dimensions: economic system, welfare states, public health concerns, and culinary
cultures. Rather than just treating them as discrete variables, I also investigate intersections of these four dimensions of society such as food system, work-life balance,and gender. The discussion starts from cross-national comparison of transformation
to “post-industrial societies” where service industries produce more wealth thanmanufacturing and agricultural industries (Bell, 1973) with selected OECD countries, and moves onto how these socio-economic changes affects everyday eating incontemporary Australian and Japanese societies.
61

62CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES

4.1

Economic System and globalisation

4.1.1

Dominance of service industries

Australia and Japan are two of the largest capitalist economies in the Asia-Pacificregion dominated by service industries. Service industries contributed 69.4% ofAustralia’s and 72.7% of Japan’s gross domestic products (GDP) in 2012 (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2014b; Cabinet Office, 2013b;
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013a). 69.9% of Japanese in 2013 and 77.2%
Australian in 2014 worked in service industries (Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2013;
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013b). The largest share of GDP within service
industries were the finance and insurance services in Australia (Australian Bureauof Statistics, 2013a). In Japan, whole sales and retail trades occupied the largest
share of GDP∗ (Cabinet Office, 2013b). The service industries employing the largest
number of people are whole sales and retail trade in Japan, and healthcare and social
assistance in Australia. Outside of the service industries, manufacturing in Japanand mining in Australia contribute to the nation’s economic growth. Similar toother OECD nations, the economic share of agricultural industries has shrunk ineach nation (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2014h).

4.1.2

The evolution of service industries in Australia andJapan

Although service industries occupy about 70% of economy in most OECD nations,the evolution of service industries displays different trajectories between Australia
and Japan. Table 4.1 shows the percentage of economic contribution by service
sectors in Australia, Japan, and other OECD nations over two decades.
The Australian service industry reached nearly 70% shares of GDP and total
employment in the early 1990s like United Kingdom and France. In contrast, Japan,
Germany, and Italy reached the same rates in the early 2000s. Among these threenations, in particular Japan encountered the most rapid transition over two decades
in both service industry contribution to gross value added and the share of thelabour force employed in the service industries.
Differences between Australian and Japanese economies cannot only be explainedby different stages of industrialisation: industrialising, industrial, and post-industrial.
∗

According to the national accounts of economics (kokumin keizai keisan) in 2013, the private
service business service (saabisu-gyou) was the highest share of GDP. However, this category
includes major service business such as education, entertainment, accommodation, restaurants,
and professional business, which Australia has own categories for these businesses.

4.1. ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND GLOBALISATION

63

Table 4.1: Service industry’s contribution to gross value added and total employment in Australia and Japan from 1992 to 2012 in comparison with some European
countries

Country
Australia
Japan
Italy
Germany
FranceUnited Kingdom

Service industry’s contribution
to gross value added (%)
1992 2002 2012
68.3
71.2
69.4
59.9
68.0
72.7
64.1
69.0
73.7
62.0
69.0
68.7
67.5
72.1
79.2
66.3
72.1
78.7

Employment share ofservice industry(%)
1992 2002 2012
71.3
74.1
76.3
58.4
65.6
68.5(2009)
61.7
66.2
67.3(2010)
61.2
69.7
68.4(2009)
68.4
73.9
75.7(2010)
75.0
79.0
78.7

Source: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2004, 2014d,b)A closer look at the development of service activities within and the transformation of labour markets within each society reveals the complex structures of postindustrial economies in the two different societies.

4.1.3

Inter-industries development of service works

Classifying service work based on industries underestimates service-related work or
occupations in other industries like agriculture and manufacturing. For example,
a sales and marketing manager in manufacturing industry is considered as the employee of manufacturing industry rather than service. Thus, employment share ofservice industries rise when business outsourced more of their service activities suchas manufacturing firms in the United States (Schettkat and Yocarini, 2006). The
structure of service business is similar in United Kingdom, Canada, and France
which are dominated by information-processing services such as communication,
finance, real estate, and public services (Castells, 2011). The Australian economy
follows this trend as it has strong finance and insurance industries. In contrast, both
German and Japanese manufacturing industries internalise service activities rather
than outsourcing to different firms, and it influences their apparent lower share ofservice industries among OECD countries Castells (2011). More specifically, Strom(2005) suggested that the internalisation of service activities among Japanese manufacturing firms results from different ways of management and business models such
as Japanese keiretsu (interlocking business relationships).

64CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES

4.1.4

Female labour participation

The demographics of labour forces have been closely associated with the transformation of nations’ economic structures. In the mid to late twentieth century, similar toother OECD countries, women’s participation in paid labour force increased in both
Australia and Japan. Figure 4.1 shows the transformation of employment among
women aged 15 and 64 over four decades.
Figure 4.1: Employment rate among women aged 15 and 64 in Australia, Japan,
and the average of all OECD countries from 1970 to 2013
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%

Australia
Japan
OECD average

20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2013
Source: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014e)

Over four decades, both countries showed a rapid increase in female employment.
Female employment in Australia in the first two decades was lower than Japan, butfrom the 1990s Australia’s rate exceeded Japan for the next two decades. Australia
experienced a more rapid increase of female employment rate from 44.0% in 1970
to 66.4% in 2013, compared to Japan (52.8% in 1970 and 62.5% in 2013).
Although both Australia and Japan showed similar trends in an increasing presence of female workers in their economy, female labour participation by industries
and occupations varied between two societies. Sociologist Mary Brinton asserted
that the labour market structure developed in post second world war underlined theJapanese economy (Brinton and Ngo, 1993; Brinton, 1993). Her cross-national comparison with the United States based on national surveys in the 1980s demonstrated
that larger age segregations and lower gender segregations were identified from theoverall labour market of Japan than the United States. More specifically, the lower
gender segregation in Japan was due to more female blue-collar workers in agriculture and manufacturing industries. The majority of women’s work in post-war
Japan was concentrated in family business rather than paid employment (Brinton,4.1. ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND GLOBALISATION

65

1993; Gottfried, 2008). This may be one factor explaining the higher female participation rate in Japan than Australia in the 1970s and 1980s. In contrast, many
service workers especially those in managerial, professional, and technical occupations were dominated by full-time older men in post-war Japan (Brinton and Ngo,
1993).
The transformation from industrialising society to post-industrial society has notchanged the gendered labour market in post-war Japan, but repeated the segregationin different kinds of employment and industries. Rather the development of service
industries in the 1990s has gradually replaced self-employed or family-employed female workers in agriculture and manufacturing industries with paid part-time or
temporary employment of sales and clerk works in service industries (Gottfried,2008). The development of part-time employment is evident in other OECD nations including Australia. However, part-time work in Japan is overly dominated bymiddle-age and older female workers, and influenced by women’s life course transition to balance work and family responsibilities (Broadbent, 2003; Gottfried, 2008).
Table 4.2 shows the proportion of all non-standard employment including part-timeand dispatched workers in Japan over a decade.
Table 4.2: Non-standard employment in Japan by gender and age group in 2003
and 2013

Year
Age group
Total
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64

Non-standard employment
among men
2003
2013
All
NonAllNonstudents
students
15.6%
21.2%
41.8% (27.2%) 45.7% (27.6%)
10.2%
16.4%
5.7%
8.2%
7.3%
9.0%
24.1%
32.5%

Non-standard employment
among women
2003
2013
All
NonAllNonstudents
students
50.6%
55.8%
48.4% (37.2%) 52.3% (37.1%)
37.8%
41.4%
54.1%
54.8%
56.3%
59.2%
59.2%
67.5%

Source: Statistics Bureau of Japan (2014)
The proportion of non-standard employment has increased in all age groups ofmen and women from 2003 to 2013. However, gender gaps were evident in all age
groups except the youngest age groups (aged between 15 and 24) both in 2003 and2013. In 2013, more than half of women except the group of aged between 25 and
34 were in non-standard employment.
In contrast to Japan’s transformation, at least at the macro level, Australia hasleaned toward diminishing gender segregation not only within its overall labour mar-

66CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
ket, but also within some industries. According to Watts’s analysis on occupationalsegregation in Australia, female shares of part-time employment have declined fromthe late 1980s to 2000s regardless of job categories (Watts, 2003). Instead maleshare of part-time employment and female shares of full-time employment of managerial and professional occupations have increased. However, blue-collar skilledjobs maintained low female participation in full-time employment over two decades.
The comparison of different birth cohorts of Australian women showed that younger
cohorts were less affected by life course transitions like child rearing than older
cohorts (Austen and Seymour, 2006).

4.1.5

Impacts of international trade on agriculture and foodsecurity

The development of international trade is a crucial component of post-industrial
economies as well as their food systems. International trades allow governments
to outsource local agricultural production to overseas or agri-business and focus
on manufacturing and service business (McMichael, 2004). This model encourages
the expansion of urban and industrial economies and Foreign Direct Investment toagricultural business as well as generating a full range of food-related issues: foodinsecurity, over-nutrition, and ontological insecurity (Dixon et al., 2007).
Food self-sufficiency refers to whether a nation can be self-sufficient to meet
all the food needs of its population through domestic supplies, and used to bea national strategy for food security (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002).
It is also important to ensure food available for the local population. However,the development of international trade changed the notion of food security fromself-sufficiency to physical and economic access to food and nutrition (Food andAgriculture Organization, 1996). Furthermore, climate change is interrelated tofood production and consumption, and it results in increasing nutrition insecurity
and chronic diseases (Friel, 2010). Table 4.3 shows the transformation of a country’s
food self-sufficiency rate in Australia and Japan based on calories and cereals.
The comparison shows the opposite trends of country’s food self-sufficiency based
on total calories and cereals. Japan’s agricultural self-sufficiency has gradually decreased based on calories and cereals since the 1960s, and instead relied on imports
and generated profits of exporting manufactured goods like automobiles. In contrast,
over four decades Australia has maintained more than twice the rate of food productions which require to feed its population. However, having high self-sufficiency
based on calorie and cereal productions does not necessarily mean the country canensure food and nutrition available for their people.

4.1. ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND GLOBALISATION

67

Table 4.3: Self-sufficiency rate by total calories and cereals in Australia andJapan(%)
Measurement
Calorie
CerealYear
Australia
Japan
Australia
Japan

1961
204%
78%
299%
75%

1971
211%
58%
262%
46%

1981
256%
52%
367%
33%

1991
209%
46%
246%
29%

2001
265%
40%
273%
28%

2011
205%
39%
291%
28%

Source:Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishries (2014b)(Estimated based on
FAO Food Balance Sheets)
Japanese agriculture
Despite increasing pressures from globalisation, Japanese agriculture is heavily influenced by domestic politics, rural nostalgia, and consumer’s demands. Particularly,
protection of rice has been considered as an obstacle to liberalisation of Japanesemarket from overseas (Mulgan, 2013). The Japanese government has imposed hightariffs on imported rice and protected the domestic rice market. The vote from therural farming communities is vital for long term rule of Liberal Democratic Party(LDP) in post-war Japan (George, 1981). Despite the decline of rural farming communities along with social changes, electoral reform in 1994 from a single-member
district system to a multi-member district system helped strengthen the power offarmer’s votes despite the recent decline of agricultural industries (Horiuchi and
Saito, 2010).
Post-war modernisation seems to be contradictory to agriculture and the rural interest and, both elements do not coexist. However, people’s attachment to
the rural is much stronger than physical connections. (Kelly, 1986, 604) argued
that “rationalisation and nostalgia embody ambivalences fundamental to Japan’s
Middle Class Lifeway”. People adopt the language of rationalisation like efficiency
and democracy without denying the past. At the same time, they express nostalgia for certain traditions like regional culture and hometown (fukusato) without
considering inefficiency and non-democratic aspects of the past life. Furthermore,
the development of rural tourisms induced nostalgia to imaginary hometown among
urban Japanese (Creighton, 1997).
The domestic demand for rice has rapidly decreased and been replaced by wheat
and meat, despite government’s efforts on protectionism and people’s nostalgia torural agriculture. The Japanese government and agricultural cooperative (Zen-noh)utilised nostalgic views on rice production, and argued that westernisation (oubeika) of Japanese people’s food preference has attributed to the decline of Japan’s
food self-sufficiency, and they support the promotion of “Japanese style cuisine”

68CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
to improve self-sufficiency (National Federation of Agircultureal Co-operative Associations, 2013; Cabinet Office, 2006a). There is an alternative argument that thehigher price of domestic rice has encouraged Japanese consumers to buy and eat
more wheat products (Yamashita, 2009). However, such an argument is masked by
nostalgic sentiments perpetuated by media and the government.
Increasing dependence on food imports increases uncertainty and psychologicalinsecurity among Japanese consumers. A number of scandals regarding imported
food products, especially a food poisoning incident from frozen dumpling from China
in 2008, have been widely broadcast to the Japanese public. The media’s presentation of imported food has not only increased the feelings of vulnerabilities ofindividual consumers in the global market, but also portrayed women and education for young people as the final defenders of Japanese food security (Rosenberger,2009).
Despite being hidden behind the popular discussion on self-sufficiency, vegetableand fruit production has increased its presence in Japanese agriculture. The shareof vegetable and fruit production have increased. The share of vegetables increased
from 7.2% in 1955 to 25.7% in 2012. The share of fruit increased from 4.0% in 1955
to 8.8% in 2012 (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishries, 2014a). In contrast,
the share of rice production has dropped from 52.0% share in 1955 to 23.8% in 2012
(Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishries, 2014a). More new young farmers choose vegetables and fruit production (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fishries, 2013). Furthermore, public health incentives will increase more demands
for vegetable and fruit farmers.

Australian agriculture
In contrast to Japanese agriculture, Australian agriculture became an active player
in global food economy. Historically, Australia focused on exporting its products
overseas (Henzell, 2007). Australia translated global trends like neo-liberal agenda
more quickly than other commonwealth countries (Coleman and Skogstad, 1995).
Today, Australia is a major producer and exporter of agricultural products including
meats, wheat, and dairy products (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015d) which
increase export capacity for value added foods in the international market.
One of reasons for Australia’s adaptation to global market compared to Japanis the absence of resistance from peasant agricultures. More specifically, Australia
is the only continent which does not have a history of peasant agriculture which
is built on the interplay between people’s ways of life and soils (Symons, 2007, 7).
Australian agriculture is modern and industrial-based (Dixon et al., 2007). British

4.2. SOCIAL SYSTEM AND INEQUALITY

69

settlers brought modern technology from home and established industrial agriculture
which enabled them to feed growing urban population and produce a variety offood regardless of geographic and seasonal variations. Furthermore, migrants fromvarious regions have brought their culinary cultures and enhanced diversification offood supply and eating practices.
The modern and efficient agriculture and food systems, however, generate somesocial and health problems. The current Australian food system is vulnerable tothe impact of climate change as well as nutrition insecurity (Friel, 2010). Prolonged
drought and extreme weather events affect availability and price of food and theprice rise greatly impacts on socially and economically disadvantaged populations.
According to an empirical study by Kettings et al. (2009), the cost of nutritiously
balanced foods occupy about 40% of the disposable income of welfare-dependent
families, compared to 20% of average income families. Furthermore, socio-economic
disparities and nutrition insecurity is more severe in rural areas, and the urban-ruraldisparity is rather exacerbated by the current food policies (Dixon et al., 2007).
The economic shift from industrial to post-industrial societies has impacts on anation’s economic structures, labour market, and food system. Both Australia andJapan have followed similar trajectories toward post-industrial economics dominatedby service industries and departing from peasant agricultural practices. However,their experiences of economic transformation were very different due to different
structures of labour markets, industries including agriculture, and national responses
to globalisation. The next Section draws attention to social welfare systems in
the two countries, and their responses to new social risks including socio-economic
disparity in post-industrial societies.

4.2

Social system and inequality

The transformation of the social system is another important aspect of post-industrial
societies, because social demands are shaped by economic and social changes. Like
many European countries, Australia and Japan have faced similar social changes:
liberalisation of employment, population ageing, and globalisation. At the sametime, these two countries focused on labour market and economic policies to enhance people’s welfare. In particular, both have maintained relatively lower public
expenditures and lower government’s intervention to working conditions and benefits
for new types of employments compared to European countries. Due to little regulation to labour market, Australian and Japanese labour markets are more likely to be
influenced by market economy than European countries. This Section examines the70CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIEStransformation of welfare states and social construction of inequality in Australianand Japanese societies.

4.2.1

Low-cost welfare states

According to Esping-Anderson’s well-known classification of the three world welfare
regimes in the 1990s, both Australia and Japan were classified as liberal regime
which maintained low public expenditure on social welfare and were open to market economy and private provisions, compared to social democratic and catholic
conservative welfare states (Esping-Andersen, 1990). However, data in the 2000s
shows some shifts in Australian and Japanese welfare. Figure 4.2 shows the proportion of public and private social expenditures in GDP in Australia, Japan, andselected OECD countries in 2011. Figure 4.3 shows the transformation of publicsocial expenditure in Australia and Japan from 1980 to 2010.
Figure 4.2: Public and private expenditure as percentage of GDP in 2011
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Australia

Japan
PublicUK

Germany

SwedenFrancePrivate (Mandatory & Voluntary)

Source:Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014a)
Compared with European countries, both Australia and Japan had lower total
and public expenditure for social welfare in GDP in 2011. However, similar to otherOECD countries, the total public social expenditure in Australia and Japan has
gradually increased from 1980 to 2010, and the increase was larger in the 1990s in
both countries. Compared with Australia, the public expenditure of Japan has more
rapidly increased from the 1990s and maintained the momentum in the twenty-first
century.

4.2. SOCIAL SYSTEM AND INEQUALITY

71

Figure 4.3: Transformation of public social expenditure in Australia, Japan, andOECD countries from 1980 to 2010
25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

1980

1985

1990

Australia

1995
Japan

2000

2005

2010

OECD average

Source:Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014a)
Impacts of population ageing to welfare state
One of the major reasons for the rapid increase of Japan’s public expenditure in the
1990s is an increase of expenditure for elderly care. Table 4.4 shows the proportionof types of public social expenditure in GDP in Australia and Japan in 2011.
Table 4.4: Type of public social expenditure in GDP in Australia and Japan in2011(%)

Total
Old age
Survisors
Incapacity related
HealthFamilyLabour market
Unemployment
Housing
OthersAustralia
17.8%
4.9%
0.2%
2.3%
6.2%
2.8%
0.3%
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%

Japan
22.2%
10.4%
1.4%
1.0%
7.2%
1.0%
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
0.3%

Source:Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014a)
In 2011, Japan’s public expenditure for elderly support was more than double
Australia’s, and occupied almost half of the total public expenditure. The proportion of elderly support in Japan’s public social expenditure increased more than

72CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
three times from 3% in 1980. Australia had shown a small increase from 3.1%
in 1980 to 4.9% in 2011. In contrast, Japan’s public expenditure for family support (1.0% in 2009) was much lower than Australia, and the rate is one of lowest
among OECD countries (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,
2014a). Australia’s public expenditure for family support had increased from 0.9%
in 1980 to 2.8% in 2011. In Australia, social spending via family payment system tosome disadvantaged groups has increased during the Howard government 1996–2007(Mendes, 2009). The comparison suggests that the increase of social expenditure in
Japan is due to the increase in elderly support and it did not necessarily mean the
expansion of welfare to working populations.
The shift of social expenditure is closely related to demographic changes. Figure 4.4 shows the transformation of elderly population aged over 65 from 1970 to2013 in Australia, Japan, and the averages of European Union countries.

Figure 4.4: Proportions of elderly population aged over 65 from 1970 to 2013 inAustralia, Japan, and the averages of European Union countries
30.0%
25.0%

20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%

Australia

Japan

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

0.0%

European Union (27 countries)

Source:(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2015a)

Japan is world’s most ageing society where one fourth of the population (26.5%)
is over 65 years old and one eighth of them (12.8%) is over 75 years old in 2015
(Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2015). Australian population is ageing, but the current
population in 2015 is relatively young compared to other OECD countries (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015a).

4.2. SOCIAL SYSTEM AND INEQUALITY

73

Public expenditure on childcare
In addition to population ageing, public expenditure on childcare support is significantly important for Australian and Japanese societies where more women start toenter paid labour force and wish to send their children to childcare and pre-school.
International comparison of proportion of enrolment to childcare and pre-school ofchildren under six years old is shown in Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5: Proportion of enrolment to childcare and pre-school of children undersix years old in 2010 in Australia, Japan, and selected OECD countries
120.0%
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%

40.0%
20.0%

Under 3 years

0.0%

Australia

Japan

UnitedKingdom

Spain

Under 3 years

3 years

4 years

Germany
5 years

SwedenFrance3 to 5 years

Source: (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2015b)
In many OECD countries, almost all children of five years old enrolled in either
childcare or pre-school in 2010. However, there are cross-national variations inparticipation rate of children younger than five years old. Participation rate ofchildren under three years were in the lowest in Germany (23.1%) followed by Japan(25.9%) and Australia (33.2%). In the participation rate of three and four years,
Australia was the lowest (37.6% and 78.1% respectively) followed by Japan (75.8%
and 96.1% respectively). Overall participation rate of children under five years old
in Australia and Japan are relatively low compared with other OECD countries.
One of the factors of low participation to childcare and pre-school of young
children is low public expenditure and support on the areas. Figure 4.6 shows
proportion of public expenditure on childcare and pre-school to GDP.
Similar to the cross-national variations in participation to childcare and preschool, Germany, Japan and Australia had lowest public expenditure on childcare
and pre-school (Spain’s expenditure on pre-school was not reported in OECD report). Although Germany’s expenditure on childcare (0.1%) was the lowest, its ex-

74CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
Figure 4.6: Public expenditure on childcare as percentages of GDP in 2011 in Australia, Japan, and selected OECD countries
1.8%
1.6%
1.4%
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
Australia

Japan

UK

GermanyChildcare

Spain

SwedenFrancePre-school

Source:(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2014a)
Spain’s public expenditure on pre-school was not available in 2011.
penditure on pre-school (0.4%) was higher than Australia (0.3%) and Japan (0.1%),
and more children in Germany older than two years old participate in either preschool or childcare. This comparison suggests that more Australian and Japanesefamilies with young children younger than five years old rely on private support suchas support from their partners and extended families.
Comparison with European countries demonstrates that both Australia andJapan have maintained public social expenditure low in proportion to nations’ expenditure as proportion of GDP. However, the public expenditure gradually increased from 1980 to 2010 in two countries. Especially in Japan, an increase of
public expenditure on elderly support was in response to a rapid increase of total
public expenditure in the 1990s along with rapid demographic changes. Despite
these changes and increasing female participation in the labour force, public expenditure on childcare is low among OECD and the increase of total public expendituredoes not have direct impacts on young adult’s lifestyle.

4.2.2

Changes in Labour market without government’s regulations

Deregulation of labour market
Another characteristic of Australian and Japanese liberal welfare states is the absence of government’s intervention to regulate working hours in response to labour
market changes. Globally, social transition from the post-second world war system

4.2. SOCIAL SYSTEM AND INEQUALITY75

and globalisation accelerated deregulation and diversification of labour market. The
diversification of employment in Australia and Japan has led to two opposite trends
in more extreme ways than European countries (Campbell, 2007; Morioka, 2011).
Rise of part-time employment
First is the decline in the share of full-time permanent employment and the rise ofpart-time, fixed terms, temporary, contracted or agency based employment. Figure 4.7 shows the proportion of part-time employment in Australia and Japan, incomparison to four European countries (France, Germany, Italy, and Spain) which
had comparable data between 2002 to 2013 with Australia and Japan.
Figure 4.7: Percentage of part-time employment (less than 30 hours per week) from2002 and 2013
30.0%
25.0%

20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%

2002

2003

Australia

2004

2005

Japan

2006

2007

Italy

2008

2009

Germany

2010

2011

2012

France

2013

Spain

Source:(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2014g)
The proportion of part-time employment to total employment has risen in all
six countries from 2002 to 2013, and predominantly concentrated among women.
The increase was small in Australia and France, but larger in Japan (from 17.7%
to 21.9%), Germany (from 18.8% to 22.4%), Italy (from 11.6% to 18.5%), andSpain (from 7.6% to 14.7%). Australia has maintained higher share of part-time
employment among all OECD countries for more than a decade.
OECD’s definition of part-time employment is based on weekly working hours
and the presence and absence of worker’s benefits and entitlements are not taken
into consideration for international comparison. According to Hancock (2002), casual employees in Australia do not have similar rights, benefits, entitlements, andjob security to temporary employees in Europe. The Australian labour force survey

76CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
uses 35 hours cut off to discriminate part-time employment from full-time employment (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014d). In Japan, definitions of part-time
employment are varied among employers and are not necessarily based on working
hours (Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 2012a). There are some “part-timers”
who work hours as long as full-time employees, and those workers are called as “gijipaato (quasi part-timers)”. Therefore, there are more workers who are consideredas part-time employees in Australia and Japan than the OECD definition.
Excessive working hours
Another trend is that a minority of workers continues to engage in excessive working
hours. Long working hours, or overtime, are more commonly identified from individual workers in one full-time employment than part-time workers who have more than
one job (Campbell, 2007). Table 4.5 presents percentages of total employees who
worked very long hours (more than 49 or 50 hours per week) in Australia, Japan,
and two European countries (France and Spain) in 1995 and 2012, and maximum
weekly hours limit each country.
Table 4.5: Percentages of male and female employees who worked very long hours
and maximum weekly hour limits in 1995 and 2012 in Australia, Japan, France, andSpain
Country
Australia

Japan

FranceSpain

Gender
Total
Men
Women
Total
Men
Women
Total
Men
Women
Total
Men
Women

1995
22.0%
29.3%
9.4%
28.8%
37.6%
15.8%
11.9%
16.7%
6.4%
13.0%
15.3%
8.4%

2012
14.2%
21.2%
6.2%
22.6%
29.6%
13.4%
8.7%
12.1%
5.3%
6.0%
8.4%
3.3%

Maximum weekly hours limit
Unspecified

No universal limit

39 hours

42 hours

Source: Lee et al. (2007); International Labour Organization (2011); Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014f)
Note: Data of Japan, France, Spain in 1995 shows percentages of employees who
worked more than 49 hours per week. Others show those who worked more than 50hours per week.
Although the rate declined from 1995 to 2012, more workers in Australia andJapan, especially male workers, worked very long hours compared to workers in4.2. SOCIAL SYSTEM AND INEQUALITY

77

France and Spain. The 2012 rates of Japan and Australia are highest among OECD
countries after Turkey, Mexico, and Republic of Korea (Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development, 2014f). When these two countries are compared,
more Japanese male and female workers worked very long hours than Australians,
but the gender differences were larger among Australians.
Furthermore, many of the overtime hours are not paid in Australia and Japan.
Those who work long hours in Australia and Japan, predominantly male workers,
tend to see long working hours as gendered choices rather than social problems which
required regulations (van Wanrooy and Wilson, 2006; Nemoto, 2013). One of thestructural factors for long working hours among some Australians and Japanese incomparison to European countries is the absence of working-time regulation by governments (Campbell, 2007; Gornick and Heron, 2006). The absence of working-time
regulations enforces socio-cultural discourses (i.e. masculinity associated with long
working hours), and normalise excessive working hours at the workplace. It resultsin poor work-life balance of workers and their family members which undermines
everyday meal practices. The following Sections discuss structures of liberal welfare
states and transformation of labour market in Australia and Japan independently.

4.2.3

Welfare state and its transformation in Australia

Although the Australian welfare regime is often framed as being the same as other
English-speaking countries, research revealed that Australia had accommodated an
open market economy into its social policies more systematically than any othercountries. From post-Federation in 1901 to the end of the 1960s, Australia had
employed a highly centralised wage-fixing system and occupational benefits to enable
a breadwinner, predominantly male workers, to support all family members (Harrisand McDonald, 2000). Additionally, tariff protection and the restriction of non-white
migration have protected domestic economy and labour market (Castles, 1985). At
the same time, this system had excluded the population outside of mainstream
employment such as the elderly, lone mothers, the long-term sick, recently arrived
migrants, and Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (Hancock, 2002).
From the mid to late twentieth century, the post-war working styles and household system have gradually been replaced by diversification of employment in termsof populations (i.e. more female, non-white migrant workers, and older workers),
working hours (i.e. full-time and part-time), and employee’s entitlements (i.e. paid
leave). The structural shifts impacted the capacity of households to handle new typeof social risks (Hancock, 2002). As discussed at Section 4.1.4, gender segregationof employment has been diminished in most industries, along with continuous de-

78CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
cline of male labour force participation and growth of part-time employment amongmen. Male participation rate was 76.3% in September 1984 and has declined to70.7% in September 2014 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014c). Part-time employment among men has increased from 11.7% in financial year 2004–2005 to 14.4%
in 2013–2014 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014b, 2015b). The decline of gendered labour market has increased worker’s voices for caring responsibilities beyond
gender boundaries. Furthermore, due to long histories of non-state involvement andthe nature of federated political system, Australia has refined personal or community services provided an array of government, non-profit and for-profit agencies(Harris and McDonald, 2000). However, the Australian work-life system remains
adverse to those who have care-giving responsibilities and imposes significant costs
to Australian families to fulfil work and caring responsibilities (Pocock, 2005).

4.2.4

Welfare state and its transformation in Japan

Inside and outside of Japan, there have been debates about whether a welfare state
exists in Japan. One of the reasons that the structure of social welfare in Japanis different from the welfare state that evolved in Europe is that there was a great
division of liberal, social democratic, and conservative traditions. Esping-Andersen(1997) later considered the Japanese welfare state as hybrid of liberal and conservative models with occupational segmentation and familialism. He also evaluatedthat the development of welfare state is still immature compared to other developed
nations. Japanese economist Toshiaki Tachibanaki (2000) argued that Japan was
not welfare state (fukushi-kokka), because social expenditure from the government
had been too low in proportion to nation’s GDP (Tachibanaki, 2000, 222).
Nakahara (2007) suggested six reasons behind lower social expenditure in the
post-war Japanese society. First, the development of social welfare in Japan did
not take place along with economic growth and population ageing that happened inmany European countries. Secondly, post-war Japan has experienced longer term
economic growth and lower unemployment than other developed countries. The
oil shock in 1970s did not severely impact on Japanese labour market. Therefore,
there was no strong demand to invest in social welfare. Thirdly, rather than thegovernment, Japanese employers offer lifetime employment as well as welfare benefits to their employees. Fourth, collective bargaining by enterprise unions led toconstant pay increase among employees. Fifth, the post-war system resulted in agendered division of labour based on the male-breadwinner and female care givermodel. Lastly, the development of population ageing was lower during the postwar economic growth. Thus, multiple socio-economic and demographic factors were4.2. SOCIAL SYSTEM AND INEQUALITY

79

intertwined and resulted in lower public expenditure on social welfare in post-war
Japan.
More than any other factors, many scholars agreed that the post-war social caresystem was realised and sustained by systematic gendered division of labour basedon male breadwinner and female care givers within the society (Osawa, 2003; Shirahase, 2003; Ochiai et al., 2010). Household gender division of labour was observed inmany OECD countries regardless of any kinds of welfare state regime, but the division was more distinct in Japan in terms of women’s power over household financial
management and greater share of housework, child-rearing, and nursing care (Shirahase, 2003). Moreover, the gendered division were also extended to social insurance
system as well as labour market. From 1961 to 1986, housewives were excluded fromthe national pension system. Although the reform in 1986 allowed housewives tohave their own pensions, the majority of them are still insured by their husband’s
employers. This insurance system encouraged more married women to be full-timehousewives or work part-time below the tax exemption limit of 1.03 million yen peryear (Ochiai et al., 2010).
The world’s rapid population ageing encouraged the government to increase public expenditure on social welfare. In 2000, Japan introduced long-term care insurance(choki kaigo hoken) to increase social responsibility by co-payment for nursing carerather than relying on family and individuals (Campbell and Ikegami, 2003). Thissystem reduced burdens of older family members who needed intensive care. However, the co-payment system burdened people in low social economic status and did
not improve gender imbalance of care work within households (Ochiai et al., 2010).
The majority of family care givers are still women. Women’s income is lower thanmen in general, and many of them cannot afford to hire full-time care workers nor
send their family members to nursing home. Thus, even though social insurance wasintroduced, the Japanese welfare system heavily relies on female family members.
At the same time, the Japanese welfare system is very different from other liberal
welfare states as far as maintaining strict immigration policies which discourage hiring migrant care workers which are observed in other Asian post-industrial societies
like Singapore and Hong Kong (Ochiai, 2009).
Australia and Japan have shared liberal welfare regimes which utilised theirlabour market and open economy. At the same time, the transformation of genderbalance in labour market and immigration policies shaped different experiences ofsocial changes with the two societies. By welcoming more women and migrants,
Australia established a greater diversity within the labour market and graduallydiminished gender imbalance at the workplace. In contrast, Japan maintained a rigid

80CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
gendered division of work and caring responsibilities at the households, workplaces,
and labour market. Long working hours among full-time workers remains a major
obstacle to realise work-life balance and a better quality of life among these workers
and their families in these two societies.

4.3

Health transition and public health policies

The health status of a population is considered to be one of the key indicators of
economic and social changes. Globally, there has been an epidemiological transition
from infectious disease to chronic non-communicable diseases, and the resulting
demographic transition of age-specific mortality (Omran, 1971). Popkin (1993, 138)
added a large shift of diets – high in saturated fat, sugar, and refined foods andlow in fibre– are associated with higher incidences of chronic diseases. The change
in cause of death is associated with social changes as well as some eco-biologicaland environmental changes (Caldwell, 2001). These global transformations havedrastically changed the needs of public health policies as well as welfare systems inmany societies. At the same time, the initiatives from public health and governments
also perpetuate new types of social anxieties and political regimes to the public. This
Section examines three common health-related issues in contemporary Australia andJapan: health transition, obesity, and social determinants of health. The end of
the Section discusses how these issues affect contemporary public health nutrition
policies in two societies.

4.3.1

Health transition in Australia and JapanAt the macro level, the epidemiological and demographic trend is not exception
for Australia and Japan. In the mid-and late-twentieth century, mortality of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) has replaced infectious diseases, and occupied major
causes of death in two countries. Life expectancy rate was one of highest among
OECD countries. Table 4.6 shows life expectancy and major causes of death inAustralia and Japan based on reports from World Health Organization (WHO).
The comparison of two countries shows that Australia had higher rate of NCD
mortality (91%) than Japan (79%), and lower proportion of morality of infectious
diseases (3%) than Japan (13%). Mortality of cardiovascular diseases and cancers
occupied more than a half of total incidences of mortality.
Although Australian and Japanese reports use the International Classificationof Diseases and related health problems Tenth version (ICD-10) to identify causesof death, the two countries use different methods of ranking leading causes of death4.3. HEALTH TRANSITION AND PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES81

Table 4.6: Life expectancy and major causes of death in Australia and Japan in2012

Gender(Years old)
Proportion of NCDs
Cardiovascular diseases
CancerRespiratory diseases
Cause of death Diabetes
Other NCDs
Communicable diseases
Injuries
Life expectancy

Australia
Male Female
79.9 84.3
91%
31%
29%
7%
3%
21%
3%
6%

Japan
Male Female
79.9 86.4
79%
29%
30%
7%
1%
12%
13%
8%

Source: World Health Organization (2014a)in the public domain. At the same time, there is no standard tabulation lists ofmortality shared across countries (Becker et al., 2006). Comparison of reports fromeach country shows different lists of diseases in contrast to the comparison basedon WHO classification. Table 4.7 shows top 6 major causes of death reported byAustralian and Japanese governments in 2012.
Table 4.7: Major causes of death in Australia and Japan in 2012 based on country’s
reportCauses of
death

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6

Australia
Ischeaemic heart diseases
Cerebrovascular diseases
Dementia & Alzheimer diseases
Trachea, bronchus & lung cancers
Chronic lower respiratory diseases
DiabetesJapan
All cancers
Cardiovascular diseases
Pneumonia
Cerebrovascular diseases
Senility
Accidents

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012); Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (2012b)
As suggested by Becker et al. (2006), the Australian government used the ranking
method based on major causes of diseases (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012).
In contrast, the Japanese report classified based on kinds of diseases (i.e. cancer).
The Australian government adopts more biomedical approaches to classify causes ofdeath than the Japanese government.
Opposite to the decline of infectious diseases in many post-industrial societies,
mortality by pneumonia has gradually increased in Japan, and ranked the third

82CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
cause of death among Japanese population in 2012 (Ministry of Health, Labor andWelfare, 2012b). Increasing incidences of death by pneumonia and the consistentpresence of death by senility reflected rapid population ageing in Japanese society.
There are some plausible explanation of a number of deaths from pneumonia andsenility among elderly in Japan. Major causes of death of pneumonia patients inJapan were Pneumonitis and influenza (Morimoto et al., 2014). Compared withyoung patients, older patients with pneumonia showed fewer observable symptoms,
and it is harder to identify mortality risks of older patients (Hamaguchi et al.,2014). In terms of senility death, accessibility to hospitals and both doctor’s andpatient’s perceptions on the end-life care influence regional differences in the numberof senility death incidence in Japan (Imanaga et al., 2012).

4.3.2

Social construction of obesity in Australia and Japan

Along with the rise of chronic NCDs, weight became a key determinant of healthy
bodies of citizens globally (World Health Organization, 2014b). Increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity is considered a social issue by Australian and Japanese
governments (Australian government, 2010; Cabinet Office, 2007). In fact, the obesity rate of Australian and Japanese population is not comparable, because of different Body Mass Index (BMI) cut-off points for obesity assigned for different populations. WHO recommended that a BMI greater than 25 for Asian populations and 30
for non-Asian populations (World Health Organization Expert Consultation, 2004).
At the same time, both societies as well as other OECD countries have experienced
a rapid increase of obesity in last three decades. Figure 4.8 shows the proportion of
overweight and obese populations (BMI≥25) in Australia and Japan from 1978 to
2012.
The figure demonstrated that all countries have more overweight and obese populations than 30 years ago. Australia and United Kingdom showed larger increases
in the 1990s and 2000s compared to other countries. The rate had increased fromabout 45% in early 1990s to more than 60% in the 2000s. The rate of Japan is thelowest among 8 countries in the list, but there was an increase from 19.6% in 1978
and to 23.7% in 2012.
Healthy weight is a more dominant socio-economic, political, and health-related
issue in Australia than Japan. It is not only because Australia has one of highest
obesity prevalence rates in the world. It is also because issues around obesity reflect various social and political concerns within contemporary Australian society.
Davis (2011) suggested that the healthy citizenship norm imposes individual choice
and responsibility for maintaining healthy weight as well as healthy self among the4.3. HEALTH TRANSITION AND PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES

83

Figure 4.8: Proportion of overweight and obese population
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%

1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

0.0%

Australia

Japan

FinlandFranceGermany

Italy

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Source:Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014c)
Note:Data from Australia and Japan are measured and others are self-report.
three generations of Australians. Her in-depth interviews demonstrated that her
participants considered diets and exercises as tools for realising their ideal body andweight. In other words, having a healthy body shape and weight are cultural symbols of healthy and responsible citizens. The health concerns among Australians
also affect their perceptions on diets. Lea and Worsley (2001) showed that Australian people’s perceptions on meat consumption have changed over generations.
According to their finding, young people reported they eat meats to supplement thelack of iron and protein. In contrast, older people eat meat because it is necessary
in the diet.
At the political level, the Australian government has considered obesity as anindividual issue until labour government in the late 2000s (Davis, 2011). The RuddGillard government (2007–2013) of the labour party acknowledged social responsibilities for preventive health including obesity (Australian government, 2010). However, these initiatives of social responsibilities were difficult to transfer into social
marketing campaigns as well as people’s understanding of obesity (Davis, 2011, 37,
54). Furthermore, the current liberal-National Coalition overturned the Labour
government in September 2013, and it abolished the Australian National Preventive
Health Agency in 2014 (Parliament of Australia, 2014). Thus, political climatesgreatly affect government’s approaches to preventive health in Australia.
On the contrary, in Japan, obesity is an invisible risk constructed by top-downgovernment and biomedical measures rather than socio-cultural symbol of unhealthy
citizens. The most prevalence type of obesity among the Japanese is abdominal
obesity and metabolic syndrome which are not necessarily associated with excessive

84CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
body weight (Kanazawa et al., 2002). At the same time, the Japanese government,
mass media, and the public health community were keen to control potential healthrisks associated with obesity through top-down approaches. In April 2008, theJapanese government introduced the special health check-up examination (Tokutei
Kenkou shinsa) program, to identify risks of metabolic syndrome among the middle
to old age Japanese.† However, the medical threshold of metabolic syndrome is stillquestionable among health experts, not only because the program was establishedwithout carefully examining counter-evidence about metabolic syndrome, but also
because there are ethical concerns about biased research and evidence of influencepharmaceutical corporations (Manzenreiter, 2012, 77). Manzenreiter (2012) asserted
that obesity in Japan is a socially constructed health risk rather than based on an
objective evidence, and a political strategy to widely promote neo-liberal agenda
which encourage people to engage in self-regulation (Manzenreiter, 2012, 55).
There is a substantial gap between these public health intentions and Japanesepeople’s understanding of obesity and metabolic syndrome. The term ‘metabolic
syndrome’ was widely known among Japanese people in the 2000s. According to thenationwide survey (Cabinet office, 2011), 77.3% of respondents knew the term andmeanings of metabolic syndrome in 2007, and the rate increased to 89.4% in 2011.
However, in the 2011 survey, 21.2% reported that they did not consider any lifestylechanges including diets and physical activities to prevent metabolic syndrome.

4.3.3

Social determinants of health in Australia and Japan

Social determinants of health have been increasingly considered as an important determinant of health inequality. The Rio Political Declaration on social determinantsof health in 2011 led by WHO announced a global commitment to enhance social
determinants of health approaches to tackle health disparities (World Health Organization, 2011). The relationship between socio-economic disparity and health outcomes has been widely examined (Wilkinson, 1992; Drewnowski and Specter, 2004).
Some research asserted that a country’s welfare regime impacts on health inequality(Bambra, 2006; Chung and Muntaner, 2007; Offer et al., 2010). However, crossnational evidence have shown that these propositions were not always supportedby the studies which examined societies with small scale of social stratification andhierarchy (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2006). The majority of studies which supported
social determinants of health were conducted in the United States which has had alarge socio-economic disparity (Shibuya et al., 2002). In terms of the impact of wel†All people aged 40 to 74 years old who are insured by public health insurances in Japan are
eligible for the examination, and most of costs are covered by health insurance or eligible for tax
deduction (Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 2008a,b).

