Manuscript - with author details

1 2 3 4 The contradictions of a superfood consumerism in a postfeminist, neoliberal 5 world 6 7 8 This article examines the rise in the consumption of superfoods as a normative food 9 trend amongst affluent groups in the global North that has embedded itself in Western 10 food culture (Statista, 2918; Gamboa et al, 2017; Groeniger et al, 2017). I argue that 11 superfoods are a marker of idealized identity that is mobilized using neoliberal, 12 postfeminist, and food justice discourses. I examine the visual and textual framings of 13 these products as they are implicitly and explicitly taken up on social media. In particular, 14 I examine the material and ideological outcomes of tensions between the binaries of 15 plenty and constraint, ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ foods, and individual identity and conformity as 16 they are expressed in the visual and textual discourse surrounding foods like goji 17 18 berries, chia seeds, maca powder, and hemp. Also examined are the effects of a kind of 19 body entrepreneurism that is encouraged by these discourses, which further pathologies 20 non-conforming bodies and produces, on the part of the consumer, corporal anxiety and 21 a pained relationship with food. 22 Superfood, postfeminist, neoliberalism, food ethics, body, identity 23 24 25 26 27 Tina Sikka, PhD 28 Head of Postgraduate Research 29 Lecturer 30 Media, Culture and Heritage 31 School of Arts and Cultures 32 RM 2.84, Armstrong Building 33 Newcastle University 34 Newcastle upon Tyne 35 NE1 7RU 36 37 United Kingdom 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 1 65 1 2 3 4 5 In this paper, I make the argument that the superfood movement is best thought of as a 6 unique hybrid of postfeminist and neoliberal displays of individual choice that have been 7 8 parlayed into loose lifestyle affiliations and are progressing towards strong subcultural 9 formations. The placement of superfood consumers, activists, and communities on this 10 spectrum is indicative of the strength of three central binaries made concrete through the 11 degree of polarization of their terms: plenty and constraint, ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ foods, and 12 individual identity and conformity. I examine binaries these as they are expressed in 13 online visual and textual discourse surrounding superfoods. As these binaries become 14 more pronounced, I contend that their wider cultural, political and social effects also 15 become more manifest. These include, but are not limited to, the pathologization of non- 16 conforming bodies, personal corporal anxiety, including a pain relationship to food, and a 17 18 tangled conception of food justice that oftentimes clashes with neoliberal and 19 postfeminist political positions. As such, food practices that share material resources and 20 power equitably, promote environmentally sound engagement and participation in food 21 production and procurement, highlight gender and racially just food practices, and 22 thematize the rich cultural and historical significant of food beyond that of physicality, are 23 proposed as a counter-model (Dowler, Caraher, 2003; Perez and Allen, 2007; Allen, 24 2010; Mares and Peña, 2011; Delormier et al. 2009) 25 26 27 Currently, superfoods do not have a precise definition in the medical community or in 28 nutritional and food sciences and thus should be understood as more of a marketing 29 term. Broadly, they refer to foodstuffs and dietary supplements that are thought to 30 contain particularly beneficial set or sets of health promoting properties (often in the form 31 of vitamins and minerals contained in the foods themselves) and are believed to fight or 32 prevent degenerative disease. Properties of foods like antioxidants, polyphenols, 33 phytochemicals and enzymes are highlighted as particularly health promoting. They 34 have also been described by Georgy Scrinis as foods that are consumed functionally to 35 enhance health and wellness where the nutritional benefits are largely naturally 36 37 occurring (Scrinis, 2007, 2013, also see Loyer and Knight, 2018 on ‘nutritional 38 primitivism’). While the specific foods that fall into this category are context dependent, 39 the most visible include foods like goji berries, kale, acai, wheatgrass, green tea, 40 turmeric, edamame, spirulina, chia seeds and flaxseeds (Hancock et al, 2007; 41 Daugherty, 2011; Sikka, 2016). 42 43 It is significant that many of these foods are often not immediately recognizable or easily 44 procurable by Western consumers in the first instance, which forms part of their appeal. 45 46 Their framing as exotic, rare, hidden from Western culture (until now), natural, and 47 magical in their marketing, health magazines, and popular nutrition literature makes 48 them purveyors of a kind of health halo or distinctly health-based cultural capital on 49 consumers while also implicating their procurement in cycles of postcolonial economic 50 and cultural exploitation (Fonseca, 2016; Loyer, 2015/2016, Kerssen, 2015). 51 52 Superfood discourses and consumption practices are socially and politically fraught - 53 particularly since their consumption often results in problematic material and ideological 54 outcomes that intensify as individuals become more wedded to superfoods as a culture 55 56 or lifestyle. The source material used to assess these variations in commitment, and 57 thus the extent to which the indicated binaries (e.g. clean/dirty, good/bad) apply, focus 58 on digital platforms like blogs, branded websites, online forums, Instagram accounts, 59 and conversations on Reddit. The distinction between plenty and constraint, ‘clean’ and 60 ‘dirty’ foods, and individual identity and conformity become manifestly more pronounced 61 62 63 64 2 65 1 2 3 4 as we move along the superfood spectrum from consumer identification, to lifestyles, 5 and finally subcultures. In problematizing these binaries, what becomes clear is that as 6 food practices become increasingly associated with rigidity, individualism, normative 7 8 judgement, and purity, in ways that are both gendered and racialized, the most 9 significant and culturally rich elements of food culture that integrate conviviality, history, 10 culture, ritual, community and justice are elided. 11 12 Ostensibly, alternative food paradigms are meant to strengthen collective action, 13 promote food justice and, in practice, “support capabilities for practices that enhance 14 health without oppressively enforcing their achievement in individual subjects” (Carter et 15 al, 2011, 58). In the context of superfood consumption, these ideals around food justice 16 are present, particularly when they are part of a larger health and wellness movement or 17 18 as a part of a move to reclaim historical food practices, but, increasingly, superfood 19 identities, lifestyles, and subcultures are also oriented towards individualist assertions of 20 self-control and choice, even when they occur under conditions of subcultural 21 organization. 22 23 These modes of neoliberal superfood subjectivity can be further understood through the 24 lens of Foucault’s conception of governmentality and biopower in which media, culture, 25 technologies, and government policies set the context within which individuals are made 26 27 to monitor and survey themselves and their food consumption practices (Foucault, 1984; 28 Bernstein, 2001; Dean, 1999). The more ominous reading of this application of Foucault 29 sees superfood companies, media, and government policies as producing docile bodies 30 – that is, “bodies that have been discursively inscribed to embody the moral, political, 31 and social conventions of a socio-political system” (Carolan, 2005, 98; Foucault, 1986, 32 1991). It appears the more wedded individuals become to superfoods as a lifestyle 33 and/or subculture, the more internalized these norms, values, and strictures become 34 even under the conditions of in-house subcultural sociality.1 35

36 37 Either way, consumption of superfoods, coupled with knowledge about the molecular 38 makeup and nutritive benefits of the foods themselves, have become tied to expressions 39 of self and group identity. This management of self-identity and lifestyle performance 40 through consumption is managed carefully through dietary selection and display. As 41 Warde argues, in a world where there are an “increasing number of commodities 42 available to act as props in this process, identity becomes more than ever a matter of the 43 personal selection of self-image. Increasingly, individuals are obliged to choose their 44 identities” (Warde, 1994, 878; Hetherington, 1988; Giddens, 1991). While levels of 45 46 commitment change as one moves from superfood identities and lifestyles to 47 subcultures – personal striving, normative bodily comportment, and idealized 48 consumption practices continue to be fetishized and persist in conferring a degree of 49 incorporated cultural capital on its adherents in “the form of long-lasting dispositions of 50 the mind and the body”, which entail socialisation, personal effort, and time investment 51 that becomes a part of the individual’s habitus (Bourdieu, 1986, 47; Kamphuis et al, 52 2015). 53 54 The superfood media ecology that gives rise to these movements, and the ones I have 55 56 analyzed, include health magazine content, both online and offline, blogs, and popular 57 superfood Instagram accounts that appeal most to individuals that drift in and out of 58 59 1 The use of a Foucauldian lens, while signposted here, is not employed in this analysis although 60 future studies should do so. 61 62 63 64 3 65 1 2 3 4 superfood culture and for whom health, as a normative ideal and expression of identity, 5 is important but not dispositive. Individuals involved in superfood practices in a more 6 consistent way tend to frequent these blogs and accounts more consistently, engage in 7 8 superfood related conversations online, and express their identities through these 9 practices as a kind of lifestyle. The most committed superfood consumers are those that 10 not only patronize the platforms listed above, but do so to an intensified degree and 11 whose commitment to the superfood culture is also expressed on platforms like the 12 superfood Reddit and in meetups and retreats worldwide. 