In recent years, the term “foodification” has gained increasing relevance, reflecting a phenomenon that transforms urban neighborhoods through food and its spaces. The neologism, a fusion of “food” and “gentrification,” is closely linked to the concept of “food gentrification,” which refers to the gentrification of urban areas through the change of commercial spaces related to catering and the sale of food products. But how can food contribute to dynamics of exclusion and social dislocation?
What is Food Gentrification?
Food gentrification involves the commercial transformation of a neighborhood, with the introduction of new restaurants, markets, and shops specializing in “quality” foods, which attract a clientele with a high economic and cultural capital. This commercial transformation often precedes a broader process of residential gentrification, leading to the exclusion of the weakest socioeconomic groups who are unable to support themselves in a neighborhood where the cost of living is increasing. Food, in this context, becomes a tool and symbol of a process of change that leads to new social balances.
Food as a Tool of Exclusion
How can something as common as food contribute to dynamics of exclusion and dislocation? The answer lies not so much in food itself, but in its cultural connotations and the spaces dedicated to it. In food gentrification, in fact, what makes the difference are specific types of food, such as “organic,” “local,” “ethical,” or “artisanal,” which are not consumed everywhere, but require well-defined spaces: small shops, niche restaurants, and artisan markets. These spaces, in addition to offering a certain quality of products, are accessible only to those who possess three forms of capital: economic, cultural, and culinary.
Economic, Cultural and Culinary Capital
Economic capital is evident: consuming in these spaces requires a higher-than-average financial availability, given that the products offered are often more expensive. Cultural capital , on the other hand, manifests itself in the appreciation for a certain aesthetic and narrative around food, connected to values such as sustainability, authenticity, or craftsmanship, which distinguish these consumers from those of mass consumption. Finally, culinary capital concerns the ability to understand, appreciate, and judge the subtle nuances of quality and provenance of food.
Spaces that Exclude and Displace
These three capitals intersect in physical spaces and transform them into places of exclusion. Those who do not possess such capital are unable to participate in this type of consumption, and are often indirectly rejected by these places, which acquire a very specific social connotation. Over time, these spaces fill with new meanings, becoming exclusionary for historical residents. This phenomenon can lead to forms of direct dislocation, when residents can no longer afford to live in the area, or indirect, when they feel that their neighborhood no longer belongs to them, since the new commercial spaces do not reflect their habits or possibilities of consumption.
Conclusion
Foodification is not just a commercial change, but a cultural and social phenomenon that contributes to reshaping urban space, with profound consequences on the social fabric. Food gentrification reflects and amplifies existing inequalities, turning food and its spaces into tools of exclusion and dislocation. In a world increasingly attentive to the quality and origin of food, it is important to also consider the social implications of such changes, especially in cities where the cost of living is already a barrier for many people.
Comments