4.3. HEALTH TRANSITION AND PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES

85

fare regime, Clare Bambra (2011) pointed out that the Scandinavian states did nothave the smallest health inequality. She argued that the notion of health inequality
used by comparative social epidemiologists overlooks differences between enhancing
overall health profiles of total population and improving the situations of those whoare vulnerable. Therefore, the relationship between socio-economic disparity andhealth outcomes is not straightforward, and varies in societies.
Socio-economic disparity matters in Australian and Japanese societies. Bothcountries have one of highest Gini coefficient, an indicator of unequal income distribution, in OECD countries‡ (Tachibanaki, 2006). As discussed in the Section 4.2.1,
public social expenditure is lower than European states. In contrast, two societies
have relatively good population health profile including longest life expectancy andlower childhood mortality at the nation level. Statistical information about household income distribution for international comparison standardises only the mostobvious elements (i.e. adjustment of differences of household sizes), and data may
be affected by other aspects of poverty research (i.e. different contexts and contents
of nation’s household surveys) which are not standardised (d’Ercole, 2006). Thus,
relying on a limit number of indicators overlooks different structures of poverty
across societies.
I argue that the structure of poverty and welfare systems affects how social andeconomic factors generate health outcomes. A comparison of socio-economic disparities in Australian and Japanese societies shows different structures and determinantsof poverty and inequality. In Australia, socio-economic and health disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous populations as well as between urban and rural
populations are bigger.
In Japan, determinants of socio-economic disparity are invisible, due to historical legacy of dependence on family resources including hierarchical relationships
between parents and children and husband and wife (Aoki and Aoki, 2005). In otherwords, socio-economic disparity is affected by the transfer of family resources rather
than differences between regions and ethnicity. Epidemiological studies showedsocio-economic and health disparities in different locations and conditions. Healthdisparity was most evident in income disparity within regions rather than between
regions (Oshio and Kobayashi, 2009). A cross-national study showed that economic
dependence on agriculture, forestry, and fishery was an indicator of poverty in the rural areas of the United States, but it was not of Japan (Fisher, 2001). Socio-economic
disparity was lower during economic development, and became larger during the eco‡

Tachibanaki (2006) showed Gini coefficient of 20 OECD countries based on OECDs report(Forster and d’Ercole, 2005). He applied equivalent-income approach to adjust the effect of household sizes. Australia and Japans rates were 0.305 and 0.314 accordingly.

86CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
nomic recessions in the 1990s (Tachibanaki, 2006). Despite the health status of allsocio-economic groups having improved after the recession compared to pre-recessiontime, relative health disparity has expanded among some male workers: more male
middle-class non-manual workers (clerical/sales/service workers) were more likely toreport poor health than male high class workers (managers) (Kondo et al., 2008).

4.3.4

Public health policies and campaigns for preventive
medicine in Australia and Japan

Public health policies are designed not only to improve health status of population,
but also to reflect social concerns and political regimes. Transformation of issues
around the health transition, obesity, and social determinants of health particularly
shapes recent public health nutrition policies in two societies. It results in developing
different focuses and structures of public health nutrition campaigns in two countries.
At the same time, core messages to the public are similar and concentrated on
responsibilities of individuals and households.

Australian public health policies for chronic diseases
In response to the rise of chronic NCDs and obesity, the Australian government
launched several initiatives during the Labour government. In April 2008, the Rudd
government established the National Preventive Health Taskforce led by a group of
health experts to develop nationwide strategies for preventive medicine including
tobacco, alcohol, obesity, and illicit drugs (Australian government, 2009a).
The national government’s initiatives centred on social marketing campaigns
such as “Measure Up”, “Swap it and Don’t stop it” and “Shape Up Australia”.
The government announced that it would spend about 300 million dollars for social marketing campaigns for preventive medicine (Australian government, 2010, i).
The government also looked for co-branding partnerships with local organisations(Australian National Preventive Health Agency, 2014). Through social marketing
campaigns, the Australian government tried to promote latest knowledge about obesity and healthy practices and enhance the population’s knowledge for preventive
medicine.
Another kind of government initiative for tacking obesity is the revision of the
dietary guidelines. Australian Dietary Guidelines (2013) are the collection of dietaryguidelines for all Australians issued in 2013. The guidelines are the accumulation ofknowledge and experiences from previous editions of dietary guidelines developed in
1982, 1992, and 2003, and they build upon the latest scientific evidence related to4.3. HEALTH TRANSITION AND PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES

87

risks of chronic diseases (Australian government, 2003, 2013). There are two majorchanges from the 2003 version. First, the 2013 version focused on whole foods rather
than nutrition components to transfer clear messages to consumers. Secondly, the2013 version provides broader considerations for social determinants of health. It
does not only target the indigenous population which was introduced in the 2003
version, but also considers the very young, the very old, those living in remoteareas and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Australian
government, 2013).
The Australian government’s approach to preventive medicine focused on delivering the latest scientific knowledge in the public. The government led expert
committees like National Preventive Health Taskforce and the National Health andMedical Research Council to develop strategies, and deliver through social marketing
campaigns that users could understand easily. However, technocratic knowledge andinformation are not necessarily transferable to the public. Despite expert recommendations for structural reforms, public messages through social marketing campaigns
have concentrated on changes at the individual and family level.

Japanese public health policies for chronic diseases
In contrast to Australia which has several campaigns about healthy eating andlifestyles, the Japanese government introduced two comprehensive programs in the
2000s: Kenkou Nippon 21 (Health Japan 21) and Shokuiku (Food and nutrition
education). Kenkou Nippon 21 is the first nationwide preventive health programin Japan lead by Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW). Shokuiku is anationwide initiative to tackle all kinds of food-related issues including food security, food safety, food sovereignty, weight-related issue, food-related prevention for
NCDs, and revitalisation of traditional culinary cultures. Shokuiku started as acivil activism in the 1990s, and was legalised as the Basic Law of Shokuiku by theJapanese parliament in June 2005. Unlike Kenkou Nippon 21, Shokuiku is the whole
government initiative led by the Cabinet office. Rather than regulating market economy, the Japanese government encouraged private corporations to participate in thenationwide campaigns.
Japanese policy makers and health experts took pride in establishing comprehensive policies for preventive medicine and food. However, social determinant ofhealth including inequality by gender, age, regions and occupations has not been
considered in the agenda. In particular, the romanticising of “traditional Japanesecuisine” and cultures led by Shokuiku is criticised because it overlooks socio-culturalburdens of women for preparing healthy meals (Kojima, 2011; Kimura, 2011) as well

88CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
as socially and economically disadvantaged groups which have little access to various
responses for healthy eating.

Neo-liberal public health approaches
Health promotion campaigns by Australian and Japanese governments appear tobe very different approaches to tackle obesity and NCDs: Australian campaigns incorporate latest scientific evidence and theories, and Japanese campaigns promotetraditional diets and domestic agriculture. However, I argue that the core messages
to the public are similar and heavily affected by neo-liberal welfare regime, domestic politics, and behaviourist public health approaches. Although both governments
recognise multiple factors associated with NCDs and obesity, their messages focus
on the responsibilities of individuals and household rather than structural reforms ofhealth and welfare systems. For example, despite the Taskforce’s recommendationfor environmental intervention, the Australian Labour government avoided interventions which are perceived to be ‘nanny state’ (Davis, 2011) or socialist (Manne,2008). The Japanese government frames both Kenkou Nippon 21 and Shokuiku
as ‘movements by all Japanese citizens (kokumin undou)’, and escapes from being
blamed from post-war policies by admitting structural issues of Japanese agriculture(Kojima, 2011). Furthermore, both governments welcome partnerships with private
corporations rather than regulating market economy.
The health transition has had a substantial impact on Australian and Japanesesocieties, and people’s perceptions on health. The Australian government has adopted
knowledge and a framework in accordance with international best practices for preventing NCDs and obesity. The Japanese government introduced comprehensive
public health programs to handle the world’s most ageing population and NCDs.
Despite very different structures of public health programs, both governments actively incorporate neo-liberal agenda. The next Section discusses transformationof culinary cultures and eating practices in contemporary Australian and Japanesesocieties.

4.4

Transformation of culinary cultures and practices

It has been argued that the development of trans-national food and beverage corporations like McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) and Starbucks after theSecond World War fosters homogenisation of food production and consumption

4.4. TRANSFORMATION OF CULINARY CULTURES AND PRACTICES

89

around the globe (Ritzer, 1996). The adoption of “western diets”, high in saturated fat, sugar, and refined foods and that are low in fibre, is considered as a key
determinant of a large-scale transition of health and nutrition (Popkin, 1993). It
has contributed to the destruction of “traditional” culinary cultures (Pingali, 2007;
Cabinet Office, 2006b) and led to individualised eating practices, including eating
alone. At the same time, specific cuisine and eating practices are framed as “traditions”. This Section explores transformations of diets and eating practices inAustralia and Japan beyond the modernisation and individualisation debates focusing on the post-second World War time and onwards. I argue that transformation ofdiets and eating practices are the reflection of the long term history of cultural contacts and social changes. This Section is divided into two parts. First, I introduce
how cultural contacts shape Australian and Japanese culinary cultures. Secondly, I
examine the historical transformation of family dining in two societies, and discuss
how the Victorian middle-class domesticity has evolved as an icon of “traditional”
eating practice.

4.4.1

Transformation of Australian and Japanese culinary
cultures: how cultural contacts shape culinary cultures

Australia and Japan are geographically isolated island countries. Before the eraof globalisation, cross-national cultural contacts of island countries were limited
to migration and international trades compared with countries belonging to large
continents. At the same times, the demographical structures of two countries aredifferent. In Australia, about 23 million people including less than half a million
indigenous population lived in 7.6 million square kilometres of island continent.
About 90% of population live in urban and cost-dwelling cities, 24.6% of Australians
were born overseas, and 43.1% has at least overseas-born parent (Australian Bureauof Statistics, 2011). In contrast, Japan is a highly populated country: 126 million people live in 0.3 million square kilometres. Japan’s population density has
been higher than most European countries since the beginning of eighteenth century (Saito, 1983). Unlike Australia, Japan has never had an official immigration
policy (Roberts, 2013), but it is not homogeneous society: there are ethnic minorities
and diversity across regions (Sugimoto, 2014).
Movements of people and food underpin trajectories of the transformation of
culinary cultures in Australia and Japan. Over three centuries, Australia has had amore intense history of cultural contacts via international migration and trade than

90CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIESJapan. Before arrival of the first fleet in 1788 that marked the era of European
settlement, there was a series of trades between Indigenous Australians and Southeast Asia and China (Wahlqvist, 2002). During the colonial settlement, people
settled in towns and relied on massive imports from Britain rather than their own
peasant agriculture (Symons, 2007). British traditions were not just imported toAustralia but rather modified to suit a new environment without being constrainedby “the weight of imported tradition” (Santich, 2012). After the Second World War,migrants and their culinary culture have increased their presence in Australia, notonly because the Australia government promoted mass migration programs withthe slogan “populate or perish”, but also because of the rise of restaurant industry(Symons, 2007). British and continental European migration to Australia grew
during the White Australian policy and peaked in the 1960s, and the arrangement
was extended to immigrants from Turkey in 1968 and Yugoslavia in 1970 (Jupp,
2002, 23). The gradual abolition of White Australia Policy after the second world
war to the Vietnam war meant that Australians were exposed to Asian cuisines
through accepting more migrants from Asia and encouraging Australians to travel
to Asia (Symons, 2007).
The foundation of culinary culture in Japan drew inspiration from East Asian
civilisations including China and the Korean peninsula. The earliest relations between Japan and East Asia were documented in a Chinese historical text Gishiwajinden (The history of the Wei) written around 280–297. In 600, the Prince Shotoku
started to send the first envoys to the Sui dynasty China, following the opening relations with Silla and Baekje, two countries on Korean peninsula. The diplomatic
relations continued after the Tang dynasty was replaced by the Sui in 618 to theabolishment in 894. The second oldest book of Japanese history completed in 720,
Nihon Shoki, recorded that there were a series of convivial meals with envoys of Sui,
Tang, Silla, Baekje, and the Emishi, the residents of north-eastern Japan (Ehara
and Higashiyotsuyanagi, 2011).§ Through envoys to the Tang dynasty, Buddhism
was introduced to Japan, and resulted in the ban of meat consumption and hunting made by the Emperor Tenmu in 675. In the eighth century, chopsticks were
gradually adopted and became essential for everyday use. However, eating at table with chairs were not adopted across all social classes until twentieth century(Ishige, 2005). Historian Isao Kumakura argued that eating with tables and chairs
were considered as “Tang style (tou-shiki )” or foreign, and was gradually replaced§

There have been a long term disputes of if the Emishi is the descendants of Ainu or non-Ainu
Japanese. The study showed that the word Emishi was used to refer to the population who lived
in north-east of Japan before the distinction between Ainu and non-Ainu populations were madein modern Japan (Hanihara, 1990).

4.4. TRANSFORMATION OF CULINARY CULTURES AND PRACTICES

91

by individual tables (meimei-zen) (Figure 4.9), along with the rise of “Japanesestyle culture (kokufu-bunka)” during the Heian period (794–1185) (Kumakura 2007,
25–26).
Figure 4.9: Meimei zen (Photo by coutesy of the Ueda City Museum in Nagano
prefecture)

From the late twelveth to late nineteenth century, Japan was an isolated feudal
society ruled by the samurai warrior, but started to be influenced by Europe throughEuropean missionaries and traders at the regional level, particularly in south-west ofJapan. The first official record of Japanese encounters’ with Europeans were when
Portugal sailors arrived by accident to the Tanegashima island in 1543. On 22nd
July 1549, the Spanish Catholic missionary Francis Xavier came to spread Christianity, followed by a group of Spanish and Portugal missionaries. The Japanese
who converted to Christianity started to eat meat as liberation from the Buddhist
and Shinto taboo. Consumption of beef, chicken, and chicken eggs started to be
popular in the western part of Japan between late sixteenth and early seventeenth
centuries (Ishige, 2007). In addition, potato, corn, and pumpkin were introduced
to Nagasaki in the sixteenth century (Ehara and Higashiyotsuyanagi, 2011). However, in 1639, the Edo government banned the entry of Portugal, and limited its
diplomatic relations to Holland and North-east Asia (China, Korea, Emishi, andRyukyu). The central government (Bakufu) was not involved with administration of
diplomacy, and allowed specific regional governments (han) to be agents (Kazui andVideen, 1982). This diplomatic relations continued until 1854 when a Commodore
of the United States, Matthew C. Perry arrived and asked for diplomatic relations
with the West.
Although the intensity and length of cultural contacts are very different, movement of people and food have great impacts on culinary cultures in Australia andJapan. Australia over its short colonial history has embraced a variety of culinary
culture brought by migrants from all over the world. The foundation of Japanese cuisine has been built on various degrees of cultural contacts from national to regional

92CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
levels with East Asia over two thousand years. Later formal and informal diplomatic relations with European countries during colonialism brought another form ofcultural contact to Japan. At the beginning, relations with the West was limited tosouth-west of Japan, but became formalised relations between nation-states in the
mid-nineteenth century.

4.4.2

Development of family dining

As discussed in Chapter 2, there are pessimistic views of the decline of family dining in many societies including Australia and Japan. However, such claims are notnecessarily supported by long histories of happy family meals in each society. Like
the use of chopsticks in Japan and Sunday roast in Australia, the notion of family
meals is a production of a range of cultural contacts. The ideology of home andfamily meals is not native to both Australian and Japanese societies. The structure
and ideology of family dining in Australia and Japan originated from Victorian domesticity emerged in the nineteenth century in the Great Britain. It was introduced
to two societies in the nineteenth century, spread through literature and television,and became a nostalgia for good old days in the late twentieth century. At thesame time, different historical events and conjunctures were intertwined with theseadoptions of family dining in each society.

Victorian middle-class domesticity and family dining
The ideology and structure of modern family mealtimes emerged and was widely
accepted in nineteenth century’s Victorian England, followed by socio-economicchanges driving the separation of public workplaces and private home and deep
commitments to the idea of home (Tosh, 2007). The impacts of domestic reform
discourses were extended to everyday activities including gendered eating practices,table manners, and children’s education (Fitts, 1999; Gray, 2013). The development of domesticity among Victorian middle-class was driven by the need of malelabours (Tosh, 1996) and the rise of competitive individualism along with rapid
industrialisation and urbanisation (Gillis, 1989). The idea of domesticity was also
introduced to British colonies like Australia and New Zealand (Wagner, 2011) andIndia (Blunt, 1999) as well as to former colonies the United States through Europeanand American bourgeois (Cinotto, 2006).

4.4. TRANSFORMATION OF CULINARY CULTURES AND PRACTICES

93

Development of family dining in Australia
Unlike Britain and Ireland where the development of public and private spheres
were fostered by the process of industrialisation, the settlement in Australia started
as public and a private sphere was carefully constructed (Russell, 1993). During
settlement, settlers tried to replicate their own traditional taste and practices in the
new land (Symons, 2007). Building domesticity was symbol of civilisation in thecontext of rural settlement (Russell, 1993). Family meal practices followed English
dining. Valuing plain food as wholesome and virtuous, Australian experiences offamily dining in early twentieth century centred on utilitarian aspects of food rather
than eating for pleasure (Banwell et al., 2012, 25). The British roast dinner on
Sunday was maintained (Walker and Roberts, 1988). The ideology of gendereddomesticity reflected on structure of family meal: the timing of meals, the menu, theorder of serving, and sometimes conversation were determined by male breadwinners,
and women and children had little influence (Banwell et al., 2012, 25-26).
The post-second world war economic prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s fostered
the expansion of the population of middle-class that embraced the domesticity asa cultural icon. The development of television cooking shows also served to maintain British and English heritages in the post-war Australian society. After thesecond world war, many middle-class Australian women shifted out of the wartime
labour force and became housewives to fulfil new duty to the nation (de Solier,
2005, 469). When television was introduced to Australia in the 1950s, many Australian households set television either in the kitchen or the dining room (Groves,
2004). Television cooking shows during the time such as the programs by Bill Kerr,
Margaret Fulton, and Bernard King influenced to generate Anglo-Celtic notion ofAustralian identity and idea of family meals (de Solier, 2005).
Narratives of Australian culinary history from the 1960s onwards are greatly
different from those in the 1950s and early 1960s, and they increased attention togender and cultural diversity (Duruz, 1999). Television became a site for negotiating
multiculturalism within Australia: in the 1970s, Anglo-Australian chefs introduced
exotic foods to the audiences, and in the 1990s, migrant Australian chefs appearedon television programs (de Solier, 2005, 469–470). Additionally, increasing availability and accessibility of food encouraged more urban Australians to develop an
omnivorous taste, while family dining also started to accommodate individual preferences and taste (Banwell et al., 2012). Despite these dynamic changes of Australiansociety between this time period, changes did not occur in all populations. An interview study in the late 1990s showed that the expansion of exotic food did notreach rural communities which lacked access to new food items and taste (Lupton,

94CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
2000). Older Australians of European descents, who were born in the 1920s and1930s, retained eating habits and practices from their childhood in the 1930s and1940s, and concerned for negative health effects of eating convenience or pre-cooked
meals (Banwell et al., 2010).

Development of family dining in Japan
The idea of family dining has been introduced as antithesis of traditional patriarchy
at households by Christians and socialist scholars in late nineteenth century (Omote,2010). One of advocates Yoshiharu Iwamoto was a founder of the first women’s magazine in Japan (Jogaku-zasshi ), and set up a column called Nihon no kazoku (theJapanese family) to assert the notion of home and family in comparison between
western and Japanese households which he observed from migrant families living
in Japan. However, the new idea was accepted only among wealthy and educatedpeople in urban areas (Omote, 2010, 44–45). For many centuries, the majority ofJapanese people ate together but rarely shared the same table together. People had
meals either on the floor or on personal tray boxes, as discussed in Section 4.4.1,
and each dish was served in individual plates and bowls. This way of eating reflects
various rituals associated with the traditional family structure called Ie which are
the household consisting of extended family members. It was common that household members did not eat at the same time. Kagezen is a practice to set up a meal
for absent family members to wish their health and well-being, and it indicates thatsharing the same food signifies symbol of household rather than sharing mealtime
together (Ishige, 2005). During this time, eating was an everyday ritual associatedwith cultural and religious rules that regulated individual behaviours and food intake. Conversation was not allowed and the way to eat was highly restricted bycultural rules (Omote, 2010).
“Eating around the table” has widely spread in early to mid-twentieth century during the Taisho and the early Showa periods, when the Japanese households
started to use a short-legged table called chabudai. Before and during the Second
World War, the national government promoted commensality to enhance nationalcohesion. The government’s intervention in school lunches was aimed at not only
improving children’s health but also at disciplining their behaviour, to train children
to become productive labourers and soldiers for the nation (Iwasaki, 2008, 40). By
this time, the use of chabudai was widely spread to working class families. However,there were few changes in eating practices(Ishige, 2005).
The idea and practice of family dining were realised in Japan during the postwar economic development between the 1950s and the 1980s (Omote, 2010). The

4.4. TRANSFORMATION OF CULINARY CULTURES AND PRACTICES

95

realisation was associated with the emergence of the modern nuclear family with fulltime housewives. As discussed in Section 4.1.4, by the 1970s, many Japanese women
were not housewives and engaged with family business and agriculture, and female
labour force participation was higher than Australia. The emergence of full-timehousewives among middle-class families promoted rigid gendered division of labours
not only at the household but also within the contemporary Japanese society (Ochiai,
2005, 45). House architecture and meal practices such as sharing a big plate wereadopted for housewives’ convenience. Ishige (2005) suggested that the shift fromthe patriarchy to the housewife-centred family was symbol of the democratisationof households which was a part of post-war dominant ideology (Ishige, 2005, 175).
Thus, family dining became a part of an important social practice associated withthe structural shift from the traditional patriarch system to the post-war democracy.
Additionally, the image of American middle-class family and their lifestyles wasintroduced through television series such as “I Love Lucy” and “Father Knows Best”
and became the utopian goal of many Japanese in the 1950s (Ivy, 1993). Both radio
and television stations promoted radio and television as symbols of family gathering(Komuro, 2009). Family dinners in front of television was also a popular practice inwestern societies like Australia (Groves, 2004) and the United States (Spigel, 2013).
However, the development of the middle-class family meals and the introduction of
television to the middle-class households occurred at different time in the western
societies. What is unique about the experience in Japan in comparison to the West isthat the development of democratic family and television occurred during a similar
period of time.
Despite only be established in Japanese society for a short time, public debatesaround the decline of family dining encompass anxieties over social changes andglobalisation of Japanese societies from the 1980s onwards. In 2011, the Japanese
government launched a new agenda to promote family dining through the Shokuiku
Basic Law. The new plan stated that eating together (Kyou-shoku) was a core of
Shokuiku (food and nutrition education) (Cabinet Office, 2011, 5). The new agenda
employs the family as an education agent for children and young people, and framesfamily meals as a multi-functional practice to fulfil a wide range of goals of Shokuiku
from public health to preservation of Japanese culinary culture and food system.

4.4.3

Evolutions of family dining in Australia and Japan

A comparison of evolutions of family dining in Australia and Japan has demonstrated that both societies accommodate the ideologies and structures of the Victorian domesticity and family dining over different time periods and trajectories, while

96CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
the idea was introduced to both societies in the nineteenth century. Australia andother western societies had established family dining in the nineteenth century whengendered division of public and private spheres was established. The structure offamily dining has gradually been transformed along with multiculturalism, female
participation to labour force, and development of food and restaurant industries. In
contrast, Japan took about a century to adapt both structure and ideology of theVictorian domesticity and family dining: eating at the same table and symbolic linkage between family and meals. They were realised in Japan between the 1950s andthe 1980s, along with the post-war economic prosperity as well as the second wave
of democratisation of the society, more specifically the dissolution of the Ie systemand the development of consumer society including the introduction of television tohouseholds. The juxtaposition of economic growth and transformation from Ie tomodern nuclear family encouraged more married women to become housewives orstay at part-time employment which played an important role in establishing thepost-war Japanese familialist welfare discussed in Section 4.2.4. Thus, the transformation to the modern dining styles in Japan was more compressed than western
societies, and mostly happened after the Second World War. The cross-culturalcomparison of evolutions of family dining suggests that realisation of domesticity
and family dining requires certain socio-economic and family circumstances.
The structure of family dining reflects socio-economic structures of the society on
the one hand, on the other, the ideology of family dining developed in the nineteen
century’s Britain remains as a cultural icon in Australia and Japan in the twentiethand twenty-first centuries. A cross-cultural study showed that the pressure of globalisation, which is multiculturalism in Australia and internationalisation in Japan,
has fostered reassertion of specific cultural traditions as well as conservative representations of gender roles in both Australian and Japanese societies (Hogan, 1999).
In Australia, narratives of the 1950s serves to symbolise a celebration of conservative
relations of gender and ethnicity (Duruz, 1999, 250). Likewise in Japan, narrativesof rural agriculture and lifestyle developed in the 1970s construct the imaginary of
traditional Japanese culture and identity (Creighton, 1997). The development oftechnology like television plays crucial roles in shaping imaginaries of good old daysin each society. Table 4.8 summaries evolutions of family dining in Australia andJapan.

EventIntroduction
Development

Normalisation

Nostalgia

Australia
The 19th century
Introduced via settlers
From the 1850s: Emergence of class distinction by domesticity
Gendered division of public and private spheres
The 19th century to the 1950s
Events fostered the introduction of television
1956: The Melbourne Olympic
From the 1960s onwards

Source: (Russell, 1993; Omote, 2010)Japan
The late 19th century (1887-1896)
Introduced via Christian and socialist scholars
1897-1912: Spread among the wealthy and educated1926-1940: Wartime propaganda from the government
The 1950s-the 1980s
Events fostered the introduction of television
1959: The wedding ceremony of the Prince Hirohito
1964: The Tokyo Olympic
From the 1980s onwards

4.4. TRANSFORMATION OF CULINARY CULTURES AND PRACTICES

Table 4.8: Comparison of evolutions of family dining in Australia and Japan97

98CHAPTER 4. MACRO-LEVEL COMPARISON OF TWO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIESI have examined the literature of transformations of Australian and Japanesesocieties across four dimensions: economic structures, social welfares, public healthpolicies, and culinary cultures including the development of family dining. Australia
and Japan shared similar socio-economic structures as a post-industrial society including the development of service-dominant economy and social welfare as well as
public health interests to NCD preventions. However, a close look at the comparison
demonstrated different trajectories of developing a service industry, a liberal welfare
state, female labour participation, a socio-economic disparity, and an ideal of family
dining. These similar and different aspects of structures and culinary cultures playsignificant roles in shaping everyday determinants of commensality and solo-eating.
The next Chapters will draw attention to fieldwork data of young adults in urban
Australia and Japan, and examine everyday determinants of commensality and soloeating among young adults. In the next Chapter (Chapter 5), I examine perceptionsof commensality and solo-eating among young adults.

Chapter 5
Cultural domains of commensality
and solo-eating
The previous Chapter shows etic, outsider’s, accounts of contemporary Australianand Japanese societies comparing and contrasting the histories of their culinary
cultures. This Chapter shifts the focus to emic, an insider’s perspective for use inthis cross-cultural comparison. A free-list technique was used to identify “cultural
domains” of commensality and solo-eating among young adult participants, andto explore cultural variations among different cultural groups and individuals. A
cultural domain is a collection of items (words, images, and sentences) that a groupof people consider as the same type. Borgatti (1999) noted that a cultural domain isa shared perception rather than an individual preference, and items in a domain arelinked by semantic relations. In other words, there are some connections between
items in the same domain. Comparison of cultural domains shows similar anddifferent items between different cultural groups in an emic perspective. As noted
in Chapter 3, free-list data was collected from a group of university students (StudyI) and young adults (Study II) in Australia and Japan. A cross-cultural comparison
was conducted based on the comparison between four cultural groups: Australian
students (A1) and young adults (A2) and Japanese students (J1) and young adults(J2).
This Chapter is divided into three Sections. Section 5.1 examines the distribution of the free-list responses to five topics related to eating with others, eating
alone, eating with family, eating with friends, and eating with work colleagues.
Section 5.2 employs principal component analysis and examines consensus amongcultural groups. Section 5.3 focuses on the words which are most salient or representative among each cultural group, and examines similarities and differences ofthese salient words among four cultural groups as well as among gender subgroups.
99

100CHAPTER 5. CULTURAL DOMAINS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

5.1

Distribution of free-list responses

Combining Study I and II, 270 Australian and Japanese young adults participated in
the free-list survey, with 6,859 responses to five free-list questions. These responses
expressed emotions (i.e. a range from positive and negative) and descriptions ofeating (i.e. time, places, occasions, menu etc.). After coding by semantic similarities
of listed words, 20 categories and 1,091 codes were generated from the total free-list
responses. Table 5.1 shows total numbers of responses, mean average and standard
deviations of individual responses to five free-list questions by topic.
Table 5.1: Total numbers and mean average of responses to five free-list questions
among four cultural groups
QuestionGroup

Sample size

Numbers of
responses

Mean (SD)

Similar grouppairs*

269
63
135
40
31

1698
500
652
351
196

6.3 (3.1)
7.9 (3.6)
4.8 (1.7)
8.8 (3.8)
6.3 (1.6)

A1 & A2

Eating with others

Total
A1
J1
A2
J2

Eating alone

Total
A1
J1
A2
J2

270
64
135
40
31

1545
362
719
287
180

5.7 (2.0)
5.7 (2.1)
5.3 (1.6)
7.2 (2.2)
5.8 (2.0)

A1 & J1
A1 & J2
J1 & J2

Eating with family

Total
A1
J1
A2
J2

270
64
135
40
31

1553
416
674
292
171

5.8 (2.5)
6.5 (3.0)
5.0 (2.0)
7.3 (2.7)
5.5 (2.0)

A1 & A2
J1 & J2
A1 & J2

Eating with friends

Total
A1
J1
A2
J2

269
64
135
40
31

1697
454
742
317
184

6.3 (2.6)
7.1 (3.1)
5.4 (1.9)
8.1 (2.9)
5.9 (1.8)

A1 & A2
J1 & J2
A1 & J2

60

366

Eating with workcolleagues

Total
A1
J1
A2
J2

33
27

208
161

6.2 (2.6)
No datacollection
6.3 (2.9)
5.9 (2.0)*Similarities of means were assessed by ANOVA+Tukey multiple comparison at p<0.05

The total number of responses and the mean average per participant (pp) demon-

5.1. DISTRIBUTION OF FREE-LIST RESPONSES

101

strate that questions of eating with others (6.3 words pp), friends (6.3 words pp),and work colleagues (6.2 word pp) produced more responses than that of eating
alone (5.7 words pp) and eating with family (5.8 words pp). Australian groups(both A1 and A2) listed more words in response to most of questions except thequestion of eating alone where the Japanese young adult group (J2) listed more
words than the Australian student group (A1). The Australian young adult group(A2) listed the most and the Japanese student group (J2) listed the least. Means ofAustralian student group (A1) and Japanese young adult group (J2) were similar in
all questions except eating with others (p<0.05).
Table 5.2 presents the distribution of responses to five free-list questions amongfour groups by category. The list of words in the first column are 20 categories
of codes developed from free-list responses of four groups (See Appendix O) for
definitions of each category).

Question
Group
Positive
Negative
Purposes
Behaviours
Eating behaviours
PlacesOccasions
Food & Drinks
Structures
Taste
Money
Time
Frequency
Choices
PeopleSharing
Conversation topics
Influences of others
Attentiveness
Living alone

Eating with others
A1
87.3%
23.8%
61.9%
52.4%
7.9%
31.7%
28.6%
39.7%
28.6%
7.9%
9.5%
9.5%
3.2%
0.0%
61.9%
33.3%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

J1
89.7%
15.6%
24.4%
65.2%
15.6%
15.6%
6.7%
6.7%
2.2%
57.8%
0.0%
8.1%
3.0%
0.0%
18.5%
8.9%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

A2
67.5%
12.5%
65.0%
52.5%
25.0%
35.0%
35.0%
22.5%
20.0%
17.5%
10.0%
10.0%
7.5%
5.0%
67.5%
17.5%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Eating alone
J2
77.4%
19.4%
45.2%
48.4%
3.2%
19.4%
16.1%
9.7%
6.5%
32.3%
3.2%
12.9%
12.9%
0.0%
45.2%
9.7%
3.2%
9.7%
0.0%
0.0%

A1
48.4%
70.3%
20.3%
60.9%
14.1%
14.1%
12.5%
28.1%
31.3%
1.6%
3.1%
31.3%
4.7%
18.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
18.8%

J1
42.2%
92.6%
3.7%
57.0%
25.2%
7.4%
2.2%
13.3%
32.6%
23.0%
1.5%
20.0%
1.5%
19.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.1%

A2
62.5%
52.5%
27.5%
82.5%
20.0%
12.5%
12.5%
47.5%
45.0%
12.5%
7.5%
50.0%
2.5%
15.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Eating with family
J2
41.9%
48.4%
16.1%
61.3%
19.4%
25.8%
16.1%
16.1%
35.5%
9.7%
9.7%
48.4%
9.7%
38.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.9%

A1
67.2%
21.9%
53.1%
56.3%
7.8%
20.3%
23.4%
51.6%
29.7%
4.7%
1.6%
20.3%
20.3%
0.0%
28.1%
12.5%
7.8%
3.1%
0.0%
0.0%

J1
80.0%
14.8%
29.6%
73.3%
7.4%
5.9%
5.9%
33.3%
11.9%
35.6%
0.0%
5.2%
8.1%
0.0%
5.2%
5.9%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%

A2
72.5%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
10.0%
25.0%
20.0%
57.5%
22.5%
7.5%
2.5%
25.0%
10.0%
0.0%
25.7%
20.5%
15.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Eating with friends
J2
80.7%
9.7%
41.9%
77.4%
12.9%
6.5%
22.6%
32.3%
22.6%
22.6%
6.5%
0.0%
25.8%
0.0%
3.2%
9.7%
3.2%
3.2%
0.0%
0.0%

A1
89.1%
18.8%
43.8%
61.0%
14.1%
34.4%
29.7%
39.1%
9.4%
9.4%
23.4%
12.5%
9.4%
4.7%
18.8%
20.3%
1.6%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%

J1
91.2%
16.9%
36.0%
77.2%
15.4%
24.2%
12.5%
20.6%
5.1%
28.7%
3.7%
11.8%
1.5%
2.2%
3.7%
10.3%
1.5%
5.1%
0.0%
0.0%

A2
74.4%
10.3%
66.7%
69.2%
7.7%
48.7%
23.1%
45.6%
10.3%
0.0%
10.3%
10.3%
5.1%
2.6%
25.7%
20.5%
15.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

J2
64.5%
9.7%
61.3%
64.5%
3.2%
35.5%
19.4%
3.2%
9.7%
6.5%
12.9%
25.8%
22.6%
6.5%
22.6%
16.1%
29.0%
12.9%
0.0%
0.0%

Eating with workcolleagues
A2
J2
33.3%
33.3%
24.2%
33.3%
45.5%
70.4%
51.5%
51.9%
0.0%
51.9%
21.2%
22.2%
48.5%
18.6%
39.4%
11.1%
48.5%
11.1%
3.0%
3.7%
3.0%
7.4%
3.0%
11.1%
24.2%
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
15.2%
29.6%
15.2%
14.8%
21.2%
29.6%
0.0%
3.7%
0.0%
14.8%
0.0%
0.0%

102CHAPTER 5. CULTURAL DOMAINS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

Table 5.2: Distribution of responses to five free-list questions among four groups by category shown as a percentage

5.2. CULTURAL CONSENSUS BETWEEN AND WITHIN GROUPS

103

Most of free-list responses were concentrated on positive and negative emotions
and behaviours associated with commensality and solo-eating. In terms of emotions,most of participants associated commensality with positive emotions and eating
alone with negative emotions. The trend was more explicit among student groups(A1 and J1) than young adult groups (A2 and J2), and about 80–90% of Japanese
student group (J1) listed positive emotions associated with commensality and negative emotions associated with solo-eating. However, more than 60% of Australian
young adult participants (A2) and more than 40% of other three groups (A1, J1 andJ2) also associated eating alone with positive emotions. About 30% of Australianand Japanese young adult participants (A2 and J2) associated eating with workcolleagues with both positive and negative emotions. It suggests that young adultgroups expressed more mix feelings to commensality and solo-eating than student
groups.
Compared to Japanese groups (J1 and J2), Australian groups listed more variety of topics associated with commensality and solo-eating such as purposes, places,
occasions, structures, foods and drinks, and sharing. In contrast, more Japaneseparticipants, especially student groups, listed words related to emotions and the experience taste than Australian participants. The difference suggests that Australianand Japanese groups pay attention to different aspects of commensality and soloeating. Compared to student groups (A1 and J1), more young adults participants
associated eating alone with the words related to time. Compared to other threegroups, Japanese young adult group (J2) associated eating alone with the words
related to choices.

5.2

Cultural consensus between and within groups

A principal component analysis of respondents or consensus analysis assesses whether
free-list data has one or more patterns of agreements among respondents (Weller,2007). If more participants in the same cultural group agreed with each other,
the first eigenvalue extracted from principal component analysis or factor analysis
is three times larger than the second eigenvalue generated by principal component
analysis or factor analysis depending on the statistical software used for analyses(Weller, 2007). I employed principal component analysis using SPSS. Table 5.3
presents the first and second eigenvalues and variations generated by principal component analysis.
Responses from a group of Japanese university students (J1) showed stronger
consensus on their responses to all questions, followed by A1, J2 and A2. The result

104CHAPTER 5. CULTURAL DOMAINS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING
Table 5.3: Principal component analysis of responses to five free-list questions amongfour cultural groups
Component 1
Group

Eigenvalue

Component 2

Variation

Eigenvalue

Variation

Ratio

Consensus

64.33
15.93
47.23
7.27
6.90

25.23
25.29
39.03
18.17
22.26

21.61
4.22
10.35
3.14
3.56

8.47
6.70
8.55
7.85
11.47

2.98
3.78
4.56
2.31
1.94

45.43
9.46
34.65
4.69
4.36

16.83
14.78
25.67
11.72
14.08

13.27
4.53
7.94
3.30
2.61

4.92
7.08
5.88
8.26
8.41

3.42
2.09
4.36
1.42
1.67

*

17.74
12.71
27.25
10.68
15.14

15.79
3.85
10.90
2.60
2.61

5.85
6.01
8.08
6.50
8.41

3.03
2.11
3.37
1.64
1.80

*

23.58
19.20
34.70
21.00
19.93

14.25
4.69
7.81
2.80
2.74

5.28
7.33
5.74
7.17
8.85

4.47
2.62
6.04
2.93
2.25

*

7.60
11.88
10.95

3.68
3.11
2.24

6.13
9.43
8.29

1.24
1.26
1.32

Eating with others
All (N =269)
A1 (N =63)
J1 (N =135)
A2 (N =40)
J2 (N =31)**

Eating alone
All (N =270)
A1 (N =64)
J1 (N =135)
A2 (N =40)
J2 (N =31)*

Eating with family
All (N =270)
A1 (N =64)
J1 (N =135)
A2 (N =40)
J2 (N =31)

47.88
8.14
36.79
4.27
4.69

*

Eating with friends
All (N =269)
A1 (N =64)
J1 (N =135)
A2 (N =40)
J2 (N =31)

63.66
12.29
47.19
8.19
6.18

*

Eating with work colleagues
All (N =60)A1J1A2 (N =33)
J2 (N =27)

4.56
3.92
2.96

*Ratio>3.00 considered as consensus.

suggests that there was no strong convergence of perceptions about eating together
and eating alone across and within cultural groups except for group J1, but rather
there were variations across and within cultural groups. Although the response toeating with family and friends and eating alone showed consensus among all culturalgroups, it may be affected by larger sample size of J1. Weaker coherences of free-list
data (ratios less than 3.00) are also identified between subgroups (gender and living

5.3. CULTURALLY SALIENT RESPONSES

105

arrangements) of each cultural group.

5.3

Culturally salient responses

In CCA, frequency and orders of responses in each participant’s list are considered asindicators of “how important or prominent an item is”(Schrauf and Sanchez, 2008,s388). The salient scores, also known as Smith’s S (Smith, 1993; Smith and Borgatti,
1998), are determined by frequency of responses among all participants which areweighted by the order in each participant’s list (Quinlan, 2005). In other words,
the more participants listed an item higher up in the lists, the salient score of theitem. The items which were listed later by many participants have a lower salientscore. The score range is from 1.0 (the highest salience) to 0.0 (the lowest salience)(Schrauf and Sanchez, 2008). For the calculation of the salience score, I followed
the instruction by (Quinlan, 2005, 226)∗ . In this Section, I focus on the top tenwords in each participant’s life to determine the highest salient scores among each
cultural group and each gender subgroup, and examine similarities and variations
across groups.

5.3.1

Comparison between cultural groups

The first part of the Section focuses on similarities and differences between four
cultural groups. Table 5.4 presents ten most salient words of each topic among four
cultural groups in Study I and II.

∗

First, I ranked items on individual’s list in the inverse of order participants listed, and divided
the rank by the number of items individual participants listed. Then, I added all scores which one
item received and divided by the number of participants.