13 14 As such, it is important to differentiate between distinct superfood positionalities in the 15 form of individual choice or preference, lifestyle movements, and subcultures. These 16 groupings are reflected in the source material collected for this study which were 17 18 restricted to the past five years) and which includes superfood marketing, distinct forms 19 of media coverage and engagement (particularly in magazines but also in newspapers), 20 and social media in the form of health and beauty blogs, superfood forums, social media 21 instigated social events and lifestyle websites. By distinguishing between these three 22 manifestations of superfood identity and practice, we can better understand the meaning 23 and significance of the binaries outlined as below as well as their effects. 24 25 Due to the nature of the data collected and analyzed, which is constituted by multiply 26 27 mediated websites embedded with images, sounds, and texts about superfood and 28 superfood culture, the method used to examine these polysemic and multimodal media 29 messages is that of a semiotic and textual analysis that combines critical reflection with 30 interpretation to reveal social values, ideological assumptions, and relations of power.2 31 32 This mode of study, as Deacon et al argues, “helps us to think analytically about how 33 such texts work and the implications they have for the broader culture in which they are 34 produced and disseminated” (Deacon et al., 2007, 141). The strength of this approach 35 lies in its ability to produce close, exploratory, and descriptive readings of media texts 36 37 that are critical and deconstructive, in that they aims to assess socio-political interests, 38 while also exploring the actions and reactions of readers/interpreters (i.e. the target 39 audience) through their choices in joining and participating in superfood activities and 40 groups. This approach provides an alternative to positivist and/or empirical studies of 41 media which, while also necessary, often fail to centre the rich history of signifying 42 practices from a readerly perspective (Wexler, 2017). As such, my approach engages in 43 interpretive work through the detailed study of select cases and examples which, 44 ostensibly, “stands or falls on its analytical integrity and interest rather than on its 45 46 applicability to a wide range of material’” (Rose, 2002: 73). 47 48 Before engaging in the analysis of these media texts, it is important to establish the 49 extent to which these movements are populated by individuals who are overwhelmingly 50 affluent, urban, white, and who base their consumption on superfoods procured from the 51 Global South (i.e. Mexico, Peru, Senegal) (Alkon et al, 2011; Alkon, 2013; Guthman et 52 al, 2011). The myriad way in which these movements are classed and racialized varies 53 only slightly with some groups, particularly in subcultures, paying closer attention to 54 provenance, labor practices, and processes of gentrification. This, however, is not 55 56 always the case. I return to this further on. 57 58 2 One of the central problems with a study like this is the lack of empirical studies on superfood 59 consumptions habits. Those that do exist tend to come from industry rather than public health or 60 nutritional science groups. 61 62 63 64 4 65 1 2 3 4 5 The expression of body normativity and food choice amongst superfood adherents is 6 also explicitly gendered in ways that perpetuate gender norms and preserves a very 7 8 particular kind of performed and displayed femininity. It is notable, for example, that the 9 majority of superfood bloggers, Instagrammers, lifestyle specialists, and magazine 10 articles are written by and for women (Cairns et al, 2010; Little et al 2009). While this 11 might appear positive at first glance, it is also the case that this kind of corporate 12 entrepreneurialism and consumer-based feminism is more in line with a postfeminist 13 ethos that privileges neoliberal forms of self-reliance, self-branding, and innovation as 14 the way to achieve ones’ authentic self (Gill and Scharff, 2013; McRobbie, 2008). 15 16 Having purportedly met all of the objectives of feminism, postfeminists remain wedded to 17 18 an individualized mode of authenticity which produces a subject that is not “only 19 individualized but entrepreneurial in the sense that she is oriented towards optimizing 20 her resources through incessant calculation, personal initiative and innovation” 21 (Rottenburg, 2014, 428), but which, ironically, ends up “foster[ing] a new sense of 22 isolation among women” (Braidotti, 2006, 45). While it is absolutely the case that men 23 are also avid superfood advocates and consumers, being well represented in superfood 24 subcultures, it is notable that their objectives with respect to consuming superfoods have 25 more to do with strength and performance as opposed to beauty and weight 26 27 (Beardsworth et al, 2002; Gough, 2007). This, as will be made clear, is reflected in 28 superfood media coverage and advertising as well. 29 30 The power dynamics expressed on the levels of class, race, and gender are consistent 31 themes in all superfood cultures and often intersect and overlap in ways that are 32 overlooked and discounted. Keeping this in mind, as such, is essential in order to better 33 understand how a food movement that is ostensibly oriented towards health, wellness, 34 environmental sustainability, and conscious eating can in fact work against all of these 35 ideals (MacKinnon, 2013; Cho et al, 2013). As stated, I return to these themes 36 37 throughout the remainder of the article, particularly in the sections that engage in an 38 examination of the expression of the binaries identified as they relate to superfood 39 consumers, lifestyle adherents, and those involved in subcultural movements. The 40 distinction between these levels of superfood consumption has to do with increasing 41 levels of dedication, time, money, and social commitment. 42 43 44 Superfood Consumers 45 46 For the most part, generalized ‘superfood consumers’ who engage in performing 47 superfood identities in their most flexible form, fall into the category of individuals who 48 are interested in pursuing healthful living and who engage in basic social media 49 interaction and health advice about food and nutrition on a regular basis but for whom it 50 is also possible to move in and out of superfood consumption without social penalty 51 (Slocum, 2007; Allen and Sachs, 2012; Zepeda and Li, 2006). 52 53 The decision to consume superfoods, usually in the form of marketed products and 54 prepared foodstuffs, are thought to be in keeping with ones’ own personal choice and 55 56 health objectives. Powders, smoothies bought at smoothie bars, shakes, and packaged 57 food products constitute a large part of their superfood consumption (Global Industry 58 Analysts, 2018; Mintel, 2016). These individuals are far less rigid in their superfood 59 consumption or adherence to a preset dietary program than those involved in lifestyle or 60 subcultural activities but can still be seen to embody a kind of neoliberal subjectivity 61 62 63 64 5 65 1 2 3 4 reflected in superfood advertising where neoliberalism, to be clear, is understood, as 5 articulated by Harvey, and expanded upon by Guthman as a set of “political economic 6 practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating 7 8 individual entrepreneurial freedoms within an institutional framework characterized by 9 strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade” 10 (Harvey, 2005, 2; Guthman, 2008; Ferguson, 2010). 11 12 These consumers, and the perceived context in which food choices are made, is 13 expressly that of the neoliberal, health conscious subject whose health is a product of 14 rational, self-activating, disciplined choice and where the solution of health problems are 15 seen “as matters within the boundaries of personal control” (Crawford, 2000, 408; Bell 16 and Green, 2016; Ayo, 2012). Magazines like Health, Shape, Women’s Fitness, Men’s 17 18 Fitness etc. are all popular and widely accessible texts that have regular articles 19 supporting the consumption of superfoods for better health and preventative care. Health 20 for example, in an article titled ‘America's Healthiest Superfoods for Women: Superfoods 21 for Superwomen,’ lists 33 foods it argues are important for their “mega [health] benefits” 22 and, when put together, can produce a “breakfast that’s good for your heart, a dinner 23 that fights cancer, a sweet treat that helps keep your tummy calm and mind sharp.”3 24 25 Even the less specialized Reader’s Digest magazine contains a conspicuously large 26 number of superfood articles including ‘Superfoods that Stand the Test of Time,’ 27 4 28 ‘Surprising Superfoods to Boost Your Diet,’ and ‘Fall Superfoods to Add to Your Diet.’ 29 There is even a more specialized magazine published by the Guild for Master Craftsman 30 Group called Superfoods (https://www.suppeerfoodmagazine.com), which caters to 31 slightly more committed. Twitter and Instagram are other popular purveyors of superfood 32 identities with #superfood listed as a consistently popular health and wellness hashtag 33 and Instagramers like @MindbodyGreen, @Foodbymars, and @thepeckishgirl serving 34 as popular and representative superfood-based accounts that thematize aesthetic 35 imagery as well as superfood consumption practices. 36 37 38 What is unique about this particular food trend, at this level, is that adherence to its rules 39 tend to be additive or substitutive to one’s current diet rather than functionally 40 transformative. This is particularly because the penalties for eating outside the 41 parameters set by these magazines and social media sites are significantly lower than in 42 superfood lifestyles of subcultures. 