ABSTRACT
There is more to the anthropology of food than restaurants. It is tempting, nevertheless, to try to encapsulate the whole of food anthropology in the world of restaurants. Perhaps that is insufficiently grand. We might try to teach the whole of anthropology through restaurants. There is clearly material for a four-field approach, including the linguistic (see Adams 1998; Barrett 2006; and Lunceford 2011, for samples of this lively literature), the archaeological (Dawdy 2012; Wurst 2011), the biological (Matejowsky 2009), and of course the cultural (Beriss and Sutton 2007 is a good starting point). One could also explore narrower areas. In economics, for example, restaurants provide a context for the production, distribution, and consumption of food, all wrapped in a clearly cultural package. We can add in political economy, especially if we extend our analysis to the study of how restaurants source their food, hire their workers, or represent the social status of different kinds of customers. Politics might also be explored in the making of legitimate authority in restaurant organization. The iron rule of a chef, for instance, or the tensions between front of the house and the kitchen, can provide useful insights into political cultures. Gender issues are often crystallized in restaurant settings, with women struggling to assert their authority in male-dominated professional kitchens, or working to earn respect and a living in the front of the house. Food and décor allow us to raise issues about art and culture, while the very act of dining out can be used to further our understanding of ritual, religion, and performance. The literature on these issues is vast, and much of it is written in language accessible to undergraduates.