Study I Australian (A1)

Study I Japanese (J1)

Study II Australian (A2)

Study II Japanese (J2)

Eating with others
Pleasure

0.609

Pleasure

0.772

Family0.503

Pleasure

0.590

Family0.392

Delicious

0.373

Pleasure

0.433

Family0.383

Social0.315

Conversation

0.324

Social0.274

Conversation

0.247

Friends

0.294

Family0.145

Friends

0.264

Delicious

0.234

Sociability

0.207

Happy

0.123

Conversation

0.217

Eating out

0.157

Conversation

0.195

Friends

0.094

Eating out

0.167

Work colleagues

0.151

Eating out

0.187

Sociability

0.076

Sociability

0.153

Sociability

0.133

Sharing

0.180

Eating out

0.074

Dinner0.147

Dinner0.102

Dinner0.141

Communication

0.068

Delicious

0.140

Friends

0.095

Relaxed

0.110

Lively0.065

Exploring new

0.138

Communication

0.074

Eating alone
Lonely0.328

Lonely0.782

Silence

0.274

Lonely0.281

Boring0.202

Boring0.234

Boring

0.204

Eating out

0.192

Quick

0.180

Carefree

0.172

Reading

0.203

Quick

0.179

Sad

0.175

Silence

0.140

Quick

0.185

Carefree

0.159

TV

0.142

Not delicious

0.124

Lonely0.152

Choosing what I want

0.158

Choosing what I want

0.118

No interaction

0.110

Healthy

0.135

TV

0.146

Home

0.106

Choosing what I want

0.090

Relaxed

0.130

Routine0.121

Hunger

0.103

Quick

0.082

TV

0.123

Whenever I want

0.101

Busy

0.100

TV

0.080

Thinking

0.117

Relaxed

0.094

Cooking

0.098

Concentrating on eating

0.078

Unhealthy

0.109

Freedom

0.086

0.418

Pleasure

0.418

Eating with family
Pleasure

0.293

Conversation

0.489

PleasureContinued on next page

106CHAPTER 5. CULTURAL DOMAINS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

Table 5.4: Ten responses with the highest salient scores in each cultural group in Study I and II

Study I Japanese (J1)

Study II Australian (A2)

Study II Japanese (J2)

Conversation

0.244

Pleasure

0.455

Catching up

0.272

Conversation

0.272

Family0.210

Delicious

0.217

Conversation

0.131

Daily

0.131

Sociability

0.167

Sociability

0.159

Discussion

0.131

Delicious

0.131

Catching up

0.095

Lively0.152

Family0.128

Catching up

0.128

Celebration

0.087

Relaxed

0.111

Cooking

0.117

Sociability

0.117

Home

0.071

Home cooked

0.083

Stressful

0.094

Communication

0.094

Family time

0.067

Happiness

0.064

Large portion

0.083

TV

0.083

Happiness

0.066

TV

0.052

Loud

0.081

Warm

0.081

Dinner0.064

Laughter

0.052

Home

0.078

Cheerful

0.078

Eating with friends
Pleasure

0.554

Conversation

0.526

Pleasure

0.554

Pleasure

0.535

Eating out

0.300

Pleasure

0.409

Eating out

0.481

Drinking

0.281

Social0.285

Delicious

0.186

Drinking

0.262

Conversation

0.270

Conversation

0.189

Sociability

0.134

Exploring new

0.211

To refresh

0.214

Laughter

0.128

Laughter

0.112

Sociability

0.200

Catching up

0.130

Catching up

0.106

Eating out

0.106

Conversation

0.200

Eating out

0.121

Happiness

0.105

Relaxed0.097

Laughter

0.146

Sharing information

0.089

Relaxed

0.092

Happiness

0.090

Social

0.121

Talking about work

0.083

Friends

0.092

Eating more

0.071

Home

0.084

Friends

0.080

Expensive

0.082

Lively0.067

Cooking

0.082

Long

0.076

Pleasure

0.250

Being attentive to others

0.276

Lunch

0.219

Talking about work

0.234

Conversation

0.194

Stressful

0.176

A part of work

0.150

Workplace

0.142

5.3. CULTURALLY SALIENT RESPONSES

Table 5.4 – Continued from previous page
Study I Australian (A1)

Eating with work colleagues

107

Continued on next pageStudy I Australian (A1)

Study I Japanese (J1)

Study II Australian (A2)

Study II Japanese (J2)

Controlled behaviours

0.139

Obligation

0.118

Eating out

0.124

Sociability

0.109

Joking

0.098

Lunch

0.106

Catching up

0.083

Pleasure

0.105

Quick

0.075

Drinking

0.099

Talking about work

0.067

Eating out

0.083

108CHAPTER 5. CULTURAL DOMAINS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

Table 5.4 – Continued from previous page

5.3. CULTURALLY SALIENT RESPONSES

109

Eating together
Overall, most of participants in all cultural groups associated eating together withsociability and positive emotions, and eating alone with negative emotions and practicality. However, a closer look of salient scores showed some variations between
different cultural groups. More Japanese participants linked the experience of taste
with the practice of eating together and eating alone than a group of Australian.
The word “delicious” obtained high salient scores among a group of Japanese participants (both J1 and J2) when they associated with eating with others and family.
The word “not delicious” obtained high salient score for eating alone among a groupof Japanese students (J1).
In the association with eating with family, “TV” had higher salience scores only
among Japanese participants (both J1 and J2). It indicates TV plays an importantin family meals among Japanese young adult participants, unlike western societies
which recently became conscious on negative implications on TV dinners (Groves,
2004; Spigel, 2013). In terms of the content of family meals, “large portion” of meals
and “cooking” were salient only among Australian young adults (A2). For eatingwith friends, “drinking” had high salient scores only among a group of young adults(A2 and J2). “Exploring new restaurants and food” among Australian young adults(A2) and “talking about work” among Japanese young adults (J2) also showed highsalient scores.

Workplace commensality in Australia and Japan
Responses to eating with work colleagues indicated different workplace cultures inAustralia and Japan. “Lunch” has a higher salient score among Australian thanJapanese, but “drinking” is salient only among Japanese young adults. Furthermore,
Australians and Japanese focus on different aspects of behaviours associated withworkplace meals. Australians focus on behaviours (i.e. controlled behaviours) andconversation topics (i.e. joking, sharing ideas, and talking about work). In contrast,
Japanese focused on attitudes and feelings. “Attentiveness to other people” were themost salient words for Japanese participants, and another salient word “stressful”
is related to being attentive to others. Consideration for others is closely related
to the demonstration of politeness in Japanese society(Ohashi, 2008; Fukushima,2011), and the free-list response suggests that attentiveness is an important aspectof workplace sociability among Japanese participants.

110CHAPTER 5. CULTURAL DOMAINS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING
Eating alone
For eating alone, the word “lonely or sabishii or kodoku in Japanese is one of themost salient words across cultural groups, and the score is especially high among
Japanese students (0.78), followed by Australian students (0.33), Japanese young
adults (0.28), and Australian young adults (0.15). Higher scores among a group of
students may be because many people adapt to the practice of eating alone when
they enter universities and it becomes normalised when they start to work. Thereis also a strong gender difference about the association between eating alone andloneliness. Women from all groups had a higher salient score than that of men.
“Eating out” was salient only among Japanese young adults (J2), and it may be
associated with the environment in urban Japan where there are more restaurants
for solo-eaters. I will discuss this topic in Chapter 7. Words related to health(i.e. healthy and unhealthy) associated with eating alone were salient only among
Australian young adults (A2).

5.3.2

Comparison between gender subgroups

As well as a participant’s nationality and occupation, gender plays significant roles inshaping individual views on commensality and solo-eating. Tables 5.5 to 5.9 present
the comparison of ten most salient words associated with five free-list questions
between male and female subgroups of each cultural group.

Study I Australian (A1)
Male
FemaleWord
Score Word
Pleasure
0.59
PleasureSocial0.37
FamilyFriends
0.28
Friends
Family0.27
SocialConversation
0.24
Sociability
Sharing
0.22
Eating out
Dinner
0.21
Conversation
Sociability
0.18
Sharing
Food
0.15
Celebration
Eating out
0.15
Cooking
Study II Australian (A2)
Male
FemaleWord
Score Word
Pleasure
0.39
FamilyConversation
0.39
Pleasure
Family0.33
Friends
Social0.24
SocialExploring new food 0.15
Delicious
Relaxed
0.19
Sociability
Discussion
0.13
Sharing
Friends
0.10
Dinner

Male
Score
0.62
0.48
0.31
0.29
0.23
0.22
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.10

Word
Pleasure
Delicious
Conversation
Friends
FamilyEating out
Sociability
Happy
Eating more
Laughter
Male

Score
0.58
0.46
0.37
0.30
0.18
0.16
0.13
0.11

Word
FamilyPleasure
Eating out
Colleagues
Delicious
Lunch
Sociability
YearlyStudy I Japanese (J1)
FemaleScore Word
0.75
Pleasure
0.41
Delicious
0.28
Conversation
0.14
Family0.14
Happiness
0.10
Communication
0.09
Friends
0.08
Sociability
0.07
Eating out
0.07
LivelyStudy II Japanese (J2)
FemaleScore Word
0.44
Pleasure
0.38
Conversation
0.32
Delicious
0.31
Family0.18
Getting to know each other
0.13
Time constraints
0.12
Being attentive to others
0.11
Uncomfortable

Score
0.78
0.36
0.34
0.15
0.14
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07

5.3. CULTURALLY SALIENT RESPONSES

Table 5.5: Comparison of ten most salient words associated with “Eating with others” between male and female subgroups

Score
0.79
0.39
0.29
0.23
0.13
0.09
0.08
0.08

111

Study I Australian (A1)
FemaleWord
Score Word
Lonely0.37
LonelySad
0.24
Boring
Home
0.23
Quick
Quick
0.19
Choosing what I want
TV
0.15
Sad
Boring0.11
TV
Necessary
0.11
Busy
Energy intake
0.10
Cooking
Hunger0.10
HungerRelaxed0.09
Studying
Study II Australian (A2)
Male
FemaleWord
Score Word
Reading
0.26
BoringSilence
0.22
SilenceThinking
0.20
Lonely
Quick
0.20
TV
Healthy
0.19
Quick
Hunger
0.19
Reading
Relaxed
0.18
Busy
Unhealthy
0.16
To refreshSelf-control
0.13
Healthy
Self-preparation 0.13
RelaxedStudy I Japanese (J1)

Male

Male
Score
0.31
0.27
0.18
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.10

Score
0.30
0.28
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.11
0.12
0.10
0.09

Word
LonelyBoringCarefreeNot delicious
TV
Freedom
Eating out
RelaxedLiving alone
Silence

FemaleScore Word
0.71
Lonely0.34
Boring0.26
Silence0.13
Carefree
0.12
No interaction
0.11
Not delicious
0.10
Choosing what I want
0.10
Quick
0.10
Concentrating on eating
0.09
Emptiness
Study II Japanese (J2)
Male
FemaleWord
Score Word
Eating out
0.20
LonelyQuick
0.19
CarefreeRoutine
0.18
TV
Daily
0.16
RelaxedLonely0.16
Choosing what I wantChoosing what I want 0.14
Quick
Whenever I want
0.14
Concentrating on eating
Lunch
0.14
Freedom
Dinner
0.12
Not delicious
Thinking
0.11
Experimental

Score
0.81
0.20
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.09

Score
0.38
0.25
0.22
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.09

112CHAPTER 5. CULTURAL DOMAINS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

Table 5.6: Comparison of ten most salient words associated with “Eating alone” between male and female subgroups

Study I Australian (A1)
Male
FemaleWord
Score Word
Sociability
0.31
Pleasure
Pleasure
0.27
FamilyConversation 0.22
Conversation
Less frequent 0.12
DinnerFamily0.11
HomeCatching up
0.10
Celebration
Cooking0.10
Home-cooked
Happy
0.09
Catching up
Memories
0.07
Comfortable
Hometown
0.07
Sociability
Study II Australian (A2)
Male
FemaleWord
Score Word
Catching up
0.33
Pleasure
Pleasure
0.26
Cooking
Discussion
0.22
Stressful
Conversation 0.21
Conversation
Family0.14
Large portion
Delicious
0.10
Family time
Sharing food 0.10
Loud
Good food
0.08
Table
Home-cooked 0.07
Discussion
Memories
0.06
Family

Score
0.32
0.28
0.25
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08

Score
0.33
0.19
0.18
0.16
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.11

Study I Japanese (J1)
Male
FemaleWord
Score Word
Conversation
0.40
Conversation
Pleasure
0.33
Pleasure
Delicious
0.21
Delicious
Relaxed
0.18
Sociability
Sociability
0.15
LivelyLively0.12
Home-cooked
Warm
0.11
Relaxed
Noisy
0.08
Communication
Happy
0.08
A variety of food
Laughter
0.07
Happy
Study II Japanese (J2)
Male
FemaleWord
Score Word
Pleasure
0.37
PleasureSociability
0.23
Conversation
Conversation
0.23
Daily
Delicious
0.20
Communication
Dinner0.12
TV
A variety of food
0.12
Cooking
Large portion
0.11
Being looked after
Symbol of family
0.10
LivelyCatching up
0.10
Catching up
Little conversation 0.10
Stressful

Score
0.52
0.50
0.22
0.16
0.16
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.06

5.3. CULTURALLY SALIENT RESPONSES

Table 5.7: Comparison of ten most salient words associated with “Eating with family” between male and female subgroup

Score
0.47
0.27
0.25
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09

113

Study I Australian (A1)
Male
FemaleWord
Score Word
Pleasure
0.52
PleasureSocial0.32
Eating out
Conversation
0.21
SocialHappy
0.18
Conversation
Laughter
0.17
Drinking
Catching up
0.13
Laughter
Friends
0.13
Catching up
Relaxed
0.09
Exploring new foodGood times
0.09
Expensive
Eating out
0.09
SpecialStudy II Australian (A2)
Male
FemaleWord
Score Word
Pleasure
0.48
Eating out
Exploring new food 0.41
Pleasure
Drinking
0.29
Drinking
Sociability
0.21
Conversation
Eating out
0.18
Sociability
Conversation
0.15
Laughter
Laughter
0.15
SocialSocial0.10
HomeCooking
0.10
DinnerLarge portion
0.08
StressfulStudy I Japanese (J1)
FemaleWord
Score Word
Pleasure
0.70
Pleasure
Conversation
0.42
Conversation
Eating out
0.16
Delicious
Sociability
0.16
Eating out
Relaxed
0.13
Sociability
Delicious
0.12
Laughter
At school
0.11
Happy
Laughter
0.09
Lunch
Interesting
0.08
LivelyNoodles
0.07
Eating more
Study II Japanese (J2)
Male
FemaleWord
Score Word
Drinking
0.46
Pleasure
Pleasure
031
Conversation
Talking about work 0.17
To refresh
To refresh
0.17
Sharing information
Conversation
0.16
Catching up
After work
0.13
Talking about problems
Less frequent
0.13
Drinking
Catching up
0.13
RelaxedLong
0.12
Friends
To refresh
0.12
Exploring new food
Male

Score
0.59
0.45
0.27
0.16
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.08

Score
0.54
0.52
0.25
0.23
0.16
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.09

Score
0.81
0.60
0.18
0.13
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07

Score
0.69
0.38
0.23
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.09

114CHAPTER 5. CULTURAL DOMAINS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

Table 5.8: Comparison of ten most salient words associated with “Eating with friends” between male and female subgroupStudy II Australian (A2)
Male
FemaleWord
Score Word
Pleasure
0.26
Lunch
Lunch
0.18
Conversation
Joking
0.18
Pleasure
Controlled behaviours 0.15
A part of work
Conversation
0.14
Controlled behaviours
Eating out
0.13
Eating out
A part of work
0.13
Morning tea
Informal
0.11
To refresh
Catching up
0.11
Workplace
Drinking
0.07
Boss

Study II Japanese (J2)
Male
Score
0.25
0.23
0.20
0.17
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.10

Word
Being attentive to others
Lunch
Drinking
Talking about problems
Junior colleagues
Talking about work
Obligation
Meeting
Expensive
Eating out

Female
Score
0.08
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.07

Word
Being attentive to others
WorkplaceStressful
Talking about work
Sociability
Pleasure
Obligation
Sharing information
Learning
To refresh

Score
0.39
0.32
0.31
0.22
0.19
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.12
0.11

5.3. CULTURALLY SALIENT RESPONSES

Table 5.9: Comparison of ten most salient words associated with “Eating with work colleagues” between male and female subgroup115

116CHAPTER 5. CULTURAL DOMAINS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING
Eating together
Comparison between male and female participants shows different lists of salient
words from the comparison between four cultural groups which combined gender.
Gender differences were more explicit in the responses to “Eating with family”among
all questions about eating together. The word “home-cooked” gained high salience
scores among female groups of Australian and Japanese students (A1 and J1). The
word “cooking” and “stressful” gains high salience scores among female groups ofAustralian and Japanese young adults (A2 and J2). This suggests more female participants than male participants associated family meals with gender expectations
on home-cooking as well as stresses associated with gender roles. Chapter 8 provides
in-depth analysis of the relationships between family commensality and gender roles
among Australian and Japanese young adults.
Interestingly, “little conversation” was ranked in the list of salient words among
Japanese male young adults group (J2), whereas “conversation” were one of mostsalient words in all groups. As discussed in Chapter 4, conversation during mealtime
is a recently adopted idea of family meals in Japan. Coexistence of these two words
in the free-list responses suggests that the family meal is the site for the negotiationof old patriarchal and new democratic ideas of family meal within contemporary
Japan.

Workplace commensality
Another explicit difference between male and female groups was identified in occasions of eating with work colleagues. The word “drinking” gains high salience
scores only among Australian (0.07) and Japanese (0.16) male groups. In contrast,
the word “workplace” gains high salience scores only among Australian (0.11) andJapanese (0.32) female group. The word “lunch” and “morning tea” gained higher
salience scores among the Australian female group than Australian male group.
Chapter 9 examines variations of workplace commensality across cultural groups
and gender subgroups.

Eating alone
The word “lonely” was the highest salient word across all gender subgroups in thestudent cohorts (Study I). However, the word was not in the list of male group in
Australian young adults (A1), and gained lower salient scores among other groupsof Study II compared to Study I. The words related to health were salient only
among Australian male and female groups of young adults (A1). “Eating out” was5.3. CULTURALLY SALIENT RESPONSES

117

a salient word only among Japanese male groups (J1 and J2). “Dinner” was only
salient among Japanese male group of young adults (J2). Cross-cultural variationsin the notions of eating out alone are discussed in Chapter 7.
Comparisons of the content of free-list responses reveals that young people in urban Australia and Japan share sociability through eating together while loneliness is
associated with eating alone, although there were variations across different culturalgroups in terms of what determines mealtime sociability. Between-variation was
identified not only among Australian or Japanese participants, but also among different age and occupation groups (i.e. student and non-student groups) and gender
subgroups (i.e. male and female groups).
In this Chapter, I examine cultural domains of commensality and solo-eating
obtained with the use of a free-list survey. The majority of participants, regardlessof cultural background, agreed that commensality is a symbol of sociality and positive emotions, and eating alone is the opposite. At the same time, they reported
diverse experiences of commensality and solo-eating including some negative aspectsof eating together and some positive aspects of eating alone. Differences between
Australian and Japanese groups were identified in contexts of commensality andsolo-eating such as different relationships with television and different behaviours
associated with workplace commensality, rather than positive and negative emotions
with commensality and solo-eating. Comparisons between student and non-student
groups and gender sub-groups revealed that both the degree of shared common views
and the content of responses varied by a nationality as well as status as a student(Study I) or not (Study II) groups. However, these free-list responses do not provide enough information to deepen our understanding of the reasons behind each
response. The second half of part II (Chapter 7–Chapter 9) reports on in-depth
interviews with the young adult participants in Study II and examines in-depth thestructures of cultural domains of commensality and solo-eating.

118CHAPTER 5. CULTURAL DOMAINS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

Chapter 6
Time for commensality
From this Chapter through Chapter 9, I explore socio-cultural determinants of commensality and solo-eating, based on in-depth interviews and time diaries of 71 young
adults in urban Australia and Japan. The first determinant of commensality andsolo-eating is time. Time schedule of individuals matters because commensality isa collective activity which requires the synchronisation of individual time schedules
and life spaces with other people.
Greater numbers of people are finding it difficult to eat commensally. Timeuse surveys demonstrated that time spending on eating and food preparation has
decreased in many modern societies: more people now spend their meal times alone(Mestdag and Glorieux, 2009) or outside of the home (Warde et al., 2007). Other
studies reported that more people feel time pressure but that this is not reflectedin the actual time spent on each activity: the experience of time pressure depended
on the allocation of discretionary time (Goodin et al., 2005) and varied by genderbecause more women commit their time to both work and family responsibilities(Bittman and Rice, 2002). No matter if the changes are objective or subjective, it isevident that the time required for eating favours individualised eating rather thancollective one.
The structural shift to individualisation is a major consequence of late modernity(Bauman, 2000). Employment styles and working conditions have been deregulated
for the greater flexibility, so that individual working conditions, such as working
hours and job security, have diverged. These modern ways of living and working
expand the realm of both biological time and clock time which emerged in theindustrial age (Castells, 1997). Individual experiences of time and spaces have become more fragmented into multiple and unpredictable ways (Bauman, 2000). The
new form of time and space makes finding shared time together more challenging
for many people, but not everyone (Woodman, 2012). Thus, time constraints for
119

120

CHAPTER 6. TIME FOR COMMENSALITY

commensality can vary by working styles of individuals and their family and friends.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Australia and Japan share several characteristics ofthe liberal welfare state including lower social expenditure on childcare and deregulation of their labour markets. Similar to other developed countries, more Australianand Japanese women engage with paid work, and a significant number of men andwomen engage with non-standard employment. However, the transformation of
the labour market and household structure varies in two societies. The proportionof single full-time earner families with young children in Japan is almost a double that of Australia (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,2012). In the current interview study, 62.0% of Japanese married participants belong to single-earner household unlike the Australian participants who all belonged
to multiple-earner households. In this Chapter, I explore how time constraints oncommensality are experienced and embodied among young adults in different working and household arrangements.
This Chapter consists of three Sections. Based on time diary data, the first
Section (Section 6.1) examines time spent on everyday meals among participants,
and explores similarities and differences of lifestyles structures between different
cultural groups. The second Section (Section 6.2) examines time constraints andindividual narratives about the synchronisation of multiple times and spaces forcommensality. The last Section (Section 6.3) expands the discussion to cross-culturaldifferences in balancing work and private time, and discusses different structures ofhousehold management in terms of work-life balance (WLB) and how they shapeindividual experiences of time pressure to eat commensally.

6.1

Everyday meal structures

6.1.1

Time to eat commensally or alone

This Section examines time taken for everyday meals and work among young adultparticipants in urban Australia and Japan, based on 70 time diaries (Australian
N =39 and Japanese N =31). Although the data do not represent the whole population of urban Australia and Japan due to non-probability sampling and a small
sample size, they indicate common lifestyle structures of young adults in similarsocio-economic status in these two countries. Table 6.1 shows the proportion of participants who reported that they eat commensally, alone, or did not eat anythingover six occasions (breakfast, lunch, dinner, between breakfast and lunch, between
lunch and dinner, and after dinner) on their workday and work-off day.

Australian (N =39)
Japanese (N =31)
Differences between groups (p-value)
WorkdayWork-off
WorkdayWork-off
Australiana Japanesea Workdayb Work-offb
Commensal 13 (33.3%) 20 (51.3%) 8 (25.8%)
13 (41.9%) 0.293
0.362
0.533
0.359
BreakfastSolo
22 (56.4%) 17 (43.6%) 17 (54.8%) 12 (30.8%)
Skipped4 (10.3%)
3 (7.7%)6 (19.4%)
6 (19.4%)
Commensal 15 (38.5%) 21 (53.8%) 16 (51.6%) 19 (61.3%) 0.126
<0.05
0.241
0.795
Lunch
Solo
21 (53.8%) 13 (33.3%) 15 (48.4%) 8 (25.8%)
Skipped3 (7.7%)6 (15.4%)
0 (0.0%)4 (12.9%)
Commensal 26 (66.7%) 25 (64.1%) 13 (41.9%) 22 (71.0%) 0.350
<0.05
0.053
0.354
DinnerSolo
13 (33.3%) 12 (30.8%) 18 (58.1%) 9 (29.0%)
Skipped0 (0.0%)3 (7.7%)0 (0.0%)(0.0%)
Commensal 7 (17.9%)
8 (20.5%)
3 (9.7%)3 (9.7%)
<0.05
1.000
<0.05
0.204
Between breakfastSolo
17 (43.6%) 8 (20.5%)
3 (9.7%)3 (9.7%)and lunch
Skipped16 (41.0%) 24 (61.5%) 25 (80.6%) 25 (80.6%)
Commensal 8 (20.5%)
8 (20.5%)
6 (19.4%)
6 (19.4%)
<0.05
1.000
<0.05
0.770
Between lunchSolo
26 (66.7%) 10 (25.6%) 8 (25.8%)8 (25.8%)
and dinner
Skipped6 (15.4%)
22 (56.4%) 17 (54.8%) 17 (54.8%)
Commensal 13 (33.3%) 15 (38.5%) 4 (12.9%)
6 (19.4%)
0.136
0.210
0.136
0.174
After dinnerSolo
12 (30.8%) 7 (17.9%)
10 (32.3%) 4 (12.9%)
Skipped15 (38.5%) 18 (46.2%) 17 (54.8%) 21 (67.7%)aWorkday vs. Work-off day; b Australian vs. Japanese
Differences among categorical variables frequencies were assessed by Fisher’s exact test (two-tail) unless otherwise stated.
p<0.05 considered a significant difference.p<0.1 considered a potential difference.

6.1. EVERYDAY MEAL STRUCTURES

Table 6.1: Proportions of participants who ate commensally, alone, and skipped in six eating occasions

121

122

CHAPTER 6. TIME FOR COMMENSALITY

There were variations between Australian and Japanese groups in which meal
were eaten commensally, alone, or skipped. Breakfast is the most commonly eaten
alone. The majority of Australian and Japanese participants ate breakfast alone on
their workday, while fewer Australians (43.6%) and Japanese (30.8%) ate breakfast
alone on their work-off day. Lunch is another common occasion for eating alone
among Australian and Japanese, but more Japanese ate lunch commensally thanAustralians on their workday and work-off day. Compared to breakfast and lunch,dinner is a common occasion for commensality on their workday and their work-off
day in both Australian and Japanese groups. However, about 60% of Japanese ate
dinner alone on their workday. The difference between work-day and work-off dinnerof Japanese was significant (p<0.05).
Differences between Australian and Japanese groups were also identified in themeals between main meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner). About half of Australian ate
something alone between breakfast and lunch as well as between lunch and dinneron their workday, while majority of Japanese did not eat anything between meals.
However, differences between Australian and Japanese groups on their work-off day
were smaller than their workday. These cross-cultural differences in which meal
are eaten commensally or alone suggest differences in working cultures between two
groups.

6.1.2

Regular lunch break

The workday lunch practice is seemingly varied by workplaces or country’s regulation. According to a report by the Australia Institute (Cameron and Denniss, 2013),
more than 20% of respondent, equivalent to about 3.8 million Australian workers,
did not usually take a lunch break. Among those who took a break, 72% of respondents cut, worked through or postponed their lunch break. In the current study,no Japanese participants skipped lunch on their workday, while 7.7% of Australianparticipants skipped their lunch. As noted earlier, more Australian participants
reported they ate outside of main meals (i.e. breakfast, lunch and dinner) thanJapanese participants.
Compared to Japanese workplaces, the lunch break in Australia is more likely
to deviate from the three-main meal culture and becomes flexible to work demands
and individual lifestyle. The Japanese labour standard law enforces employers toallocate a certain length of break by working hours in a day and all breaks are required to be taken in the middle of working hours (Japanese government, 1947)∗ , so∗

According to the Japanese labour standard law, those who work more than six hours in a day
are required to take 45-minute break, and those who work more than 8 hours in a day are required6.2. SYNCHRONISATION FOR COMMENSALITY

123

most of Japanese employees are not given the choice to skip lunch break. In contrast, the Australian law promotes flexible working hour arrangements (Australian
government, 2009b), and the implementation of lunch break depends on individual
circumstances. More often than not, the lunch break is shortened, postponed, andskipped, in order to secure time for extra working hours or for family responsibility.

6.2

Synchronisation for commensality

6.2.1

Time-use for the transition from work to home

Synchronisation of time schedules with significant others is a central topic of thisSection. The comparison of workday dinner demonstrates the most explicit lifestyledifferences between Australian and Japanese groups. Table 6.2 presents time toleave from work, time to arrive home, and time to start dinner on their workday ofAustralian and Japanese participants.
More Australian participants reported leaving work, arriving home, and starting
dinner much earlier than Japanese participants. Most of Australians reported thatthey left work before 6:00pm, but only 32.2% Japanese left work by then while
97.1% of Australian participants reported they arrived home by 8:00pm and started
dinner before 9.00pm, but only 37.0% of Japanese arrived home and 58.1% Japanese
ate dinner by then. Therefore, more Japanese participants stayed longer at theirworkplace and come back home later than Australians. This time schedule resulted
in delaying dinner time for many Japanese participants as well as in eating dinneralone on their workday.
The commute between workplace and home is another common issues encountered by those who lived and worked in urban metropolitan cities. In particular,
urban landscapes in most modern societies are highly localised and expanded byincreasing mobility and improved access to labour market driven by globalisation(Andersen et al., 2011). In other words, employment opportunities for specific industries and improvement of commuting system impacted on lifestyles includingtime spent on commuting by urban residents and workers. Table 6.3 presents the
distribution and means of a one-way commute time for Australian and Japaneseparticipants.
Although the difference was not significant (p=0.226), more Japanese reported
they spent more time on the one-way commute than Australians. A quarter ofthem spent more than 60 minutes for one-way commute, and 14.3% of them spend
more than 75 minutes. These Japanese participants resided outside of Tokyo andto take 60-minute break.

124

CHAPTER 6. TIME FOR COMMENSALITY

Table 6.2: Distribution of times to leave work, arrive home, and have dinner on theirworkdays of Australian and Japanese participantsTime to leave work

AustralianJapanesep-value

Before 5:00pm
5:00pm-5:59pm
6:00pm:6:59pm
7:00pm-7:59pm
8:00pm-8:59pm
9:00pm-9:59pm
After 10:00pm

7 (21.2%)
21 (63.6%)
4 (12.1%)
1 (3.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (3.6%)8 (28.6%)
4 (14.3%)
4 (14.3%)
4 (14.3%)
4 (14.3%)
3 (10.7%)<0.05

Time to arrive home

AustralianJapanesep-value

Before 5:00pm
5:00pm-5:59pm
6:00pm:6:59pm
7:00pm-7:59pm
8:00pm-8:59pm
9:00pm-9:59pm
10:00pm:10:59pm
After 11:00pm

3 (8.8%)12 (35.3%)
13 (38.2%)
5 (14.7%)
1 (2.9%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (3.7%)2 (7.4%)1 (3.7%)6 (22.2%)
3 (11.1%)
4 (14.8%)
3 (11.1%)
7 (25.9%)<0.05

Time to eat dinner

AustralianJapanesep-value

Before 6:00pm
6:00pm:6:59pm
7:00pm-7:59pm
8:00pm-8:59pm
9:00pm-9:59pm
After 10:00pm

5 (13.2%)
9 (23.7%)
14 (36.8%)
9 (23.7%)
0 (0.0%)1 (2.6%)

1 (3.2%)2 (6.5%)9 (29.0%)
6 (19.4%)
4 (12.9%)9 (29.0%)<0.05

commuted to Tokyo for work. However, the cross-cultural differences was not as
explicit as differences in time schedule, and there were small numbers of Australianparticipants (5.6%), who resided in the suburbs of Sydney, who reported spending
more than 60 minutes for commuting one way. In terms of the means of commuting, a significant difference between Australian and Japanese groups was identified(p<0.05). Three fourth of Japanese participants used public transport like trains
and buses for commuting while more than half of Australian participants reported
using private cars for commute. The difference is more likely to be related to density
or compactness of the urban system (Hensher, 1998). Tokyo and its neighbouring
areas have a higher density of population including dense public transportation thanthe Sydney and Canberra regions.

6.2. SYNCHRONISATION FOR COMMENSALITY

125

Table 6.3: Distribution of one-way commute time and means of Australian andJapanese participants

6.2.2

Commute time (one way)

AustralianJapanesep-valueLess than 15 min
15 min-29 min.
30 min-44 min
45 min-59 min
60 min-74 min
75 min-89 minMore than 90 min

8 (22.2%)
15 (41.7%)
6 (16.7%)
5 (13.9%)
0 (0.0%)1 (2.8%)1 (2.8%)2 (7.1%)
10 (35.7%)
4 (14.3%)
5 (17.9%)
3 (10.7%)
3 (10.7%)
1 (3.6%)

0.226

Commute means

AustralianJapanesep-valueWalk
Bike
Train & walkBus & walkTrain & bus & walkCar
Car & bike
Car & walkCar & bus

3 (8.3%)4 (11.1%)
3 (8.3%)6 (16.7%)
1 (2.8%)14 (38.9%)
1 (2.8%)3 (8.3%)1 (2.8%)6 (21.4%)
1 (3.6%)20 (71.4%)
0 (0.0%)1 (3.6%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)<0.05

From individual time to social time

Timing and structures of individual meal practices among young adult participants
are influenced not only by their time schedules but also by that of their commensal
partners like family and friends. Synchronisation of time schedules among commensal members determines the timing of commensal meals. The timing of meals canbe delayed or made unpredictable depending on variations of time schedules amongcommensal members. At the same time, synchronising different rhythms of individual time and life spaces for collective social eating requires individual effort andwillingness to be flexible. The tension between individual autonomy and sociality
is more evident in dinner than other meal occasions, because it is believed to be an
ideal occasion for sharing mealtime together among both Australian and Japaneseparticipants. It is often women who manage the multiple timetables of family members and sustain the work of synchronisation for family commensality. The following
narratives by Australian and Japanese mothers demonstrate how women in different
working culture achieve family dinners.
A 21 year-old Australian woman lived with her son, her partner, and her partner’s
parents. She said, “We eat dinner together every day but timing of dinner depends
on when my partner’s parents come back.” Her usual dinner time was about 8:00pm

126

CHAPTER 6. TIME FOR COMMENSALITY

but sometimes became 9:00pm or later if other family members returned home late.
Both parents often come back home late because they worked for 40 hours a week
and had some social activities like book clubs and playing in a band. She said,“I was astonished by it (eating dinner late evening),” because she has not eaten
dinner late evening before she joined the family. In order to accommodate herself
to her new family’s commensality routine, she decided to adjust her own scheduleand manage food preparation with her family.
A 27 year-old Japanese woman lived with her husband and her son. She said,“We try to spend time together with family as much as we can.” On the weekdays,
however, she found it difficult to eat dinner together with all family members: herhusband came back home around 10:00pm-11:00pm, and she had her own dinner
while she was feeding her two-year-old son around 6:00pm. She compensated bybeing present when her husband ate dinner alone as well as by eating meals together
with her family members on their weekend. She sometimes invited her parents andparents-in-laws for meals. A reason she put her efforts for everyday commensality is:“Eating together with family is an ideal image of family of myself and my husband.”,she said. More than the practical and economic reasons for eating together (i.e.
saving costs and being efficient), synchronisation of multiple tables is fostered bycultural ideals of family meals.
Commensality with friends who live apart requires more consideration for synchronising individual time schedules and life spaces. In metropolitan cities like
Sydney and Tokyo, people live further away and travel long times to meet and eat
together. A 33 year-old Australian woman in Sydney reported that meeting withfriends was along with “time pressure to get to the meeting spot” while a 28 year-old
Japanese man in Tokyo said, “meeting with friends for meals needs to consider a lotof things like where the most convenient time and place to meet and whether everyone can go back home before the last train.” Although people experience various
constraints on arranging commensality outside of household, the urban transportsystem mediates the distance in time and space and brings people together andencourages them to invest their time for a range of sociality.

6.3

Time pressure and work-life balance

6.3.1

Conceptualisation and measurements of WLB

In the last Section, I extend the discussion to lifestyle constraints and working cultures influencing individual time spent on everyday eating practices. In many modern societies, balancing work and life responsibilities including meals, called work-life6.3. TIME PRESSURE AND WORK-LIFE BALANCE

127

balance (WLB), is a central feature of government, workplace, and academic discussions. However, the definitions and practices of WLB are elusive (Kalliath andBrough, 2008), and have not yet been examined cross-culturally. This Section explores individual perceptions and the realisation of WLB involved in everyday meal
practices, among young adult participants in urban Australia and Japan.

6.3.2

Participant’s evaluations on their WLB

Before I look into individual experiences, I present how Australian and Japaneseparticipants perceive the current balance of their work and their private life. The
questions about time originated from the time-use questionnaire in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008). Table 6.4 shows participants’ attitudes to current‘balance’ of their time spent on themselves and their social relationships. Participants were allowed to select more than one answer.
Table 6.4: Distribution of responses to “which of following descriptions the best
describe your attitudes to balance (Multiple responses)

Want to have more time alone
Right balance
Want to have more time with family
Want to have more time with friends

AustralianJapanesep-value(Fisher)p-value(Bonferroni)

6 (14.6%)
25 (61.0%)
4 (9.8%)6 (14.6%)

8 (21.6%)
8 (21.6%)
7 (18.9%)
14 (37.8%)

0.370
<0.05
0.196
<0.05

1.000
<0.05
0.786
<0.05

A comparison between Australian and Japanese groups using Fisher’s exact testwith Bonferroni correction showed that significantly more Australian participants
are satisfied with their current lifestyle and use of time than Japanese, and more
Japanese wish to spend more time with their friends. More than 60% of Australians reported that their balance is right compared with 21.6% of Japanese. More
Japanese participants (78.4%) wished to change their current ‘balance’ of time-use
than Australian participants (39.0%) (p<0.05). In particular, more Japanese participants (37.8%) wished to spread more time with their friends than Australians(14.6%) (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference identified in the
responses to “want to have more time alone” and “want to have more time withfamily”.
However, satisfaction with ‘balance’ does not necessarily mean the absence oftime pressure. The feeling of time-pressure is grounded in unequal distribution of
paid work and unpaid work among the household (Bittman, 2004). Individuals tend
to feel pressured and overworked, when they have too much responsibility in either

128

CHAPTER 6. TIME FOR COMMENSALITY

paid or unpaid work or both. Table 6.5 and 6.6 show participants’ perceptions of timepressure. Table 6.5 shows participants’ responses to the five-scale question, “Howoften do you feel rushed?” Table 6.6 shows reasons for feeling rushed. Participants
were allowed to select more than one answers for this question.
Table 6.5: Distribution of responses to “How often do you feel rushed?”

Always
Often
Sometimes
RarelyNeverAustralianJapanesep-value

1 (2.6%)26 (66.7%)
11 (28.2%)
1 (2.6%)0 (0.0%)6 (19.4%)
11 (35.5%)
2 (12.9%)
6 (19.4%)
4 (12.9%)<0.05

Table 6.6: Distribution of reasons to feel rushed (Multiple responses)

Trying to balance work or study and social responsibilities
Pressure of work/study
Demand of social activities
Take too much on
Too many demand place on you
Unpredictable time schedule
Transport difficulties
Others (Child rearing)

AustralianJapanese27 (41.5%)
9 (13.8%)6 (9.2%)7 (10.8%)
4 (6.2%)3 (4.6%)3 (4.6%)5 (7.7%)7 (14.9%)
14 (29.8%)
4 (8.5%)6 (12.8%)
7 (14.9%)
1 (2.1%)1 (2.1%)2 (4.3%)p-value(Fisher)
<0.05
0.073
1.000
1.000
0.196
0.320
0.624
0.451

p-value(Bonferroni)
<0.05
0.585
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

The distribution of responses to the experience of time pressure between theAustralian and Japanese groups was significantly different (p<0.05). Australian’s
responses were concentrated in the middles (“Often” and “Sometimes”, but Japanese
one was distributed to all five answers (“Always”, “Often”, “Sometimes”, “Rarely”,
and “Never”), and more polarised than Australians. About 67% of Australian participants reported feeling rushed “often”, and 28% of them “sometimes”. In contrast, 19% of Japanese “always” felt rushed, and 13% of them “never” felt rushed.
Those who reported “never” feeling rushed were predominantly full-time housewives
a group which did not exist among Australian participants. Comparison of reasonsfor time pressures between Australian and Japanese groups reveals significant differences in the responses to “Trying to balance work or study and social responsibilities”. In contrast, more Japanese (29.8%) felt rushed because they had pressureof work or study compared to Australians (13.8%), while it was not significantly
different with Bonferroni correction (p=0.585).
Most of ongoing WLB debates focus on long working hours as the problem
which undermines the impacts of work and workplace experience as well as ‘life’6.3. TIME PRESSURE AND WORK-LIFE BALANCE

129

experiences, such as non-paid care responsibilities which are often affected by gender
expectations in society (Eikhof et al., 2007). These social expectations may underpina participant’s perceptions on WLB. Although the majority of both Australian andJapanese participants experience time pressure, more Japanese participants reported
lower satisfactions with their WLB than Australians, and most of them came homevery late. In contrast, many Australian participants reported higher satisfaction
with their WLB, but they also reported that they feel pressured to balance theirwork and life responsibilities. WLB is a well-known concept in both Australianand Japanese societies, and is now becoming a globally shared norm. However,individual perceptions and experiences of work and life is more diverse than theconcept suggests. Australian and Japanese participants encounter different timepressures and lifestyle constraints.

6.3.3

Individual experiences of WLB in the culture of flexible work and the culture of long working hours

Although the struggle to synchronise times and spaces is a common issue among
Australian and Japanese participants, a closer look at individual narratives reveals
variations in perceptions and experiences of time pressures among working motherswith young children between cultural groups. Previous literature identified thattime-use among working parents with young children varied by intensity of maternal
employment (full-time or part-time), the presence of father, and the number ofsiblings (Bianchi and Robinson, 1997). However, cross-cultural variations cannot be
fully explained by these indicators, because different social expectations and working
environments also play an significant role in shaping individual experiences. These
different social environments encourage individuals to pay attention to different
issues of society.
A 35 year-old Australian woman who was a mother of a two and a five years old
and a part-time public servant described about her experience of mealtime with her
children.

On the normal workdays, we wake up and are quite rushed to get children
to childcare. We sometimes need to eat breakfast in the car. Eating
dinner takes me 15 minutes, but it takes children longer. I do not feed
them. They eat slower. I still sit at the table helping them. Preparing
food is another thing (which needs some times), and then we sit down...
This participant describes that when she was with her children, she felt she spent
more time than what she actually spent time for her own meal. Working time is

130

CHAPTER 6. TIME FOR COMMENSALITY

rewarding for her: “it gives a break from the kids.” However, she noticed that her
commitments to child rearing and housework was different from her husband’s: “I
am jealous of my husband who can go surfing and do his stuff. I want more time formyself, more time for exercise.” Working part-time provides her an opportunity toengage with professional work and spend time with her children, however, it does notnecessarily increase her time for herself and equalise the distribution of household
work between the couple.
A 28 year-old Japanese mother of five years old worked full-time as a systemengineer (SE)† .