43 44 Superfood Lifestyles 45 46 47 The next level of superfood consumption includes more committed consumers who take 48 on superfood lifestyles that seek identification with others in an act of community 49 formation based on particular cultural practices (Warde, 1992; Zablocki and Kanter, 50 1976). Superfood lifestyles, as such, have become manifest in online spaces where 51 knowledge of and engagement in conversations about scientific and anecdotal evidence 52 related to the health effects of superfoods are more specialized, focused, dedicated, and 53 performed. More consistent and politicized values, beliefs and behaviors are 54 increasingly important to those engaged in superfood lifestyles –particularly as it relates 55 56 57 3 http://www.health.com/health/gallery/020331905,00.html#superfoods-for-superwomen-0 58 4 https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/11-superfoods-that-stand-the-test-of-time/ 59 https://www.rd.com/health/healthy-eating/surprising-super-foods/ 60 https://www.rd.com/health/healthy-eating/fall-superfoods/ 61 62 63 64 6 65 1 2 3 4 to environmental issues and a critique of corporate production practices (Freudenberg, 5 2012; Närvänen et al, 2013). Notably, the ability to become part of this community is only 6 slightly more difficult than that of superfood identities so the pool of potential participants 7 8 is significantly larger than that of superfood subcultures. 9 10 According to Feedspot, an aggregator of the web’s most viewed blogs, juliemorris.net, 11 Berlin Organics (berlinorganics.de), and Loving Superfoods (lovingsuperfoods.com), are 12 three of the most popular superfood blogs. All of these blogs have relationships with 13 superfood producers, write and sell books, review products, and hold public events. Julie 14 Morris, whose tag is ‘savoring the superfood lifestyle,’ is a spokesperson and executive 15 chef for Navitas Naturals, a noted superfood company, has several cookbooks and 16 teaches superfood cooking classes. 17 18 19 Naturally Sassy is a health and wellness website and blog which integrates fitness, 20 lifestyle and food in ways that reflect all of these entrepreneurial ideals. Recipes like 21 ‘Superfood Gluten-Free Quinoa Bread,’ Tiger Nut Milk, and Raspberry and Coconut Chia 22 Pots are presented as foods that are “simple, “full of flavor,” “incredibly nutritious,” easy 23 to make, and which feature popular brands.5 Additionally, some of the more established 24 and popular social media engagements with superfoods on both Instagram and Twitter 25 also cater to those adhering to a more committed superfood lifestyle particularly if they 26 27 revolve around a particular kind of superfood. For example, Instagram’s #acaibowl has 28 almost 1 million followers as does #spirulina. 29 30 Superfood Subcultures 31 Subcultures, on the other hand, tend to be more limited in the number of participants and 32 select with respect to entry than lifestyles. They also contain tribal elements where 33 personal tastes and lifestyle affiliations are themselves subsumed into the tribal identities 34 of its members which are “linked with certain commodities they prefer, with certain social 35 roles they chose and display, and with the social fantasies they identify with” (Keliyan, 36 37 2011, 97). Traditionally, subcultures rooted in music, fashion, and technology, for 38 example, also retain rules or norms around dietary expectations that are part of their 39 ideological framework. Punk subcultures, for instance, tend to reject industrial foodstuffs 40 as tantamount to filling “a person’s body with the norms, rationales, and moral pollution 41 of corporate capitalism and imperialism,” opting, instead, for food that is raw, wild, and 42 uncultured (Clark, 2004, 19). 43 44 Moreover, subcultures, as opposed to food lifestyles or personal choice-driven 45 46 superfood consumption, require elements of conformity and the display of shared values 47 that run counter to dominant norms and expectations around food consumption in, for 48 example, social situations (Yinger, 1960; Hesmondhalgh, 2005). Superfood movements 49 that express elements of subcultural anti-conformity are the exception and are often 50 accompanied by critiques of globalization, genetic modification, and industrialized food 51 production (Caruso et al, 2016; McDonell, 2016). It is this latter incorporation of the 52 political, as well a higher level of commitment to particular practices, values, and norms, 53 that differentiates the more subcultural superfood movements from those oriented to 54 engaged lifestyle and less inflexible superfood identities. 55 56 57 Elements of subcultural expression in relation to superfoods can be seen most 58 conspicuously in a host of meetup groups that have popped up worldwide in which 59 60 5 http://naturallysassy.co.uk/recipes/superfood-gluten-free-qunioa-bread/ 61 62 63 64 7 65 1 2 3 4 members are more likely to be personally and perfomatively dedicated as in the Seattle 5 Superfood & Raw Food Meetup Group, the London Raw Food Community, Superfood 6 London, and Toronto’s Raw Superfood Lovers Meetup Group.6 The majority of these 7 8 groups are instructional and involve tastings and sharing of health-oriented recipes. 9 Others, however, have clearer political orientations that include enhanced environmental 10 consciousness and a critique of corporately produced and highly processed foodstuffs 11 (Scrinis, 2007; McMichael, 2005). Many display the kinds of tight bonds, commitment, 12 and restrictions that are constitutive of dietary subcultures. They are also likely to 13 engage in displays of subcultural capital, which confers status on members who have 14 high levels of knowledge about superfoods, display a conspicuous commitment to their 15 consumption, and whose bodily comportment is consistent with idealized norms and 16 standards (Thornton, 1996). For example, there are strong and thriving online superfood 17 18 communities hosted by superfood producers (e.g. BōKU® Superfood, Navitas Organics), 19 nutritionists and chef’s branding, bloggers like Naturally Sassy and Superfoodista, and 20 some that have been organized for and by regular people interested in food and nutrition 21 and who have found superfoods to be useful to them in their daily lives. 22 23 Reddit is another platform in which superfoods are discussed and addition to several 24 companies using to advertising. Reddit itself is a hub of subcultural activity in which 25 frequenters are often more technically savvy and also more committed to the topics and 26 27 activities they feel passionate about and are interested in (Olson et al, 2015; Massanari, 28 2013). Top articles on the superfood Reddit are those that assert clear connections 29 between food and health including the life expanding capacity of Okinawan superfoods, 30 the energy benefits of ‘mushroom coffee,’ and a discussion of an article on the ‘Five 31 powerful superfoods to eat everyday to increase your energy, improve your gut health 32 and simply make you look and feel your best.’ There are also superfood specific 33 Subreddits of note including ones on spirulina, kombucha, and wheatgrass.7 34 35 The central concern with respect to these positionalities is that as these superfoods 36 37 become more readily available, affordable, and strategically marketed, claims about their 38 purported health benefits, oftentimes lacking justifiable evidence, will multiply in an 39 unregulated online environment and result in a more confused, alienated, marketized, 40 neoliberal, gendered, and neocolonial relationship with food that undermines prosocial 41 eating practices that are embodied, embedded and ecologically just. In the remainder of 42 this article, I articulate and unpack some of the most problematic binaries that constitute 43 superfood consumption, lifestyles, and subcultures. 44 45 46 Clean and Dirty/Good and Bad 47 48 The clean/dirty and good/bad food binaries are ubiquitous in discussions and judgments 49 related to food choice and consumption habits. They have been placed together in this 50 context because of their close proximity on the food-value spectrum and the way in 51 which they are interchangeably used in superfood discourse where ‘good food’ is seen 52 as clean and pure and ‘bad food’ as dirty or polluted. These value judgments are made 53 in a manner that is intimately connected, even conflated, with the person consuming the 54 food itself. 55 56 57 58 6 These meetups were located from the popular meetup.com online service. Others were found 59 through links emanating from superfood blogs and magazine articles. 60 7 https://www.reddit.com/r/superfoods/new/ 61 62 63 64 8 65 1 2 3 4 A salient example of how the good versus bad food binary manifests itself can be seen 5 in the context of the ‘clean eating’ trend – a dietary movement with which superfoods are 6 closely associated. Its modus operandi entails engaging in food practices that are 7 8 believed to translate into desirable bodily comportment, i.e. to get one closer to an 9 idealized hegemonic feminine body. One of the most clearest definitions of clean eating 10 comes not from academic texts, but from Fitness Magazine which defines it as a 11 12 …deceptively simple concept. Rather than revolving around the idea of ingesting 13 more or less of specific things (for instance, fewer calories or more protein), the 14 idea is more about being mindful of the food's pathway between its origin and 15 your plate. At its simplest, clean eating is about eating whole foods, or "real" 16 foods — those that are un- or minimally processed, refined, and handled, making 17 18 them as close to their natural form as possible. However, modern food 19 production has become so sophisticated that simply eating whole foods can be a 20 challenging proposition these days.8 21 22 These eating behaviors carry a high level of symbolic capital and are often portrayed as 23 in line with an ethic of virtuous self care (Pond, 2010, Fullagar, 2002). Bourdieu’s 24 conception of the habitus is particularly useful here with respect to how status distinction 25 is gained through eating practices that display one’s knowledge of “what is good and 26 27 what is bad, between what is right and what is wrong” (Bourdieu, 1998, 8). Cairns and 28 Johnston, in their book Food and Femininity, make