Without supports from my family, it is impossible to be a mother anda full-time employee. My mother and two sisters come to my home toprepare dinner for us few times per week. My husband prepared dinnerwhen he returns home earlier.
As a full-time employee, she was expected to work long hours as well as her husband
who was also a full-time system engineer. Most of her work colleagues were singles
or married who did not have children, and she felt pressured to stay at work likeher colleagues: It is always stressful to leave work earlier than others who do notunderstand (her situation). For her, thus, obtaining supports from several family
members (her husband, her sisters and her mother) was necessary to keep working
as a full-time employee.
Like her, most Japanese female participants including housewives who had young
children regularly obtained supports for child rearing from their own parents, siblings, and in-laws. This is because their spouses were not available to assist themduring weekdays due to long working hour commitments. Support from extended
family was not only common among Japanese participants; some Australian participants obtained supports from their parents who lived with them. However, it isparticularly crucial for Japanese mothers who engage with long working hours tohave support from their extended family.
A comparison of two working mothers in Australia and Japan indicate different
lifestyle constraints in society. The Australian mother felt pressured to manage
multiple roles by herself which reduced her time for herself. She was happy with herworking condition. In contrast, the Japanese mother felt stressed by her working
hours and colleagues who were not sympathetic to her situation. She was happy
with her family support.
†

A type of occupation, developed in Japan in the 1980s, which deals with a range of work
related to information processing from developing software to research and consulting (Ido and
Fukuma, 1988, 1989). Job description varies widely from workplace to workplace6.3. TIME PRESSURE AND WORK-LIFE BALANCE

131

The variation in experience of time pressure may be closely related to how muchfree-time individuals have. Previous literature in Australia illustrated that people’s
experiences of time pressure are varied by whether time pressure is “a matter ofchoice or of necessary” (Goodin et al., 2005). In their study, lone parents andworking mothers showed the lowest uncommitted free time and experienced higher
degree of time pressures (Goodin et al., 2005). However, the feeling of time pressure
and stress can be mediated by the support from partners and extended families.
The feeling of time pressure and stress related to paid work is different frompressure related to playing multiple roles or shifts. Similar to general populationin Japan discussed in Chapter 4, most Japanese participants who engaged withfull-time employment worked very long hours, like 40-50 hours per week or more.
Most of them recognised they worked long hours and their lifestyle lacks good time
allocations for work and life responsibilities. However, the realisation of a goodbalance of individual work and private life is elusive among Japanese participants.
A 36 year-old Japanese men who is a father of two boys described that his company, a large real estate firm, has introduced “family-friendly” policies to reduce
overtime work once a month called “no-overtime-day (no zangyou dei ).” He perceived this as a positive initiative to create the environment or atmosphere (funiki )by encouraging employees to leave their workplace earlier than usual. In reality,
however, he cannot go back home before dinner time, because work demands andpressures are the same as usual days, and many employees, including himself, spendlong hours to go back to their home. He described, “I believe a father should also
watch over children (as well as a mother), but (at the workplace) I cannot say sucha word.” It illustrates discrepancies between the idea of good ‘balance’ of work andlife and the reality of workplace environment.
Roberts (2005, 27) asserted that at the root of the issue is strong cultural norms
that career jobs need long working hours and dedicated commitments. Decreasingtime for work is contradictory to the cultural norms of good workers. A 28 year-old
Japanese man described his previous job in full-time “regular (seiki )” employment,“the job requires hard work and long working hour commitments, but I was fulfilled.”
During the interview, he has a contract “irregular (hi-seiki )” employment which gave
him more free time but less payment. He resigned from the previous work two years
ago because of the long working hours. He compared and contrasted between theprevious and the current working conditions, and he said,

I should get a decent job for my age (toshi souou no shigoto) which giveme some responsibilities. I do not want to work crazily like before, but I
need to work harder than the current job. I cannot stay in the easy job

132

CHAPTER 6. TIME FOR COMMENSALITY
after 30.

His narrative indicates that working with easy tasks and short working hours meanless responsibilities and less social credibility. He was also concerned that by staying
in “irregular” employment he would be socially discredited for not being a ‘proper’man. He said, “I cannot get married to my girlfriend until I get a regular position”.
Nemoto (2013) remarked that the notion of long working hours in Japan was closely
associated with workplace masculinity, and draw gender boundaries and encouraged
masculine behaviours. In other words, individual experiences of time is closely
related to gender system embedded in the society, which I will discuss in Chapter 8.
The comparison of time diaries and narratives among Australian and Japaneseparticipants reveals different time-use structures which influence the timing of commensality and solo-eating. Although both groups reported that they ate commensally on their work-off day dinner, a significant number of Japanese ate dinneralone while Australians ate something between main meals alone. These characteristics reflect the dominant household structures and work cultures in Australianand Japanese societies. In Australia, more men and women engage with flexible
work arrangement and share to some extent work and family responsibilities. In
Japan, the male-breadwinner household is still dominant, and full-time employment requires long working hours and prevents working individuals from engaging
with household responsibilities. To compensate for the absence of full-time workers,
Japanese families obtained household support from their extended families.
Despite the dynamic shift of eating environments, many people were willing toinvest their time and efforts in eating together with significant others. The urban
system and technology like mobile phone allow people who live different life spaces
and time to maintain their relationships. As a result, people need to negotiate
lifestyle choices among a wide range of options available to them.
The current debates over WLB concentrates on long working hours as the problem, and successfully reduced actual working hours in many countries. Although
Japan has a reputation for overworked, its total working hours has significantly decreased since the late 1980s (Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare, 2015). However,the debate overlooks various lifestyle constraints associated with diverse experiencesof work-and life-related activities across societies. Thus, it is important to consider
social structures and lifestyle constraints affecting individual’s time-use for everyday
meals.

Chapter 7
Cultural economy of eating spaces
7.1

Eating space as a site of cultural economy

The second socio-cultural determinant is eating space. Eating space, which I am
discussing here, is not just physical environments, but also is juxtaposed to cultural
systems and social structures. Gusfield (1992, 81) noted that food and spaces should
be considered as “possessing levels of meanings”. In other words, the experience of
eating spaces consists of multiple meanings including both substantive and symbolic
aspects of meanings.
There is an increasing necessity to consider eating spaces as “a site where global
process are transformed into action or are constituted by practice” (Kokot, 2007,20). Like other post-industrial societies, an increasing number of meals are consumed outside of the home in Australian and Japanese societies (Huntley, 2008a;
Miyoshi et al., 2008). One of the major reasons for the increase is the democratisation of eating out, along with the shift of everyday food provision from home tomarketplaces. According to historian Elliot Shore (2007, 329), the chain restaurants
in the late twentieth century grew out of rules associated with social class, gender,and specific culinary traditions, and accommodated “all-encompassing notion of eating out”. At these restaurants, the food may not necessarily be served in certain
manners for specific customers. Some of them may not always be seated to eat alone
or in group. The relaxation of eating out expands boundaries of the practice, andenables more people to eat out regardless of their social backgrounds.
The adoption of fast food and chain restaurants, however, varies in society. In
many western societies, fast food chains such as McDonald and KFC are considered as the industrial venue which provides cheap and efficient food. In contrast,
customers in Beijing uses these spaces for relaxing, chatting, celebrating birthday
parties (Yan, 2005). An ethnographic study in Japan in the early 2000s (Traphagan
133

134

CHAPTER 7. CULTURAL ECONOMY OF EATING SPACES

and Brown, 2002) showed that many Japanese families go to McDonald to share thesame food (e.g. hamburger and french fries), because they are easier to share than
traditional fast food in Japan (e.g. ramen and soba noodles).
Due to such complex relationships between economic processes and culturalchanges, it becomes harder to separate ‘culture’ from economic processes and activities. Cultural economy theories assert that like economy, culture determines
production, distribution, and accumulation of resources in societies (Du Gay andPryke, 2002). For examples, what sorts of restaurants, or eating venues outside of
the home, are available in the society depends on the cultural demand, acceptanceand adoption of certain goods, services and practices. In reverse, accumulation of
the practices increases availability of specific types of restaurants. The culture canbe a part of global process or a locally specific one. In the sense, the relations
between places and eating practices are constructed on the adoption of global andlocal economic activities.
In this Chapter, I explore cultural economy of commensality and solo-eating
inside and outside of the home from a cross-cultural perspective. Previous literature noted globally the prevalence of eating out not only fostered the shift of meal
provision labours from home to marketplace, but also transforms social relations,particularly gender, associated with food-related work (Warde, 2000; Finkelstein,
1989; Dixon, 1999). However, cross-cultural variations of the development of eatingout are not yet examined. I explore how eating spaces are shaped by global and local
discourses and how the discourses are accommodated by young adults in different
urban middle-class societies.

7.2

Locations for everyday eating

Before I start to discuss cultural construction of eating places, I show how young
adult participants in urban Australia and Japan had their main meals (breakfast,
lunch, and dinner): where they ate and whether they ate commensally or alone.
I draw this on participant’s time diary of one of their work-days and one of theirwork-off days before the interviews. Although the diary data does not always show
the average lifestyle of participants, it rather presents common patterns of everyday
meal practices among participants. Table 7.1 shows locations of main meals among
Australian and Japanese participants on their workday and work-off day.

Australian
WorkdayWork-off

Japanese
WorkdayWork-off

Differences between groups (p-value)
Australiana Japanesea Workdayb Work-offb

27 (67.5%)5 (12.8%)
3 (7.7%)
4 (10.3%)

26 (70.3%)
0 (0.0%)9 (24.3%)
2 (5.4%)23 (74.2%)
1 (3.2%)
1 (3.2%)6 (19.4%)

23 (76.7%)
0 (0.0%)1 (3.3%)6 (20.0%)

<0.05

1.000

0.380

<0.05

BreakfastHome
Workplace
Eating out
Skipped5 (12.8%)
25 (64.1%)
6 (15.4%)
3 (7.7%)19 (55.9%)
0 (0.0%)10 (29.4%)
5 (14.7%)

6 (19.4%)
18 (58.1%)
7 (22.6%)
0 (0.0%)11 (42.3%)
0 (0.0%)11 (42.3%)
4 (15.4%)

<0.05

<0.05

0.401

0.562

Lunch

Home
Workplace
Eating out
Skipped36 (92.3%)
0 (0.0%)3 (7.7%)0 (0.0%)33 (84.6%)
0 (0.0%)4 (10.3%)
2 (5.1%)23 (74.0%)
2 (6.5%)6 (19.4%)
0 (0.0%)25 (89.3%)
0 (0.0%)3 (10.7%)
0 (0.0%)

0.404

0.311

0.846

0.617

DinnerHome
Workplace
Eating out
Skipped7.2. LOCATIONS FOR EVERYDAY EATING

Table 7.1: Locations where participants had their main meals on their workday and work-off day

a Workday vs. Work-off day; b Australian vs. Japanese

Differences among categorical variables frequencies were assessed by Fisher’s exact test (two-tail) unless otherwise stated.
p<0.05 considered a significant difference. p<0.1 considered a potential difference.

135

136

CHAPTER 7. CULTURAL ECONOMY OF EATING SPACES

The diary data reveals that most of meals of Australian and Japanese participants were consumed at home, and eating out was not as common as eating at
home among Australian and Japanese young adults. More than 70% of Australianand Japanese participants had their breakfast and dinner at home on their workday
and work-off day, and majority of them ate their lunch at workplace on their workday. More than 70% of Australian and Japanese participants ate dinner at homeon their workday and work-off day. Eating out are more common on their work-off
day: 24.3% of Australian ate out for their breakfast, and 29.4% of Australian and42.3% of Japanese ate out for their lunch. Thus, for many Australian and Japaneseparticipants, eating out is a weekly or less frequent practice rather than daily one.
However, a significant number of Japanese participants ate their dinner outside of
the home on their workday.
In addition to eating locations, Table 7.2 presents the breakdown of participants
who ate commensally or alone by location on their workday and work-off day.

Home
Workplace
Breakfast
Eating out

Japanese
WorkdayWork-off

Differences between groups (p-value)
Australiana Japanesea Workdayb Work-offb

Com
Solo
Com
Solo
Com
Solo

10 (25.6%)
17 (43.6%)
1 (2.6%)4 (10.3%)
2 (5.1%)1 (2.6%)4 (10.3%)

11 (30.6%)
15 (41.7%)
0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)8 (22.2%)
1 (2.8%)2 (5.4%)7 (22.6%)
16 (51.6%)
1 (3.2%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (3.2%)6 (19.4%)

12 (38.7%)
11 (35.5%)
0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (3.2%)0 (0.0%)6 (20.0%)

0.116

<0.05

0.413

0.062

Com
Solo
Com
Solo
Com
Solo

0 (0.0%)5 (13.2%)
12 (31.6%)
13 (34.2%)
3 (7.9%)3 (7.9%)2 (5.3%)10 (30.3%)
9 (27.3%)
0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)8 (24.2%)2 (6.1%)5 (14.7%)

3 (9.7%)3 (9.7%)
11 (35.5%)
7 (22.6%)2 (6.5%)5 (16.1%)
0 (0.0%)7 (26.9%)
4 (15.4%)
0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)9 (34.6%)2 (7.7%)4 (15.4%)

<0.05

<0.05

0.339

0.792

Com
Solo
Com
Solo
Com
Solo

23 (59.0%)
13 (33.3%)
0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)3 (7.7%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)21 (53.8%)
12 (30.8%)
0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)4 (10.3%)
0 (0.0%)2 (5.1%)9 (29.0%)
4 (45.2%)
0 (0.0%)2 (6.5%)4 (12.9%)2 (6.5%)0 (0.0%)16 (57.1%)
9 (32.1%)
0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)3 (10.7%)
0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)

0.656

0.124

<0.05

0.814

SkippedHome
Workplace
Lunch
Eating out
SkippedHome
Workplace
DinnerEating out
Skippeda Work-day vs. Work-off day; b Australian vs. Japanese

Differences among categorical variables frequencies were assessed by Fisher’s exact test (two-tail) unless otherwise stated.
p<0.05 considered a significant difference. p<0.1 considered a potential difference.

137

Australian
WorkdayWork-off

7.2. LOCATIONS FOR EVERYDAY EATING

Table 7.2: Distribution of Commensality and solo-eating of main meals on their workday and work-off day by locations among Australian andJapanese participants

138

CHAPTER 7. CULTURAL ECONOMY OF EATING SPACES

On the workday, most of breakfasts of Australian and Japanese were eaten alone
than eaten commensally. About a half of Australian and Japanese participantsate breakfast alone at home. Differences between Australian and Japanese groups
were more explicit in lunch and dinner. More Australians ate lunch alone at home(13.2%) and workplace (34.2%) than Japanese. More Japanese (16.1%) ate lunch
alone outside than Australian (7.9%). Many Japanese ate dinner alone at home(45.2%), workplace (6.5%), and outside (6.5%), compared with 59% of Australian
ate commensally at home. The difference between Australian and Japanese groups
on workday’s dinner was significant (p<0.05).
On the work-off day, more Australians and Japanese participants ate commensally at home than their workday. More Australians (22.2%) ate breakfast out
commensally. The difference of breakfast patterns between workday and work-off
day was significantly different among Japanese group. A significant number of Australians (24.2%) and Japanese (34.6%) ate lunch commensally outside of the home.
Majority of Australian and Japanese ate dinner commensally at home.
A comparison of workday and work-off day shows different patterns of eating
locations and commensality. On the workday, most of meals were consumed at home
and workplace, and more people ate alone. On the work-off day, more people atecommensally either at home or outside. The difference in eating locations between
workday and work-off day was larger among Japanese than Australians.
Except some cases on workday, eating out was a more common practice on
work-off day than workday among Australian and Japanese participants. In addition, more people ate commensally rather than alone on their work-off day. These
patterns of these eating practices are key determinants of participant’s views on
which practice is ordinary and extraordinary for them. In the next Section, I explore more in-depth contexts and participant’s views on their eating practices, basedon in-depth interviews.

7.3

Social distinction and morality: cultural meanings of eating out and eating at home

First, I look into meanings of eating out and eating at home among participants.
Restaurants and cafe produces alternative social spaces to eating at home by accommodating social demands which can be institutionalised and marketable. Finkelstein(1989) also examined phenomenological accounts of eating out, and revealed thatambivalent aspects of sociality associated with eating out. She remarked that therestaurant provides a space for “self-presentation and the mediation of social re-7.3. SOCIAL DISTINCTION AND MORALITY

139

lations through what is currently valued, accepted and fashionable” (Finkelstein,
1989, 3). Through the creation of the images of pleasure, convenience, wealth, andluxury which stimulate individual desires, the restaurant provides variety of social
spaces which accommodate individual needs and mediate all kinds of issues related
to eating at home. At the same time, Finkelstein also emphasised anti-social aspects of eating out. She argued that “dining out allows us to act imitation of others,in accordance with images, in response to fashions, out of habit, without need forthought or self-scrutiny”(Finkelstein, 1989, 5). Therefore, the practice of eating out
offers opportunities for self-representation, but it also engineers individual thoughts
and behaviours into cultural codes of the social structure.
Individual narratives of young adults embody these ambivalent aspects of eatingout: maximising a variety of choices and increasing homogenisation and commercialisation of eating. Many described eating outside of their home provides thevariety of choices such as restaurants, food, and atmosphere as well as new culturalexperiences.
It is an entertainment. I want to try every restaurant in town. (A 34
year-old Australian man in Canberra)

I choose the menu which I would never make it or I would not have thetime to make it. (A 29 year-old Australian woman in Canberra)

I love trying new food. No matter where it is from. No matter where I
travel to. (A 34 year-old Australian woman in Sydney)

When I eat out with my friends, I try to pick the restaurants whichlook interesting. We tried African restaurant last time. (A 28 year-old
Japanese man in Tokyo)

It is fun to choose from the variety. (A 38 year-old Japanese man and a
33-year-old Japanese woman in Tokyo)
These narratives illustrated the disposition of ‘openness’ to new food, restaurants,
and cultures. Some participants associated the practice of eating out with theirtravel experiences to overseas. Warde et al. (1999); Warde (2000) suggested thatseeking variety of food-related knowledge and experiences was to display social distinction, and this practice was common among the educated, metropolitan middleclasses in England. Like British cities and other urban metropolitan cities, Tokyoand Sydney have increasingly more numbers of restaurants providing exotic foods

140

CHAPTER 7. CULTURAL ECONOMY OF EATING SPACES

and cultural experiences. Compared to other capital cities, Canberra is a rather
small capital city, but has the most educated population in Australia (Australian
Bureau of Statistics 2014)∗ . Furthermore, majority of Australian participants had
exposed to multi-cultural experiences through their family, travels, and study abroad
experiences (See Chapter 3). The experience of variety of food as an expression ofself-refinement and their middle-class cosmopolitan identities is also common amongsome young adults in urban Australia and Japan.
In contrast, some participants described that eating at the commercial venues
limits the capacity of humanity and morality, which are not yet institutionalised andcommercialised. They compare and contrast the impersonal aspects of marketplacewith the comfort at home. A 39 year-old Australian woman said,

At home, there is no one pushing you to get the table back. If it is yourplace, that’s fine you do not have to worry.
She also stressed that the home provides a more comfortable space for social interactions than outside:

You can relax and stay as long as you like. You can interact with people
and it breaks down the barrier. It also shares a bond.
Some participants viewed that commercialised services were not flexible enoughto accommodate personal needs. A 40 year-old Australian man whose meals always
centred on fishes and vegetables said, “When you order salad at restaurants, they
never get it right for me.” Similarly, a 26 year-old Japanese woman said, “Therestaurant food has few variations of ingredients and less quantities.” She comparedwith her mother’s meal, and said, “My mother would put more vegetables and meats
in Okonomiyaki (Japanese pancake) to make the dish perfect for me.” Ingredientsand quantities of individual dishes are controlled at most restaurants in a collective
form, and these dishes do not necessarily meet personal needs unlike her motherwho know what she wants.
Although restaurant industries started to accommodate demands for some dietary restrictions, the integrity of the restricted diets prepared by anonymous chefs
are still questionable. A 33 year-old Australian woman who had celiac said, “I feelthat people do not understand allergy very well. They may use the same knife on
the bread so it is not safe anymore.”∗

According to the ABS report in 2014, 40% of people in the Australian Capital Territory, where
Canberra belongs to, had a Bachelor Degree or above as their highest level of education attainment.
This was the highest proportion among all states and territories in Australia.

7.4. PLACE FOR COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

141

There was a view to associate eating out with unhealthy eating. A 28 year-old
Japanese man said, “My (body) condition is even much better to eat my simple
dishes like the bean-sprouts-only stir-fry than the food from outside.” During thefirst two year to be a physician at a university hospital, he did not have muchtime to cook for himself, and he often ate out or bought cooked food from outside.
Although the habit did not directly link with specific health outcomes like weightchange, he experienced a subtle change of his body, and described,“Eating the foodfrom outside too often made me feel sick.”
Although eating out is a widely accepted practice and provides variety of choices
and new knowledge, it is also viewed as the one which threatens moral values,
and dehumanises everyday practice of eating. Julier (2013) pointed out that theincreasing commodification of hospitality by service industries creates the distinction
between hospitality as impersonal service and hospitality as comfort or caring others.
The distinction is originated from social relations associated with domesticity andmarketplace. Knowing about individual needs can be “a function of intimacy, ofshared tastes and social capital, or routine interaction” (Julier, 2013, 27). The
knowledge and skills are regarded as the ones cannot be replaced by commercialised
service by anonymous low-wage workers.

7.4

Commensality and solo-eating inside and outside of the home

In this Section, I explore commensality and solo-eating inside and outside of thehome based on interviews. Like the experience of eating spaces, whether eating
commensally or alone, inside or outside the home is also shaped by cultural codesand social structures. When people eat together, they tend to follow “cultural
templates” which reflect social significance and social relations (Warde, 2000, 57).
Labour and economic burdens associated with eating together are distributed basedon the “cultural templates”. In contrast, eating alone negates the impacts of “cultural templates”, and centres on self-control. The discussion of eating out and eating
at home focuses on the shifting power relations from food producers to consumers
as well as the change of gender relations. However, this scholarship on eating has
developed in modern western contexts, which dominates dichotomous views of public/formal and private/informal spheres. In addition to the public/private divide ofeating spaces, social spaces in commensality and solo-eating inside and outside of
the home are shaped by existing social organisations and infrastructures of eatingout. Cross-cultural comparison explores variations of the social organisations and142

CHAPTER 7. CULTURAL ECONOMY OF EATING SPACES

their impacts on commensality and solo-eating.

7.4.1

Commensality inside and outside of the home

Eating together at home is a decisive cultural symbol of family in most modern societies. A 31 year-old Australian woman described, “Eating alone misses opportunityof sharing. In most cultures, people share food, sit down, and talk about the day”,
and emphasised the universality of the practice. The practice has been sustainedby gendered division of household labour and “differential consumption” (Delphy,2001). The development of eating out is especially important for women: it not only
reduces labour burdens for food provision but also changes social relations at thehome.
A 29 year-old Japanese woman described that eating out provided her break frombeing a housewife and mother who was in charge of all the family meals at home:“There are someone cooking for me. I do not need to worry about planning andpreparing for meals.” She also emphasised that eating outside of the home allowed
her to focus on her individuality: “I can be self-centred (jibun honi) and I can eat
what I want.” Eating out mediates existing power relations between those who feed
and who are fed, and promotes egalitarian relations among those who eat together.
Thus, eating out not only takes over the household labours for food provision but
also shifts social relations to the egalitarian one which emphasise individual choices.
Similarly, a 34 year-old Australian woman described eating out provided pleasurable
times for being outside of the home, but she also described the difficulty to eat at
the restaurant with young children: “In Syndey, there are not many restaurants
which are child-friendly”. Thus, eating out does not fully help reducing houseworkburdens of women.

7.4.2

Solo-eating at home and in public

Eating alone is an individual activity. It allows individual and personal choices,because there is no pressure from interpersonal interactions. The narratives about
eating alone at home centred on individual autonomy, or managing their eatingbased on their own will without being distracted by others. A 35 year-old Australianmother said, “I quite like to eat alone because I do not have a chance to do it any
more.” Being a mother of two young children limited her time for herself: “I get a
bit sick to eat with the kids all the time.” The practice of eating alone reminded
her singlehood: “It is me, me, me, if I am alone.” A 23 year-old Australian man
said, “I like eating alone to concentrate on what I think of at the time.” He lived in7.4. PLACE FOR COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

143

Sydney with his parents who shared the meals every evening: “I want to eat alone
every now and then.” Some participants talked about other people’s judgements on
their food when they are with others. A 37 year-old Australian woman said, “I get
comments a lot on what I eat. It seems like they feel guilty when I order something
healthy like salad.” A 36 year-old Japanese woman said, “I do not need to worry
about how others judge me and my food.”
Eating alone at home allows individuals to decide everything from food provision to consumption based on individual choices. Some Australian and Japaneseparticipants associated eating alone with healthy eating. A 36 year-old Australian
man said, “Eating alone represents more purely eating” than social aspects. He described eating alone allows individuals to control both portion size and food intake:“When someone cook for me, I feel obligated to eat. I become like a garbage bin.
When I am alone, I can crave sugar or something bad for my health.” A 27 year-old
Japanese woman also described, “When I am with others, I tend to drink alcoholand eat more meats or other proteins than vegetables.” She perceived that eating
alone provides her an opportunity to eat more vegetables and supplement missing
nutrition which she missed out from commensal eating.
In contrast to eating alone at home, narratives on eating alone in public were
explicitly different between Australian and Japanese participants. Most of narratives
among Australian participants were negative, compared to their narratives on eating
alone at home. A 32 year-old Australian single man said, “It is weird to go out toa restaurant by myself”, because for him, eating out is “social things”. For him,
restaurants are regarded as a space for sociality rather than fulfilling his stomach.
Some indicated they would eat out of necessity and they would not chose to eat
alone in public. A 40 year-old Australian single man said, “If I eat out alone, I will
get something quick and read something while eating”. A 22 year-old Australian
single woman said, “I feel okay to eat alone at a food court.” Thus, public space
was closely linked with sociality rather than everyday food consumption.
In contrast, some Japanese participants, not all of them, described positive images of eating alone in public. Some of them focused on practical aspects of eatingout in public. A 35 year-old Japanese single man often had breakfast outside on theway to go to work: “I often have breakfast at a noodle stand at train station.” For
him, eating out is not an entertainment or social distinction but daily rituals to eat
in a busy lifestyle. He emphasised efficiency to eat alone at the noodle stand: “I savemy time by eating out on my way to go to work.” Others emphasised autonomy
achieved through eating alone outside of the home. Particularly for those who livewith family, it is hard to find a time and space to be alone at home. A 36 year-old

144

CHAPTER 7. CULTURAL ECONOMY OF EATING SPACES

Japanese woman who lived with her husband said, “I want to eat out by myself
from time to time.” She described that eating out alone is “an adventure (bouken)”,because she can explore new food and restaurants without concerning about otherpeople’s opinions: “When I am with others, I pay more attentions to what others
think than what I want”.
A 33 year-old Japanese single woman also emphasised public eating allowed her
to stay away from her everyday sociality. She lived with her parents and worked as
sales representative at a department store, and said “I do not have much time tobe alone.” For her, eating alone at cafe provided her a temporary space which she
could stay away from everyday sociality.

I often go to cafe to make time for myself. I am more relaxed than eatingwith other people. I do not need to think what to talk and I do not needto listen to others. At the same time, I can think what I want to think.
White (2015) suggested that consumption is not just a representation of identity
or social distinction but also a therapy to reduce everyday stress and anxieties.
Likewise, this female participant chose to eat out alone to change her mood andrefresh herself from everyday social interactions rather than presenting her identity
in public.

7.5

Individualisation? another social space?: cultural economy of eating alone in public

I argue that this cross-cultural variations in participants’ perceptions on eating alone
in public are originated from different “cultural economy” of public eating underlying
in contemporary urban Australia and Japan. Rather than impacts of single factor,
the combination of social and demographic structure and symbolic and substantial
meanings are involved with the adoption of public eating.

7.5.1

Demographic changes and eating practices

Firstly, higher socio-economic demands for public eating increases availability of
public spaces for solo-eaters. Restaurants and cafe are commercialised and institutionalised venues which are largely affected by socio-economic demands and business
opportunities. Globally, more number of people live and eat alone. Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development (2011) estimated by 2025–30 around
40% or more of all households becomes single-person households in many OECD

7.5. INDIVIDUALISATION? ANOTHER SOCIAL SPACE?

145

countries due to demographic changes, social trends, and the development of newtechnologies.†
As discussed in Chapter 4, Japan is a world’s most ageing society for a decade(Cabinet office, 2015), and more than one third of the population live alone (Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2010). The proportions of single-person households (tandokusetai ) in Australia and Japan were 24.3% and 32.4%) respectively in 2010–11 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011; Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2010). Figure 7.1
shows distribution of single-person households among men and women in Australia
and Japan in 2010–2011. The statistics include only those who live in private
dwellings and those who lived alone in nursing homes, dormitories, and hospitals
are excluded from census of both countries.
Figure 7.1: Distribution of single-person households among men and women ofdifferent age groups in Australia and Japan
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
15-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65-74

Australian men

Australian womenJapanese men

Japanese women

75-84

Over 85

Source:(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011; Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2010)
In Australia and Japan, single-households are prevailed among older populations:the highest proportion of single-households was the aged 75–84 among Japanesewomen and the aged over 85 among Australian men and women. The proportion
among Australian men and women increased with ages, and the increase was sharper
among women than men. One of reasons for lower rate among Japanese men andwomen aged over 85 years old is that 12.8% of men and 25.1% of women live in
hospitals or nursing homes (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2011).
†

In cross-national comparison by the OECD report, Australia showed more increase in numbersof single-person households from mid-2000s to mid-2020s than Japan. The increase was 48% inAustralia (the estimate increase from 2006 to 2026). The increase was 26% in Japan (the estimate
increase from 2005 to 2030) (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2011).

146

CHAPTER 7. CULTURAL ECONOMY OF EATING SPACES

However, the proportion of single-households among younger cohorts aged 15–
34 was relatively high among Japanese men and women compared to Australians.
The peak of single-person household among Japanese men was aged 25–34 (22.4%).
There are some plausible explanations for the higher rates of single-person households among Japanese young adults than Australians. First, more numbers ofJapanese young men and women leave home for education or work and never bemarried. Secondly, de facto relationships are not recognised and not reported in
the national census of Japan. Lastly, fewer young adults in Japan live in grouphousehold like share houses compared to Australians. In Australia, about 7–10%
of men and women in 15–34 lived in group housing like share house (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 2011). Similar demographic characteristics are also identified
among Australian and Japanese young adult participants in the current study (seeChapter 3).
The demographic change has greatly affected the country’s policy and economic
structures in urban Japan. By 2011, the total expense of elderly household aged over
60 years exceeded 100 trillion yen per year and 44% of total expense of the Japanese
population (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2012). Miura (2013) notedthat more numbers of Japanese men and women over 50 years old will live alone andeat alone by 2035, and the increase is more evident in the urban areas.‡ He argued
that in such a society, there will be increasing demands for the commodification of
all aspects of life activities which involve care processes done by others (Miura, 2013,148). Compared to the temporary singlehood among young adults, the singlehood intheir later stage of life needs long-term supports for the daily care-related activities
which is traditionally done by household members. Eating alone in public spaces
may not be as lonely as eating alone at home without having any interactions withothers, and it can replace commensality with family and friends. In fact, somerestaurant and drinking pub chains which provide “kateino-aji (taste of home)”
meals and eating spaces for solo-eaters are growing.§
As most of narratives and free-list survey of Australian and Japanese young
adults demonstrated, general images of eating alone in public are negative particularly among women. Many western literature showed that more women than men
find this practice as a challenge, and seek for the alternative or challenge sexual‡

Miura’s argument is based on the nationwide survey data on the report (National Instituteof Population and Social Security Research 2013). According to the report, the proportion of
single-person household to all household in 1980 was 19.8% and increased to 32.4% in 2010. The
report estimates the rate will increase to 37.1% in 2035. The increase is more rapid among thoseare above 50 years old who will dominant 66% of total single-person household in Japan in 2035.
§
Ootoya, a restaurant chain of Japanese set meal (tei-shoku) reported 70% revenue increase
from 2010 to 2014. (increased from 1.7 million yen in March 2010 to 2.3 million yen in March2014) (Ootoya Holdings, 2014).

7.5. INDIVIDUALISATION? ANOTHER SOCIAL SPACE?

147

stereotypes associated with eating alone in public (Shipley, 2012; Derry; Cooke,2014). Gender power relations in eating spaces are not only manifested by women’s
thoughts, emotions, and actions, but also enforced by others people in heterosexualsocial gazes (Heimtun, 2010). Similar to western societies, female singlehood is a contested space of cultural ideals and practices in “familialist” Japan which had a long
history of patriarchal social systems (Dales, 2014). However, more than women’s
resistance to the sexual stereotypes, the demographic, economic, and socio-culturalshift to ageing society fosters the development of markets and the availability of
public spaces for male and female lone-dinners

7.5.2

Cultural meanings of public spaces

Secondly, the embodiment of social and individual spaces in physical spaces of public
and private domains influences acceptability of solo-eating in public spaces. Most
Australian participants viewed eating out as a social activity no matter if they
eat with others or alone, and eating at home as a private and individual activity.
Similar views of public eating was also identified in an interview study in UK by
Dawn Zdrodowski: eating outside of their home was considered as ‘public eating’
which individuals were subjected to social gazes no matter if they are in front ofothers they know (Zdrodowski, 1996). In contrast, for most Japanese participants,
eating in public does not necessarily means a social and collective activity. For
them, the social boundaries of collective and individual activities is determined byrelationships between self and others rather than physical domains of spaces.
Public spaces outside of daily social network is another social spaces withoutworrying about daily social relations. In other words, public spaces can be bothsocial and individual spaces. Lebra (1984) argued that the interpretation of social
situations and associated behaviours is not fixed but varied by one’ relationships
with others (insider or outsider) and whether one is exposed to the public gaze.
According to her theory (Lebra, 1984, 122–123), there are three situational domains:intimate, ritual, and anomie. In the intimate situation, one see others as insiders(uchi ) and his behaviours toward them are no longer constrained by public gaze.
In this condition, he see himself in the intimate mode, regardless of physical spaces
which one is situated. In opposite to this, in the ritual situation, one see others
as outsiders (soto) and his behaviours toward them are in front of third-person
audience. In the anomic situation, one see others as outsiders and he is free fromthe audience.
I argue that the narrative of solo-eating in public among Japanese young adults
is fallen into the ritual situation: being outside of insider’s relations reduces peer

148

CHAPTER 7. CULTURAL ECONOMY OF EATING SPACES

pressures, and at the same time, they are exposed to the public gaze. Such a multiple
functionality of public spaces were also identified in cross-cultural studies of westernand eastern cultures (Mateo-Babiano and Ieda, 2005; Yasmeen, 1996). The practicesof eating out and eating alone are products of urbanisation and industrialisation inboth Australian and Japanese societies, but at the same time these practices produce
different social relations at the local level.

7.5.3

Expanding domains of eating spaces

Eating space is a site of global and local processes of shifting eating practices as well
as forms of sociality. Both eating out and eating alone accommodate different levels
of individual and personal choices among Australian and Japanese young adults.
Eating out allows individuals to reduce their labour burdens of food provision andto be explored to variety of food and cultural experiences regardless of class andgender. Eating alone embodies self-control of eating process from production to
consumption. At the same time, collective, commensality at home is sustained by
the heterosexual, socialised, and familial, ideals of eating, and the notion is evenextended to healthy eating. Eating alone in public is at the opposite pole of theideal construction of eating. Nevertheless, along with increasing socio-economic
demands due to demographic changes, the practice was emerged as another social
space outside of their daily social network in Japanese urban economy. Therefore,
eating alone in public is no longer an anomic situation where there is no social
contacts with other people. The development of public eating results in constructing
four domains of eating spaces in urban landscape. Table 7.3 summaries four domainsof eating spaces.
Table 7.3: Four domains of eating spaces

Home
OutsideCommensality
Labour required
Traditional relationships
No labour required
Egalitarian relationships

Solo-eating
Labour required
Individual autonomy
No labour required
Sociality outside of daily social network

The discussion is extended to everyday gender relations and how gender roles
and identities shape everyday commensality and solo-eating in the next Chapter(Chapter 8).

Chapter 8
Gendered dynamics andcommensality
8.1

Gender as a mediator of eating experiences

The third determinant is gender. Gender is a powerful mediator of all aspects ofeating experiences. As discussed in previous two Chapters, gender plays a central
role in the experience of eating spaces and time. The rise of flexible working scheduleand the commercialised food provision services encouraged more women to engage
with paid employment and promote egalitarianism for the equal access to the publicsphere. Yet, at the same time, these new lifestyle lacks moral meanings (Giddens,
1991), and both men and women encounter moral hazard and feel their masculinity and femininity are threaten. In fact, gender relations in commensality are notjust about who provides food, but also involve with who leads conversations andwho disciplines children. However, most of narratives from both Australian andJapanese participants were concentrated on food provision. This may be because
moral debates on the decline of family meals and commensalism are concentrated on
who provides food (Julier, 2013, 19). This Chapter focuses on gender relations anddynamics in light of gendered division of household labour and cooking and caring
responsibilities associated with commensality.
Recent studies of gender consider gender not only as static properties as identity
and social status but also as a more dynamic process constructed by social relations
through interaction. Martin (2003, 343) suggested that gender dynamics are sociallyconstructed by means of “two-sided dynamic of gendering practices and practicing ofgender”. According to her, “gendering practices” are available to be done and practised in social contexts “in accord with (or in violation of) the gender institution”(Martin, 2003, 534). The second gender dynamic, “practicing of gender”, is the
149

150

CHAPTER 8. GENDERED DYNAMICS AND COMMENSALITY

literal activities of gender, which are what individuals are actually doing and saying
in every day interactions, but not yet institutionalised. It is practising masculinities
and femininities “in embodied interactions that are emergent and fluid, grounded inpractical knowledge and skills, and informed by liminal awareness and reflexivity”(Martin, 2003, 359). The process of riding a bicycle is an example of “practicing
gender”. People learn how to ride a bicycle through repetition practising, but mostof people are not aware or be reflexive on the whole process of riding a bicycle. Thisis because their goal is to be able to ride a bicycle rather than narratively describing
the whole process of bicycle riding. However, the accumulation of practising gender becomes “gendered practices” and sustain inequality. Martin asserted that theunderstanding of these two layers of dynamics will provide insights of how genderinequality and conflicts are constructed (Martin, 2003, 343).
In this Chapter, I examine these two layers of gender dynamics: gendered practices and practising gender. Firstly, I show the narrative about domestic responsibilities, and discuss how different social institutions, particularly shaped by household
structures, makes “static gendering practices” available to Australian and Japaneseparticipants. Then, I draw attention to family commensality as a site in which
gender relations are experienced and contested. By examining the subjectivities
of commensality, I explore saying and doing of gender which are not explicit as“gendering practices” and can be embedded in practical knowledge and skills.

8.2

Gendered division of labours in single-and multipleearner households

Gendered division of labour in the society determines the tasks which men andwomen should perform. The division is often shaped by socio-economic structures,
particularly associated with the distribution of paid employment, and embedded andsustained by socio-cultural norms including gender expectations. As discussed in
Chapter 6, a household structure is a major social institution which shapes different
lifestyle structures between Australian and Japanese participants. Whether singleearner or multiple-earner household influences to what extent division of household labour are gendered. Single-earner households, which were dominant among
Japanese participants, tend to maintain clear-cut gendered division of householdlabour and the division is often taken for granted among members of household. In
contrast, multiple-earner households which were dominant among Australian participants, tend to negotiate the division among household members. Differences ingendered division of household labour were clearly observed between Australian and8.2. DIVISION OF LABOURS

151

Japanese participants.
Not surprisingly, division of paid work and non-paid domestic work among theJapanese single-earner household was gendered. The division was culturally available for the people to do gender or to determine as “gendered practices”. The
gendered division was taken for granted, and both male and female married participants viewed that home was the site where wife took a dominant role. Few maleparticipants expressed their thoughts about household activities, and described:
My wife takes care of all household work. (Ie no koto ha okusan ga subete
yattekureteiru.) (A 36 year-old married Japanese man)
All one left to my wife’s own choice. (Subete tsuma ni makaseteiru.) (A36-year old Japanese married man).
The public image of housewives in Japan has changed along with socio-economic andpolitical climates. In the 1970s, the household with a male breadwinner and a fulltime housewife was considered as the average Japanese family. At the same time, thenormalisation of housewives was criticised by women’s liberation movement. In thelate 1980s, being housewives became a symbol of affluent family which have enougheconomic powers to feed non-working wife and children (Ueno, 1994). According
the recent nationwide survey of young people aged between 15 and 39 (Ministry of
Health, Labor and Welfare, 2013), more number of women (34.2%) than men (19.3%)
hoped for the household with a full-time housewife. Being housewives became an
ideal which not everyone can choose to become.
A 27 year-old Japanese woman who was a mother of two children did most ofhousework and child rearing by herself.
It is impossible to ask my husband to help housework and child rearing
on his workday, because he comes back home late. He does not do any
housework except cleaning and playing with children on the weekend.
He is good at cleaning and I like cooking. Looking after children on theweekend is helpful enough.
She viewed the current division of labours as a decent lifestyle of married woman
with young children. She reflected her singlehood that she tried to do all she wanted
to do (i.e. work and hobbies), and said to me, “Such a lifestyle uses up all energies
for myself, but not for others.” She emphasised her life at the household level rather
than individual one, and described her role as an engine of the household.
Now I wake up early in the morning, and I do not oversleep any more.
If I am late, everyone will be late. I got a sense of responsibility (to152

CHAPTER 8. GENDERED DYNAMICS AND COMMENSALITY
support other family members). I believe I need to stay healthy andenergetic to be able to support family. Compared to the past, I have amuch healthier lifestyle.

She compared this with her lifestyle before her marriage which she played multiple
roles, and she understood that the current lifestyle is beneficial for both well-being
and physical health of her family and herself, and expressed her joy to invest her
body and mind into her family.
On the contrary, the domestic work is not always ‘a static gendering practice’among those who are in the dual or multiple-earner household. It is rather a dynamic
practice which are performed by those who have less time commitments to paid work.
A 37 year-old Australian woman was a full-time preschool teacher and recently
reduced her working hours to part-time (four days per week) to help with her eight
year-old daughter’s school work.
My housework and my husband’s work is getting busier. I spend moretime for cooking and other housework. I make jelly and cakes as treatsfor my daughter. From Tuesday to Friday, she goes to aftercare. They
have crafts and homework clubs. She does swimming and gymnastics.
On Monday afternoon, she does Kumon tutoring. It started easy andgetting harder....
Time commitments for children are varied by ages of children. In her case, she
experienced more time constraints when her daughter became older and started toparticipant in a range of activities. In addition, her husband worked long hour at
a medical company: leaving home at 7:00am and coming back home around 7:008:00pm. So, she decided to reduce her working hours to manage all housework,
supports for her daughter, and her paid work.
A 34 year-old Australian man was a postgraduate student and father of twochildren. He rotated housework with his wife depending on their work loads andworking hours.
We do not have to negotiate (who do which housework). Now she has
a demanding job and works quite long hours. I tend to do most ofhousework and look after the children. In the past, I worked more andshe looked after the children.
He reported that he did most of housework in the morning while he was having
breakfast, because his work schedule as a postgraduate student was more flexible
than his wife who was working as a high-rank public servant. He said, “This is themost common reason I have breakfast alone.” He ate breakfast in the kitchen whilecleaning and making lunch for his children.

8.3. PRACTISING GENDER IN COMMENSALITY

153

Due to the growing political, legal and social emphasis on gender equality, few
narratives explicitly talked about gender segregation within society and individual
household. Like the previous literature (Bianchi et al., 2000), most of narrativesof both Australian and Japanese participants emphasised that time-availability israther an explicit reason for determining who spend more time for housework thangender norms. Although the language of time-availability is gender-neutral for mostof people, it is rather determined by work demands and working hours of paid
workers in the household as well as availability and adoption of flexible working
schedule at workplace. Generally, more men spend longer time with their paid workthan women. The gender gap in Japan is much larger than Australia. In this sense,
gendered division of household labour was a more culturally available practice among
Japanese participants than Australians.

8.3

Practising gender in commensality

Gender relations are more dynamic and contested in the commensal context. In particular, family commensality can be “a site of domestic conflict” of masculine andfeminine subjectivities (Meah and Jackson, 2013). Unlike other household activities,
the practice of commensality is a shared activity. In the commensal context, thelabour division of the shared activity is not always clear-cut like who cook and who
does not, and some share housework associated with commensality (i.e. shopping,cooking, and cleaning). Even though men and women share work, the distribution of labour is not proportional and grounded in unspoken assumptions of gendersubjectivities.
Individual narratives show how individuals negotiate their gender identities in
the commensal context. A 21 year-old Australian woman reported she and herfamily members take turn cooking. However, she found herself ended up cook more
often than her partner. She said,
My partner is a very concise cook, but I veto a lot. He settle for lesstasty food for easier. He does not mind to eat leftovers, but I want toeat freshly cooked food.
She acknowledged that her partner can cook, but his ways of cooking did not satisfy
her expectations on what are proper meals for family. Similarly, a 36 year-old
Japanese woman started to do more cooking since she got married, whereas she
worked as long hours as her husband.
My husband can cook. But I have taken over cooking since we married.

154

CHAPTER 8. GENDERED DYNAMICS AND COMMENSALITY
Recently he got a higher cholesterol record from his annual health check.
I started to cook healthier foods containing less oils like stewed or boiled
food.

Both Australian and Japanese female participants acknowledged their partners arecapable and available to participate in food provision. However, both of them emphasised their skills and knowledge which cannot be replaced by their male partners.
In contrast to female ones, men’s narratives about labour associated with commensality was rather secondary. A 37 year-old Japanese man who was a father of
two children reported that he sometimes cooked at home:
I cook at home but it is not so often and when I have a time on holidays.
Last weekend, I made dumpling with my wife and children. My wife andI prepared the fillings, and wrapped them with children. I like cooking
and often cooked when I was single.
A 34 year-old Australian men, who was single and lived with his housemates,
said he liked cooking, but he did not want to make it an everyday practice:
I try to cook 3, 4 times per week. It is mostly for myself. I like cooking
but cooking more than 3, 4 times per week is a chore. I find it is perfectto split the cooking responsibility. If I have a wife that would be perfect.
Unlike female participants who were taking primary responsibilities for feeding family, their narratives focused on cooking for themselves or for their own lifestylechoices. For the heterosexual commensality, they emphasised their roles as a secondary to the female primary chefs as well as their discretionary participation todomestic activities.
Although many men engage with housework and facilitated more diverse rangeof masculinities, many women still took a primary role in cooking and caring responsibilities greater than men. Men’s involvement to these responsibilities wassecondary and special or at least not an everyday practice. The dynamic was more
explicit within the narratives on family commensality. This is mainly because formany women cooking represents not just a provision of nutritional substances, but
a provision of care. Similarly, many studies demonstrated how cooking as caring
are closely connected with femininity (DeVault, 1994; Sidenvall et al., 2000; Cairns
et al., 2010). Although individual narratives did not explicitly emphasise the relationship between food-related activities and gendered care-work, they employed
the knowledge and skills to provide more “tasty” or “healthy” foods than men. For
men, cooking as caring for others is not their primary role but playing the role inspecial occasions on behalf of women.

8.3. PRACTISING GENDER IN COMMENSALITY

155

In this Chapter, I compare and contrast narratives of commensality among Australian and Japanese participants in two different gender perspectives: static “gendering practices” and dynamic “practicing of gender”. The cross-cultural comparison supported the finding that gender conflicts were more evident in the narrativesof family commensality rather than gendered division of paid and non-paid work,
which the second-wave feminists paid attention to (Meah and Jackson, 2013). Socioeconomic boundaries between men and women are diminishing: more numbers of
women participate in paid employment and politics and more men are involved withdomestic work. At the same time, gender discrepancies resist in discursive practices and interactions like family commensality. Cross-cultural variations of genderconflicts was rather minimal: both Australian and Japanese women took primary
responsibilities for feeding and caring family, and both Australian and Japanese men
participated in domestic work in their own ways. Thus, the attention to social interactions provides insights on how gender determine eating experiences. The next
Chapter (Chapter 9) explores how social hierarchies, such as family, friends, andwork colleagues, affect eating experiences.

156

CHAPTER 8. GENDERED DYNAMICS AND COMMENSALITY

Chapter 9
Social relations: hierarchies andeveryday interactions
9.1

Social relations in reflexive modernity

The last socio-cultural determinant of commensality and solo-eating is social relations which refer to social hierarchies and everyday interactions. The discussion of“gendering practices” and “practicing of gender” in the previous Chapter (Chapter 8) suggests that the subtle form of gender in everyday interactions was as powerful as institutionalised gendering practices like division of domestic work to shapeindividual experiences of commensality. Like these gender relations, social hierarchies and everyday interactions influence a range of experience of commensality as
well as solo-eating.
In modern societies, social and individual lives are no longer directly governedby traditions but by individual’s subjectivity to their circumstance (Giddens, 1991).
The subjectivity, however, is not just a production of rational choices made by a
individual, but also “an emotional, embodied and cognitive process” in relation to
his/her social environments and everyday interactions (Holmes, 2010, 140). Likewise, individual lifestyles and values are constructed through the cultivation of subjectivities at the embodied intersection of individual and social worlds (Mellor andShilling, 2014, 275). Thus, subjectivities relate to, and follow from, social hierarchies
and everyday interactions.
Emotion is an important component shaping experiences of both commensality
and solo-eating. As discussed in Chapter 5, most of Australian and Japanese participants associated positive emotions with commensality (i.e. pleasure) and negative
emotions with solo-eating (i.e. loneliness). Danesi (2012, 12) asserted that these
emotions generate positive and negative evaluations of these eating practices as well
157

158CHAPTER 9. SOCIAL RELATIONS: HIERARCHIES AND EVERYDAY INTERACTIONS
as social arrangements (i.e. food choices) and social organisations (i.e. cooking
together) associated with these practices. At the same time, these emotions also
influence individual motivations on eating and behaviours (Macht, 2008).
Furthermore, Danesi (2012) also pointed out that emotional experiences of commensality and solo-eating can be reversed or mixed when people encountered conflicts between sociality and individual autonomy. For example, commensality canbe stressful when one felt his autonomy was compromised. Solo-eating can be pleasurable when one wished for individual autonomy. In other words, pleasure andstress of these eating practices are pleasure and stress of social hierarchies, everyday
social interactions or social isolations. In this regard, social relations have a great
impact on a range of experiences of commensality including meanings of commensality, associated behaviours, and emotions. These experiences with commensality
also shape experiences of solo-eating.
In this Chapter, I explore how social hierarchies and everyday interactions determine the experience of commensality and solo-eating among Australian and Japaneseparticipants. First, I examine participant’s narratives about pleasure and stress ofcommensality with family, friends, and work colleagues, and explore meanings ofcommensality and solo-eating among young adults. Then, I pay attention to differences between Australian and Japanese groups, and discuss how the interplay
between individuality and sociality are embodied in commensality and solo-eating
through different communication styles and cultural construction of commensality.

9.2

Meanings of commensality and solo-eating

9.2.1

Meanings of family commensality

Among various kinds of commensality, eating with family is considered as an archetypeof commensality in many societies. Modern family has been functioned as a fundamental institution of everyday consumption (Delphy, 2001). In particular, entering
cohabitation and marriage encourages more commensal eating, not only becauseof convenience to eat together but also because of socio-cultural expectations of
middle-class marriage life (Sobal et al., 2002). As discussed in Chapter 5, both
Australian and Japanese participants associated commmensality or eating together
with family meals: they listed similar words when they responded to the question ofeating with others and that of eating with family. The narratives about eating withfamily signify various aspects of pleasure and stress observed in other commensality
in a more explicit way.

9.2. MEANINGS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

159

Pleasure of family commensality
Three participants below described pleasure associated with eating with family incomparison to their experiences of eating alone or the absence of family time together. A 21 year-old Australian man described that a meal with his family is thetime that he finds pleasure of eating. He has opened his own business several months
before the interview, and spent most of time alone at his workplace. When he wasat work, he tends to eat something quick so that he could go back to work quickly.
He described,

I like cooking and like to have time to enjoy the meal but that is only
possible when I am with my family. When I work, I grab something
quick so that I can get back to work.
Australian and Japanese mothers described how they work hard to create pleasurable family commensality. A 34 year-old Australian woman described pleasure offamily commensality should come along with hard work for family gathering. She
recalled that her family often ate separately, because everyone works different shifts.
For example, her father did night shift. Sometimes her mother prepared dinner forher brother and her. Since she had her own family, she had tried to cook every day.
She said, “If I’ve gone to an effort to make something, we should enjoy it.” Fromher childhood experiences, she was aware having family commensality was not easy
and required efforts for preparing food and managing different people’s schedules.
A 27 year-old Japanese woman also reflected her childhood experiences that her
family did not eat together often. She said, “I brought up with a large family which
everyone had meal when they needed.” After the marriage, she became a full-timehousewife and started to spend more time for family commensality. She describedsharing time together with family over meal generated pleasure in eating, unlike her
childhood. She explained the mechanism of pleasurable commensality with family
by saying:

When we eat together, we tend to resonate the feelings of pleasure to eat
delicious food, and this stimulates communications among family. We
talk about which food is delicious, and what kinds of food we want to
eat the next. I feel good and I never feel lonely. Moreover, food tastes
better no matter what I ate!
Her interview explicitly described that pleasurable experiences of commensality was
not only associated with the pleasure of family togetherness but also the experiencesof good taste no matter what she ate. In other words, she believed that pleasurable

160CHAPTER 9. SOCIAL RELATIONS: HIERARCHIES AND EVERYDAY INTERACTIONS
commensality enhanced the pleasure in other aspects of eating like the experienceof taste.
Other than these two female participants, there were several participants reported similar experiences, and tried to make up what have been missing from theirchildhood experiences of family commensality. Having more time with family together than the previous generations appears to be an opposite phenomenon to the
popular presumption of the decline of family commensality over time. However,their narratives do not necessarily illustrate the number of family commensality iseither increasing or decreasing in contemporary Australian and Japanese societies.
Rather than the change in frequency of family commensality, these cross-cultural
narratives demonstrated that many young adults associated pleasure of eating withfamily commensality, although there were some stresses and difficulties associatedwith it. Similarly, Banwell et al. (2012)’s intergenerational generation study remarked that family commensality resists with some relaxation, and a discourse ofpleasure in eating became more valued than previous generations which considered
pleasurable eating as problematic.

Stress of family commensality
Family commensality can also be stressful, because of various socio-cultural expectations and rules associated with it. In particular, family is a group of people indifferent age group, gender, food preferences, and time schedules. Different viewsand expectations for ‘proper’ commensality sometimes create conflicts and stresses
among family members. A 39 year-old Australian woman described gendered practices during her holiday meals with her family.

Women cook, clean, and gossip in the kitchen. My parents judged thefood quite harshly. We eat conservative food, typical Australian disheswith roasted vegetable and potatoes. My father and two brothers inlaw will sit outside. Unless we specifically say, we women do all cooking
and cleaning, and men will not do it. It is just a natural thing always
happens and annoys me.
She expressed her frustrations at the situation in which men and women performdifferent things without any questions. This was an extraordinary moment for her
who lived alone far from her hometown and enjoyed cooking a wide range of foreign
cuisine for her friends and workmates.
A 33 year-old Japanese man described a tensed commensal moment with his
grandmother in his childhood.

9.2. MEANINGS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING161

My grandma is from a fish village. She eats the whole fish without
messing fish bones around. I was often nagged by my grandma about
how I ate the fish. Because of this, I was quiet and concentrate on my
behaviour particularly when I ate fish in front of my grandma.
His narrative signifies so-called “the cultural trainings for children in manners, social
skills, and nutrition education” (Chrzan, 2009). For him, the memory of commensality with his grandmother was lessons to acquire skills and knowledge of how to
eat fish without distracting people in front of him.
Family hospitality can be conflicted with individual thoughts on healthy eating
as well as commitments outside of the home. A 31 year-old Australian woman livingwith her retired parents in their 60s found her mother’s meals was not as unhealthy
as she wished. She said, “There is always desserts from shop, too much meats, andbigger portion size.” Outside the home or when she cooked for herself, she practised
what she thought to be healthy eating: she tried to avoid red meats and choose
fish, chicken, and vegetables. A 38 year-old Japanese man described the difficulty tobalance work and family commitments, and he said, “It is a dilemma to eat all what
I have been offered.” As a part of his business, he often drunk and ate somethingwith his clients or work colleagues before his went back home, and ate a proper
dinner at home prepared by his wife every night. Then, he ended up overeating. He
gained about 10 kg after his marriage and was advised by his doctor to reduce theweight. He said, “I know I have should have told my wife whenever I needed to eat
out, but it is hard to predict my schedule.”

9.2.2

Meanings of friend commensality

Sharing the meal with friends is an important time for cultivating sociability andself-identities outside of their family traditions. In contrast to family and workplace relationships, sharing the meal with friends is less likely to be constrainedby formality which many people feel stressful. There are more democratic waysof sharing of labours and decision-making regardless of social hierarchy (Danesi,2011). Therefore, commensality with friends is constituted with various elements
which make people feel pleasurable and comfortable. For this reason, for most of myparticipants, eating with friends was a pleasurable occasion which allow them someflexibilities. Few participants talked about stress of commensality with friends.
Solidarity with friends
Drinking together often signifies pleasurable and socially embodied practice (Niland et al., 2013). A 21 year-old Australian man described eating with friends in162CHAPTER 9. SOCIAL RELATIONS: HIERARCHIES AND EVERYDAY INTERACTIONS
comparison with eating with family:
It is just an excuse to catch up and have a good time. We become a bit
more adventurous. We have something we have not had before. Some
finger food to share instead of everyone get a plate, and a lot of drinking.
He emphasised sociability with friends and the relaxation of the meal in comparison
to structured meals with his parents in the past and everyday commensality withhis partner and daughter. He paid more attention on how to entertain others as well
as how to enjoy himself. He viewed drinking alcohol as “a social lubricant” which
enhanced sociability and solidarity among friends even more than eating together(Heath, 1999).
A 35 year-old Japanese man described differences between the relationship withhis friends and that with work colleagues.
For me, friends mean those who talk about both work and private stuff
like hobbies. Being with workmates can be as informal as “friends”, but
we talk more about work. I like riding a motorcycle and often hang out
with the motorcycle friends on the weekend. We share the same hobby
but our occupations and ages are different. I get to know some of themat the service stations.
Sharing a common interest signifies solidarities among his ‘friends’ as well as amonghis ‘workmates’. Although Danesi (2011) suggested solidarity among similar age
group, age similarity was not always crucial for solidarity among young adults: thisnarrative emphasised that sharing common hobby of motorcycle rather than age
similarities developed solidarity among his friends.
Although many previous studies focused on negative health impacts of friends(Voorend et al., 2013; Babor et al., 2010), friend commensality can be the time forsharing healthy eating habits and strengthen common identities as healthy eaters.
A 40 year-old Australian man said, “Most of my friends look after what they eat,
and we often discuss which food has less fat or a better alternative.” For him andhis friends, sharing the meal together was the time for exchanging knowledge andskills about healthy eating and lifestyle, and attempting to ensure uncertain notionsof healthy eating.
Freedom of choice
The sense of freedom of choices is an important aspect of egalitarian form of commensality (Danesi, 2011). A 20 year-old Australian woman described different eating
practices between when she ate with her family and her friends. She has been a vegetarian by choice for eight months. Most of her friends know she was a vegetarian,9.2. MEANINGS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

163

and some of them were also vegetarians. When she ate with her friends, she canchoose what she wants. When she was with her family, she picked what she can eat.
She said “I become more mindful of my portion size and food choices when I am withfriends (than with family)”, because being with friends provided her more freedom
to choose to what to buy and what to eat, and fulfil her identity as a vegetarian.
Despite of the egalitarian atmosphere, some felt pressured from their friends. A
37 year-old Australian woman described her frustration at her friend’s comments onwhat she ate.

I get comments a lot on what I eat. I never comment on anyone else
food. It seems like they feel guilty when I order something healthy likesalad. I do not care what they eat... It is really annoying.
Eating in front of others is always subject to other people’s eyes and judgements.
Even though individual choices are valued, it is indeed hard to avoid other people’s
influences. At the end, this participant felt pressured of her own choice from her
friends.
On the contrary, most of Japanese participants did not as explicitly talk muchabout their own choices as Australian participants. Rather, their narratives wereconcentrated on the pursuit for a consensus or mediation of all member’s preferences.
A 29 year-old Japanese woman said,(When I share the meal with friends), I think of a balance of the preference between myself and others. I try to avoid the food which anyof other members do not like. Also, (to share more variety), I choose
different food which others do not order.
She emphasised that freedom of choice can be achieved through paying attention to
everyone’s preferences and sharing various dishes to disperse mutual compromises.
However, the mutual compromises can be stressful for some Japanese participants. A 34 year-old Japanese woman said,

I often ended up letting others to decide everything. I eat what I wantwhen I am alone.
She felt intimidated to voice her opinion in the commensal occasion which most ofpeople drink alcohol. She was not a drinker. As long as drinking is a norm of social
eating and the majority support this, it is difficult to overturn the consensus because
one person does not want to drink.

164CHAPTER 9. SOCIAL RELATIONS: HIERARCHIES AND EVERYDAY INTERACTIONS

9.2.3

Meanings of commensality with work colleagues

Workplace commensality signifies two aspects of social relations at the workplace.
On one hand, similar to eating with friends, eating with work colleagues is an occasion to enhance group solidarity and good communications among work colleagues
or sometimes clients and bosses. On the other hand, some workplace relationships
are far different from intimate relationships like family and friends and involved withworkplace hierarchy and professional identities. However, the narratives were very
different between Australian and Japanese participants for commensality with family and friends, because two groups associated commensality with work colleagues
with different eating occasions. Australian participants’ narratives were concentrated on short-time gatherings during working hours like morning tea and lunch orafter-hour casual drinks. In contrast, Japanese participants focused on commensality over lunch and dinner outside of working hours which is a significantly longer
period of time. The difference is closely connected with different working culturesin Australia and Japan.
Informal channel for building relationships
For young adults at earlier stage of their careers, workplace commensality is an
informal channel to build a relationship with their superiors and work colleagues.
It is particularly important for young adults to absorb information and knowledge
from their work colleagues. A 26 year-old Japanese woman said,
It is easier to ask questions during a meal break than while working. My
senpai (senior colleagues) often share their own experiences. It is reallyencouraging that they try to help me learning.
Similarly, a 25 year-old Australian man said,
I think morning and afternoon tea practice is good. I get a sense ofpeople working around me. It is good to find out what people are doing.
That is a good aspect of it.
At the same time, he also indicated the difficulty to manage social gathering during
working hours.
It is quite nice but quite rush. People have real work to do during
working hours. We stand up and have very light thing like biscuit. Alsofrom the management point’s view, it might be inefficient. Limiting theamount of time is not a bad idea, because it sometimes carries on until
lunch. You need to strike the balance.

9.2. MEANINGS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

165

Another 25 year-old Australian man talked about the common practice during
lunch break at his workplace.
It is unique to my workplace. We always do puzzles. Someone will havelike a word search and you pass it along. It is in the newspaper. Sudoku
and whatever. My colleagues are a lot older. Sometimes I might find it
difficult to find a conversation with, and maybe that is why we do morepuzzle. It is much better than watching TV (during the break).
In front of others, many people feel obligated to find topics to talk, and it resulted inassociating commensality and negative emotions (Danesi, 2012, 9). It is especiallydifficult to find the common topic with someone are in different age groups. Sharing
some activities together reduces a psychological burden to be pressured to find aconversation and transform workplace to be comfortable eating places for many.
Meaning of workplace relations and associated behaviours in Australia
and Japan
Cross-cultural variations were also observed in the narratives about what participants thought socially appropriate behaviours associated with workplace sociality. In other words, the associated social behaviours represent what sorts of social
relations are expected in organisational settings in contemporary Australian andJapanese societies.
Australian participants, especially those who are engaged with professional occupations, emphasised self-control over their behaviours and languages to balancea relaxed sociality with their professional identities. A 34 year-old Australian man
said that there was a formality at workplace activities.
We are relaxed to certain degree but it has some degree of formality.
Let our guard a little bit. It is all controlled. We need to make sure we
present the department properly. We are a team of mature people.
Similarly, a 31 year-old Australian woman emphasised ‘self-control’ over her behaviours and language at the workplace.
I feel awkward to eating out with my senior colleagues. It is quite hard
to have a free flowing conversation. I am afraid that I will talk too much.
Sometimes I am very quiet.
Pleasure and sociality at the public workplace need to be rationalised and disciplined.
Coveney and Bunton (2003) remarked that the separation of emotional display ofpleasure from rationalised and disciplined pleasure originated from protestant ethics.

166CHAPTER 9. SOCIAL RELATIONS: HIERARCHIES AND EVERYDAY INTERACTIONS
In contrast to the sociality with intimate others, workplace relationships emphasised
moderation and restraints of sociality and pleasure during working hours.
On the contrary, Japanese participants’ narratives were centred on sociability
through drinking and eating together. Historically, Japan has never had an extensive temperament movement like many western societies, and drinking has neverbeen seen as a social problem (Partanen, 2006). Drinking together is the lifetime‘habitus’ to build all kinds of social relations, and the knowledge of alcohol, drinking
manners, and sociality is ‘a form of symbolic capital’ acquiring through repetitive
practices (McDonald and Sylvester, 2014, 342). Several Japanese young adult participants reported they wished to master the drinking ‘habitus’ and to provide good
impressions to their work colleagues especially senior colleagues outside of theirworking environments. A 28 year-old Japanese man said, “It is always challenging
for me to be smart on entertaining my boss and senior colleagues when we eat anddrink together, like finding an empty glass and pouring drinks in the timing theywish. More difficult thing is to find a topic which they may be interested in. It ismuch easier just to listen to them”. Some people are really good at entertaining
others. I want to learn from them.
A 38 year-old Japanese man who was an experienced sale representative talked
about the signification to master the drinking ‘habitus’.

(In the drinking occasions) I can ask questions and talk about my opinions in an informal way. For example, I can ask my president about histhoughts on new projects, and plans. During daytime (working hours),
it is too formal and too hard to know what he really thinks. There
are some constraints and company’s policies which I need to follow.
(Through drinking together), I plan how I can circumvent constraints
and find opportunities for my work.

For him, the informal communication through drinking together outside of working
hours is an asset to strengthen his work performance during working hours. Drinking
together is one of a few accepted strategies to ‘unwrap’ formal social relations andestablish a more direct form of communication (Partanen, 2006, 186).
I do not intend to describe that Australians prefer formal workplace relationships
and Japanese do not. Rather I argue that the cross-cultural difference in workplacecommensality is identified in combination with different working styles which I discussed in Chapter 6. Japanese spend longer time at their workplace and invest moretime for work-related sociality than Australians who spend more time for family andfriends.

9.3. INDIVIDUALITY AND SOCIALITY

9.2.4

167

Meanings of solo-eating

Pleasure and stress of solo-eating has been already discussed in Chapter 7. To
sum up, solo-eating is an individual activity, and embodies the tensions between
the loneliness to be isolated from everyday interactions and the pleasure to be freefrom social pressures. In parallel, the experience of solo-eating was also sensitive
to eating places and social meanings associated with public spaces. The narratives
about solo-eating in public varied between Australian and Japanese participants.
Many Australian participants viewed eating out as a social activity no matter ifthey eat with others or alone, and eating home at home as a private and individual
activity. In contrast, for most Japanese participants, eating in public does notnecessarily means a social and collective activity. For them, the social boundaries
of collective and individual activities is determined by relationships between self
and others rather than physical domains of spaces. Public spaces outside of dailysocial network is another social spaces without worrying about everyday interactions.
In other words, public spaces can be both social and individual spaces. Further
discussions over different value orientations in the following Section.

9.3

Boundaries of individuality and sociality inAustralian and Japanese culinary cultures

The previous Section shows that pleasure and stress of commensality and solo-eating
are influenced by tensions between individuality and sociality. Cross-cultural comparison demonstrates that the interplay between individuality and sociality varies
between Australian and Japanese groups. I argue that boundaries between individuality and sociality are closely related to cultural, religious and linguistic constructions of social hierarchies and everyday interactions as well as that of the practicesof commensality and solo-eating. In this Section, I present two key attributes to theobserved cross-cultural differences between Australian and Japanese: communication styles and cultural construction of commensality. Then, I explore boundaries ofindividuality and sociality between different cultural groups and how the boundaries
contribute to develop different form of individualisation of eating.

9.3.1

Individualism and social relativism

The first key attribute to cross-cultural differences is different value orientations underlying communication styles and consequent behaviours in Australian and Japaneseparticipants. In particular, decision-making processes including food choices in com-

168CHAPTER 9. SOCIAL RELATIONS: HIERARCHIES AND EVERYDAY INTERACTIONS
mensal contexts explicitly varied between two cultural groups. Before I discuss communication styles, I introduce cross-cultural frameworks to describe different value
orientations between Australian and Japanese groups.
Individualism-collectivism (I-C) framework is used to describe how value orientations underline certain social behaviours and interpersonal communication styles
in different cultural groups. As noted in Chapter 1, applying this framework to
describe whole culture risks to overlook individualistic aspects in collectivist culture and vice versa. Meta-analysis of various cross-cultural comparisons based on
the I-C framework showed heterogeneity of definitions and measurements (Oyserman et al., 2002). In particular, collectivism has been questioned for the absenceof what constitutes collectives in theorising and measuring collectivism as well as
out-group bias of researchers from individualist cultures (Brewer and Chen, 2007).
In other words, collectivism was constructed as a counterpart of individualism forcross-cultural comparison, and undermines multidimensionality of attitudes, values,
and practices which constitute collectivism. To explore the multidimensionality, I
employ an emic conception of Japanese self and behaviours, social relativism (Lebra, 1984, 2004). In contrast to collectivism, individualism has stronger historicalconstructs of western philosophy including history of ideas, politics, economics, religion, and psychology (Kagitcibasi, 2005). Although it is also a collection of various
characteristics, most of characteristics of individualism showed much higher validity
for cross-cultural comparison (Schimmack et al., 2005).
Social relativism focuses on temporal and situational preoccupations of social
hierarchies and everyday interactions over the individuality. According to Lebra(1984, 158), in social relativist views, individual autonomy is achieved only in social
isolation, when one is outside of his everyday interactions. In other words, individuals in social relativism seek for their autonomy only when they are outside of theirsocial hierarchies like when they eat alone. The compromise of individual preferences and choices is not explicitly questioned but rather taken for granted for thesake of sociality.
Some characteristics of individualism were identified in the narratives of foodchoice among Australian participants. Compared to Japanese, more Australianparticipants emphasised their individual autonomy for food choices when they atewith others as well as when they ate alone. Consequently, like the finding of Danesi(2011)’s study about French and German young adults, more Australian participants looked for more flexible and egalitarian forms of commensality which allowed
individual members to choose by their own will. The conflict between individuality and sociality was more explicit when individuals viewed their autonomy was9.3. INDIVIDUALITY AND SOCIALITY

169

compromised by other people’s influences. In contrast, Japanese participants emphasised group consensus and social hierarchies when they eat commensally, andfreedom of choice can be achieved through sharing a variety of dishes and seeking
mutual compromises. Some try to achieve their autonomy when they eat alone.

9.3.2

Cultural construction of commensality: sharing thetable or sharing the food

The second attribute is cultural, religious and linguistic constructions of commensality and solo-eating. The practice of commensality is a universally shared practicewhich creates the sense of community as well as the boundaries between the collective self and others. Globalisation of food environments negate cultural diversity
in world’s culinary cultures. Notwithstanding, what physically and symbolicallyconstitutes commensality is shaped by cultural and linguistic constructions of thepractice.
The English term commensality literally means sharing the same table (mensa
is a table in Latin) (Weichart, 2008; Fischler, 2011). The table laid for a meal sitson the centre of Christian tradition of eating like the Eucharist. In contrast to otherregions, Christianity as a whole did not set up any prohibition of specific food items,
but it has promoted various attitudes toward how to consume food around the table(Albala, 2011). In early Christianity, love feast or agape was designed to promotesocial harmony and brotherhood, and the site to exercise charity (Albala, 2011). In
Australia, the commensality has extended to outdoor meals like picnic and barbeque.
The extension inherited egalitarian sprits of commensality, and at the same time
accommodated multicultural culinary traditions within modern Australian societies.
At outdoor, tablecloth instead of table played symbolic roles “to delimit the eating
space and to serve as a civilising device” (Santich, 2012, 83). Despite the variationsof setting in time and space, commensality has been sociability taken place aroundthe table.
On the contrary, in Japanese language, a strong sense of fellowship associatedwith eating together is often expressed as “eating from the same rice-cooking pan(onaji kamano meshi wo kuu)”. The metaphoric linkage between rice and social
hierarchies is not limited to the relations among those who consume together, but
it is extended to a larger network of rice production including rice paddies andtheir lands (Ohnuki-Tierney, 1993, 97). The cosmology would also shape symbolic
boundaries of intimacy and distance. For the Japanese, both sharing food and drinks
cannot be separate from social interactions, and is a more prominent symbol of
fellowship than having a good conversation over the meals (Lebra, 1984, 3-4). In fact,

170CHAPTER 9. SOCIAL RELATIONS: HIERARCHIES AND EVERYDAY INTERACTIONS
several Japanese participants reported that they rarely have conversations especiallywhen they ate with family members. In reverse, drinking sake alone and pouring sakefor oneself (hitori-zake) is one of the expression of loneliness (Ohnuki-Tierney, 1993).
This conception is also divergent from Mary Douglas (1972)’s dichotomy of meals
and drinks: “Drinks are for strangers, acquaintances, workmen, and family. Meals
are for family, close friends, honoured guests” (Douglas, 1972, 66). Both sharing
foods and sharing drinks have equivalent symbolic powers to foster the fellowships.
Commensality is a cultural symbol of social network around the food and drinks.
Cultural and linguistic construction of commensality has little been examined ina cross-cultural perspective. As discussed in Chapter 2, most of previous literature
on commensality treated the practice as a universally standardised one. Christine Delphy (2001) compared French and Tunisian commensality, and concluded
that only gender roles rather than different modalities of commensality “could givean account of the variability of content of differential consumption”(Delphy, 2001,280). However, in addition to everyday consumption of food, commensality denotes
metaphorical and spiritual acts of eating. Despite the loosening the direct connection with traditions, local habitus and cosmology are reflexively reconstructed
through individual subjectivities and interactions with others. In particular, thelocal boundaries determine to what extent of sharing is desirable for pleasurable
commensality.
Boundaries between individuality and sociality embodied in commensality andsolo-eating varied between Australian and Japanese cultures. I examined how different communication styles and constructions of commensality shaped different local
boundaries. Consequently, the directions and trajectories of the development of individualisation of eating vary between these cultural groups. Although solo-eating
is a common practice among both groups, more Japanese have positive images ofsolo-eating in public than Australians. In contrast, the arrangement of commensality was more individualised among Australians, and allows more flexibility andegalitarianism.
In this Chapter, I focus on the most micro determinants of commensality, social hierarchies and everyday interactions. I explore how meanings of commensality
and solo-eating are constructed through the cultivation of individual reflexivity tosocial hierarchies and everyday interactions. Individual emotions and thoughts are
powerful agents to determine social and individual lives. Both commensality andsolo-eating embody individual’s knowledge about his/her circumstances as well as
collective religious and utilitarian purposes. Emotions become a crucial component
to alter individual and social lives. The authority of tradition appears to be re-9.3. INDIVIDUALITY AND SOCIALITY

171

placed by emotions and rational choices. However, cross-cultural differences areconstructed through the cultivation of individual reflexivity. In the next Chapter,I bring all socio-cultural determinants, and discusses how cross-cultural similarities
and differences shape practices of commensality and solo-eating and explores how
the interplay of global cultural flows impacts on individual lifestyle choices.

172CHAPTER 9. SOCIAL RELATIONS: HIERARCHIES AND EVERYDAY INTERACTIONSPart III
Implications and final remarks

173

Chapter 10
Commensality and solo-eating inchanging societies
In the era of globalisation, everyday practices of commensality and solo-eating become sites of various socio-cultural dynamics within global cultural economy. It is
increasingly important to understand the relationships among globalisation, eating
practices, and consumption. Cross-cultural analyses of two cultural groups withdifferent culinary traditions demonstrated a range of cases and issues which have
not yet been addressed from single-culture analyses and cross-national comparisons.
In this Chapter, I return to three research objectives noted in Chapter 1, and discuss how cross-cultural findings from Australian and Japanese young adults can besituated in global cultural economy.

10.1

Socio-cultural determinants of commensality and solo-eating

The first objective of the thesis is to identify what determines everyday commensality and solo-eating. As discussed in Chapter 2, what constitutes the practices ofcommensality and solo-eating was little examined. Majority of studies concentrated
on comparisons between the presence and absence of others, and paid attention
to dichotomy of collective commensality and individualistic solo-eating. In particular, popular debates over the decline of family meals and commensalism centre
on social fragmentation of collective practices and development of urban anomie
in post-modern societies. These debates tended to focus on dichotomous ideas ofproper family meals and evil solitary eating, and some literature associated this dichotomy with healthy and unhealthy eating. Particularly, these discourses become
popular because they highlighted social anxieties over shifting gender roles or other175

176CHAPTER 10. COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING IN CHANGING SOCIETIES
associated social changes like globalisation. The discussion has even extended toundervalue food-related workers who are more likely to be minorities of the society such as women, people of colour, immigrants, and working class individuals incontemporary societies (Julier, 2013, 21).
In this thesis, I paid attention to both commensality and solo-eating as wellas continuity and discontinuity between the two practices, because the dichotomous
moral debates over happy commensality and evil solitary eating mask complexities ofhuman sociality and food consumption in globalisation. Part II (Chapters 4 through9) examined a range of socio-cultural dynamics associated with commensality andsolo-eating, with each Chapter focusing on how particular socio-cultural dynamics
influence life chances and life choices of individuals in urban Australia and Japan.

10.1.1

Overview of cross-cultural findings

In this Section, I briefly summarise cross-cultural findings, particularly similarities and differences between Australian and Japanese experiences discussed in each
Chapter.
In Chapter 4, based on literature review, I examined macro-level socio-economic
structures as well as histories and genealogies of commensality in Australia andJapan. The comparison showed that Australia and Japan shared similar socioeconomic structures as a service-dominant economy and a liberal welfare state.
However, a close look at the comparison demonstrated different trajectories or genealogies of the development of a service-dominant economy and food system, aliberal welfare state, female labour participation, a socio-economic disparity, andan ideology of domesticity and family dining. In particular, the cross-cultural comparison of evolutions of family dining suggested that realisation of domesticity andfamily dining requires specific socio-economic and family circumstances.
Based on Cultural Consensus Analysis, Chapter 5 examined images and meanings of commensality and solo-eating shared among Australian and Japanese young
adults. Both Australian and Japanese young adults viewed commensality as symbolof everyday sociality and pleasurable events. However, cross-cultural comparisons
showed greater variations in contexts of commensality and solo-eating practices suchas different relationships with television and different attitudes and behaviours associated with workplace commensality. Comparison between gender subgroups ofAustralian and Japanese groups showed more female participants associated family
commensality with gender expectations of food provision and frustrations associatedwith the expectations.
Based on time-use diaries and in-depth interview, Chapters 6 through 9 explored10.1. DETERMINANTS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

177

four sets of socio-cultural factors. Chapter 6 showed timing of everyday commensality was significantly influenced by time schedules of participants and their household members. Comparisons between Australian and Japanese groups demonstrated
different patterns of commensality and solo-eating and different kinds of time constraints associated with eating. These differences were closely related to women’s
participation to paid employment, adoption of work-life balance, and working cultures perpetuated in their societies. Chapter 7 investigated meanings of eating insideand outside of the household among participants. This Chapter suggested that thedemocratisation of public eating not only reduced labour burdens on food provision but also diminished gendered divisions between the public and private spheres.
However, cross-cultural comparisons showed different meanings of public eating between Australian and Japanese groups. The difference indicated different cultural
economy of eating alone within societies. Chapter 8 focused on gender relations
associated with divisions of household labour and cooking responsibilities, and suggested that gender conflicts were more evident in gendered division of labours withinfamily commensality than the division of paid and non-paid work among household
members. Chapter 9 showed that social hierarchies and everyday interactions werepowerful components to determine subjective experiences of commensality and soloeating. Although post-modern literature insisted that social norms and traditions
have been replaced by individual choices, social and cultural influences were reproduced through individual reflexivity to embedded social hierarchies and everyday
social interactions.
The findings from Part II suggested that both commensality and solo-eating are
dynamic practices shaped by a cluster of four everyday determinants (eating places,
time, gender dynamics, and social relations) rather than homogeneous ones built
on the distinction between the presence and the absence of sociality. Comparisons
between Australian and Japanese groups showed that these determinants play differently in Australian and Japanese societies. Explicit differences between Australianand Japanese groups were identified in timings of solo-eating, perceptions on soloeating in public, gender conflicts associated with food provision for commensality,and notions of individual autonomy. Drawn on Mauss (1973)’s “technique of thebody” describing body as the site for inscribing social disciplines, Appadurai (1996,67) asserted that consumption is centred on habitation through periodical repetition
rather than imitation of social superiors. In this regard, cross-cultural differencesin the practices of commensality and solo-eating are developed through repetitions
and habitations of these practices in response to the tension between histories andgenealogies of these practices in each society.

178CHAPTER 10. COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING IN CHANGING SOCIETIES

10.1.2

Interactions with global cultural trends

The development of four socio-cultural determinants and cross-cultural differencesof commensality and solo-eating are intertwined with the tension between global
cultural dynamics and habitus or disposition embedded in local communities. Figure 10.1 presents the relationships among global cultural trends, local habitus, everyday determinants, and the practices of commensality and solo-eating. Below
Figure 10.1: Interactions among global cultural trends, local habitus, everyday determinants, and the practices of commensality and solo-eating

Global cultural trends

Time

Space

Local habitus

Genderdynamics

Socialrelations

Everyday determinantsof commensality andsolo-eating

Habitation throughrepetition
Commensality

Solo-eating

I show how these four everyday determinants interact with three kinds of global
cultural trends in contemporary Australian and Japanese societies.
Shifting gender roles and conflicts
Women’s participation to paid employmentis often portrayed as a major factor affecting the global shift of gendered division of labour at the household as well as
individualisation of lifestyle. The decline of home-cooking and family meals are an
opportunity to complain shifting gender roles (Julier, 2013). Comparison of cases
in urban Australia and Japan, however, provides a new perspective on the debate.
Originated from country’s labour market structure and working cultures developed
from the post-war period (see Chapter 4 for detail), women’s participation to paid
employment varied between Australia and Japan. Australia is dominated by doubleincome households and Japan is dominated by single-income households, and thistrend was reflected among young adult married participants. Experiences of Australian and Japanese young adults present a good comparison of time-use and eating10.1. DETERMINANTS OF COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING

179

practices between male breadwinner’s single-income households and double-income
households. Weekday dinner was most common commensal occasions among Australian participants, and most of working participants came back home for family
dinners. In contrast, it was most common occasion for solo-eating among Japaneseparticipants because most of male and female full-time workers stay at workplacelate while their family members had dinner. Most of them ate dinner alone at home,
workplace, or outside. This comparison reveals that synchronisation of family members’ time schedules is more important to eat with family than male breadwinnerhousehold structure.
Despite global shift of gendered division of labour, the majority of food-related
work are still done by women, and both Australian and Japanese young adults stillcling to the notion of family meals based on gendered division of labour. Their viewsof gender equality and family meals described as conflicted. On the one hand, more
women enjoyed pursuing their careers outside of the household and obtain economic
independence. On the other hand, many women felt guilty to neglect their household
responsibilities. Cross-cultural comparison showed that the conflicted views are
more explicit in narratives of family meals than that of gendered division of paid
and non-paid work. Furthermore, these discrepancies between ideals and realities
makes family meals more difficult and stressful experiences.

Demographic changes, living alone and eating spaces
One of structural factors driving prevalence of solo-eating is the fact that more
people live alone or live with smaller numbers of family members (Mestdag andGlorieux, 2009). Cohabitation and shared household relationships promote everyday commensal eating (Sobal et al., 2002). The fact that more people live alone
inevitably suggests that more people eat alone. As discussed in Chapter 7, population ageing fosters the nationwide prevalence of single-person households andgenerates socio-economic demands for single customers in urban Japan. Food processing and restaurant industries respond to the demands and serve to provide a
range of choices for single customers.
The higher prevalence of living alone and eating alone among Japanese young
adults, however, does not necessarily means that eating becomes a more anomic
practice than Australians. In urban Japan which showed higher prevalence of singleperson households than urban Australia, eating alone in public is emerged as analternative social spaces for both men and women. Originated from gendered ideologies of public and private spheres, eating alone in public is a stigmatised practiceespecially for women in western societies as well as women in Japan. However,180CHAPTER 10. COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING IN CHANGING SOCIETIES
the transformation of urban public spaces along with nation’s rapid demographic
changes foster the shift of cultural meanings of eating alone in public in urban Japan.
Although I did not identify a similar trend from the narratives of Australian young
adults, both Australian and Japanese participants were aware of pleasure and stressof commensality and solo-eating, and eating out is very common among two culturalgroups. Some Australian participants from Sydney showed some acceptance of thepractice of eating alone in public spaces. It is estimated that single-person household in Australia is expected to increase between 61% and 65% from 2011 to 2036
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015c), whereas the expected increase in Japan is
14.8% between 2010 to 2030 (National Institute of Population and Social Security
Research, 2013). Therefore, the transformation of urban public spaces may changes
cultural attachments to public eating among young adults in urban Australia.
Another explanation for the cross-cultural variations is an evolutionary perspective of human food-ways, particularly the impact of different cultural history underlying the idea of public and private spaces. Public eating is not an emerging practicein many Asian societies. In urban Japan, street stalls and carts were emerged in the
mid-seventeenth century during the mid-Edo period (Harada, 2006). Although thestreet vendors has disappeared due to nation’s modernisation policies, the image of
public eating was sustained as Japanese imaginary of pre-Western merchant culture(Solt, 2012). After the second world war, stand-up noodle stand emerged to provide
quick meals for male workers (Ashkenazi, 1991). It can be said that the familiarity
with public eating reduce negative images associated with eating alone and accelerate the adoption of eating alone in public among middle-class Japanese young adults
living a rapid ageing society. In contrast, Australian young adults considered eating
alone in public as inappropriate and continue to see public spaces as social one. In
this regard, as Fischler (2011) suggested, strong cultural and religious attachments
to middle-class commensalism and home-cooking may override the development ofsolo-eating industries and the adoption of solo-eating in public.