a complementary argument 29 demonstrating how food is used to perform femininity through a logic of consumer choice 30 and empowerment (Cairns and Johnston, 2015). Clean eating regimens feature 31 superfoods prominently with ingredients like kale, matcha powder, chia seeds, and 32 chlorella that are thought to “balance mood, protect against disease, boost immunity and 33 support your overall health.”9 34 35 The notion that certain foods are good or bad, dirty or clean is culturally entrenched yet 36 37 variable. These binaries are skillfully discussed by Claude Lévi-Strauss 38 who, using an structuralist lens, demonstrates how linguistic binary pairs, like the raw 39 and the cooked, exist in a hierarchical relationship that produce cultural ‘facts’ about 40 gender, class, and race (Lévi-Strauss and Weightman, 1969). In relation to the good/bad 41 binary, the general idea is that the consumption of so-called unhealthy ‘bad’ foods (e.g. 42 processed, non-nutritious, fattening) is symptomatic of being a ‘bad’ person, that the 43 denial of pleasure is morally commendable, and that abstaining from eating dirty or bad 44 food confers a kind of health halo onto people can be persuasive motivators to engage 45 46 in superfood based dietary practices (Mirels and Garrett, 1971; Whorton, 2014; Steim 47 and Nemeroff, 1995). Differences of class are strongly felt in this context with those 48 holding a higher socioeconomic status significantly more represented in all three 49 categories of superfood consumers. Groeniger et al, in a 2017 study of how distinction is 50 displayed through the consumption of superfoods, found that, amongst the Dutch, young 51 adults were more likely to consume superfoods and participate in its culture if they had 52 high educational attainment and were relatively wealthy (Groeniger et al, 2017). While 53 direct studies of this sort are limited, similar examinations of raw food and vegan 54 lifestyles or subcultures have found comparable correlations between socioeconomic 55 56 status and ‘desirable’ food consumption (Shugart, 2014; Moore and Del Biondo, 2016). 57 58 59 8 https://www.fitnessmagazine.com/weight-loss/plans/diets/clean-eating/ 60 9 https://www.cleaneatingmag.com/clean-diet/the-10-healthiest-foods-of-the-year-top-superfoods 61 62 63 64 9 65 1 2 3 4 5 It is important to underscore the significance of material inequality in the context of these 6 food trends as well as the incongruence between how men, as opposed to women, are 7 8 disciplined into policing their bodies in accordance with this binary. Women, for example, 9 tend to be sanctioned more harshly for alimentary and bodily nonconformity whereas 10 “the media frequently seem to promote the idea that a man’s body is invulnerable and 11 can withstand the effects of unhealthy food” (Stein and Nemeroff, 1995, 482; Bordo, 12 1989). 13 14 Musolino et al goes as far as to call more extreme forms of this dietary restriction as 15 disordered, often referred to as orthorexia, in which one associates “their diet with 16 achieving a sense of purity and cleanliness” consistent with responsible citizenship and 17 18 hard work publicized through feminine bodily comportment (Musolini et al, 2015, 22; 19 Knight, 2012). Again, the gendered nature of these binaries speaks to the manner in 20 which goodness, control, purity, restriction is positively correlated with idealized 21 femininity. While men are less prone to this kind of policing, it is increasingly the case 22 that the moralization of food as good or bad/clean or dirty also applies to them despite 23 the tradition association between men, appetite, and masculinity (Ruby and Heine, 2011; 24 Rothegerber, 2013).10 25 26 27 Basic superfood proponents, both male and female, who are considered modest 28 consumers, appear to display less of the more extreme food practices and for whom the 29 good/bad, clean/dirty binary is important but not dispositive. This is in line with their 30 ability to move in and out of the superfood culture in light of their participation in diverse 31 social groups which entail food and eating practices that are not exacting, where 32 pleasure and food is positively correlated, and for whom sociality often requires the 33 consumption of ‘bad’ or ‘dirty’ foods at, for example, an event or celebration. This is a 34 key feature of how women have had to navigate the food choice and foodwork terrain 35 wherein food restriction is necessary to conform to hegemonic body norms but 36 37 excessive restriction is stigmatized as fanatical or even pathological. This places women 38 in a particularly difficult double bind (Cairns and Johnston, 2015). A recent example that 39 speaks directly to this can be found an article in an article from mindbodygreen, a 40 popular health and wellness website featuring superfoods, which details the indulgences 41 of fitness instructors during the holiday season.11 It states, “While we're all for eating 42 healthy a majority of the time, we believe holidays are the exception to the rule.” The 43 piece details the indulgences of these fitness experts including ice cream, baking, and 44 alcohol. It is notable that superfood consumerism leaves room for similar behaviours in 45 46 the context of family of friends, but that this ostensible freedom has to finely balanced 47 such that, as one instructor suggests, one does not feel “roly-poly and stressed out 48 about my shape come January 1.” 49 50 Those with the monetary and cultural capital to participate in superfood lifestyles, 51 however, may feel the weight of this binary more acutely. The manner in which the 52 good/bad or clean/dirty food binary is expressed is through the embrace of a much more 53 functionalized and less flexible mode of food consumption and practice. Irrespective of 54 55 56 10 For a more fulsome discussion of the constructed differences between men and women in 57 terms of their motivations around diet and food choice (particularly with respect to masculinity, 58 strength and power) see Kiefer, et al, 2005 and Beardsworth et al, 2002). 59 11 https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-27983/how-these-12-fitness-instructors-indulge-during-the- 60 holiday-season.html 61 62 63 64 10 65 1 2 3 4 the degree to which these behaviors appear to be performed through choice, it is 5 important to note that these decisions are not made in a vacuum but within a social 6 environment that reifies particular alimentary practices (clean, good) and a specific kind 7 8 of body normativity (the desire for a slender/thin or muscular/strong body) over others. 9 Food choice, under the superfood paradigm, is consistent with what Gyorgy Scrinis 10 refers to as nutritionism, defined as the functionalization of food products with respect to 11 their precise nutritional makeup and fortifications such that food becomes valued 12 according to its ability to “achieve an enhanced state of health…target particular bodily 13 functions and health conditions…optimize nutritional and dietary intake, 14 and…personalize foods and diet to one’s specific bodily requirements” (Scrinis, 2012, 15 269). Scrinis warns that this reductive ethos abstracts food and eating out of its larger 16 socio-cultural, cultural, sensual and ecological context and, in doing so, labels food 17 18 practices as good, clean, and desirable if they adhere to certain principles” (Scrinis, 19 2008, 40). 20 21 The blogs and lifestyle websites popular with superfood lifestyle adherents are 22 illustrative of the nutritionism upon which the good/bad, clean/dirty binary hinges. One 23 particularly salient example is the ‘Your Super Foods’ company, which is a Berlin based 24 manufacturer of superfoods with a significant web presence and lifestyle-oriented 25 marketing platform.12 A nutritionistic approach to food and eating appears frequently 26 27 throughout the site, which is grounded in the company’s founding story involving one of 28 its two founders who claims that “nutrient-rich superfoods” formed a large part of his 29 recovery from cancer. Apart from the compelling origin story, the products themselves 30 are all marketed in line with nutritionistic determinism. Their matcha blend, for example, 31 is advertised as promoting “optimal focus, brain power and higher productivity;” mixtures 32 with acerola cherries are associated with “bioavailable…natural vitamin C,” and thus 33 connected to products promoting healthy skin and hair; while alfalfa is said to contain the 34 “entire spectrum of B-vitamins, A, D, E, and K and other powerful minerals like iron, 35 calcium, magnesium….” which contributes to “metabolism and healthy weight.” 36 37 38 This kind of adherence to superfood lifestyles is made easier through acts of 39 consumerism that call for a greater commitment to superfoods and for whom the 40 salience of binaries like that of clean/dirty, good/bad are significant but not necessarily 41 life-defining. They also call for eating practices and choice making that reflect adherence 42 to “what is right, good, expedient and beautiful” (Veblen, 1912, 194), in the context of 43 food. 44 45 46 Adherents of superfood subcultures on the other hand, i.e. those to exhibit a firm and 47 socially grounded commitment to superfoods, perform eating practices that are firmly 48 rooted to the functional nutritionism discussed above, are associated with internal 49 display, and for whom a shared set of structured beliefs, values, jargon, and symbolic 50 expressions are particularly salient (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995, 43). The 51 distinction between foods that are seen as good/bad, clean/dirty is particularly 52 pronounced for superfood subculture adherents with strong nutritionistic understandings 53 of the value of food. 54 55 56 The rise in wellness retreats featuring superfoods as part of their activities and meal 57 plans constitute a salient example of how this binary functions in subcultures. 58 Specifically, these rarefied spaces reinforce and perpetuate the association between 59 60 12 https://yoursuperfoods.eu/pages/about-us 61 62 63 64 11 65 1 2 3 4 good, clean foods and ethical probity while also enacting nutritionistic determinism in 5 specific ways. Canyon Ranch is one such American retreat, named the country’s top 6 wellness destination by Forbes with locations in Arizona, Massachusetts, and Las 7 8 (Chang, 2017), for whom superfoods are an explicitly marketed part of its meal plan. The 9 cost and time necessary to attend such retreats requires a particular level of dedication 10 and consistency not seen in superfood lifestyles. All of this sustained participation, 11 dedication, and commitment are meant, in very specific ways, to cultivate subcultural 12 cohesiveness and belonging. 13 14 Canyon Ranch’s operating ethos, when it comes to food and nutrition, relies heavily on 15 the dirty/clean, good/bad food binary. For example, one of the Ranch’s blog posts on 16 clean eating details the most significant brain superfoods, including green tea, which is 17 18 said to contain antioxidants that “protect against Alzheimer’s and other degenerative 19 brain diseases,” as well as turmeric, which it claims “may bind to and dissolve plaque in 20 the brain, preventing harmful build-up.”13 Their food philosophy similarly highlights foods 21 that retain a superfood health halo, i.e., foods that are “simple, healthy, and 22 clean…organic…free range…non-GMO…humanely raised…unprocessed…and 23 biodynamic”14 All menus contain caloric values and other nutritional indicators which is 24 consistent with the nutritionism embraced by dedicated superfood devotees. This 25 instrumentalizing of food undermines the importance of enjoyment, conviviality, a 26 27 relationship with nature and others, and pleasure in preparing and eating food. In place 28 of this, we have a food ethos that can result in an impoverished and highly classed, as in 29 cost dependent, relationship to food, a troubling correlation between thinness, discipline 30 and distinction, and the pathologization of non-normative fat bodies as abject sites of, 31 often corporate, intervention (Gracia-Arnaiz, 2010; Inthorn and Boyce, 2010). 32 33 34 Plenty and Constraint 35

36 37 The second central binary that constitutes superfood consumerism is that of plenty 38 versus constraint which, like the other binaries identified, expresses itself more 39 conspicuously the more embedded one is in the superfood paradigm. This particular 40 binary is manifest most clearly in the rule making with respect to general portion size, 41 comportment to food and eating, as well as motivation. This is made all the more difficult 42 in a culture which simultaneously encourages conspicuous consumption, in line with 43 living in a hyperconsumerist society, and context-dependent constraint. When it comes 44 to food and the body, it is only particular kinds of classed and gendered bodies that are 45 46 permitted plenty and only under very specific circumstances. Living under such strict and 47 often implied rules can be psychologically difficult, anxiety-inducing and materially 48 constraining. Hyers et al, in an article titled, ‘Awakening to the Politics of Food: 49 Politicized Diet as Social Identity,’ offers an inventory of the most significant rule and 50 constraint inducing Western dietary practices to which superfoods can be added: 51 52  only organic, chemical-free, and genetically modified-free foods 53  only local foods 54  only “whole foods” that are not excessively processed 55 56  only fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, eggs, and fish (“pescetarian”) 57 58 13 https://www.canyonranch.com/blog/nutrition/12-recipes-that-support-detoxification/ 59 https://www.canyonranch.com/blog/nutrition/brain-superfoods/ 60 14 https://www.canyonranch.com/tucson/overview/dining/ 61 62 63 64 12 65 1 2 3 4  only fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, eggs, (“vegetarian) 5  only fruits, vegetables, grains (“vegans”) 6  only raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds (“raw”) 7 8  only “slow foods” that are local, region specific, and in opposition to fast food 9 10 Dietary rules in general do contain elements of control and rule-enacting. Carole 11 Counihan, in her study of the food journals of U.S. college students, found that their food 12 practices “manifest concern with individual free choice in diet and self-control towards 13 food so as to be thin, moral, and admirable” (Counihan, 1992, 55). It is the normative 14 pull, intentional group grounding, and the unique nature of social and alimentary 15 boundary drawing that is distinct when it comes to superfoods. 16

17 18 What is most significant about the plenty/constraint binary in relation to the three 19 superfood identities (consumption-based, lifestyle, subcultural) is the degree to which 20 constraint is enacted. As one moves from enacting and participating in superfood 21 consumption on an ad hoc basis to membership in a more socially insular and 22 proscriptive subculture, the more ‘constraint’ as a normative and regulative ideal 23 becomes significant. Magazines, for example, engage in a much less long-term and 24 dogmatic framing of constraint pedagogy and highlight the vibrancy, choice, freshness, 25 and pleasure involved in consuming superfoods. In an article for Self, titled ’30 26 27 Superfoods for Weight Loss,’ vibrant pictures of spinach, chia seeds, and gogi berries 28 are featured with descriptors like “delicious goodness,” “colorful potential,” “taste,” and 15 29 “satisfaction” given priority. Yet, in other areas, the fact that these foods are “low 30 calorie,” “hunger curbing” and ‘burn calories’ are also highlighted. It is notable that the 31 headline contains the phrase ‘for weight loss’ which signifies a temporal limit, unlike 32 more lifestyle and subcultural content which are more indicative of long term, committed 33 food and life practices. 34 35 Superfood blogs, which are more inline with lifestyle consumption practices, contend 36 37 with the plenty/constraint binary in a more holistic way – i.e. it is not just about the food 38 but about spreading superfood principles into other areas of one’s life. There is still a 39 discursive focus on the pleasure that can be derived from superfoods, with their framing 40 as plentiful and beautiful, yet the number of rules, lists, and guidelines increase. Iris 41 Huebler’s ‘Super Food Academy’ blog, for instance, is replete with posts on how to have 42 a ‘Superfood Easter’ and ‘Superfood Thanksgiving” as well as how to throw a Superbowl 43 party with superfoods of plenty, sociality, and abundance, which then exists alongside 44 posts and recipes that list the latest superfoods, recipes, meal plans, and food rules that 45 16 46 communicate constraint. Associated books, podcasts, and lectures that articulate the 47 rules and principles of ‘superfood living’ serve to increase the cohesiveness of these 48 lifestyles. 49 50 Finally, superfood subcultures tend to abide by a more strict and controlled dietary 51 regime in line with constraint over plenty with an established, albeit attenuated, 52 discursive framing of this dietary practice as abundant and satiating. The Boulder, 53 Colorado ‘Raw Superfoodies Meetup,’ for example, articulates an inclusive philosophy 54 that frames superfood living as plentiful stating, 55 56 57 58 59 15 https://www.self.com/gallery/20-superfoods-slideshow 60 16 https://www.superfoodacademy.com 61 62 63 64 13 65 1 2 3 4 If you would like to participate in these soul-nourishing events and indulge in 5 some delicious, gourmet raw living superfood-packed foods, and connect with 6 like-minded folks, we'd love to have you part of our group.17 7 8 9 The Message Board, however, is also filled with posts promoting regulatory behaviors 10 like 30 day super-cleanses, detox diets, and recipe meal plan sharing – as well as some 11 questioning vaccines and promoting superfoods as a means by which to cure everything 12 from cancer to Alzheimer’s. 13 14 While empirical research on superfood consumption and rule-enacting behaviors is still 15 in its infancy, comparable research examining other food trends like veganism, organic, 16 and raw food diets show similar expressions of constraint as ethically commendable 17 18 and, with respect to subcultures, reflective of group belonging (Dean, 2014; Chuck et al, 19 2016). The body, in this context, is seen as object or target of control and power, which 20 is transformed through dietary practice. Susan Bordo argues that adherence to these 21 rules are meant to communicate to others “spiritual purification and domination of the 22 flesh” (Bordo, 1993, 185; Foucault, 1990). The danger inherent in how the 23 plenty/constraint binary expresses itself is that it speaks to and perpetuates a kind of 24 health foodism that moralizes food choice, reifies hegemonic body norms, and de- 25 socialises health and eating in ways that preserve neoliberal political and economic 26 27 modalities. Troublingly, it also considers the body as fixable and correctible through 28 dietary practice and perceives measures of constraint as a sign of moral strength. 29 30 31 Identity and Conformity 32 33 Superfood groupings also cleave along the lines of individual identity versus group 34 conformity in which conformity to group standards grow stronger as one moves towards 35 superfood subcultures from generalized consumption. Conformity centers on publicized 36 37 superfood dietary practice, education, knowledge and discourse, more strongly manifest 38 in subcultures, while displays of individual, identity-driven choice and varying levels of 39 expertise feature more strongly with those identifying with superfood identities. One 40 interesting way outside of food choice that the identity/conformity binary can be seen is 41 with respect to food justice, defined here as a dedication to supporting sustainable 42 agriculture, fair farming practices, and community participation, as a commitment which 43 is intensified in some superfood subcultures. Presumably, alternative food paradigms or 44 networks are meant to strengthen collective action, promote food justice and “support 45 46 capabilities for practices that enhance health without oppressively enforcing their 47 achievement in individual subjects” (Carter et al, 2011, 58). In the context of superfood 48 consumption, ideals around food justice are often present as part of a larger health and 49 wellness movement (i.e. conformity driven superfood subcultures) or as a part of a move 50 to reclaim marginalized food practices. Essential Living Foods is one such superfood 51 company that prides itself on supporting “family farmers and indigenous 52 communities…fair labor practices…[and] making a positive impact in their communities 53 and ecosystems.”18 54 55 56 57 58 59 17 https://www.meetup.com/boulderrawsuperfoodies/ 60 18 https://essentiallivingfoods.com/pages/about-us 61 62 63 64 14 65 1 2 3 4 Conformity around social justice can also accompany that of food choice, neoliberal 5 displays of autonomy, and bodily comportment. However, this social justice ethos is 6 undermined when larger corporations buy out smaller companies for whom, as least 7 8 initially, health-focused, sustainable, and ethical production practices may have been a 9 concern (e.g. Nestle’s purchase of Garden of Life). 