Reflexivity and individualisation of eating
Rise of individualism and reflexivity is a common explanation for individualisation in
post-modern literature (Giddens, 1991; Bauman, 2000; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim,
2002). However, this view is inclined to overly emphasise individual agencies, selfidentities and choices in parallel with the discourses of economic liberalism andsovereign consumer (Germov, 1997). It is the discourses of consumerism and neoliberalism that have constructed the ideology of autonomous decision makers. Additionally, these discourses developed based on research and debates in western10.2. CONSTRUCTION OF CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES 181
societies, which have long histories and academic sophistications of individualism(Kagitcibasi, 1997, 2005). Therefore, the individualisation thesis does not fully capture dynamic experiences of commensality and solo-eating (e.g. emotions and foodchoices) particularly in non-western contexts.
Cross-cultural analyses showed that experiences of commensality and solo-eatingwere shaped by social hierarchies and everyday interactions. Relationships and interactions with commensal partners (e.g. family, friends and work colleagues) construct different meanings of commensality and associated behaviours. Meanings ofsolo-eating are reflections of their commensality with different people rather thanbeing constructed by itself. Thus, social norms and everyday interactions still play
important roles to shape experiences of commensality as well as solo-eating. As
discussed in Chapter 9, a comparison between Australian and Japanese narratives
showed variations in notions of individual autonomy and decision-making processes
when they eat commensally. More Australian participants emphasised their individual autonomy for food choices and behaviours when they ate with others as wellas when they ate alone. In contrast, Japanese participants emphasised group consensus and social hierarchies when they eat commensally, and some claimed that
freedom of choice can be achieved through sharing a variety of dishes and seeking
mutual compromises. Some Japanese participants tried to achieve their autonomy(i.e. eating what they want to eat) when they eat alone. Thus, communicationstyles and hierarchies within societies influence food choices and eating behavioursof individuals when they eat commensally and alone.

10.2

Construction of culture and cultural differences

The second objective is to understand what determines cross-cultural similarities anddifferences between Australian and Japanese experiences of eating and consumption.
In contemporary public health, culture is a popular concept to explain differences
between different cultural groups. Despite the popularity of culture in the field, mostof public health studies claimed the influence of culture without careful examinationsof cultural pathways and determinants (Hruschka, 2009). Similarly, the previous
literature on commensality and solo-eating in public health were concentrated on
examining the impacts of commensality and solo-eating, particularly the presence
and absence of socio-cultural forces, on individual behaviours and health outcomes(Pliner and Bell, 2009). Few studies focused on social and cultural constructionof eating and consumption. Thus, in most of public health studies dominated by

182CHAPTER 10. COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING IN CHANGING SOCIETIES
positivist postures, culture is treated as the same property as physical categories suchas age, sex, and race, and presumed that a specific belief, attitude, or behaviours
directly contributes to health outcomes.
The current cross-cultural study, however, demonstrated that differences between Australian and Japanese groups are the product of contextual, heuristic, andcomparative descriptions highlighting similar and different dimensions of individual
ways of life. Thus, the property of culture is different from physical categories andrequires careful investigations of its construction. Furthermore, as discussed in theprevious section, socio-cultural determinants of commensality and solo-eating are
not simply shaped by local habitus alone but the interaction with global cultural
trends. In other words, a range of tendencies to individualisation were identified
at the different aspects of eating rather than culture as a whole (i.e. individualist
and collective cultures), and the representations of individualisation of eating varies
across cultures and societies due to different process of habitation of commensality and solo-eating. Therefore, differences and similarities between Australian andJapanese experiences of eating are the construction of the interactions rather thendifferences between individualist and collectivist cultures. There is no clear-cut difference to describe which cultural group is more individualised than the another bysingle measurement of individualism.
This constructivist understanding of everyday eating practices is necessary to
examine holistic and dynamic natures of socio-cultural determinants in different
cultures and societies. Although some specific beliefs and behaviours can have a
profound effect on consumption and health outcome, the construction of the beliefs
and behaviours can vary across cultures and societies. Misinterpretation of socialand cultural constructs leads mislead the relationship between a cultural exposureand an outcome.

10.2.1

Discordance between cultural ideals and reality

The image of happy family meals and commensality is a powerful representation ofcultural ideals in many societies. In current study, I found that the idea of happy
commensality are shared among Australian and Japanese participants as symbols
of modern family and lifestyle. However, the hegemony of certain images of commensality and solo-eating is problematic because it discourages a critical attention
to the image as a cultural ideal and the contradiction between the ideal and reality may generate dissatisfaction and disillusionment with life. Daly (2001) notedthat her participants expressed dissatisfaction and disillusionment about their family life rather than questioning about the feasibility of the cultural ideal, when they

10.3. RELATIONSHIPS WITH HEALTHY EATING

183

experienced contradictions between the cultural ideal and reality of their family
life. Not only lay participants stick to the ideal, but many academics started theirstudies on the topic from the presumption that family meals and commensality aresocially, morally, and physically positive and explored positive impacts of commensality (Wilk, 2010). Thus, most of debates on the discordance between the cultural
ideal and reality focus on how to change the reality like workload and childcare
which are beyond their control. So far, no public policy and research successful
identifies a solution to reduce the discordance.
The gulf between the cultural ideal and reality is much deeper in non-western
societies which recently adopted the cultural ideal. As noted in Chapter 4, theidea of happy family meals were realised among Japanese families during the postwar economic development in the 1950s and 1980s, along with the development of a
nuclear family with a full-time housewife (Omote, 2010). The image of happy family
meals was introduced and reproduced by school education and mass media. In spiteof the popularity of the image, it is hard to state that the idea of happy family mealis implemented in contemporary Japan in everyday basis. Many full-time workers
stay at work late and cannot join dinner with family members. My empirical dataalso showed that fewer Japanese participants than Australian participants reported
that they do not eat main meals, particularly dinners, with their family members on
their work days. The idea of happy family meals becomes a social imaginary whichis hardly realised in everyday life in Japan.
In the era of globalisation, it is increasingly necessary to understand the dynamics
constituting social practices and cross-cultural differences. Deeper understanding of
the dynamics of social life and cross-cultural differences helps not only reducing
the structural contradiction between cultural ideals and realities but also improving
people’s satisfaction in life.

10.3

Relationships with healthy eating

The last objective is to understand the relationship between commensality, soloeating and population health. Indeed it appears to be harder to associate healthyeating with commensality. There is a substantial gap between commensalism andpublic health notions of healthy eating (Poulain, 2002). Many Australian andJapanese young adult participants viewed healthy eating based on self-control overfood intake and quantities. Some of them viewed that they ate healthier when they
ate alone, because they could control their intake and food choice without interrupting by others. This idea of healthy eating is strong among young adults and184CHAPTER 10. COMMENSALITY AND SOLO-EATING IN CHANGING SOCIETIES
sometimes conflicts with older generations like their parents and grandparents, because they have been exposed to nutrition guidelines and obesity preventions which
focus on healthy food intakes and behaviours at the individual level.
The gap between commensality and healthy eating has been expanded due tothe epidemiological shift from under-nutrition to over-nutrition. According to an
evolutionary study, the development of food sharing with non-family members contributes to longevity among humans, because the practice fosters distribution offood to wider range of people (Lee, 2008). As discussed Chapter 2, it is a robust
evidence that commensality tend to encourage eating more quantities among general
populations, and it may contribute reducing hunger and under-nutrition. However,the drastic shift to over-nutrition and rise of obesity and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) changes socio-cultural circumstances of commensality. Some young
adult participants concerned about overeating or excessive fat intake when they eat
commensally, and this view generates some conflicts with older generations who
encourage them to eat more quantities.
However, self-reflection on what is good to eat are not only from nutritional notions but also from moral constructions of food and eating (Coveney et al., 2012).
Commensality is still a vital part of human sociality and the obverse, solo-eating,is often an experience of social isolation and loneliness. There are possibilities thatthe moral views may affect individual well-being. On the one hand, an epidemiological research showed that frequent consumption of main meals commensally was
associated with overall well-being (Yiengprugsawan et al., 2015). Other literaturesuggested that chronic experiences of social exclusion has serious impacts on attention, cognition, affect, and behaviour (Hawkley and Cacioppo, 2010). On theother hand, commensality can be stressful when individuals need to compromise
their own preferences or when they are constrained by social norms and hierarchy(Danesi, 2012). The impacts of social norms and relations vary by communicationstyles which influence individual eating behaviours and food choices. Busy modern lifestyles make commensality difficult. Many Japanese full-time workers comeback home late and have dinner alone in the late evening. Many Australian workers struggled to synchronise multiple schedules to spend meals time together with
their family, friends, and work colleagues. Commensality became a practice which
requires individual’s efforts and determinations in order to achieve every day. Thus,
solo-eating, while sometimes lonely, can be less stressful.

Chapter 11
Conclusion
11.1

Consumption and culture

Commensality is a common everyday practice and a symbol of sociality in manysocieties. Growing industrialisation, urbanisation, and modernisation of lifestyles
develop discussions that traditional, collective ways of eating are being replaced byindividual eating including eating alone and individual choices of food. However,these post-modern discussions of individualisation of eating increases its attention
to behaviours directed by individualism and consumerism and ignores the fact thatthese discourses are developed within social contexts (Germov, 1997, 42). Althoughsome literature discusses cultural variations across societies, they emphasised impacts of dominant cultural values to eating behaviours alone: strong materialism
and individualism in western societies undermines social significances of lifestyle(Eckersley, 2006), and strong attachments to these values foster cultural variations
within western societies (Fischler, 2011). Few literature examined dynamic aspectsof culture and its influence on everyday life.
This cross-cultural study reveals that the development of solo-eating is not ahomogeneous phenomenon driven by consumerism and urban anomie alone. It isintertwined with the tension between histories and genealogies of these practices ineach society. More specifically, cultural variations in the adoption and prevalenceof commensality and solo-eating are not driven by strong individualist values alone,
but it is fostered by a range of socio-cultural dynamics lying behind every eating,working, and family practices. Drawn on cross-cultural analysis of young adults inurban Australia and Japan, I identified four everyday determinants of commensality
and solo-eating: time, places, gender, and social relations. These determinants playdifferently depending on habitations of these practices within societies.
This study contributes to the literature on socio-cultural determinants of every185

186

CHAPTER 11. CONCLUSION

day practices and consumption, and their implications to population health. The
study demonstrates that everyday consumption and practices are constructed in theinteractions between socio-cultural cultural dynamics (e.g. development of technology and demographic changes) and everyday social interactions (e.g. communicationstyles and habitation of practices). This supports the idea that cross-cultural differences are not the differences of substantial properties such as the presence orabsence of strong individualism or collectivism, but heuristic constructs of a rangeof socio-cultural dynamics shaping individualisation of eating.
I also stress that cross-cultural analyses contribute to provide critical perspectives
on existing concepts and theories. Most of studies on consumptions are conductedin western societies which share relatively similar cultural, religious, and linguistic
backgrounds. Many researchers in public health still apply the privileged knowledge
to non-western contexts without critically investigating existing concepts and theories. For example, a study showed that discourses involved with the development of
the popular Ottawa Charter centred on western or coloniser’s views of health promotion and social justice and marginalised voices of minorities (McPhail-Bell et al.,2013). Thus, critical views on the development of concepts and theories throughcross-cultural analyses are significant to understand diverse adoptions of consumer
practices in different societies.The more diverse a society in culture and history,
the more complex interactions of socio-cultural dynamics, the most diverse adoption of consumer practices are likely to be. Thus, the development of cross-cultural
studies would help improve research and policies targeting populations from diverse
backgrounds.

11.2

Consumption in other non-western societies

This project is an exploratory study to understand socio-cultural determinants ofcommensality and solo-eating, based on one-time fieldwork in Australia and Japan.
The study examined contextual and comparative dimensions of commensality andsolo-eating through cross-cultural comparison of young adults in two societies whichshare similar socio-economic background, occupations, education attainment, andsense of middle-class identities. Inter-group differences were concentrating on the
distribution of single-income households, communication styles and historical foundations of family dining and commensality. However, the transformation of everyday eating practices is not limited to Australia, Japan, and other western countries.
For example, southeast Asian societies have experienced more rapid socio-economicchanges in one generation than Australia and Japan. Poulain et al. (2014, 2015)

11.3. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTHY EATING CAMPAIGNS

187

reported that in Malaysia, norms and practices of everyday eating, including collective eating and individual eating, varied by socio-economic class, ethnic groups,
religion, and urban-rural disparities. Investigating global cultural flows in theserising economies would reveal a wider range of impacts of global cultural flows on
everyday practices. The current study could constitute a foundation of qualitative
cross-cultural studies in other parts of the world.

11.3

Implications for healthy eating campaigns

Lastly, I conclude my PhD thesis by proposing a new approach to healthy eating
campaigns. As discussed in Chapter 2, previous literature focused on health implications of the presence and absence of others during meals. However, the evidence was
not consistent to claim a direct causal relationship between positive health outcomesand either commensality or solo-eating. Additionally, both commensality and soloeating are everyday practices for most of adult population. It is neither reasonable
nor ethical to promote one of these eating practices and demote another.
Because of different social meanings and behaviours associated with these practices, rather than focusing on direct health impacts of these eating practices, I
propose that both commensality and solo-eating are potential sites for promoting
healthy eating. Today, most of public health messages on healthy eating (e.g. nutrition guideline) concentrate on food intake at the individual level, and encourage
individual responsibilities to control food intake. This approach is difficult to apply
in commensal contexts which many people perceive that they lose their control overfood choice and intake. As a result, it expands a gap between notion of healthyeating and everyday commensality: it generates anxieties for unhealthy intake andmasks opportunities for well-being. Separate healthy promotion messages for commensal and solo-eating contexts would be more effective to promote healthy eating
practices in appropriate eating contexts. This change will reduce anxieties driven
by the gap between healthy eating and commensality.

188

CHAPTER 11. CONCLUSION

Appendix A
ID

Free-listing survey
Q1: Please list words or sentences you think relate to “Eating with others (i.e. family, friends, andcolleagues)”
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others

1

189

190

APPENDIX A. ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDY I
ID

Q2: Please list words or sentences you think relate to “Eating alone”

Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone

2

191
ID

Q3: Please list words or sentences you think relate to “Eating with family”
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family

3

192

APPENDIX A. ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDY I
ID

Q4: Please list words or sentences you think relate to “Eating with friends”
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends

4

193

ID

Please provide your information below
Age: ________ years old
Gender: Male/Female/Others
Residential status:
1. Living alone
2. Living with family/a partner
3. Living with friends
4. Shared house
5. Dormitory
6. Others______________________________________________________Are you a local or oversea student?
1. Local2. Oversea Country________________
3. Local but born in overseas Country__________________

Thank you very much for your cooperation!

5

194

APPENDIX A. ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDY I

Appendix B
ID

以下の問について思いつく単語、文章を一分以内に書き出してください。
問１：「誰かと一緒に食事をすること」について思いつくことを書き出してください。
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること

195

196

APPENDIX B. JAPANESE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDY I
ID

問２：「一人で食事をすること」について思いつくことを書き出してください。
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること

197
ID

問３：「家族と一緒に食事をすること」について思いつくことを書き出してください。
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること

198

APPENDIX B. JAPANESE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDY I
ID

問４：「友人と一緒に食事をすること」について思いつくことを書き出してください。
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること

199

ID

あなたについて教えてください。
年齢（）歳

性別 男性・女性・その他
現在の住居形態について当てはまるものに○をつけてください。
１．一人暮らし２．家族と同居
３．友人と同居
４．シェアハウス
５．学生寮
６．その他（）
ご協力ありがとうございました。

200

APPENDIX B. JAPANESE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDY I

Appendix C
Please complete this questionnaire and bring this with you to the interview.
Q1: Please record your schedule of the last work day and off-work day.
Date
Wake-upLeave-home
HealthCondition

1 Data you recorded
2 What time did you wake up?
3 What time did you leave home?
How were you?
(How did you feel?)
45

Did you eat breakfast?
If so, what time did you eat?

How long did you spend for
6 breakfast?
Where did you eat breakfast?
7
What did you do while having
breakfast?

Breakfast

8
What kinds of food did you eat for
breakfast?

9
What did you eat for breakfast?

（ID）

Work dayDay 1 (,, 2013 )
(
:
) hrs
(
:
) hrs
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. OK
4. Not good
5. Bad (i.e. I got a sick)
0. No 1. Yes
What time?
(
:
)hrs

Off-work day
Day 2 (,, 2013 )
(
:
) hrs
(
:
) hrs
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. OK
4. Not good
5. Bad (i.e. I got a sick)
0. No
1. YesWhat time?
(
:
)hrs

About () min.
1. Home2. Work
3. Others()
1. Watched TV
2. Read news/books
3. Listened the radio
4. Talked with someone
5. Concentrated on eating
6. Others()
1. Homemade meals
2. Meals which does not
require preparation(i.e. banana & bread)
3. Cooked meals(takeaway)
4. Meals at
restaurants/cafe(eating out)
Menu:

About () min.
1. Home2. Work
3. Others()
1. Watched TV
2. Read news/books
3. Listened the radio
4. Talked with someone
5. Concentrate on eating
6. Others()
1. Homemade meals
2. Meals which does not
require preparation(i.e. banana& bread)
3. Cooked meals(takeaway)
4. Meals at
restaurants/cafes(eating out)
Menu:

0. No (Ate alone)
1. Yes(With whom?
0. No
1. YesWhat did you eat?
(

0. (Ate alone)
1. Yes(With whom?
0. No
1. YesWhat did you eat?
(

10
11

Meals/snacks between
breakfast &lunch

Did you eat breakfast with anotherperson?
Did you eat something between
breakfast & lunch (i.e. morning tea)?
If so, what did you eat?

12

13

If you ate something between
breakfast & lunch, who did you eat
with?

201

0. No
1. Yes(With whom?

)

)

)

0. No
1. Yes(With whom?

)

)

)

202APPENDIX C. ENGLISH PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDY II
0. No
1. Yes
14

0. No
1. YesDid you eat lunch?
If so, what time did you eat lunch?

What time?
(
:

) hrs

What time?
(
:

) hrs

How long did you spend for lunch?

About () min.

About () min.

Where did you eat for lunch?

1. Home 2. Work
3. Out
1. Watched TV
2. Read news/books
3. Listened the radio
4. Talked with someone
5. Concentrated on
eating6. Others ()
1. Homemade meals
2. Food which does not
require preparation (i.e.
banana & bread)
3. Cooked meals(Takeaway)
4. Meals at
restaurants/cafes
Menu:

1. Home 2. Work
3. Out
1. Watched TV
2. Read news/books
3. Listened the radio
4. Talked with someone
5. Concentrated on
eating6. Others ()
1. Homemade meals
2. Food which does not
require preparation (i.e.
banana & bread)
3. Cooked meals(Takeaway)
4. Meals at
restaurants/cafes
Menu:

0. No
1. Yes(With whom?
0. No
1. YesWhat did you eat?
(
0. No
1. Yes(With whom?

0. No
1. Yes(With whom?
0. No
1. YesWhat did you eat?
(
0. No
1. Yes(With whom?

15
16

What did you do while having lunch?

Lunch
17
What kinds of food did you eat forlunch?

18
What did you eat for lunch?
19
Did you eat lunch with anotherperson?
20
Meals/snacks between
lunch &
dinner21

Did you eat something between
lunch and dinner?
If so, what did you eat?
Did you eat with another person?

22
Leaving work
Commuting
Arriving
home

What time did you leave your
23 workplace today?
How did you commute from work to
home?
How long did it take?
24
What time did you arrive home?
25

Dinner26

Did you have dinner?
If so, what time did you start to eat
dinner?

)

)

)

(

:

)

)

)

(
:
) hrs
1. Walkmin.
2. Train/subwaymin.
3. Busmin.
4. Car
min.

) hrs

N/A

(
0. No
1. Yes

:

) hrs

(
0. No
1. Yes

:

)hrs

(

:

) hrs

(

:

) hrs

203
How long did you spend for dinner?

About() min.

About () min.

27
1. Home2. Work
3. Out
1. Watched TV
2. Read news/books
3. Listened the radio
4. Talking with someone
5. Concentrated on eating
6. Others ()
1. Homemade meals
2. Food which does not
require preparation (i.e.
banana & bread)
3. Cooked meals(Takeaway)
4. Meals at
restaurants/cafes
Menu:

1. Home2. Work
3. Out
1. Watched TV
2. Read news/books
3. Listened the radio
4. Talking with someone
5. Concentrated on eating
6. Others ()
1. Homemade meals
2. Food which does not
require preparation (i.e.
banana & bread)
3. Cooked meals(Takeaway)
4. Meals at
restaurants/cafes
Menu:

34 Did you eat with another person?

0. No
1. Yes(With whom?
0. No
1. YesWhat did you eat?
(
0. No (Ate alone)
1. Yes(With whom?

0. No
1. Yes(With whom?
0. No
1. YesWhat did you eat?
(
0. No (Ate alone)
1. Yes(With whom?

What time did you take a
35 shower/bath?

(

36 What time did you go to bed?

(

28 Where did you eat dinner?
What did you do while having
dinner?

29
What kinds of food did you have fordinner?

30
What did you eat for dinner?
31
Did you have dinner with anotherperson?
32
Did you eat something after dinner?
After dinner

Bath

33

:

)

)
)

)

)
)

) hrs

(

:

) hrs

) hrs

(

:

) hrs

Sleep

Q2: Please answer following questions about your time schedule.
1. What type of day was Day 1?
A) A usual work dayB) A work day, but it was busier than usualC) It was holiday
D) I took off, because I was sick or injuredE) Others (Please specify
2. What type of day was Day 2?
A) A usual work dayB) A work day, but it was busier than usual:)

204APPENDIX C. ENGLISH PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDY II

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

C) It was holiday
D) I took off, because I was sick or injuredE) Others (Please specify)
How often do you feel rushed or pressed for time?
A) Always
B) OftenC) SometimesD) RarelyE) NeverWhat are the reasons you feel rushed?
A) Trying to balance work or study and social responsibilities
B) Pressure of work/studyC) Demand of social activities
D) Take too much onE) Too many demand place on youF) Unpredictable time scheduleG) Transport difficulties
H) Others
How often do you feel you have spare time that you do not know what to do withA) Always
B) OftenC) SometimesD) RarelyE) NeverWhat are all the reasons you have spare time that you do not know what to do withA) Don’t have enough moneyB) Sick/Injured/has disabilityC) No friends and family near meD) Lack of community/university facilities
E) Transport difficulties
F) No interest and hobbiesG) Unpredictable time schedule
How often do you feel you did not have enough sleep timeA) Always
B) OftenC) SometimesD) RarelyE) NeverWhich of the best describe your attitudes to your time schedule.
A) I would prefer to spend more time aloneB) Balance is about rightC) I would prefer less time alone, especially I prefer spending more time with my family.
D) I would prefer less time alone, especially I prefer spending more time with my friends

Q3: Please tell me about yourself
1. Age () years old
2. Gender Male Female Others

205
3. Where is your birthplace/hometown?
3.1. Australia/ Others
3.2. State ()
3.3. Urban or Rural
4. Ethnicity()

5. What is your main occupation?
()

6. How many holidays (excluding weekends and public holidays) do you have in a year?
About () days
7. Your residenceA) Living aloneB) Living with family/partner
C) Living with relativesD) Living with friends
E) DormitoryF) Shared houseG) Others____________________________
8. Please select one which describes your body shape the most.
A) UnderweightB) NormalC) Normal but muscularD) OverweightE) Obese
9. Your body weight and height
Height () cm
Weight () kg
10. Please select one which describes your current health statusA) No specific health problem. I think I am healthy.
B) I frequently get fatigue.
C) I get some physical pains such as backache and stiff shoulders.
D) Sometimes I feel sad and depressed without any reasons.
E) I regularly go to hospital for medical treatment.
Thank you very much.

206APPENDIX C. ENGLISH PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDY II

Appendix D）ID（

今回はインタビュー調査にご協力いただきありがとうございます。お手数ですが、インタビューを受ける前日までに以下のアンケートにご記入ください。
問１：過去 2 日間（平日と休日）の食事スケジュールについて正確に記入してください。
日付
起床
出勤ま
たは外
出

１ 記録した日
２ 今日何時に起きましたか。

３ 今日何時に家を出ましたか。
今日の体調はどうでしたか。

体調
４
今日、朝食を食べましたか。
何時頃食べましたか。（食べ始
５ めた時間）６ 朝食にかけた時間は ?
どこで朝食を食べましたか?
７
朝食を食べながら何かしました
か?

朝食

８
朝食にはどのようなものを食べ
ましたか。

９

朝食と
昼食の
間の食
事

朝食に食べたものを具体的に記１０ 入してください。
誰かと一緒に朝食を食べました
１１ か。
朝食と昼食の間(休憩時間等)に何か食べましたか。誰かと一緒
でしたか。
１２

A（一日目）一日目 (年 月 日 )
時分

B（二日目）
二日目(
年 月
時
分

時
分
１． 非常に良い
２． 良い
３． まあまあ
４． あまり良くない
５． 悪い（例：風邪をひいた）
０．いいえ １．はい時分
１． 非常に良い
２． 良い
３． まあまあ
４． あまり良くない
５． 悪い（例：風邪をひいた）
０． いいえ １．はい時分(
) 分ぐらい１．自宅 ２．勤務先
３．その他
（
）
１．テレビを見た
２．新聞や雑誌を読んだ
３．ラジオを聴いた
４．会話をした
５．食事に集中した
６．その他 ()
１． 家で作った料理
２． 調理の必要のない食材（例：バナナ、菓子パンなど）３． 中食（買ってきた
料理済みの惣菜や弁
当）
４． 外食
食べたもの
（
）
０． いいえ１． はい( 誰と？
)
０．いいえ
１．はい
食べたもの
（
）

時
分
(
)分ぐらい
１．自宅２．勤務先
３．その他（）
１．テレビを見た
２．新聞や雑誌を読んだ
３．ラジオを聴いた
４．会話をした
５．食事に集中した
６．その他 ()
１． 家で作った料理
２． 調理の必要のない食材（例：バナ
ナ、菓子パンなど）
３． 中食（買ってきた惣菜や弁当）
４． 外食
食べたもの
（
）
０．いいえ.
１．はい (誰と？
)０． いいえ
１． はい
食べたもの
（
）

207

日)

208APPENDIX D. JAPANESE PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDY II）

ID（
誰かと一緒に食べましたか。
１３
今日、昼食を食べましたか。
何時頃食べましたか。（食べ始
１４ めた時間）

１５ 昼食にかけた時間は。
１６ どこで昼食を食べましたか。
昼食を食べながら何かしました
か。

昼食

１７
昼食にはどのようなものを食べ
ましたか。

１８
昼食に食べたものを具体的に記
１９ 入してください。
誰かと一緒に昼食を食べました
２０ か。

昼食と
夕食の
間の食
事

昼食と夕食の間（休憩時間等）
２１ に何か食べましたか。
誰かと一緒に食べましたか。
２２

０．いいえ（一人で）
１．はい
（誰と？
）
０．いいえ
１． はい
時
分

０． いいえ１．はい（誰と？
０． いいえ
１．はい
時

(
)分ぐらい
１．自宅 ２．職場
３．外食
１．テレビを見た
２．新聞や雑誌を読んだ
３．ラジオを聴いた
４．会話をした
５．食事に集中した
６．その他 ()
１． 家で作った料理
２．調理の必要のない食材（例：バナナ、菓子パンなど）
３．中食（買ってきた惣
菜や弁当）
４．外食
食べたもの
（
）
０．いいえ
１．はい
(誰と？
)
０．いいえ
１．はい
食べたもの
（
）

(
) 分ぐらい１．自宅 ２．職場
３．外食
１．テレビを見た
２．新聞や雑誌を読んだ
３．ラジオを聴いた
４．会話をした
５．食事に集中した
６．その他()
１．家で作った料理
２．調理の必要のない食材（例：バナナ、菓子パンなど）
３．中食（買ってきた惣
菜や弁当）
４．外食
食べたもの
（
）
０．いいえ
１．はい
( 誰と？
)
０．いいえ
１．はい
食べたもの
（
）

０．いいえ（一人で）
１．はい
（誰と？
）

０． いいえ（一人で）
１．はい
（誰と？
）

分

今日は何時に退勤しましたか。

退勤
２３
通勤

）

今日の通勤（通学）手段は何ですか。（複数回答可）
片道にかかる時間はどのくらい２４ ですか。

１．
２．
３．
４．

時
徒歩
電車
バス
車

分
分
分
分
分

時

分

１．
２．
３．
４．

時
徒歩
電車
バス
車

分
分
分
分
分

帰宅
２５ 今日は何時に帰宅しましたか。

時

分

209
）

ID（
今日夕食を食べましたか。
何時頃食べましたか。（食べ始
２６ めた時間）分

時分

３４ 誰かと一緒に食べましたか。

()分
１．自宅 ２．職場
３．外食
１．テレビを見た
２．新聞や雑誌を読んだ
３．ラジオを聴いた
４．会話をした
５．食事に集中した
６．その他()
１． 家で作った料理
２．調理の必要のない食材（例：バナナ、菓子パンなど）
３．中食（買ってきた惣
菜や弁当）
４．外食
食べたもの
（
）
０．いいえ
１．はい
(誰と？
)
０．いいえ
１．はい
（食べたもの）
０． いいえ（一人で）
１．はい
（誰と？
）

何時ころ入浴しましたか。
３５ （朝の入浴、シャワーも含む）

時

分

時

分

３６ 何時頃就寝しましたか。

時

分

時

分

２８ どこで夕食を食べましたか。
夕食を食べながら何かしましたか。
夕食
２９
夕食にはどのようなものを食べ
ましたか。

３０
夕食に食べたものを具体的に記３１ 入してください。
誰かと一緒に夕食を食べました
３２ か。

入浴

時

０．いいえ
１．はい

(
)分
１．自宅 ２．職場
３．外食
１．テレビを見た
２．新聞や雑誌を読んだ
３．ラジオを聴いた
４．会話をした
５．食事に集中した
６．その他()
１． 家で作った料理
２．調理の必要のない食材（例：バナナ、菓子パンなど）
３．中食（買ってきた惣
菜や弁当）
４．外食
食べたもの
（
）
０．いいえ（一人で）
１．はい
(誰と？
)
０．いいえ
１．はい
（食べたもの）
０．いいえ（一人で）
１．はい
（誰と？
）

２７ 夕食にかけた時間は

夕食後

０．いいえ
１．はい

夕食後に（デザート等）何か食
３３ べましたか。

就寝

問２：ご記入いただいた二日間のスケジュールについて、以下の問題に答えてください。
１．1 日目はどのような一日でしたか。
(ア) 通常の仕事のスケジュール(イ) 通常通りだか、特に忙しい一日だった(ウ) 休日だった(エ) 病気、またはケガ等で休んだ一日だった(オ) ___________________の理由で仕事を休んだ

210APPENDIX D. JAPANESE PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDY II
ID（）

２．2 日目はどのような一日でしたか。
(ア) 通常の仕事のスケジュール(イ) 通常通りだか、特に忙しい一日だった(ウ) 休日だった(エ) 病気、またはケガ等で休んだ一日だった(オ)___________________の理由で仕事を休んだ
３．最近どのくらい時間に追われていると感じますか。
(ア) いつも(イ) しばしば(ウ) ときどき(エ) あまりない(オ) ほとんどない４．最近時間に追われると思う主な理由は何ですか。（複数回答可）(ア) 仕事とプライベートのバランスを取ることが難しいから(イ) 仕事のプレッシャー(ウ) プライベート（家族、恋人など）でのプレッシャー(エ) 様々なこと（仕事や社会的義務）を抱え込みすぎている(オ) やらなくてはならないことが多すぎる(カ) 予測のつかない日々のスケジュール(キ) 通勤（通学）に時間を取られすぎている(ク) その他（）
５． 普段の生活の中で何をやれば良いのかわからず、時間を持て余していると思うことはありますか。
(ア) いつも(イ) しばしば(ウ) ときどき(エ) あまりない(オ) ほとんどない
６． 時間を持て余してしまう理由は何だと思いますか。
(ア) 時間を有効に使うためのお金がないから(イ) あまり健康ではない、またはなにか身体的障害があるから(ウ) 家族、友人が近くにいないから(エ) 時間を有効に使うための施設やコミュニティーがないから(オ) 交通の便が悪いから(カ) 趣味がないから(キ) 日々のスケジュールの予測がつかないから(ク) その他（）
７． 普段どのくらい睡眠時間が足りないと感じますか。
(ア) いつも(イ) しばしば(ウ) ときどき(エ) あまりない(オ) ほとんどない
８． 普段の生活スタイルを振り返ってみて、当てはまる回答を選んでください。（複数回答可）

211
ID（
(ア) もう少し一人の時間が欲しい(イ) 今の生活スタイルに満足している(ウ) もっと周りとの時間を増やしたい。特に家族との時間を増やしたいと思う。
(エ) もっと周りとの時間を増やしたい。特に友人、同僚との時間を増やしたいと思う。

問３：以下の問題に答えてください。
１． 現在の年齢は。
満 （）歳
２． 性別は。
男性・女性
３． ご出身地はどちらですか。
都道府県（）都市部・田舎
４． 現在のご職業は何ですか。
職業（）
５． 土日祝日を除いた休みは年何日ぐらいありますか。実際に休む日数を記入してください。
（）日ぐらい
６． 現在のお住まいについて当てはまるものに○をつけてください。
(ア)一人暮らし(イ)家族と同居(ウ)親戚と同居(エ)友人と同居(オ)寮(カ)その他 ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
７． 現在の体格について当てはまると思うものに○をつけてください。
(ア)痩せていると思う(イ)普通だと思う(ウ)普通だが、筋肉質だと思う(エ)ぽっちゃりしていると思う(オ)太りすぎだと思う
８． 現在の身長と体重を教えてください。
身長（）ｃｍ 体重（）ｋｇ
９．

現在の健康状態について当てはまると思うものに○をつけてください。（複数回答可）(ア)特に問題はなく、健康だと思う(イ)最近、疲れやすいと感じる(ウ)慢性的な肩こりや腰痛など、体に痛みを感じることがある。
(エ)理由もなく、急に落ち込んでしまうことがある。
(オ)現在、病院に通院している。

ご協力ありがとうございました。
お手数ですが、ご記入いただいたアンケートをインタビューの際、お持ちください。

）

212APPENDIX D. JAPANESE PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDY II

Appendix E
ID

In-depth interview
Q1: Please list words or sentences you think relate to “Eating with others (i.e. family, friends, andcolleagues)”
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others
Eating with others

1

213

214

APPENDIX E. ENGLISH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDY II
ID

Q2: Please list words or sentences you think relate to “Eating alone”

Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone
Eating alone

2

215
ID

Q3: Please list words or sentences you think relate to “Eating with family”
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family
Eating with family

3

216

APPENDIX E. ENGLISH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDY II
ID

Q4: Please list words or sentences you think relate to “Eating with friends”
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends
Eating with friends

4

217
ID

Q5: Please list words or sentences you think relate to “Eating with colleagues”
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues
Eating with colleagues

5

218

APPENDIX E. ENGLISH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDY II
ID

B. Social network: Who do you often eat with?
Please list 5-10 people who you frequently have a meal together recently.

Ex)

Relati
onshi
p

Age,
gender,occupation

Body shapeFrequencies
eat with

Colleague A

30, Male,administr
ator

NormalOnce a week

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

6

to

Menu

Place

Bill

Feeling

BBQ

BBQ
shop

Split
the bill

Joyful219
ID

C: ACTUAL commensality and solo-eating practices
Please describe about yourself when you are in following situations (last 7 days/30 days)
Frequencies

Venue

Time
(i.e. the speedof eating)

What sorts
food/meals?

of Budget

1. Eating alone
2. Eatingfamily3. Eatingfriends
4. Eatingcolleagues

with
with
with

Discussion questions
5. When you would like to have a meal but there is no one to eat with, what would you do?

6. When you eat alone, do you think you are
What kinds of problems you have encountered?

able

to eat mindfully? Please explain why.

7. When you eat with others, do you think you are able to eat mindfully? Please explain why.
What kinds of problems you have encountered?

7

220

APPENDIX E. ENGLISH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDY II
ID

D. LIFE HISTORY & LIFE PLAN (Travel & family backgrounds)
1. Is there any life events (experiences) which might influence your lifestyle and beliefs? Does it reflect yourmain values?

2. Please tell me about main guiding health principles. Where do you get from?

3. If your life circumstance changes (due to marriage, having children, taking care of yourparents, when you get a sick), what would you do? What to you need to give up? How do you think yourlifestyle will change?

8

221
ID
Questionnaire
Please tell me about yourself
1.What is your highest level of education? Please circulate appropriate qualifications.

2. Do you have any other certificates or licenses?
1) Yes2) No
Names of certificates and licenses (example: teacher’s license)()
3. How long have you working for current workplace?
Duration（）months/years

9

222

APPENDIX E. ENGLISH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDY II
ID
4. What is your current employment status?
1) Full-time employee (Permanent)
2) Full-time employee (Contract-base)3) Part-time employee4) Work hourly, not stated5) Self-employed6) Freelance7) Leave of absence
8) Looking for a job
9) Student10) Housewife11) Others ()

5. Annual income before tax (2012)
1) Less than 20000 AUD
2) 20000-30000 AUD
3) 30000-40000 AUD
4) 40000-50000 AUD
6) 50000-60000 AUD
7) 60000-70000 AUD
8) 70000-80000 AUD
9) 90000-100000 AUD
10) More than 100000 AUD
6. How much do you spend for a meal (grocery shopping and restaurant & café expenses are included) perweek?
1) Less than 20 AUD
2) 20-40 AUD
3) 40-60 AUD
4) 60-80 AUD
5) 80-100 AUD
6) 100-120 AUD
7) More than 120 AUD

7．What is your social marital status?
1) Married
2) Registered relationships3) De facto4) Single
8．Who do you live with?
（）（(i.e. parents, wife, housemate etc.)
）
（
）
（

10
10

）
（

）

Appendix FID

以下の問について思いつく単語、文章を一分以内に書き出してください。
問１：「誰かと一緒に食事をすること」について思いつくことを書き出してください。
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること
誰かと一緒に食事をすること

223

224

APPENDIX F. JAPANESE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDY II
ID

問２：「一人で食事をすること」について思いつくことを書き出してください。
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること
一人で一緒に食事をすること

225
ID

問３：「家族と一緒に食事をすること」について思いつくことを書き出してください。
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること
家族と一緒に食事をすること

226

APPENDIX F. JAPANESE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDY II
ID

問４：「友人と一緒に食事をすること」について思いつくことを書き出してください。
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること
友人と一緒に食事をすること

227
ID

問５：「職場の人と一緒に食事をすること」について思いつくことを書き出してください。
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること
職場の人と一緒に食事をすること

228

APPENDIX F. JAPANESE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDY II
ID

よく一緒に食事をする人
あなたが最近よく一緒に食事をする人について教えてください。

例

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

体格

あなた
との関
係

年齢、性
別、職業

同僚 A

３０歳、女 普通性、事務職

頻度

週に 1 回程度

メニュー

焼肉

場所

お勘定

気持ち

焼肉屋

割り勘

楽しい

229
実際の共食と孤食ID

対話式の問
あなたの普段の食生活について教えてください。
１． どんなときに一人でご飯を食べますか。そのときに食べるもの、場所、予算、気持ちなど具体的に教えてください。

２． どんなときに誰かと一緒にご飯をたべますか。そのときに食べるもの、場所、予算、気持ちなど具体的に教えてく
ださい。

頻度

一人

家族との食事

友人との食事職場の人との食事

場所

時間

メニュー

予算

230

APPENDIX F. JAPANESE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDY II

ライフヒストリー、プランID

１． あなたは現在の自身の生活スタイルについてどう思いますか。

２． あなたにとって健康に必要なものは何ですか。また、それはなぜ必要でしょうか。具体的に教えてください。

３． 今後の人生について具体的なプランはありますか。または目標や希望はありますか。

231

ID

最後にあなたプロフィールについて教えてください。
１． 最終学歴は何ですか。
a. 高等学校
b. 高等専門学校（専門分野：
c. 専門学校（専門分野：
d. 大学学士過程（専攻：e. 大学院修士課程（専攻：f. 大学院博士課程（専攻：g. その他（

）
）
）
）
）
）

２． 学位以外の資格はお持ちですか。
a. はい
b. いいえ資格（）

３． 現在働いている方にうかがいます。現在の職に就いてどのくらいですか。
勤務期間（
）ヶ月・年

４． 現在のあなたの雇用形態に当てはまるものに○をつけてください。（複数回答可）
a. 正規社員、職員
b. 契約社員
c. 派遣社員
d. パート社員
e. アルバイト社員
f. 自営業g. フリーランスh. 休職中i. 求職中j. 学生
k. その他（）

５． 現在の収入はどのくらいですか。当てはまるものに○をつけてください。
a. 100 万未満
b. 100－200 万
c. 200－300 万
d. 300－400 万e. 400－500 万
f. 500－600 万
g. 600－700 万
h. 700－800 万i. 800－900 万
j. 900-1000 万
k. 1000 万以上

232

APPENDIX F. JAPANESE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDY II

ID
６． 1 ヶ月あたりの食費はいくらぐらいですか。
a. 2 万円以下
b. 2－3 万c. 3－4 万d. 4－5 万e. 5－6 万f. 6－7 万g. 7－8 万h. 8－9 万i. 9－10 万
j. 10 万以上
７． 現在結婚していますか。
a. はい
b. いいえ８． 現在同居している人は誰ですか。
（
）（
）（

）（

）（

）（

）

233

234

APPENDIX G. ENGLISH INFORMATION SHEET FOR STUDY I

Appendix G

Information sheet
What is this study about?
You are invited to participate in a pilot study looking at people’s
dietary lives and health associations in Australia. We areinvestigating your ideas about dietary lives and health in Australiansociety.
If you decide to participate, we will ask you to:Answer a survey that will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Questions will relate to yourideas about dietary lives in Australia. You will be asked to list words and sentences you think relate
to each question.
Information about your involvement: The research is confidential.
 Any information you give us will not be associated with your name or phone number.
 Your information will be de-identified and will not be made available outside the study team,
except as required by law.
 You have a right not to participate in, or to withdraw from the study at any time. Both during
the study and after the study.

How will your information be used?
Information from this research will be used for developing further research, and will not be published.
As far as possible, I will protect your privacy, and the confidentiality of the information you give me.
I will not use your real name in notes. I will audio-record interviews and discussions, only with yourconsent.
If you have any complaints or questions:
Complaints may be directed to the Human Ethics Officer, Human Research Ethics Committee,
Australian National University.
Tel: 6125 3427
Email: Human.Ethics.Officer@anu.edu.au
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me now, or contact me via email or phone.
Wakako Takeda, Dr. Cathy Banwell
National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health
Australian National University
TEL:+61-414-599-972
Email: wakako.takeda@anu.edu.au
Cathy.banwell@anu.edu.au

Appendix H
若年者の食事についてのフリーリスト調査
本プロジェクトについて
近年の急速な社会変化により、日本人のライフスタイル、食生活が大きく変わってきています。新しいライフスタイルに合った様々な対策が求められています。本プロジェクトでは、「誰かと一緒に食事をすること」と「一人で食事をすること」に着目し、現在の生活
習慣や仕事や時間のプレッシャーがどのように食生活、健康状態に影響しているのか把握することを目的としています。

今回の調査では、食生活に関するトピックについて思いつくことを１分間以内に回答用紙に書き出して頂きます。正解は一切ありませんので、自由に思いつくことを書き出してください。調査は説明も含め、１５分ほどで終わります。

個人情報の保護について：頂いた情報は全てID 番号で整理され、コード化されます。参加者のお名前や個人情報が公開されることはありません。また、インタビューへの回答は全て参加者の任意に基づいて行いますので、インタビュー中またはその後、いつでも参加を辞退することができます。

連絡先：
武田和歌子（たけだわかこ）
オーストラリア国立大学国立疫学・公衆衛生研究院博士課程（文化人類学）早稲田大学大学院アジア太平洋研究学科交換研究員
携帯：090-5535-2966
メール：wakako.takeda@anu.edu.au

235

236

APPENDIX H. JAPANESE INFORMATION SHEET FOR STUDY I

237

238

APPENDIX I. ENGLISH INFORMATION SHEET FOR STUDY II

Appendix I

Information sheet on study of commensal- and solo-eating
practices among young adults in Australia and Japan
What is this study about?
You are invited to participate in a study looking at young people’s
dietary practices and health in three modern countries: Australia, andJapan. We are investigating your daily dietary practices and lifestyles and your ideas about these
topics.
If you decide to participate, we will ask you:
To do an interview that takes approximately an hour to complete. The questions will relate to yourdaily dietary practices and lifestyles. The interview will be audio recorded for gaining deeper
understanding of people’s values and culture. The recorded data will be stored securely at theAustralian National University and will be erased at the conclusion of the study.

Information about your involvement: This survey is anonymous and any information you give us will not be associated with yourname.
 The research is confidential.
 Your information will be de-identified and will not be made available outside the study team,
except as required by law.
 You have a right not to participate in, or to withdraw from the study at any time. Both during
the study and after the study.
How will your information be used?
Information from this research will be used for developing effective health promotion and dietaryeducation which are suitable for people in Australia and Japan. As far as possible, I will protect yourprivacy, and the confidentiality of the information you give me.
If you have any complaints or questions:
Complaints may be directed to the Human Ethics Officer, Human Research Ethics Committee,
Australian National University.
Tel: 6125 3427
Email: Human.Ethics.Officer@anu.edu.au
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me now, or contact me or my supervisor via email
or phone.
Wakako Takeda or Dr. Cathy Banwell
National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health
Australian National University
TEL:+61-414-599-972
Email: wakako.takeda@anu.edu.au
Cathy.banwell@anu.edu.au

Appendix J
若年者の食事習慣とライフスタイルについてのインタビュー調査―日本と豪州の比較研究―
本プロジェクトについて
近年の急速な社会変化により、 日本人のライフスタイル、 食生活が大きく変わってきています。 新しいライフスタイルに合った様々な対策が求められています。 本プロジェクトでは、「誰かと一緒に食事をすること」 と 「一人で食事をすること」に着目し、 現在の生活習慣や仕事や時間のプレッシャーがどのように食生活、 健康状態に影響しているのか把握することを目的としています。
対象者：18歳から40歳までの日本国籍の男女で関東近郊にお住いの方30名
インタビューの手順：
１． 参加の意志を調査員までお伝えください。 事前アンケートをメールまたは郵送にてお送り致します。
２． インタビューの前日までに2 日間のスケジュールをアンケート用紙に記入いただき、インタビュー当日に持参ください。
３． １時間程度の生活スタイル、食事習慣についてのインタビュー
情報を正確に把握するため、 インタビューを録音致します。
個人情報の保護について ：いただいた情報は全て ID 番号で整理され、 コード化されます。 参加者のお名前や個人情報が公開されることはありません。 また、 インタビューへの回答は全て参加者の任意に基づいて行いますので、 インタビュー中またはその後、 いつでも参加を辞退することができます。
謝礼：
ご協力いただいた方には謝礼として、2000円相当のQuoカードを差し上げます。また、ご希望の方には２カ国調査の研究レポートを送付致します。
連絡先：
武田和歌子 （たけだわかこ）
オーストラリア国立大学 国立疫学・公衆衛生研究院 博士課程（文化人類学）早稲田大学大学院アジア太平洋研究学科 交換研究員
携帯：090-5535-2966
メール：wakako.takeda@anu.edu.au

239

240

APPENDIX J. JAPANESE INFORMATION SHEET FOR STUDY II

Appendix K
CONSENT FORM
Free-listing survey on communal and solo-eating practice among Australianand Japanese young adults
Researcher: Wakako Takeda, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health,
Australian National University
1. I ………………………………………(please print) consent to take part in communal andsolo-eating practices among Australian and Japanese young adults. I have read the information
sheet for this project and understand its contents. I have had the nature and purpose of theresearch project, so far as it affects me, fully explained to my satisfaction by the research worker.
My consent is freely given.
2. I understand that if I agree to participate in the research project I will be asked to participant ina survey. This will take up to 15 minutes and will involve free-listing questions aboutcommensal- and solo-eating practices.
3. I understand that my personal information such as my name and work contact details will be
kept confidential so far as the law allows. This form and any other identifying materials will be
stored separately in a locked office at the Australian National University.
Data entered onto a computer will be kept in a computer accessible only by password by amember of the research team.
4. I understand that although any comments I make will not be attributed to me in any report or
publication, it is possible that others may guess the source of information, and I should avoid
disclosing information to the researchers which is of confidential status within government or
which is defamatory of any person.
5. I understand that I may withdraw from the research project at any stage during the interview,
without providing any reason and that this will not have any adverse consequences for me. If I
withdraw, the information I provide will not be used by the project.

Signed …………………………………. Date ……………………

241

242

APPENDIX K. ENGLISH INFORMED CONSENT FOR STUDY I

Appendix L

参加同意書
私は下記の項目をよく理解した上で、自らの意志に基づき、オーストラリア国立大学の研究プロジェクト「若年者の食事に関するフリーリスト調査」に参加します。
①

当研究の内容は全て研究説明書に記載されている通りです。

② 提供した情報は全て ID 番号で処理され、情報漏えいのない安全な場所で保管されます。
③ 調査結果は論文として発表される場合、参加者の名前が公表されることは一切ありません。
④

参加にあたって、金銭を授受することは一切ありません。

⑤ 参加者は参加期間中特別な理由なしに、いつでも参加を辞退することが出来ます。辞退することで参加者に不利益が発生することはありません。
⑥ 当研究について研究メンバーに相談出来ない問題が発生した場合は、オースト
ラリア国立大学の人に関する研究倫理委員会に連絡します。
（human.ethics.officer@anu.edu.au or T: +61-2-6125-3427）

氏名＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

署名＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

243

日付＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

244

APPENDIX L. JAPANESE INFORMED CONSENT FOR STUDY I

Appendix M
CONSENT FORM
In-depth interview on communal and solo-eating practice among Australianand Japanese young adults
Researcher: Wakako Takeda, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health,
Australian National University
1. I ………………………………………(please print) consent to take part in communal andsolo-eating practices among Australian and Japanese young adults. I have read the information
sheet for this project and understand its contents. I have had the nature and purpose of theresearch project, so far as it affects me, fully explained to my satisfaction by the research worker.
My consent is freely given.
2. I understand that if I agree to participate in the research project I will be asked to participant in
an interview. This will take up to an hour and will involve questions about commensal- and soloeating practices.
3. I understand that my personal information such as my name and work contact details will be
kept confidential so far as the law allows. This form and any other identifying materials will be
stored separately in a locked office at the Australian National University.
Data entered onto a computer will be kept in a computer accessible only by password by amember of the research team.
4. I understand that although any comments I make will not be attributed to me in any report or
publication, it is possible that others may guess the source of information, and I should avoid
disclosing information to the researchers which is of confidential status within government or
which is defamatory of any person.
5. I understand that I may withdraw from the research project at any stage during the interview,
without providing any reason and that this will not have any adverse consequences for me. If I
withdraw, the information I provide will not be used by the project.
6. I consent to have my interview audio taped by the interviewer. I understand the tapes will be
stored securely at the Australian National University and will be erased at the conclusion of thestudy.

Signed …………………………………. Date ……………………

245

246

APPENDIX M. ENGLISH INFORMED CONSENT FOR STUDY II

Appendix N

参加同意書
私は下記の項目をよく理解した上で、自らの意志に基づき、オーストラリア国立大学の研究プロジェクト「若年者の食事習慣とライフスタイルについてのインタビュ
ー調査」に参加します。
①

当研究の内容は全て研究説明書に記載されている通りです。

②

分析向上のため、インタビューは IC レコーダーで録音します。

③ 提供した情報は全て ID 番号で処理され、情報漏えいのない安全な場所で保管されます。
④ 調査結果は論文として発表される場合、参加者の名前が公表されることは一切ありません。
⑤

参加にあたって、金銭を授受することは一切ありません。

⑥ 参加者は参加期間中特別な理由なしに、いつでも参加を辞退することが出来ます。辞退することで参加者に不利益が発生することはありません。
⑦ 当研究について研究メンバーに相談出来ない問題が発生した場合は、オースト
ラリア国立大学の人に関する研究倫理委員会に連絡します。
（human.ethics.officer@anu.edu.au or T: +61-2-6125-3427）

氏名＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

署名＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

247

日付＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

248

APPENDIX N. JAPANESE INFORMED CONSENT FOR STUDY II

Appendix O

Positive
Negative
Purposes
Behaviours
Eating behaviours
PlacesOccasions
Food & drink
Structures
Taste
Topic
Money
Time
Frequency
ChoicePeopleSharing
TopicsInfluences of others
Attentiveness
Living alone

Description
Positive feelings and images
Negative feelings and imaged
Purposes of eating together or eating alone
Behaviours other than eating
Description about specific eating behaviours
Places to eat
Occasions of eating
What to eat and drink
Structures of eating
Experience of taste
Money related responses
Experience of time
Frequency of eating together or eating alone
What to choose
People to eat with
Sharing something with others
What to talk while eating
Any changes due to the influence of others
Demonstrating to be attentive to others while eating
Living alone

249

250

APPENDIX O. LIST OF CODING CATEGORIESBibliography
Miyuki Adachi. Theories of nutrition education and promotion in Japan: enactment of the “foodeducation basic law”. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 17:180–184, 2008.
Miyuki Adachi. Kyoshoku ga naze chumoku sareruka? (why does eating together gain an attention?). Nagoya gakugei daigaku kenkou eiyou kenkyujo nenpou (Annual Report of Institute of
Health and Nutrition, Nagoya University of Arts and Science), 6(Special):43–56, 2014.
Ken Albala. Historical background to food and Christianity. In Ken Albala and Trudy Eden,
editors, Food and Faith in Christian Culture. Columbia University Press, New York, 2011.
American Psychiatric Association. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:DSM–5. American Psychiatric Association,, Arlington, VA, 2013.
Hans Thor Andersen, Lasse Mller-Jensen, and Sten Engelstoft. The end of urbanization? towards
a new urban concept or rethinking urbanization. European Planning Studies, 19(4):595–611,
2011.
Osamu Aoki and Deborah McDowell Aoki. Invisible poverty in Japan: case studies and realities
of single mothers. Journal of Poverty, 9(1):1–21, 2005.
Arjun Appadurai. Gastropolitics in Hindu South Asia. American Ethnologist, 8(3):494–511, 1981.
Arjun Appadurai. Modernity at large: cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis, 1996.
Jeffrey Jensen Arnett. Emerging adulthood: the winding road from the late teens through thetwenties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
Michael Ashkenazi. From tachi soba to naorai: cultural implications of the Japanese meal. Social
Science Information, 30(2):287–304, 1991.
Pamela J Asquith. Primate research groups in Japan: orientations and East-West differences. In
Linda M Fedigan and Pamela J Asquith, editors, The Monkeys of Arashiyama: thirty-five yearsof research in Japan and the West. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1991.
Siobhan Austen and Richard Seymour. The evolution of the female labour force participation rate
in Australia, 1984-1999. Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 9(3):305, 2006.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Time use survey: User guide, 2006, 2008. http://www.abs.gov.
au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/4150.0 accessed 6 June 2015.

251

252

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Census, 2011.

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/

censushome.nsf/home/data accessed 6 June 2015.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Causes of death, Australia, 2012, 2012. http://www.abs.gov.
au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3303.0main+features100012012 accessed 6 June 2015.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian system of national accounts, 2013, 2013a. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/MF/5204.0 accessed 6 June 2015.
Australian Bureau of Statistics.
2013,

2013b.

Labour force,

Australia,

detailed,

quarterly,Aug

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/

734FE392F0961C92CA257C45000E56EB?opendocument accessed 6 June 2015.
Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Education and work, Australia, May 2014, 2014a.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6227.0MainFeatures2May2014?
opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6227.0&issue=May2014&num=&view= accessed 15
July 2015.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Gender indicators, Australia, Feb 2014, 2014b. ww.abs.gov.au/
ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4125.0main+features1120Feb2014 accessed 6 June 2015.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Labour force, Australia, Sep 2014, 2014c. http://www.abs.gov.
au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/04DDDB3369A09F25CA257D87000FBF37?
opendocument accessed 6 June 2015.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Part-time and casual employment (feature article), 2014d. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/products/08B16CB4B2E7F152CA2575E70019CA3B?
OpenDocument accessed 6 June 2015.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Average weekly earnings, Australia, Nov 2014, 2014e. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0 accessed 15 July 2015.
Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Feature article:

states and territories, March 26 2015a.

population by age and sex, Australia,

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/

1CD2B1952AFC5E7ACA257298000F2E76?OpenDocument accessed 28 June 2015.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Gender indicators, Australia, Feb 2015, 2015b. http://www.abs.
gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4125.0 accessed 6 June 2015.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Household and family projections, Australia, 2011 to 2036, March
19 2015c. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3236.0 accessed 4 July 2015.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. International trades in goods and services, Australia, Apr 2015,2015d. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5368.0 accessed 6 June 2015.
Australian government. Dietary guidelines for Australian adults, 2003. http://www.comlaw.gov.
au/series/c2009a00028 accessed 6 June 2015.
Australian government.

Australia:

the healthiest country by 2020, 2009a.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/
A06C2FCF439ECDA1CA2574DD0081E40C/$File/discussion-28oct.pdf
2015.

accessed

6

JuneBIBLIOGRAPHY
Australian government.

253
Fair work act 2009, 2009b.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/series/

c2009a00028 accessed 6 June 2015.
Australian government.

Taking preventive action – a response to Australia:

thehealthiest country by 2020 – the report of the national preventive health taskforce, 2010.

http://www.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/6B7B17659424FBE5CA25772000095458/$File/tpa.pdf accessed 6
June 2015.
Australian government.

Eat for health: Australian dietary guidelines: providing the scien-tific evidence for healthier Australian diets, 2013.

http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/

sites/default/files/files/the_guidelines/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines.pdf
accessed 6 June 2015.
Australian National Preventive Health Agency. Shape up Australia, March 19 2014. http://www.
shapeup.gov.au/ accessed 6 June 2015.
Lawrence A Babb. The food of the gods in Chhattisgarh: some structural features of Hindu ritual.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 26(3):287–304, 1970.
Thomas Babor, Raul Caetano, Sally Casswell, Griffith Edwards, Norman Giesbrecht, Kathryn Graham, Joel Grube, Linda Hill, Harold Holder, Ross Homel, Michael Livingston, Esa Osterberg,
Rehm Jurgen, Robin Room, and Ingeborg Rossow. Alcohol: no ordinary commodity: researchand public policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2nd edition, 2010.
Christina Wood Baker, Todd D Little, and Kelly D Brownell. Predicting adolescent eating andactivity behaviors: the role of social norms and personal agency. Health Psychology, 22(2):189,
2003.
Clare Bambra. Health status and the worlds of welfare. Social Policy and Society, 5(01):53–62,
2006.
Clare Bambra. Health inequalities and welfare state regimes: theoretical insights on a public health‘puzzle’. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65(9):740–745, 2011.
Cathy Banwell, Jane Dixon, Dorothy Broom, and Anna Davies. Habits of a lifetime: family dining
patterns over the lifecourse of older Australians. Health Sociology Review, 19(3):343–355, 2010.
Cathy Banwell, Dorothy Broom, Anna Davies, and Jane Dixon. Weight of Modernity: an intergenerational study of the rise of obesity. Springer, New York, 2012.
Zygmunt Bauman. Liquid modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge, 2000.
Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim. Individualization: institutionalized individualism andits social and political consequences. Sage Publications, London, 2002.
Roberto Becker, John Silvi, Doris Ma Fat, Andr L’Hours, and Ruy Laurenti. A method for deriving
leading causes of death. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(4):297–304, 2006.
Harumi Befu. Gift-giving in a modernizing Japan. Monumenta Nipponica, 23(3/4):445–456, 1968.

254

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Daniel Bell. The Coming of Post Industrial Society: a venture in social forecasting. Basic Books,
New York, 1973.
Rick Bell and Patricia L Pliner. Time to eat: the relationship between the number of people eating
and meal duration in three lunch settings. Appetite, 41(2):215–218, 2003.
Harvey Russell Bernard. Research methods in cultural anthropology. Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, 1988.
John W Berry. On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4(2):119–128,
1969.
John W Berry. Social psychology: comparative, societal and universal. Canadian Psychological
Review/Psychologie Canadienne, 19(2):93, 1978.
John W Berry. Cross–cultural psychology: research and applications. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2002.
Suzanne M Bianchi and John Robinson. What did you do today? children’s use of time, family
composition, and the acquisition of social capital. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(2):332–344, 1997.
Suzanne M Bianchi, Melissa A Milkie, Liana C Sayer, and John P Robinson. Is anyone doing
the housework? trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79(1):191–228,
2000.
Michael Bittman. Parenting and employment: what time-use surveys show. In Nancy Folbre andMichael Bittman, editors, Family time: the Social Organization of Care. Routledge, London,
2004.
Michael Bittman and James Mahmud Rice. The spectre of overwork: an analysis of trends between
1974 and 1997 using Australian time-use diaries. Labour & Industry: a journal of the social andeconomic relations of work, 12(3):5–25, 2002.
Benjamin G Blount. A history of cognitive anthropology. In David B Kronenfeld, Giovanni
Bernardo, Victor C de Munck, and Michael D Fischer, editors, A Companion to Cognitive
Anthropology. Blackwell publishing (John Wiley & Sons Ltd), Southern gate, 2011.
Alison Blunt. Imperial geographies of home: british domesticity in india, 1886-1925. Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers, 24(4):421–440, 1999.
Slvia Bofill. Aging and loneliness in catalonia: the social dimension of food behavior. Ageing
International, 29(4):385–398, 2004.
Stephen P Borgatti. Elicitation techniques for cultural domain analysis. Enhanced ethnographic
methods: audiovisual techniques, focused group interviews, and elicitation techniques. Ethnographer Toolkit, pages 115–151, 1999.
Douglas Bourn. Young people, identity and living in a global society. Policy & Practice-A Development Education Review, (7), 2008.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

255

Kerri N Boutelle, Amanda S Birnbaum, Leslie A Lytle, David M Murray, and Mary Story. Associations between perceived family meal environment and parent intake of fruit, vegetables, andfat. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 35(1):24–29, 2003.
Kerri N Boutelle, Jayne A Fulkerson, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Mary Story, and Simone A French.
Fast food for family meals: relationships with parent and adolescent food intake, home foodavailability and weight status. Public Health Nutrition, 10(01):16–23, 2007.
Marilynn B Brewer and Ya-Ru Chen. Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114(1):133, 2007.
Mary C Brinton. Women and the economic miracle: gender and work in postwar Japan, volume 21.
University of California Press, 1993.
Mary C Brinton and Hang-Yue Ngo. Age and sex in the occupational structure: a United StatesJapan comparison. In Sociological Forum, volume 8, pages 93–111. Springer, 1993.
Kaye Broadbent. Women’s employment in Japan: the experience of part-time workers, volume 10.
Psychology Press, 2003.
Rogers Brubaker, Mara Loveman, and Peter Stamatov. Ethnicity as cognition. Theory and Society,33(1):31–64, 2004.
Teri L Burgess-Champoux, Nicole Larson, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Peter J Hannan, and Mary
Story. Are family meal patterns associated with overall diet quality during the transition fromearly to middle adolescence? Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 41(2):79–86, 2009.
Erica Burman. Between orientalism and normalization: cross–cultural lessons from Japan for a
critical history of psychology. History of Psychology, 10(2):179, 2007.
Cabinet Office. Heisei 18 nendo ban shokuiku hakusho (white paper of Shokuiku in 2006), 2006a.
http://www8.cao.go.jp/syokuiku/data/whitepaper/2006/book/pdf.html accessed 6 June2015.
Cabinet Office. Shokuiku suishin kihon keikaku (basic plan for Shokuiku promotion), 2006b. http://www8.cao.go.jp/syokuiku/about/plan/pdf/kihonkeikaku.pdf accessed 6 June 2015.
Cabinet Office. Shokuiku suishin kokumin undou no jyuten youkou, 2007. http://www8.cao.go.
jp/syokuiku/more/pdf/point.pdf accessed 6 June 2015.
Cabinet Office.

Dai niji shokuiku suishin kihon keikaku, 2011.

http://www8.cao.go.jp/

syokuiku/about/plan/pdf/2kihonkeikaku.pdf accessed 6 June 2015.
Cabinet office. Heisei 23 nendo shokuiku no genjyou to ishiki ni kansuru chousa (survey on situation
and awareness of Shokuiku 2011), March 2011.
Cabinet Office. Dai niji kihou keikaku ni okeru shokuiku no suishin ni atatte no mokuhyochi togenjyochi (target rates and current rates of Shokuiku promotion in terms of the second Shokuiku
basic plan), 2013a. http://www8.cao.go.jp/syokuiku/about/plan/moku_gen/index.html
accessed 6 June 2015.

256

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cabinet Office. Kokumin keizai keisan (nation’s economic accounts), 2013b. http://www.esri.
cao.go.jp/jp/sna/data/data_list/kakuhou/files/h24/sankou/pdf/seisan20131225.pdf
accessed 6 June 2015.
Cabinet office. Heisei 27 nendo ban kourei shakai hakusho (white paper of ageing society in 2015),
2015. http://www8.cao.go.jp/kourei/whitepaper/w-2015/zenbun/27pdf_index.html accessed 29 June 2015.
Kate Cairns, Jose Johnston, and Shyon Baumann. Caring about food doing gender in the foodie
kitchen. Gender & Society, 24(5):591–615, 2010.
John C Caldwell. Population health in transition. Bulletin of the World health Organization, 79(2):159–160, 2001.
Prue Cameron and Richard Denniss. Hard to get a break?: hours, leave and barriers to re-entering
the Australian workforce. Institute Paper No.13, 2013.
Iain Campbell. Long working hours in Australia: working–time regulation and employer pressures.
The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 17(2):37–68, 2007.
John Creighton Campbell and Naoki Ikegami. Japan’s radical reform of longterm care. Social
Policy & Administration, 37(1):21–34, 2003.
Matei Candea and Giovanni Da Col. The return to hospitality. Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute, 18(s1):S1–S19, 2012.
Flavia Cangia. Towards a mutual anthropology of identity in Japan and the West. Electronic
Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies, 3, 2010.
Pat Caplan. Crossing the veg/non-veg divide: commensality and sociality among the middle classes
in Madras/Chennai. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 31(1):118–142, 2008.
Abigail Carroll. Three squares: the invention of American meal. Basic book, New York, 2013.
John Cashmere. Cider, oysters and tavern sociability: ritual, violence and young men in earlymodern rural France. In Diane Kirkby and Tanja Luckins, editors, Dining on turtles: food
feasts and drinking in history. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Manuel Castells. An introduction to the information age. City: analysis of urban trends, culture,
theory, policy, action, 2(7):6–16, 1997.
Manuel Castells. The rise of the network society: the information age: economy, society, andculture. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
Francis Castles. The Working Class and Welfare. Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1985.
Kathy Charmaz. Grounded theory. In Jonathan A Smith, editor, Qualitative psychology: a practicalguide to research methods. Sage Publications, London, 2008.
Leo R Chavez, F Allan Hubbell, Juliet M McMullin, Rebecca G Martinez, and Shiraz I Mishra.
Understanding knowledge and attitudes about breast cancer. a cultural analysis. Archives ofFamily Medicine, 4(2):145–152, 1995.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

257

Wookyoun Cho, Wakako Takeda, Yujin Oh, Naomi Aiba, and Youngmee Lee. Perceptions andpractices of commensality and solo-eating among Korean and Japanese university students: across–cultural analysis. Nutrition Research & Practice, 9(5):523–529, 2015.
Jane Chrzan. The family meal as a culturally relevant nutrition teaching aid. In Herbert L Meiselman and Herb Meiselman, editors, Meals in Science and Practice: interdisciplinary Researchand Business Applications. Woodhead publishing, Cambridge, 2009.
Haejoo Chung and Carles Muntaner. Welfare state matters: a typological multilevel analysis ofwealthy countries. Health Policy, 80(2):328–339, 2007.
Simone Cinotto. “everyone would be around the table”: American family mealtimes in historicalperspective, 1850–1960. New directions for child and adolescent development, 2006(111):17–33,
2006.
Vanessa I Clendenen, C Peter Herman, and Janet Polivy. Social facilitation of eating among friends
and strangers. Appetite, 23(1):1–13, 1994.
William D Coleman and Grace Skogstad. Neoliberalism, policy networks, and policy change:
agricultural policy reform in Australia and Canada. Politics, 30(2):242–263, 1995.
Judith C Conger, Anthony J Conger, Philip R Costanzo, K Lynn Wright, and Jean Anne Matter.
The effect of social cues on the eating behavior of obese and normal subjects. Journal of
Personality, 48(2):258–271, 1980.
Mary E Connors and Craig L Johnson. Epidemiology of bulimia and bulimic behaviors. Addictive
Behaviors, 12(2):165–179, 1987.
Rachel Cooke. The perils of a table for one, August 18 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/
lifeandstyle/2014/aug/18/perils-of-a-table-for-one-rachel-cooke-dining-alone
accessed 6 June 2015.
John Coveney. Food, morals and meaning: the pleasure and anxiety of eating. Routledge, New
York, 2006.
John Coveney and Robin Bunton. In pursuit of the study of pleasure: implications for healthresearch and practice. Health, 7(2):161–179, 2003.
John Coveney, Andrea Begley, and Danielle Gallegos. ‘Savior fare’: are cooking skills a new
morality? Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 52(3):617–642, 2012.
Millie Creighton. Consuming rural Japan: the marketing of tradition and nostalgia in the Japanese
travel industry. Ethnology, pages 239–254, 1997.
Laura Dales. Ohitorisama, singlehood and agency in Japan. Asian Studies Review, 38(2):224–242,
2014.
Kerry J Daly. Deconstructing family time: from ideology to lived experience. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 63(2):283–294, 2001.

258

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Giada Danesi. Pleasures and stress of eating alone and eating together among French and German
young adults. The Journal of Eating and Hospitality, 1:77–91, 2012.
Giana Danesi. Commensality in french and german young adults: an ethnographic study. Hospitality & Society, 1(2):153–172, 2011.
Anna Davis. Challenges of Healthy Citizenship in an Obesogenic Environment. PhD thesis, Australian National University, 2011.
Maradee A Davis, Suzanne P Murphy, John M Neuhaus, Lauren Gee, and Seline Szkupinski
Quiroga. Living arrangements affect dietary quality for US adults aged 50 years and older:
NHANES iii 1988–1994. The Journal of nutrition, 130(9):2256–2264, 2000.
John M de Castro. Social facilitation of duration and size but not rate of the spontaneous mealintake of humans. Physiology & Behavior, 47(6):1129–1135, 1990.
John M de Castro. Eating behavior: lessons from the real world of humans. Nutrition, 16(10):800–813, 2000.
John M de Castro and Elizabeth S de Castro. Spontaneous meal patterns of humans: influence ofthe presence of other people. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 50(2):237–247, 1989.
Thibaut De Saint Pol. Le corps dsirable. Presses Universitaries de France, Paris, 2010.
Isabelle de Solier. Tv dinners: culinary television, education and distinction. Continuum: Journalof Media & Cultural Studies, 19(4):465–481, 2005.
Christine Delphy. Sharing the same table. In Daniel Miller, editor, Consumption: objects, subjects
and mediations in consumption. Routledge, London, 2001.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Direction of trade time series, 2000-01 One hundredyears of trade. The Australian government, Canberra, 2002.
Marco Mira d’Ercole. Income inequality and poverty in OECD countries: how does Japan compare.
Japanese Journal of Social Security Policy, 5(1):1–15, 2006.
Johanna

Derry.

ber 2013 .

Eatingalone:

there’s

no

shame

in

a

table

for

one,

Decem-

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2013/dec/18/

eating-alone-no-shame-lone-diner-table-takeaway accessed 6 June 2015.
Marjorie L DeVault. Feeding the family: the social organization of caring as gendered work. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994.
Jane Dixon. A cultural economy model for studying food systems. Agriculture and Human values,
16(2):151–160, 1999.
Jane Dixon, Abiud M Omwega, Sharon Friel, Cate Burns, Kelly Donati, and Rachel Carlisle. The
health equity dimensions of urban food systems. Journal of Urban Health, 84(1):118–129, 2007.
Jane Dixon, Dan Woodman, Lyndall Strazdins, Cathy Banwell, Dorothy Broom, and John Burgess.
Flexible employment, flexible eating and health risks. Critical Public Health, 24(4):461–475,
2014.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

259

Lorenzo M Donini, Claudia Savina, and Carlo Cannella. Eating habits and appetite control in theelderly: the anorexia of aging. International Psychogeriatrics, 15(01):73–87, 2003.
Angela JM Donkin, Angela E Johnson, Jeanette M Lilley, Kevin Morgan, Roger J Neale, Robert M
Page, and Richard L Silburn. Gender and living alone as determinants of fruit and vegetableconsumption among the elderly living at home in urban Nottingham. Appetite, 30(1):39–51,
1998.
Henrike Donner. Domestic goddesses: maternity, globalization and middle-class identity in contemporary India. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2008.
Mary Douglas. Deciphering a meal. Daedalus, 101(1):61–81, 1972.
Paul Dresch. Wilderness of mirrors: truths and vulnerability in Middle Eastern fieldwork. In
Paul Dresch, Wendy James, and David Parkin, editors, Anthropologists in a wider world, pages
109–127. Barghahn, Oxford, 2000.
Adam Drewnowski and SE Specter. Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy
costs. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79(1):6–16, 2004.
Paul Du Gay and Michael Pryke. Cultural Economy: Cultural Analysis and Commercial Life. Sage
Publications, London, 2002.
Jean Duruz. Food as nostalgia: eating the fifties and sixties. Australian Historical Studies, 29(113):231–250, 1999.
Richard Eckersley. Is modern western culture a health hazard? International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(2):252–258, 2006.
Barbara Edelman, Dianne Engell, Paul Bronstein, and Edward Hirsch. Environmental effects on
the intake of overweight and normal-weight men. Appetite, 7(1):71–83, 1986.
Ayako Ehara and Shoko Higashiyotsuyanagi. Nihon no shokubunkashi nenpyou (Chronology ofJapanese culinary culture). Yoshikawa koubun sha, Bunkyo, Tokyo, 2011.
Doris Ruth Eikhof, Chris Warhurst, and Axel Haunschild. Introduction: what work? what life?
what balance?: critical reflections on the work-life balance debate. Employee Relations, 29(4):325–333, 2007.
Marla E Eisenberg, Rachel E Olson, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Mary Story, and Linda H
Bearinger. Correlations between family meals and psychosocial well-being among adolescents.
Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 158(8):792–796, 2004.
Jack David Eller. Cultural anthropology: global forces, local lives. Routledge, New York, 2009.
Carol R Ember. Cross–cultural research methods. Rowman Altamira, 2009.
Carol R Ember, Melvin Ember, and Peter N Peregrine. Cross–cultural research. In Russell H
Bernard, editor, Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham,
2014.
Gosta Esping-Andersen. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge, 1990.

260

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gosta Esping-Andersen. Hybrid or unique?: the Japanese welfare state between Europe andAmerica. Journal of European Social Policy, 7(3):179–189, 1997.
Christopher G Fairburn, G Terence Wilson, and K Schleimer. Binge eating: nature, assessment,
and treatment. Guilford Press New York, 1993.
Keith Ferrazzi and Tahl Raz. Never Eat Alone, Expanded and Updated: and other secrets tosuccess, one relationship at a time. Random House LLC, 2014.
Alexander G Fiks, Angela Gafen, Cayce C Hughes, Kenya F Hunter, and Frances K Barg. Using
freelisting to understand shared decision making in ADHD: parents’ and pediatricians’ perspectives. Patient education and counseling, 84(2):236–244, 2011.
Joanne Finkelstein. Dining out: a sociology of modern manners. Polity Press, Cambridge, 1989.
Joanne Finkelstein. The place of place in sociology. Postcolonial Studies, 2(3):285–287, 1999.
Claude Fischler. Gastro–nomie et gastro–anomie. Communications, 31(1):189–210, 1979.
Claude Fischler. Food, self and identity. Social Science Information, 27(2):275–292, 1988.
Claude Fischler. Commensality, society and culture. Social Science Information, 50(3–4):528–548,
2011.
Claude Fischler and Estelle Masson.
eating

means

to

us,

2008.

France,Europe,the United States:what

https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/

france-europe-the-united-states-what-eating-means-to-us-an-interview-with-claudefischler-and-estelle-masson.pdf accessed 17 September 2015.
Dana R Fisher. Resource dependency and rural poverty: rural areas in the United States andJapan. Rural Sociology, 66(2):181–202, 2001.
Robert K Fitts. The archeology of middle-class domesticity and gentility in Victorian Brooklyn.
Historical Archaeology, 33(1):39–62, 1999.
Food and Agriculture Organization. Declaration on world food security. In World Food Summit,
Rome, 1996.
Food and Agriculture Organization. Crops and drops: making the best use of water for agriculture.
Technical report, Rome, 2002.
Michael Forster and Marco Mira d’Ercole. Income distribution and poverty in OECD countries inthe second half of the 1990s, 2005.
Larry Forthun. Family nutrition: the truth about family meals, 2012. https://edis.ifas.ufl.
edu/fy1061 accessed 6 June 2015.
Sharon Friel. Climate change, food insecurity and chronic diseases: sustainable and healthy policy
opportunities for Australia. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, 21(6):129–133, 2010.
Saeko Fukushima. A cross–generational and cross–cultural study on demonstration of attentiveness.
Pragmatics, 21(4), 2011.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

261

Aurelia D George. The Japanese farm lobby and agricultural policy-making. Pacific Affairs, 54(3):409–430, 1981.
John Germov. Whetting the appetite: a taste of the sociology of food and nutrition. HealthSociology Review, 7(1):35–46, 1997.
Anthony Giddens. Modernity and Self-Identity: self and society in the late modern age. Standford
University Press, Standford: California, 1991.
John R Gillis. Ritualization of middle-class family life in nineteenth century Britain. International
Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 3(2):213–235, 1989.
Matthew W Gillman, Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman, A Lindsay Frazier, Helaine RH Rockett, Carlos A
Camargo Jr, Alison E Field, Catherine S Berkey, and Graham A Colditz. Family dinner anddiet quality among older children and adolescents. Archives of Family Medicine, 9(3):235, 2000.
David B Goldstein. Failures of eating in the merchant of Venice. Actes des congrs de la Socitfranaise Shakespeare, (29):31–46, 2012.
David B Goldstein. Eating and Ethics in Shakespeare’s England. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2013.
Robert E Goodin, James Mahmud Rice, Michael Bittman, and Peter Saunders. The time-pressure
illusion: discretionary time vs. free time. Social Indicators Research, 73(1):43–70, 2005.
Janet C Gornick and Alexandra Heron. The regulation of working time as work-family reconciliation policy: comparing Europe, Japan, and the United States. Journal of Comparative Policy
Analysis, 8(2):149–166, 2006.
Heidi Gottfried. Pathways to economic security: gender and nonstandard employment in contemporary Japan. Social Indicators Research, 88(1):179–196, 2008.
Annie Gray. ‘The proud air of an unwilling slave’: tea, women and domesticity, c. 1700–1900. In
Historical and Archaeological Perspectives on Gender Transformations, pages 23–43. Springer,
2013.
Catherine Grevet, Anthony Tang, and Elizabeth Mynatt. Eating alone, together: new forms ofcommensality. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM international conference on Supporting group
work, pages 103–106. Association for Computing Machinery, 2012.
Carlos M Grilo, Saul Shiffman, and Jeffery T Carter-Campbell. Binge eating antecedents in normalweight nonpurging females: is there consistency? International Journal of Eating Disorders, 16(3):239–249, 1994.
Derham Groves. Gob smacked! TV dining in Australia between 1956 and 1966. The Journal of
Popular Culture, 37(3):409–417, 2004.
Joseph R Gusfield. Nature’s body and the metaphors of food. In Michele Lamont and Marcel
Fournier, editors, Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1992.

262

BIBLIOGRAPHY

S Hamaguchi, M Aoshima, K Ariyoshi, N Asoh, BG Dhoubhadel, N Hosokawa, M Ishida, N Kaneko,
M Suzuki, KS Hamaguchi, and K Morimoto Tanaka. Clinical characteristics and mortalityrelated factors of elderly people with Pneumonia. American Journal of Respiratory Critical
Care Medicine, 189:A6522, 2014.
Linda Hancock. The care crunch: changing work, families and welfare in Australia. Critical social
policy, 22(1):119–140, 2002.
Kazuro Hanihara. Emishi, Ezo and Ainu: an anthropological perspective. Nichibunken Japan
Review, pages 35–48, 1990.
Chris Hann. The gift and reciprocity: perspectives from economic anthropology. Handbook of the
Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 1:207–223, 2006.
Nobuo Harada. Ajia no naka no edo bunka (edo culture within asia). Journal for Integrated studyof dietary habits, 17(1):6–10, 2006.
Jess Harris and Catherine McDonald. Post-fordism, the welfare state and the personal social
services: a comparison of Australia and Britain. British Journal of Social Work, 30(1):51–70,
2000.
Louise C Hawkley and John T Cacioppo. Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review
of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2):218–227, 2010.
Dwight B Heath. Drinking and pleasure across cultures. Psychology Press, 1999.
Tracey Heatherington. In the rustic kitchen: real talk and reciprocity. Ethnology, pages 329–345,
2001.
Todd F Heatherton and Roy F Baumeister. Binge eating as escape from self-awareness. Psychological bulletin, 110(1):86, 1991.
Bente Heimtun. The holiday meal: eating out alone and mobile emotional geographies. LeisureStudies, 29(2):175–192, 2010.
David A Hensher. The imbalance between car and public transport use in urban Australia: whydoes it exist? Transport Policy, 5(4):193–204, 1998.
Ted Henzell. Australian agriculture: its history and challenges. CSIRO Publishing, 2007.
C Peter Herman, Deborah A Roth, and Janet Polivy. Effects of the presence of others on foodintake: a normative interpretation. Psychological bulletin, 129(6):873–886, 2003.
Marion M Hetherington, Annie S Anderson, Geraldine NM Norton, and Lisa Newson. Situational
effects on meal intake: a comparison of eating alone and eating with others. Physiology &Behavior, 88(4):498–505, 2006.
Jacqueline Hogan. Globalization and gendered national identities in the television advertisementsof Japan and Australia. Media, Culture & Society, 21:743–775, 1999.
Mary Holmes. The emotionalization of reflexivity. Sociology, 44(1):139–154, 2010.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

263

Yusaku Horiuchi and Jun Saito. Cultivating rice and votes: the institutional origins of agriculturalprotectionism in Japan. Journal of East Asian Studies, 10(3):425–452, 2010.
Daniel J Hruschka. Culture as an explanation in population health. Annals of Human Biology, 36(3):235–247, 2009.
Rebecca Huntley. Eating Between the Lines: food & equality in Australia. Black Inc., 2008a.
Rebecca Huntley. White paper ‘because family mealtimes matter’. Technical report, IPSOS Australia, 2008b.
Masayoshi Ido and Toshiko Fukuma. Research for adaption and aptitude of system engineer. Hosei
daigaku kougakubu kenkyu shuhou (Bulletin of the Faculty of Engineering, Hosei University),
24:111–120, 1988.
Masayoshi Ido and Toshiko Fukuma. An interaction approach for system engineer’s surronding.
Hosei daigaku kougakubu kenkyu shuhou (Bulletin of the Faculty of Engineering, Hosei University), 25:9–18, 1989.
Qluwatoyin Okatundun Ilesanmi. What is cross–cultural research?