10 11 Overwhelmingly, superfood identities tend to be oriented towards more individualist 12 assertions of self-control and choice. As such, individuals display varying levels of 13 identity expression and group conformity based on one’s commitment to superfood 14 trends. Put another way, whether one is a superfood consumer, lifestyle adherent, or 15 member of a subculture, food choice and consumption practices communicate, to others 16 and ones self, who one is, their class standing, their interests and desires, and what they 17 18 value. In terms of identity, it is the case that most expressions of food-based values are 19 in line with neoliberal expressions of superfood subjectivity that gain traction and power 20 as one moves from consumption and lifestyles to subcultural belonging. This can be 21 seen through the lens of Foucault’s conception of governmentality and biopower in 22 which media, culture, technologies, and government policies set the context within which 23 individuals are made to monitor and survey themselves and their food consumption 24 practices (Foucault, 1984; Bernstein, 2001; Dean, 1999). 25 26 27 The more ominous reading of this application of Foucault sees these superfood 28 companies, media, and government policies as producing docile bodies, that is, “bodies 29 that have been discursively inscribed to embody the moral, political, and social 30 conventions of a socio-political system” (Carolan, 2005, 98; Foucault, 1986, 1991). It 31 appears the more wedded individuals become to superfoods as a lifestyle and/or 32 subculture, the more internalized these norms, values, and strictures become. Yet, even 33 those who are part of superfood subcultures retain a strong neoliberal ethos – albeit 34 within more tightly knit and self-regulating groups. This reading fits with contemporary 35 social analysis of groups and identity formation that challenge “substantialist 36 37 understandings of groups and essentialist understandings of identity” (Brubaker, Cooper, 38 2000; 10; Calhoun, 1994). 39 40 Simple superfood consumers gain some of this virtue by purchasing and consuming 41 superfoods through a practice of identity and reputation construction in which, when 42 appropriate, they are able to communicate to those around them an interest in 43 maintaining good health. Because of the positive moral valence that surrounds health 44 and wellness (Conrad, Schneider, 1992), in conjunction with Foucaldian self-regulation, 45 46 superfood consumers display consumption habits that oscillate between displays of 47 health conscious identity and social conformity depending on context. Kate Cairns and 48 Jose Johnston, in their study of the ‘do-diet,’ talk to women about the importance they 49 place on dietary self-control and body discipline while also being concerned with being 50 perceived as, “the feminine subject who is too informed, and too controlling in her eating 51 habits” and thus “pathologized as health-obsessed” (Cairns and Johnston, 2015). While 52 this tendency applies to both men and women to some degree, it is important to highlight 53 the gendered nature of these pressures (Moore, 2010; Kwan, 2010). Women are 54 especially vulnerable to begin caught within this identity/conformity bind, particularly 55 56 when hegemonic gender norms that put pressure on women to assert control over they 57 bodies through food regulation conflicts with social pressures of neoliberal consumption 58 that requires that one avoid appearing as either “the anxious health nut addicted to 59 green juices or the uneducated fat person eating Beefaroni” (Cairns and Johnston, 60 2015). 61 62 63 64 15 65 1 2 3 4 5 Overall, conformity with a larger culture for whom food is not always instrumentalized, 6 and often geared towards overconsumption and indulgence, can trigger a movement 7 8 away from individualized expressions of superfood identity towards one that is more in 9 line with significant others (e.g. family, friends etc.) and social context. Adherents of 10 superfood lifestyles deal with similar tensions, but with some significant differences. On 11 the level of identity, those involved in superfood lifestyles tend to be more dedicated to 12 identity expressions in which dietary choice becomes a key marker of personal values 13 and commitments. On the one hand, the incorporation of superfood identity within the 14 context of a larger lifestyle can create a social context in which one’s significant others 15 are involved in similar dietary practices. 16

17 18 The superfood ecosystem online provides a space from which these lifestyles can be 19 cultivated with superfood bloggers like Sylvia (Foodista) and Julie Morris, a plethora of 20 magazines, Instagram accounts, online communities and products with associated 21 communities, resources, recipes, and lifestyle guides.19 These blogs in particular blend 22 belonging with an embrace of neoliberal autonomy through self-acquired knowledge of 23 food but moderate conformity to rules. Foodista’s collection of recipes using superfoods 24 highlight nutrition as well as taste which can be seen in their Qi’a Superfood Sesame 25 Dressing’ recipe which is self-characterized as “delicious, satisfying, and nutritious.”20 26 27 Deliciously Ella is another blogger and superfood proponent whose website stresses that 28 her dietary practice, is “not about diet or deprivation” and is not meant “to be prescriptive 29 in any way.” The presentation of her lifestyle hedges between identity based choice, 30 asserted through a neoliberal and postfeminist discourse of taking charge of ones’ life, 31 and a more conformist group oriented ethos through a discursive framing that 32 incorporates the possibility of acceptable abundance - as in her Christmas recipes which 33 highlight the necessity of “sharing food, games, and stories” with family and indulging, 34 but doing so “with healthier versions of your favourite recipes.” Superfood recipes like 35 Acai, Berry, and Baobab Breakfast Bowl, similarly highlight the possibility for the 36 37 assertion of autonomous choice and belonging to a lifestyle that values a very specific 38 kind of dietary practice while also remaining part of a culture that perceives taste, 39 flavour, and satiety as important. Deliciously Ella also provides a plethora of options for 40 group engagement through comments, an Instagram account with over 1 million 41 followers, an active Twitter handle, events, and books thus adding to its expression of 42 lifestyle-based “patterns of consumption and use (of material and symbolic goods) 43 associated with different social groups and classes...” which mediate between group and 44 individual identity or, in this case, identity and conformity” (Edgar and Sedgwich, 1999, 45 46 216). 47 48 When expressed in the form of a food subculture, it is important to point out that the 49 superfood movement (where a movement is understood as groupings of individuals with 50 varying levels of centralization all working towards a similar end) is still in its infancy and 51 remains premised on the consumption of particular foodstuffs. Its focus, as such, 52 continues to retain some of the characteristics of a food trend or set of lifestyle choices 53 that one can move in and out of. If we compare it to veganism, superfood subcultures 54 are far less advanced along the identity/conformity spectrum wherein the former, 55 56 veganism, has moved fully to identification with networks of others with communally held 57 58 19 http://superfoodista.com 59 http://www.juliemorris.net 60 20 http://www.foodista.com/ifbc2014/2014/08/29/cooking-with-superfood-qia-from-natures-path 61 62 63 64 16 65 1 2 3 4 moral and ethical positions and concerns that involve proselytizing, conversion, and 5 activism as well as codified dietary practices (Cherry, 2015; Cherrier and Murray, 2007). 6 7 8 While superfood subcultures are more nascent developmentally, consumption of 9 superfoods, coupled with knowledge about the molecular makeup and nutritive benefits 10 of the foods themselves, have become tied to expressions of self and group identity. 11 This management of self-identity and lifestyle performance through consumption is 12 accomplished carefully through dietary selection and display. As Warde argues, in a 13 world where there are an increasing number of commodities available to act as props in 14 this process, identity becomes more than ever a matter of the personal selection of self- 15 image. Increasingly, individuals are obliged to choose their identities” (Warde, 1994, 16 878; Hetherington, 1988; Giddens, 1991) 17 18 19 Yet in subcultures, a sizeable portion of individual identity is given over to the group 20 where adherence to the constraint inherent in superfood subcultures is required. In 21 today’s environment, it is significant, as has been demonstrated throughout this article, 22 that superfood subcultures often manifest themselves virtually, yet these interactions 23 should be seen as equally materially and emotionally significant to participants as 24 groups that meet face to face (Norris, 2002; Wellman, 2018). Costly delivery based 25 dietary meal plans, like that of bodychef, which features a Superfood Plan that is 26 “carefully planned,” and “nutrient rich” with the requisite “vitamins and minerals,” is one 27 21 22 28 such manifestation of superfood subcultures for whom constraint is highly valued. 