International Journal of

Psychological Studies, 1(2):82–96, 2009.
Mitsuhiko Imanaga, Yuka Yamazaki, and Eiji Marui. Rousui-shi no chiikisa wo umidasu youin:2005 nen no todoufukenbetsu rousui shibouritsu to iryou shakaiteki shihyou tono kanren (factors generating regional differences of senility death: associations between senility mortality by
prefectures in 2005 and medical and social indicators). Kousei no shihyou, 29(13):1–6, 2012.
International Labour Organization. Working time in the twenty-first century, 2011. http://www.
ilo.org/travail/whatwedo/publications/WCMS_161734/lang--en/index.htm accessed 22
September 2015.
Sarah Irwin. Rights of passage: social change and the transition from youth to adulthood. Routledge,
New York, 2013.
Naomichi Ishige. Shokutaku bunmei ron (Discussion of dining table civilization). Chuo koron
shinsha, Tokyo, 2005.
Naomichi Ishige. Eggs and the Japanese. In Eggs in Cookery: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium
on Food and Cookery 2006. Oxford Symposium, 2007.
Marilyn Ivy. Formation of mass culture. In Andrew Gordon, editor, Postwar Japan as history.
University of California Press, Berkley, 1993.
Masaya Iwasaki. Kanashimi no beishoku kyodoutai (trajetic rice-eating community). In Kouichi
Ikegami, Masaya Iwasaki, Kousuke Harayama, and Tatsushi Fujihara, editors, Shoku no kyoudoutai: Douin kara rentai e (Community of food: from mobilization to solidarity). Nakanishiya,
Kyoto, 2008.
Adrian V Jaeggi and Carel P Van Schaik. The evolution of food sharing in primates. Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(11):2125–2140, 2011.

264

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adrian V Jaeggi, Jeroen MG Stevens, and Carel P Van Schaik. Tolerant food sharing and reciprocity is precluded by despotism among bonobos but not chimpanzees. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, 143(1):41–51, 2010.
Purnendra Jain. Japan–Australia security ties and the United States: the evolution of the trilateraldialogue process and its challenges. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 60(4):521–535,
2006.
Japanese government. Roudou kijyun ho (labor standard law), 1947. http://law.e-gov.go.jp/
htmldata/S22/S22HO049.html accessed 17 September 2015.
Craig Johnson and Reed Larson. Bulimia: an analysis of moods and behavior. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 44(4):341–351, 1982.
Delmos J Jones. Towards a native anthropology. Human Organization, 29(4):251–259, 1970.
Alice P Julier. Eating Together: food, friendship, and inequality. University of Illinois Press,
Chicago, 2013.
James Jupp. From white Australia to Woomera: the story of Australian immigration. Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
Cigdem Kagitcibasi. Individualism and collectivism. In John W Berry, Marshall H Segall, andCigdem Kagitcibasi, editors, Handbook of cross–cultural psychology: social behavior and applications. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, 1997.
Cigdem Kagitcibasi. Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context implications for self and family.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4):403–422, 2005.
Thomas Kalliath and Paula Brough. Work-life balance: a review of the meaning of the balance
construct. Journal of Management and Organization, 14(3):323–327, 2008.
Masao Kanazawa, Nobuo Yoshiike, Toshimasa Osaka, Yoshio Numba, Paul Zimmet, and Shuji
Inoue. Criteria and classification of obesity in Japan and Asia-Oceania. Asia Pacific Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 11(s8):S732–S737, 2002.
Hillard Kaplan, Michael Gurven, and Kim Hill. The natural history of human food sharing andcooperation: a review and a new multi-individual approach to the negotiation of norms. In
Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles, Robert Boyd, and Ernst Fehr, editors, Moral sentiments andmaterial interests: The foundations of cooperation in economic life. Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology Press, Cambridge, 2005.
Masae Kato and Margaret Sleeboom-Faulkner. Dichotomies of collectivism and individualism inbioethics: selective abortion debates and issues of self-determination in Japan and ‘the West’.
Social Science & Medicine, 73(4):507–514, 2011.
Tashiro Kazui and Susan Downing Videen. Foreign relations during the Edo period: sakoku
reexamined. Journal of Japanese Studies, pages 283–306, 1982.
William W Kelly. Rationalization and nostalgia: cultural dynamics of new middle-class Japan.
American Ethnologist, 13(4):603–618, 1986.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

265

Christine Kettings, Andrew J Sinclair, and Melanie Voevodin. A healthy diet consistent with
Australian health recommendations is too expensive for welfaredependent families. Australianand New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 33(6):566–572, 2009.
Aya Hirata Kimura. Nationalism, patriarchy, and moralism: the government-led food reform incontemporary Japan. Food and Foodways, 19(3):201–227, 2011.
Yumi Kimura, T Wada, K Okumiya, Y Ishimoto, E Fukutomi, Y Kasahara, W Chen, R Sakamoto,M Fujisawa, and K Otsuka. Eating alone among community-dwelling Japanese elderly: association with depression and food diversity. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 16(8):728–731, 2012.
Diane Elizabeth Kirkby, Tanja Luckins, and Barbara Santich. Introduction: of turtles, dining andthe importance of history in food, food in history. In Diane Kirkby and Tanja Luckins, editors,
Dining on turtles: food feasts and drinking in history. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007.
Arthur Kleinman. Anthropology and psychiatry. the role of culture in cross-cultural research on
illness. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 151(4):447–454, 1987.
Robert C Klesges, Diane Bartsch, J Derrick Norwood, Delora Kautzrnan, and Shelly Haugrud.
The effects of selected social and environmental variables on the eating behavior of adults in thenatural environment. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 3(4):35–41, 1984.
Clyde Kluckhohn. Universal categories of culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1953.
Aiko Kojima. Responsibility or right to eat well?: food education (Shokuiku) campaign in Japan.
Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, 11(1):48–63, 2011.
Waltraud Kokot. Culture and space–anthropological approaches. Ethnoscripts, 9:10–23, 2007.
Hisako Komuro. Gendaino kazokudanran souchi to shiteno terebi ni kansuru kousatsu: kodomonoshiten kara (discussion on TV as a device for family gathering in contemporary society froma children’s perspective). Child Science, 5:64–67, 2009.
Naoki Kondo, SV Subramanian, Ichiro Kawachi, Yasuhisa Takeda, and Zentaro Yamagata. Economic recession and health inequalities in Japan: analysis with a national sample, 1986–2001.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(10):869–875, 2008.
Fumiko Konishi and Kinuyo Kurokawa. A comparative study of food habits and mental healthconditions between Japanese and Chinese junior high school students: emphasis on the relationship between eating styles and mental health conditions. Shouni hoken kenkyu, 60(6):739–748,
2001.
Atsuko Kusano-Tsunoh, Haruo Nakatsuka, Hiroshi Satoh, Hiroyuki Shimizu, Shigeyuki Sato, Ichio
Ito, Akira Fukao, and Shigeru Hisamichi. Effects of family–togetherness on the food selection by
primary and junior high school students: family–togetherness means better food. The Tohoku
Journal of Experimental Medicine, 194(2):121–127, 2001.
Takami Kuwayama. Native Anthropology: the Japanese challenge to western academic hegemony.
Trans pacific press, Melbourne, 2004.

266

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nicole I Larson, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Peter J Hannan, and Mary Story. Family meals duringadolescence are associated with higher diet quality and healthful meal patterns during young
adulthood. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107(9):1502–1510, 2007.
Emma Lea and Anthony Worsley. Influences on meat consumption in Australia. Appetite, 36(2):
127–136, 2001.
Takie Sugiyama Lebra. Japanese Patterns of Behavior. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu,
1984.
Takie Sugiyama Lebra. The Japanese self in cultural logic. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu,
2004.
Heidi Oberholtzer Lee. Commensality and love feast. In Ken Albala and Trudy Eden, editors,
Food and Faith in Christian Culture. Columbia University Press, New York, 2011.
Ronald Lee. Sociality, selection, and survival: simulated evolution of mortality with intergenerational transfers and food sharing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(20):7124–7128, 2008.
Sangheon Lee, Deirdre McCann, and Jon C Messenger. Working time around the world. International Labour Organization, Geneva, 2007.
Ingrid-Ute Leonhuser, Uta Meier-Grwe, Anke Mser, Uta Zander, and Jacqueline Khler. Essalltag in Familien: ernhrungsversorgung zwischen privatem und ffentlichem Raum. VS Verlag fr
Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 2009.
Pranee Liamputtong. Cross-cultural research and qualitative inquiry. Turkish Online Journal of
Qualitative Inquiry, 1(1):16–29, 2010.
Deborah Lupton. The heart of the meal: food preferences and habits among rural Australian
couples. Sociology of Health & Illness, 22(1):94–109, 2000.
Michael Macht. How emotions affect eating: a five-way model. Appetite, 50(1):1–11, 2008.
Hugh Mackay. Generations: baby boomers, their parents and their children. Pan Macmillan,
Sydney, 1997.
Catherine L Mah. Shokuiku: governing food and public health in contemporary Japan. Journalof Sociology, 46(4):393–412, 2010.
Bronislaw Malinowski. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: an account of native enterprise andadventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London,
2002.
Robert Manne.

What is rudd’s agenda?, November 2008.

https://www.themonthly.com.

au/issue/2008/november/1277253191/robert-manne/what-rudd-s-agenda accessed 6 June2015.
Wolfram Manzenreiter. Monitoring health and the body: anthropometry, lifestyle risks, and theJapanese obesity crisis. The Journal of Japanese Studies, 38(1):55–84, 2012.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

267

Pekka Martikainen, Mel Bartley, and Eero Lahelma. Psychosocial determinants of health in social
epidemiology. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31(6):1091–1093, 2002.
Patricia Yancey Martin. “Said and done” versus “saying and doing” gendering practices, practicing
gender at work. Gender & Society, 17(3):342–366, 2003.
Iderlina Mateo-Babiano and Hitoshi Ieda. Street space renaissance: a spatio–historical survey of
two Asian cities. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 6:4317–4332,
2005.
Marcel Mauss. The Gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. Cohen & West,
London, 1970.
Marcel Mauss. Techniques of the body. Economy & Society, 2(1):70–88, 1973.
Minako K Maykovich. Social constraints in eating patterns among the obese and overweight. Social
Problems, pages 453–460, 1978.
Brent McDonald and Kate Sylvester. Learning to get drunk: the importance of drinking in Japanese
university sports clubs. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 49(3–4):331–345, 2014.
John H McDonald. Handbook of biological statistics. Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore, 2014.
Philip McMichael. Development and Social Change. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2004.
Karen McPhail-Bell, Bronwyn Fredericks, and Mark Brough. Beyond the accolades: a postcolonial
critique of the foundations of the Ottawa charter. Global Health Promotion, 20(2):22–29, 2013.
Angela Meah and Peter Jackson. Crowded kitchens: the ‘democratisation’ of domesticity? Gender,
Place & Culture, 20(5):578–596, 2013.
Melissa K Melby and Wakako Takeda. Lifestyle constraints, not inadequate nutrition education,
cause gap between breakfast ideals and realities among Japanese in Tokyo. Appetite, 72:37–49,
2014.
Philip A Mellor and Chris Shilling. Re-conceptualising the religious habitus: reflexivity and embodied subjectivity in global modernity. Culture and Religion, 15(3):275–297, 2014.
Philip Mendes. Retrenching or renovating the Australian welfare state: the paradox of the howard
government’s neoliberalism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 18(1):102–110, 2009.
Stephen Mennell. All Manner of Foods: eating and taste in England and France from the middle
ages to the present. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1985.
Stephen Mennell. Food and the quantum theory of taboo. Etnofoor, 4(1):63–77, 1991.
Stephen Mennell, Anne Murcott, and Anneke van Otterloo. The sociology of food - eating, dietand culture. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, 1992.
Inge Mestdag. Disappearance of the traditional meal: temporal, social and spatial destructuration.
Appetite, 45(1):62–74, 2005.

268

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Inge Mestdag and Ignace Glorieux. Change and stability in commensality patterns: a comparative
analysis of belgian timeuse data from 1966, 1999 and 2004. The Sociological Review, 57(4):703–726, 2009.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishries. Yasai wo meguru zyousei (situation over vegetables),Novermber 2013. http://www.maff.go.jp/j/seisan/ryutu/yasai/pdf/2yasai2511.pdf accessed 6 June 2015.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishries. Seisan nougyou shotoku toukei (statistics of agiricultural production income), April 25 2014a. http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/kouhyou/
nougyou_sansyutu/ accessed 6 June 2015.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishries. Shokuryou jyukyu hyou: heisei 25 nendo (tablesof food self-sufficiency: 2013), August 5 2014b. http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/kouhyou/
zyukyu/index.html accessed 6 June 2015.
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Sangyou katsudou bunseki: heisei 24 nen 1gatsu-3gatsuki (analysis of industry activities: January to march in 2012), 2012. http://www.meti.go.jp/
statistics/toppage/report/bunseki/pdf/h24/h4a1206j2.pdf accessed 5 July 2015.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Ministry of education, culture,
sports, science and technology 2013, 2013. http://www.mext.go.jp/english/pamphlet/ accessed 6 September 2015.
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Tokutei kenkou shinsa oyobi tokutei hoken shidou no jisshi
ni kansuru kijyun no sekou ni tsuite (about implementation of criteria of special health checkup
program), January 17 2008a. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/shakaihosho/iryouseido01/
dl/info03j-6.pdf accessed 6 June 2015.
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Tokutei hoken shinsa oyobi tokutei hoken shidou ni
kakawaru jikofutangaku no iryouhikoujyo no toriatsukai ni tsuite (regarding the treatment oftax examption for individual expense for special health check-up). Technical report, Ministryof Health, Labor and Welfare, May 19 2008b. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/shakaihosho/
iryouseido01/dl/info03j-6.pdf accessed 6 June 2015.
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Heisei 24 nen ban kousei roudou hakusho (white paper of
welfare and labor in 2012), 2012a. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/wp/hakusyo/kousei/12/ accessed
6 June 2015.
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Heisei 24 nen (2012) jinkou doutai toukei, September
5, 2013 2012b. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/kakutei12/index.html
accessed 6 June 2015.
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

Wakamono no ishiki ni kansuru chousa (survey

about young people’s conscious), September 10 2013 2013.

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/

file/04-Houdouhappyou-12605000-Seisakutoukatsukan-Seisakuhyoukakanshitsu/
0000022200.pdf accessed 6 June 2015.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

269

Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare. Maitsuki kinrou toukei chousa heisei 26 nen bun kekka
kakuhou (monthly labor survey: complete report in 2014, February 18 2015. http://www.
mhlw.go.jp/toukei/itiran/roudou/monthly/26/2612r/2612r.html accessed 29 June 2015.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Heisei 22 nen kokusei chousa: jinkou tou kihon
shukei kekka (census in 2010: basic aggregate data of populations, October 26 2011. http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2010/ accessed 29 June 2015.
Sidney W Mintz and Christine M Du Bois. The anthropology of food and eating. Annual review
of anthropology, pages 99–119, 2002.
Atsushi Miura. Nihonjin ha korekara nani wo kaunoka?: chou ohitorisama shakai no shouhi tokoudou (What will the Japanese buy?: consumption and behaviours in the super-single society).
Koubunsha, Bunkyo, 2013.
Miki Miyoshi, Fumi Hayashi, Yusuke Arai, Miho Nozue, Katsushi Yoshita, and Nobuo Yoshiike.
Regional characteristics of secular changes in obesity-related lifestyle behavior in Japan. Antiaging medicine, 5(2):30–38, 2008.
DeAnna Mori, Shelly Chaiken, and Patricia Pliner. ”eating lightly” and the self-presentation offemininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4):693, 1987.
K Morimoto, M Aoshima, K Ariyoshi, N Asoh, BG Dhoubhadel, N Hosokawa, M Ishida, T Ishifuji, N Kaneko, and YK Morimoto. Prospective hospital based multicenter adult pneumonia
surveillance in Japan, the most aged population; a mid-term progress report of APSG–Japan.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 189:A4634, 2014.
Yoshio Morimoto. Shokuiku hihan josetsu: asagohan undou no kyomou wo koete, kagakutekishoku,
seikatsu kyouiku he (Introduction to Shokuiku critique: beyond the myth of breakfast movement,
toward scientific meals and lifestyle education). Akaishi shoten, Chiyoda, Tokyo, 2009.
Kouji Morioka. Roudou jikan no nijyu kouzou to nikyoku bunka. Journal of Ohara Institute forSocial Research, 627:1–18, 2011.
Aurelia George Mulgan. The politics of agriculture in Japan. Routledge, New York, 2013.
Anne Murcott. Family meals–a thing of the past? In Pat Caplan, editor, Food, health and identity.
Routledge, London/New York, 1997.
Kouji Nakahara. Nihon no fukushi taisei to sono genkai (Japanese welfare system and its limitations). Hiroshima Hogaku, 31(2):438–401, 2007.
Jennifer A Nasser, Marci E Gluck, and Allan Geliebter. Impulsivity and test meal intake in obese
binge eating women. Appetite, 43(3):303–307, 2004.
National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
ners

iv,

2007.

The importance of family din-

http://www.casacolumbia.org/addiction-research/reports/

importance-of-family-dinners-2007 accessed 6 June 2015.

270

BIBLIOGRAPHY

National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
ners

vii,

2011.

The importance of family din-

http://www.casacolumbia.org/addiction-research/reports/

importance-of-family-dinners-2011 accessed 6 June 2015.
National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
ners

viii,

2012.

The importance of family din-

http://www.casacolumbia.org/addiction-research/reports/

importance-of-family-dinners-2012 accessed 6 June 2015.
National Federation of Agircultureal Co-operative Associations. Nihon no shokuryo wo kangaeru
2013 (thinking about food in Japan), 2013. http://www.zennoh.or.jp/japan_food/index.
html accessed 6 June 2015.
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. Nihon no setaisuu no shourai suikei- zenkoku toukei- (estimates of the number of household in the future of japan -a nationwide
estimate-), 2013. http://www.ipss.go.jp/pp-ajsetai/j/HPRJ2013/t-page.asp accessed 6
June 2015.
National Tax Agency. Heisei 25 nendo minkan kyuyo jittai toukei chousa (survey on annual incomeof workers in private sectors 2013), 2013. https://www.nta.go.jp/kohyo/tokei/kokuzeicho/
minkan2013/minkan.htm accessed 15 July 2015.
Maja Nazaruk. Reflexivity in anthropological discourse analysis. Anthropological notebooks, 17(1):73–83, 2011.
Kumiko Nemoto. Long working hours and the corporate gender divide in japan. Gender, Work &Organization, 20(5):512–527, 2013.
Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, Peter J Hannan, Mary Story, Jillian Croll, and Cheryl Perry. Familymeal patterns: associations with sociodemographic characteristics and improved dietary intake
among adolescents. Journal of the american dietetic association, 103(3):317–322, 2003.
Patricia Niland, Antonia C Lyons, Ian Goodwin, and Fiona Hutton. “Everyone can loosen up andget a bit of a buzz on”: young adults, alcohol and friendship practices. International Journalof Drug Policy, 24(6):530–537, 2013.
Yu Ninomiya. Benjo-meshi ni kansuru ichikousatsu: daigaku ni okeru shinri-shugi (an analysis on
benjo-meshi: psychologism in universities). Hitotsubashi University Research and Development
Center for Higher Education Annual Report, 2010:63–71, 2011.
Emiko Ochiai. Debates over the ie and the stem family: orientalism east and west. Nichibunken
Japan Review, 12:105–127, 2000.
Emiko Ochiai. 21 seiki no kazoku he:kazoku no sengotaisei no miekata koekata (The Japanesesystem in transition). Yuhikaku, Chiyota, Tokyo, 2005.
Emiko Ochiai. Care diamonds and welfare regimes in east and southeast asian societies: bridging
family and welfare sociology. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 18(1):60–78, 2009.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

271

Emiko Ochiai, Aya Abe, Takafumi Uzuhashi, Yuko Tamiya, and Masato Shikata. Nihon ni okeru
kea daiamondo no saikousei: kaigo hoken ha kazokushugi wo kaeta ka (reconstruction of care–diamond in Japan: if the elderly care insurance has changed familism?). Kaigai shakai hosho
kenkyu (Social welfare research overseas), (170):4–19, 2010.
Avner Offer, Rachel Pechey, and Stanley Ulijaszek. Obesity under affluence varies by welfare
regimes: the effect of fast food, insecurity, and inequality. Economics & Human Biology, 8(3):297–308, 2010.
Jun Ohashi. Linguistic rituals for thanking in Japanese: balancing obligations. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12):2150–2174, 2008.
Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney. The ambivalent self of the contemporary Japanese. Cultural Anthropology,
5(2):197–216, 1990.
Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney. Rice as self: Japanese identities through time. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, 1993.
Mami Omote. Shokutaku to kazoku: kazoku danran no rekishiteki hensen. Sekai shiso sha, Kyoto,
2010.
Abdel R Omran. The epidemiologic transition: a theory of the epidemiology of population change.
The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, pages 509–538, 1971.
Ootoya Holdings. Zaimu hairaito (highlight of financial affairs), 2014. http://www.ootoya.jp/
ir/financial/summary.php accessed 6 June 2015.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD in Figures 2004. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2004.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The future of families to 2030: projections, policy challenges and policy options. OECD publishing, Paris, 2011.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Closing the Gender Gap: act now.
OECD publishing, Paris, 2012.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Social expenditure: aggregated data,
2014a. http://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm accessd 16 June 2015.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD factbook 2014: economic, environmental, and social statistics. OECD publishing, Paris, 2014b.
Organisation
non-medicalfor

Economicdeterminats

Cooperationofhealth,andDevelopment.

2014c.

OECD

healthdata:

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.

org/social-issues-migration-health/data/oecd-health-statistics/
oecd-health-data-non-medical-determinants-of-health_data-00546-en

accessed6

June 2015.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Labor force statistics: employment byactivities and status, 2014d. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/data/data-00289-en
accessed 6 June 2015.

272

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Labour market statistics: labour force
statistics by sex and age: indicators, 2014e. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/data/
data-00310-en accessed 6 June 2015.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Oecd better life index, 2014f. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ accessed 6 June 2015.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Part-time employment rate (indicator),
2014g. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/indicator/f2ad596c-en accessed 6 June
2015.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Value added by activity (indicator),
2014h. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/indicator/a8b2bd2b-en accessed 6 June
2015.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Labour force statistics, 2015a. https://data.oecd.org/pop/elderly-population.htm accessed 30 June 2015.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Oecd family database, 2015b. http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm accessed 12 July 2015.
Sherry B Ortner. Sherpas through their rituals, volume 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1978.
Sherry B Ortner. Subjectivity and cultural critique. Anthropological Theory, 5(1):31–52, 2005.
Mari Osawa. Koizumi kaikaku ha shufu no kouzou kaikaku ka. Jyoseigaku renzoku kouenkai, 7:
15–28, 2003.
Takashi Oshio and Miki Kobayashi. Income inequality, area-level poverty, perceived aversion toinequality, and self-rated health in Japan. Social Science & Medicine, 69(3):317–326, 2009.
Oxford University Press. Thesaurus oxford dictionaries, 2015. http://www.oxforddictionaries.
com/thesaurus/accessedon24June2015.
Daphna Oyserman, Heather M Coon, and Markus Kemmelmeier. Rethinking individualism andcollectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin,
128(1):3, 2002.
Parliament of Australia.

Australian national preventive healthy agency (abolition) bill

2014, 2014. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_
Search_Results/Result?bId=r5203 accessed 6 June 2015.
Juha Partanen. Spectacles of sociability and drunkenness: on alcohol and drinking in Japan.
Contemp. Drug Probs., 33:177, 2006.
Okot p’Bitek. African religions in western scholarship. East African Literature Bureau, Nairobi,
1970.
Prabhu Pingali. Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: implications
for research and policy. Food Policy, 32(3):281–298, 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

273

Patricia Pliner and Rick Bell. A table for one: the pain and pleasure of eating alone. In Herbert L Meiselman and Herb Meiselman, editors, Meals in science and practice: interdisciplinary
research and business applications. Woodhead publishing, Cambridge, 2009.
Patricia Pliner and Shelly Chaiken. Eating, social motives, and self-presentation in women andmen. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(3):240–254, 1990.
Patricia Pliner and Nikki Mann. Influence of social norms and palatability on amount consumed
and food choice. Appetite, 42(2):227–237, 2004.
Patricia Pliner, Rick Bell, Edward S Hirsch, and Mark Kinchla. Meal duration mediates the effectof “social facilitation” on eating in humans. Appetite, 46(2):189–198, 2006.
Barbara Pocock. Worklife ‘balance’ in Australia: limited progress, dim prospects. Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, 43(2):198–209, 2005.
Janet Polivy and C.Peter Herman. Etiology of binge eating: psychological mechanisms. In Christopher G. Fairburn and G. Terence Wilson, editors, Binge eating: nature, assessment, and treatment, pages 173–205. Guilford Press, New York, 1993.
Barry M Popkin. Nutritional patterns and transitions. Population and Development Review, pages
138–157, 1993.
Christine Porter. Ottawa to bangkok: changing health promotion discourse. Health Promotion
International, 22(1):72–79, 2007.
Jean-Pierre Poulain. The contemporary diet in france:“de-structuration” or from commensalism
to “vagabond feeding”. Appetite, 39(1):43–55, 2002.
Jean-Pierre Poulain, Laurence Tibere, Cyrille Laporte, and Elise Mognard. Malaysian Food Barometer: food, cultures and health. Taylor’s Press, Selangor Darul Ehsan, 2014.
Jean-Pierre Poulain, Wendy Smith, Cyrille Laporte, Laurence Tibre, Mohd Noor Ismail, Elise Mognard, Marcella Aloysius, Ari Ragavan Neethiahnanthan, and Amri Baharuddin Shamsul. Studying the consequences of modernization on ethnic food patterns: development of the malaysian
food barometer (mfb). Anthropology of Food, 2015.
Marsha Quinlan. Considerations for collecting freelists in the field: examples from ethobotany.
Field Methods, 17(3):219–234, 2005.
Marie Redd and John M De Castro. Social facilitation of eating: effects of social instruction onfood intake. Physiology & Behavior, 52(4):749–754, 1992.
Stefanie Reitzig. The challenge of ‘work-food balance’: working mothers and their familial mealsupply strategies. In Deutsches Institut fur Japanstudien social science study group, Chiyoda,
Tokyo, July 23 2014.
George Ritzer. Sociological theory. McGraw Hill, New York, 1996.
Glenda S Roberts. Balancing work and life: whose work? whose life? whose balance?
Perspective, pages 175–211, 2005.

Asian

274

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Glenda S Roberts. Vocalizing the ‘I’ word: proposals and initiatives on immigration to Japan fromthe LDP and beyond. Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, 19:201–219, 2013.
Juliette Rogers. Feast: why humans share food by martin jones. The Journal of Food and Culture,8(4):102–103, 2008.
A Kimball Romney, Susan C Weller, and William H Batchelder. Culture as consensus: a theoryof culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88(2):313–338, 1986.
Nancy Rosenberger. Global food terror in Japan: media shaping risk perception, the nation, andwomen. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 48(4):237–262, 2009.
Marc Howard Ross. Reflections on the strengths and limitations to cross–cultural evidence in the
study of conflict and its mitigation. Cross–Cultural Research, 45(1):82–96, 2011.
Robert Rotenberg. The impact of industrialization on meal patterns in vienna, austria. Ecology ofFood and Nutrition, 11(1):25–35, 1981.
Deborah A Roth, C Peter Herman, Janet Polivy, and Patricia Pliner. Self-presentational conflictin social eating situations: a normative perspective. Appetite, 36(2):165–171, 2001.
Paul Rozin. Five potential principles for understanding cultural differences in relation to individual
differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4):273–283, 2003.
Paul Rozin. The meaning of food in our lives: a cross–cultural perspective on eating and well-being.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 37:S107–S112, 2005.
Penny Russell. In search of women’s place: an historical survey of gender and space in nineteenthcentury Australia. Australasian Historical Archaeology, 11:28–32, 1993.
Osamu Saito. Population and the peasant family economy in proto-industrial Japan. Journal of
Family History, 8(1):30–54, 1983.
Sarah-Jeanne Salvy, Jennifer S Coelho, Elizabeth Kieffer, and Leonard H Epstein. Effects of social
contexts on overweight and normal-weight children’s food intake. Physiology & Behavior, 92(5):840–846, 2007.
Sarah-Jeanne Salvy, Julie Wojslawowicz Bowker, James N Roemmich, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth
Kieffer, Rocco Paluch, and Leonard H Epstein. Peer influence on children’s physical activity:
an experience sampling study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 33(1):39–49, 2008.
Barbara Santich. Bold Plates: Australia’s gastronomic heritage. Walefield Press, Kent Town,
South Australia, 2012.
Takeshi Sato. Shisenkinisezu ohitorisama kyoudai gakushoku ‘bocchi-seki’ ninki, July 29 2013.
http://www.asahi.com/edu/articles/OSK201307270001.html accessed 6 June 2015.
Stanley Schachter. Some extraordinary facts about obese humans and rats. American Psychologist,
26(2):129, 1971.
Stanley Schachter, Ronald Goldman, and Andrew Gordon. Effects of fear, food deprivation, andobesity on eating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(2):91, 1968.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

275

Ronald Schettkat and Lara Yocarini. The shift to services employment: a review of the literature.
Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 17(2):127–147, 2006.
Ulrich Schimmack, Shigehiro Oishi, and Ed Diener. Individualism: a valid and important dimensionof cultural differences between nations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1):17–31,
2005.
Robert W Schrauf and Julia Sanchez. Using freelisting to identify, assess, and characterize age
differences in shared cultural domains. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological
Sciences and Social Sciences, 63(6):S385–S393, 2008.
Uma Sekaran. Methodological and theoretical issues and advancements in cross–cultural research.
Journal of International Business Studies, pages 61–73, 1983.
Kenji Shibuya, Hideki Hashimoto, and Eiji Yano. Individual income, income distribution, andself rated health in Japan: cross sectional analysis of nationally representative sample. British
Medical Journal, 324(7328):16, 2002.
Diane Shipley.

What’s so wrong with eating alone?, 2012.

http://www.theguardian.com/

commentisfree/2012/apr/27/whats-wrong-with-eating-alone accessed 6 June 2015.
Sawako Shirahase. Fukushi reziimu to setainai seibetsu yakuwari bungyou: gendaa kara mita
hikaku fukushi kokka shiron (welfare state regime and household gendered division of labour:
comparative welfare state discussion from a gender perspective). Kaigai shakai hosho kenkyu(Social welfare research overseas), (142):65–77, 2003.
Elliott Shore. Dining out: the development of the restaurant. In Paul Freedman, editor, Food:
The History of Taste. University of California Press, Berkeley, 2007.
Elliott Shore. Modern restaurants and ancient commensality. eTopoi. Journal for Ancient Studies,
2011.
Birgitta Sidenvall, Margaretha Nydahl, and Christina Fjellstrm. The meal as a gift-the meaningof cooking among retired women. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 19(4):405–423, 2000.
Valeria Skafida. The family meal panacea: exploring how different aspects of family meal occurrence, meal habits and meal enjoyment relate to young children’s diets. Sociology of Health &Illness, 35(6):906–923, 2013.
C Scott Smith, Magdalena Morris, William Hill, Chris Francovich, Juliet McMullin, Leo Chavez,
and Caroline Rhoads. Cultural consensus analysis as a tool for clinic improvements. Journal of
General Internal Medicine, 19(5p2):514–518, 2004.
Jerome J Smith. Using anthropac 3.5 and a spreadsheet to compute a free-list index. Cultural
Anthropology Method, 5(3):1–3, 1993.
Jerome J Smith and Stephen P Borgatti. Salience counts -and so does accuracy: correcting andupdating a measure for free-list item salience. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7(2):208–209,
1998.

276

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jeffery Sobal. Men, meat, and marriage: models of masculinity. Food & Foodways, 13(1-2):135–158,
2005.
Jeffery Sobal and Mary K Nelson. Commensal eating patterns: a community study. Appetite, 41(2):181–190, 2003.
Jeffery Sobal, Caron F Bove, and Barbara S Rauschenbach. Commensal careers at entry into
marriage: establishing commensal units and managing commensal circles. The Sociological
Review, 50(3):378–397, 2002.
George Solt. Shifting perceptions of instant ramen in Japan during the high-growth era, 1958–1973.
International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 8(2):13–31, 2012.
Lynn Spigel. Make room for TV: television and the family ideal in postwar America. Universityof Chicago, Chicago, 2013.
Robert Stam and Ella Shohat. Transnationalizing comparison: the uses and abuses of cross–cultural
analogy. New Literary History, 40(3):473–499, 2009.
Statistics Bureau of Japan. Heisei 22 nen kokusei chosa (national census of Japan 2010), 2010.
http://www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2010/kihon2/pdf/gaiyou.pdf accessed 6 June 2015.
Statistics Bureau of Japan. Hensei 25 nen do roudoryoku chousa (labour force survey 2013), 2013.
http://www.stat.go.jp/data/roudou/longtime/03roudou.htm#hyo_2 accessed 6 June 2015.
Statistics Bureau of Japan. Roudouryoku chousa: chouki jikeiretsu deta (labour force survey: timeseries data), January 31 2014. http://www.stat.go.jp/data/roudou/longtime/03roudou.
htm accessed 6 June 2015.
Statistics Bureau of Japan. Jinkou suikei: Heisei 27 nen 6 gatsu hou (estimate of population injune 2015), June 22 2015. www.stat.go.jp/data/jinsui/pdf/201506.pdf accessed 28 June
2015.
Samantha S Stone-Jovicich, Timothy Lynam, Anne Leitch, and Natalie A Jones. Using consensus analysis to assess mental models about water use and management in the Crocodile rivercatchment, South Africa. Ecology & Society, 16(1), 2011.
Patrik Strom. The Japanese service industry: an international comparison. Social Science Japan
Journal, 8(2):253–266, 2005.
Yoshio Sugimoto. An introduction to Japanese society. Cambridge University, Cambridge, 2014.
Sydney Morning Herald. Almost 25% of families don’t share meals, March 31 2008. http://www.
smh.com.au/national/almost-25-of-families-dont-share-meals-20080330-22l1.html
accessed 6 June 2015.
Michael Symons. One continuous picnic: a gastronomic history of Australia. Melbourne University
Press, Melbourne, 2007.
Toshiaki Tachibanaki. Seifutii netto no keizaigaku (Economics of Safety-net). Nihon keizai shinbun
sha, Chiyota, Tokyo, 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

277

Toshiaki Tachibanaki. Inequality and poverty in Japan. Japanese Economic Review, 57(1):1–27,
2006.
Richard Tapper and Nancy Tapper. “Eat this, it’ll do you a power of good”: food and commensality
among Durrani Pashtuns. American Ethnologist, 13(1):62–79, 1986.
Stella Ting-Toomey. Communicating across cultures. The Guilford Press, New York, 2012.
Cruz C Torres, Wm Alex McIntosh, and Karen S Kubena. Social network and social backgroundcharacteristics of elderly who live and eat alone. Journal of Aging and Health, 4(4):564–578,
1992.
John Tosh. New men? the bourgeois cult of home. History Today, 46(12):9–15, 1996.
John Tosh. A man’s place: masculinity and the middle-class home in Victorian England. Yale
University Press, New Haven, 2007.
John W Traphagan and L Keith Brown. Fast food and intergenerational commensality in Japan:
new styles and old patterns. Ethnology, 41(2):119–134, 2002.
Haunani-Kay Trask. Natives and anthropologists: the colonial struggle. The Contemporary Pacific,
3(1):159–167, 1991.
Megumi Tsubota-Utsugi, Wakako Takeda, Yumi Ohmori, Yujin Oh, Youngmee Lee, and Aiba
Naomi. Characteristics of solo-eating among young Japanese: difference in meal occasions andcontexts. In IUNS 20th International Congress of Nutrition, Granada, Spain, 2013.
Megumi Tsubota-Utsugi, Masahiro Kikuya, Michihiro Satoh, Ryosuke Inoue, Miki Hosaka, Hirohito Metoki, Takuo Hirose, Kei Asayama, Yutaka Imai, and Takayoshi Ohkubo. Living situations
associated with poor dietary intake among healthy Japanese elderly: the Ohasama study. The
Journal of Nutrtion, Health & Aging, 19(4):375–382, 2015.
Daisuke Tsuji. Wakamono ni tomodachi pressha: hitosi de iru sugata miraretakunai (peer pressue
among young people: don’t want to be seen being alone), August 30, 2008.
Chizuko Ueno. Kindai kazoku no seiritsu to shuen (The formation and end of modern family).
Iwanami shoten, Tokyo, 1994.
US Census Bureau. Historical census of housing tables: living alone, 2011. https://www.census.
gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/livalone.html, accessed 6 June 2015.
Brigid van Wanrooy and Shaun Wilson. Convincing the toilers? dilemmas of long working hours
in Australia. Work, Employment & Society, 20(2):349–368, 2006.
Victoria Health Promotion Foundation. Sharing meals with family: indicator overview, November 2012.

https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/media-and-resources/publications/indicator-overview-sheets accessed 6 June 2015.
Tami M Videon and Carolyn K Manning. Influences on adolescent eating patterns: the importanceof family meals. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32(5):365–373, 2003.

278

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carlijn GN Voorend, Shane A Norris, Paula L Griffiths, Modiehi H Sedibe, Marjan J Westerman,
and Colleen M Doak. ‘We eat together; today she buys, tomorrow i will buy the food’: adolescentbest friends’ food choices and dietary practices in Soweto, South Africa. Public Health Nutrition,
16(03):559–567, 2013.
Tamara S Wagner. Introduction: narrating domestic portability: emigration, domesticity andgenre formation. In Tamara S Wagner, editor, Victorian Settler Narratives. Routledge, New
York, 2011.
Mark L Wahlqvist. Asian migration to Australia: food and health consequences. Asia Pacific
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 11(s3):S562–S568, 2002.
RB Walker and DCK Roberts. Colonial food habits. In A Truswell and L Wahlquist, editors, Food
habits in Australia. Proceedings of first Deakin/Sydney Universities symposium on Australian
nutrition, pages 40–59, Melbourne, 1988. Deakin University.
Alan Warde. Eating globally: cultural flows and the spread of ethnic restaurants. The Ends ofGlobalization: Bringing Society Back In, pages 299–316, 2000.
Alan Warde and Lydia Martens. Eating out: social differentiation, consumption and pleasure.
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Alan Warde, Lydia Martens, and Wendy Olsen. Consumption and the problem of variety: cultural
omnivorousness, social distinction and dining out. Sociology, 33(01):105–127, 1999.
Alan Warde, Shu-Li Cheng, Wendy Olsen, and Dale Southerton. Changes in the practice of eating
a comparative analysis of time–use. Acta Sociologica, 50(4):363–385, 2007.
Martin Watts. The evolution of occupational gender segregation in Australia: measurement andinterpretation. Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 6(4):631, 2003.
Gabriele Weichart. Makan dan minum bersama: feasting commensality in Minahasa, Indonesia.
Anthropology of Food, (S3), 2008.
Susan C Weller. Cultural consensus theory: applications and frequently asked questions. Field
Methods, 19(4):339–368, 2007.
Susan C Weller and A Kimball Romney. Systematic data collection. Sage Publications, Newbury
park, 1988.
Daniel White. Consumption as care: art, labor, and ethics among women professionals in Japan.
The Hosei Journal of Global and Interdisciplinary Studies, March:43–66, 2015.
John Wesley Mayhew Whiting. Methods and problems in cross–cultural research. In Susan T
Fiske, Daniel T Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey, editors, The handbook of social psychology Vol.
II. Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1968.
Richard Wilk. Power at the table: food fights and happy meals. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 10(6):428–436, 2010.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

279

Richard G Wilkinson. Income distribution and life expectancy. British Medical Journal, 304(6820):
165, 1992.
Richard G Wilkinson and Kate E Pickett. Income inequality and population health: a review andexplanation of the evidence. Social Science & Medicine, 62(7):1768–1784, 2006.
Caroline Wilson. ‘Eating, eating is always there’: food, consumerism and cardiovascular disease.
some evidence from Kerala, South India. Anthropology and Medicine, 17(3):261–275, 2010.
Sue Wilson, Heather Draper, and Jonathan Ives. Ethical issues regarding recruitment to researchstudies within primary care consultation. Family Practice, 25(6):456–461, 2008.
Dan Woodman. Life out of synch: how new patterns of further education and the rise of precarious
employment are reshaping young people’s relationships. Sociology, 46(6):1074–1090, 2012.
World Health Organization. Rio political declaration on social determinants of health, 2011. http://www.who.int/sdhconference/declaration/en/ accessed 16 June 2015.
World Health Organization. Non-communicable diseases (NCD) country’s profiles, 2014a. http://www.who.int/nmh/countries/en/ accessed 6 June 2015.
World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight: fact sheet no 311, August 2014b. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ accessed 6 June 2015.
World Health Organization Expert Consultation. Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies. The Lancet, 363(9403):157,
2004.
Juichi Yamagiwa. Kazoku no kigen: fusei no touzyou (Origin of family: the emergence of fatherhood). University of Tokyo Press, Bunyo, Tokyo, 1994.
Kazuhito Yamashita. Nihon no shokuryou anzen hoshou wo doukangaerunoka (how do we think
about food security in Japan?). Chiiki seisaku miekara (Regional policy from Mie prefecture),31, 2009.
Yunxiang Yan. Of hamburger and social space: consuming McDonald’s in Beijing. In James L
Watson and Melissa L Caldwell, editors, The cultural politics of food and eating. Blackwell
publishing, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2005.
Kunio Yanagita. Shokumotsu to shinzo (Food and heart). Sogensha, Tokyo, 1940.
Kunio Yanagita. Meiji Taisho shi sesou hen (Social history of Meiji and Taisho). Kodansha,
Tokyo, 1993.
Gisle Yasmeen. Bangkok’s foodscape: public eating, gender relations and urban change. PhD thesis,
University of British Columbia, 1996.
Vasoontara Yiengprugsawan, Cathy Banwell, Wakako Takeda, Jane Dixon, Sam-ang Seubsman,and Adrian C Sleigh. Health, happiness and eating together: what can a large Thai cohort
study tell us? Global Journal of Health Science, 7(4):270–277, 2015.

280

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kyoko Yuasa, Masako Sei, Eiji Takeda, Ashraf A Ewis, Hokuma Munakata, Chiemi Onishi, and Yutaka Nakahori. Effects of lifestyle habits and eating meals together with the family on the prevalence of obesity among school children in Tokushima, Japan: a cross–sectional questionnairebased survey. Journal of Medical Investigation, 55(1–2):71–7, 2008.
Apolinaras Zaborskis, Nida Zemaitiene, Ina Borup, Emmanuel Kuntsche, and Carmen Moreno.
Family joint activities in a cross–national perspective. BMC Public Health, 7(1):94, 2007.
Dawn Zdrodowski. Eating out: the experience of eating in public for the “overweight” woman.
Women’s Studies International Forum, 19(6):655–664, 1996.