29 30 Another example is a joint venture, called Daily Harvest, between Gwyneth Paltrow and 31 Serena Williams that ships frozen superfoods to your front door.23 Paltrow’s lifestyle 32 branded website, Goop, and health practices are notorious for their rigidity and valuing 33 of dietary constraint which, despite its popularity (e.g. its $1500 a ticket “In Goop Health” 34 summit, a quarterly magazine, and sale of costly Goop products) has been roundly 35 criticized for its reliance on pseudo-science, implicit stigmatization of non-conforming, 36 37 largely female, bodies, promotion of unrealizable body expectations, and capital and 24 38 time intensive requirements (Caufield, 2016; Johnston et al). Not adhering to the 39 constraint that is part of this kind of superfood subculture, places one in danger of 40 jeopardizing ones’ sense of subcultural belonging, a certain level of accumulated cultural 41 capital, and a degree of class distinction gained through overt displays of knowledge, 42 bodily health, and disciplined food choice to others in the group as well as those outside 43 (Shilling, 2017; de Morais Sato, 2016). 44 45 46 47 Overall, from bone broth to acai, chia seeds to bee pollen, engagement in superfood 48 consumption, whether in the form of individualized consumer practices, lifestyles, or 49 subcultures, relies on and perpetuates an impoverished and alienated relationship with 50 food and ones’ body. As Caplan argues, this relationship is expressed both “in terms of 51 the over-determination of women’s body shapes by outside forces, and…power through 52 control not only over appetite but also over social relationships” (Caplan, 1997, 11). 53 54 55 21 56 https://www.bodychef.com/diet-plans/superfood-diet/ 57 22 According to Packaged Facts, a market research publisher, healthy meal kit delivery services 58 generated $1.5 billion in 2016 (Cole, 2017). 59 23 https://www.daily-harvest.com 60 24 Goop.com 61 62 63 64 17 65 1 2 3 4 Whether it is plenty and constraint, ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ foods, or individual identity and 5 conformity, the binaries that express themselves in superfood cultures need to be more 6 critically examined in order to understand some of the more pernicious and troubling 7 8 consequences that might result going forward. In conjunction, it is important to point out 9 and highlight the more progressive and prosocial food practices that fulfil sound 10 environmental principles while also being racial and gender just, body positive, and 11 culturally respectful. Environmental and food justice movements that actively challenge 12 hegemonic gender norms and racism, conceive of food in terms of sovereignty and 13 control, security and access, sustainability, nourishment and pleasure, and push back 14 against neoliberal globalization offer viable alternatives (Slocum, 2007; Lappe et al, 15 1998; Bradley, Herrera, 2016). Community supported agriculture, some manifestations 16 of the slow food movement, urban and diasporic farming, and indigenous food systems 17 18 form part of a larger food justice movement that, going forward, might challenge food 19 practices, including the superfood movement in ways that fulfil many of the priorities and 20 principles of an authentically just, sustainable, and fulfilling food culture. 21 22 Bibliography 23 24 25 Alkon, A. H. (2013). The socio‐nature of local organic food. Antipode, 45(3), 663-680. 26 27 Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (2011). Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and 28 sustainability. MIT Press. 29 30 Allen, P. (2010). Realizing justice in local food systems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, 31 Economy and Society, 3(2), 295-308. 32 33 34 Allen, P., & Sachs, C. (2012). Women and food chains: The gendered politics of food. 35 Taking food public: Redefining foodways in a changing world, 23-40. 36 37 Ayo, N. (2012). Understanding health promotion in a neoliberal climate and the making 38 of health conscious citizens. Critical public health, 22(1), 99-105. 39 40 Beardsworth, A., et al (2002). Women, men and food: the significance of gender for 41 42 nutritional attitudes and choices. British Food Journal, 104(7), 470-491. 43 44 Bell, K., & Green, J. (2016). On the perils of invoking neoliberalism in public health 45 critique, 239-243. 46 47 Bernstein, B. (2001) ‘From pedagogies to knowledges’, in A. Morais, I. Neves, B. 48 49 Bordo, S.R. (1989) The body and the reproduction of femininity: A feminist appropriation 50 of Foucault. In Bordo, S. and Jaggar, A. (Eds.) 51 52 53 Bordo, S. (1993). Unbearable weight. Berkeley: University of California Press. 54 Gender/Body/Knowledge: Feminist Reconstructions of Being and Knowing. New 55 Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 56 57 Bradley, K., & Herrera, H. (2016). Decolonizing food justice: Naming, resisting, and 58 researching colonizing forces in the movement. Antipode, 48(1), 97-114. 59 60 61 62 63 64 18 65 1 2 3 4 Braidotti, R. (2006). Transpositions. Cambridge: Polity Press. 5 6 Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond “identity”. Theory and society, 29(1), 1-47. 7 8 9 Cairns, K., & Johnston, J. (2015). Choosing health: embodied neoliberalism, 10 postfeminism, and the “do-diet”. Theory and Society, 44(2), 153-175. 11 12 Cairns, K., Johnston, J. (2015) Food and Femininity. London: Bloomsbury. 13 14 Cairns, K., Johnston, J., & Baumann, S. (2010). Caring about food: Doing gender in the 15 foodie kitchen. Gender & Society, 24(5), 591-615. 16

17 18 Calhoun, C. (1994). Social theory and the politics of identity. In Calhoun, C. (Ed.) Social 19 theory and the politics of identity. Oxford, U.K. and Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell. 20 21 Caplan, P. (1997). Approaches to the study of food, health and identity. In Alkon, HA, 22 Agyeman, J (Eds). Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability (pp. 1-31). 23 Massachusetts: MIT Press. 24 25 Carolan, M. S. (2005). The Conspicuous Body: Capitalism, Consumerism, Class and 26 27 Consumption. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology, 9(1), 82-111. 28 29 Carter, S. M., Entwistle, V. A., McCaffery, K., & Rychetnik, L. (2011). Shared health 30 governance: the potential danger of oppressive “healthism”. The American Journal of 31 Bioethics, 11(7), 57-59. 32 33 Caulfield, T. (2016). Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong about Everything?: How the Famous 34 Sell Us Elixirs of Health, Beauty & Happiness. Beacon Press. 35

36 37 Chang, K. (2017). Why Canyon Ranch remains the country's top wellness destination. 38 Forbes Magazine. Accessed 1 May 2018. 39 https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiechang/2017/06/25/why-canyon-ranch-remains-the- 40 countrys-top-wellness-destination/#1a2ef326abdd 41 42 Cherrier, H., & Murray, J. B. (2007). Reflexive dispossession and the self: constructing a 43 processual theory of identity. Consumption Markets & Culture, 10(1), 1-29. 44 45 46 Cherry, E. (2015). I was a teenage vegan: Motivation and maintenance of lifestyle 47 movements. Sociological Inquiry, 85(1), 55-74. 48 49 Cho, S. et al (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and 50 praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785-810. 51 52 Chuck, C., et al (2016). Awakening to the politics of food: Politicized diet as social 53 identity. Appetite, 107, 425-436. 54 55 56 Clark, D. (2004). The raw and the rotten: Punk cuisine. Ethnology, 19-31. 57 58 Cole, N. (2017). The healthy meal kit service industry Is worth $1.5 Billion (here's what 59 the future of food looks like). Inc. Available at: https://www.inc.com/nicolas-cole/the- 60 61 62 63 64 19 65 1 2 3 4 healthy-meal-kit-service-industry-is-worth-15-billion-heres-what-the-future.html. 5 Accessed 12 October 2018. 6 7 8 Counihan, C. M. (1992). Food rules in the United States: Individualism, control, and 9 hierarchy. Anthropological Quarterly, 55-66. 10 11 Crawford, R. (2000). The ritual of health promotion. In S. Williams, J. Gabe , & M. 12 Calnan (Eds.), Health, medicine and society: Key theories, future agendas (pp. 219- 13 235). London: Routledge. 14 15 Caruso, C. C., McClintock, N., Myers, G., Weissman, E., Herrera, H., Block, D., & 16 Reynolds, K. (2016). Beyond the Kale: Urban Agriculture and Social Justice Activism in 17 18 New York City. The AAG Review of Books, 4(4), 234-243. 19 20 Daugherty, B. (2011). Superfoods: The Healthiest Foods on the Planet. Journal of 21 Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(3), 207-e7. 22 23 Davies and H. Daniels (eds) Towards a Sociology of Pedagogy. 24 25 de Morais Sato, P. et al (2016). The use of Pierre Bourdieu's distinction concepts in 26 27 scientific articles studying food and eating: A narrative review. Appetite, 96, 174-186. 28 29 Deacon, D. (2007). Researching communications: A practical guide to methods in media 30 and cultural analysis. Hodder Arnold. 31 32 Dean M (1999). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. California, Sage, 33 Thousand Oaks. 34 35 Dean, M. A. (2014). You Are How You Eat? Femininity, Normalization, and Veganism as 36 37 an Ethical Practice of Freedom. Societies, 4(2), 127-147. 38 39 Delormier, T., Frohlich, K. and Potvin, L. (2009). 'Food and eating as social practice - 40 41 Dowler, E. and Caraher, M. (2003) Local food projects: the new philanthropy? Political 42 Quarterly, 74: 57–65. 43 44 Edgar, A and Sedgwick, P. (1999) Key concepts in cultural theory, London and New 45 46 York: Routledge. 47 48 Elliott, R., and Timulak, L. (2005). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative 49 research. A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology, 1(7), 147- 50 159. 51 52 Ferguson, J. (2010). The uses of neoliberalism. Antipode, 41(S1), 166–184. 53 54 Fonseca, V. (2016). Chia: From tribute to superfood. In A Stakeholder Approach to 55 56 Managing Food (pp. 87-100). Routledge. 57 58 Food & communication: proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 59 2015, 2016 / McWilliams, M. (Ed.), pp. 236-246. 60 61 62 63 64 20 65 1 2 3 4 Foucault, M. (1984) The History of Sexuality, Volume I: an introduction, Harmondsworth, 5 Middlesex, England: Peregrine, Penguin Books. 6 7 8 Foucault, M. (1986). The Care of the Self: Volume 3 of The History of Sexuality. New 9 York: Pantheon Books. 10 11 Foucault, M. (1991). “Governmentality,” in G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller (eds) 12 The Foucault Effect. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 87-104. 13 14 Foucault, M. (1990). The care of the self: The history of sexuality vol.3. Translated by 15 Robert Hurley. New York: Random House. 16

17 18 Freudenberg, N. (2012). The manufacture of lifestyle: The role of corporations in 19 unhealthy living. Journal of public health policy, 33(2), 244-256. 20 21 Gamboa, C., et al (2017). The quinoa boom and the welfare of smallholder producers in 22 the Andes. Bioeconomics Working Paper Series. University of Antwerp. Available at: 23 https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/69038f/143910.pdf. Accessed 3 October 24 2018. 25 26 27 Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. 28 Stanford University Press. 29 30 Gill, R., & Scharff, C. (Eds.). (2013). New femininities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism and 31 subjectivity. Springer. 32 33 Global Industry Analysts (2018). Rising consumer demand for nutrient-rich juices 34 continues to spur growth in the global smoothies market. Available at: 35 http://www.strategyr.com/MarketResearch/Smoothies_Market_Trends.asp Accessed 1 36 37 April 2018. 38 39 Gough, B. (2007). ‘Real men don’t diet’: An analysis of contemporary newspaper 40 representations of men, food and health. Social science & medicine, 64(2), 326-337. 41 42 Gracia-Arnaiz, M. (2010). Fat bodies and thin bodies. Cultural, biomedical and market 43 discourses on obesity. Appetite, 55(2), 219-225. 44 45 46 Groeniger, J. O. et al(2017). Does social distinction contribute to socioeconomic 47 inequalities in diet: the case of ‘superfoods’ consumption. International Journal of 48 Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14(1), 40. 49 50 Guthman J. (2008). Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California. 51 Geoforum, 39, 1171-1183. 52 53 Guthman, J. (2011). If they only knew”: The unbearable whiteness of alternative food. 54 Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability, 263-281. 55 56 57 Hancock, R. D., et al (2007). Berry fruit as ‘superfood’: hope or hype. Biologist, 54(2), 58 73-79. 59 60 61 62 63 64 21 65 1 2 3 4 Harvey D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5 6 Hesmondhalgh, D. (2005). Subcultures, scenes or tribes? None of the above. Journal of 7 8 youth studies, 8(1), 21-40. 9 10 Hetherington, K. (1998). Expressions of identity: Space, performance, politics. London: 11 Sage. 12 13 Hyers, L.L et al. (2016). Awakening to the politics of food: Politicized diet as social 14 identity. Appetite, 107, 425-436. 15 16 Inthorn, S., & Boyce, T. (2010). ‘It’s disgusting how much salt you eat!’ Television 17 18 discourses of obesity, health and morality. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 19 13(1), 83-100. 20 21 Johnston, J. et al (2017). A Kind Diet: Cultivating Consumer Politics, Status, and 22 Femininity through Ethical Eating. The Bloomsbury Handbook of Food and Popular 23 Culture, 286. 24 25 Keliyan, M. (2011). Kogyaru and Otaku: Youth Subcultures Lifestyles in Postmodern 26 27 Japan. Asian Studies, 15(3), 95-110. 28 29 Kerssen, T. M. (2015). Food sovereignty and the quinoa boom: challenges to 30 sustainable re-peasantisation in the southern Altiplano of Bolivia. Third World Quarterly, 31 36(3), 489-507. 32 33 Kiefer, I. et al. (2005). Eating and dieting differences in men and women. Journal of 34 Men's Health and Gender, 2(2), 194-201. 35

36 37 Knight, C., (2012). An alliance with mother nature’: natural food, health, and morality in 38 low-carbohydrate diet books. Food Foodw, 20, 102-122. 39 40 Lappe, F. et al (1998). World Hunger: 12 Myths. New York: Grove Press. 41 42 Little, J., Ilbery, B., & Watts, D. (2009). Gender, consumption and the relocalisation of 43 food: A research agenda. Sociologia Ruralis, 49(3), 201-217. 44 45 46 Loyer, J. (2015/2016). Communicating superfoods: a case study of Maca packaging. In 47 McWilliams, M. (Ed.). Food & communication: proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on 48 Food and Cookery 2015, 2016 (236-246). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 49 50 Loyer, J., & Knight, C. (2018). Selling the “Inca superfood”: nutritional primitivism in 51 superfoods books and maca marketing. Food, Culture & Society, 21(4), 449-467. 52 53 MacKinnon, C. A. (2013). Intersectionality as method: A note. Signs: Journal of Women 54 in Culture and Society, 38(4), 1019-1030. 55 56 57 Mares, T. M., & Peña, D. G. (2011). Environmental and food justice. Cultivating food 58 justice: Race, class, and sustainability, 197-220. 59 60 61 62 63 64 22 65 1 2 3 4 Mares, T. M., & Peña, D. G. (2011). Environmental and food justice. Cultivating food 5 justice: Race, class, and sustainability, 197-220. 6 7 8 Massanari, A. (2013). Playful participatory culture: Learning from Reddit. AoIR Selected 9 Papers of Internet Research, 3. 10 11 McDonell, E. (2016). International Journal of Food and Nutritional Science. Int J Food 12 Nutr Sci| Volume, 3(6), 1. 13 14 McMichael, P. (2005). Global development and the corporate food regime. In New 15 directions in the sociology of global development (pp. 265-299). Emerald Group 16 Publishing Limited. 17 18 19 McRobbie, A. (2009). The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change. 20 London: Sage. 21 22 Mintel (2016). Supergrowth for superfoods. Mintel Press Office. Available at: 23 http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/super-growth-for-super-foods-new- 24 product-development-shoots-up-202-globally-over-the-past-five-years Accessed 1 April 25 2018. 26 27 28 Mirels, H. L., & Garrett, J. B. (1971). The Protestant ethic as a personality variable. 29 Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 36(1), 40. 30 31 Moore, L. J., & Del Biondo, K. (2016). Considering race, class, and gender. The 32 Routledge Handbook of Food Ethics, 16. 33 34 Musolino, C., et al (2015). ‘Healthy anorexia’: The complexity of care in disordered 35 eating. Social Science & Medicine, 139, 18-25. 36 37 38 Närvänen, E., Kartastenpää, E., & Kuusela, H. (2013). Online lifestyle consumption 39 community dynamics: A practice‐based analysis. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(5), 40 358-369. 41 42 Norris, P. (2002). The bridging and bonding role of online communities. 43 44 Olson, R. S., & Neal, Z. P. (2015). Navigating the massive world of reddit: Using 45 backbone networks to map user interests in social media. PeerJ Computer Science, 1, 46 e4. 47 48 Perez, J. and Allen, P. (2007) Farming the College Market: Results of a Consumer 49 Study at UC Santa Cruz. Center Research Brief No. 11. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for 50 Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 51 52 53 Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the 54 justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363. 55 56 Rose, D. (2015). Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Genre studies 57 around the globe: beyond the three traditions. Ottawa: Inkwell, 299-338. 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 23 65 1 2 3 4 Rottenberg, C. (2014). The rise of neoliberal feminism. Cultural Studies 28(3): 418-437. 5 6 Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite, 56(2), 447- 7 8 450. 9 10 Schouten, J.W., McAlexander, J.H. (1995), Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography 11 of the new bikers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 43-61. 12 13 Scrinis, G. (2007). From techno-corporate food to alternative agri-food movements. 14 Local-Global: Identity, Security, Community, 4(2007), 112. 15 16 Scrinis, G. (2008). On the ideology of nutritionism. Gastronomica, 8(1), 39-48. 17 18 19 Scrinis, G. (2012). Nutritionism and functional foods. In Kaplan, D. (Ed.) The Philosophy 20 of Food (pp. 269- 292). Berkeley: University of California Press; 21 22 Shilling, C. (2017). Physical capital and situated action: a new direction for corporeal 23 sociology. In Physical Culture, Ethnography and the Body (pp. 47-62). Routledge. 24 25 Shugart, H. A. (2014). Food fixations: Reconfiguring class in contemporary US food 26 27 discourse. Food, Culture & Society, 17(2), 261-281. 28 29 Sikka, T. (2016). Contemporary Superfood Cults. Food Cults: How Fads, Dogma, and 30 Doctrine Influence Diet, 87. 31 32 Slocum, R. (2007). Whiteness, space and alternative food practice. Geoforum, 38(3), 33 520-533. 34 35 Slocum, R. (2007). Whitness, space, and alternative food practice. Geoforum 38, 3: 520- 36 37 533. 38 39 Statista (2018). Superfood statistics and facts. Statista. Available at: 40 https://www.statista.com/topics/3250/superfoods/. Accessed 10 October 2018. 41 42 Steim, R. I., & Nemeroff, C. J. (1995). Moral overtones of food: Judgments of others 43 based on what they eat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(5), 480-490. 44 45 46 Lévi-Strauss, C., & Weightman, J. (1969). The raw and the cooked: Introduction to a 47 science of mythology (Vol. 1). New York: Harper & Row. 48 49 Thornton, S. (1996). Club cultures: Music, media and subcultural capital. Middletown: 50 Wesleyan University Press. 51 52 Warde, A. (1994). Consumption, identity-formation and uncertainty. Sociology, 28(4), 53 877-898. 54 55 56 Wellman, B. (2018). Networks in the global village: Life in contemporary communities. 57 Routledge. 58 59 Wexler, P. (2017). Structure, text, and subject:: a critical sociology of school knowledge. 60 In Cultural and economic reproduction in education (pp. 275-303). NY: Routledge. 61 62 63 64 24 65 1 2 3 4 5 Whorton, J. C. (2014). Crusaders for fitness: The history of American health reformers. 6 New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 7 8 9 Yinger, J. M. (1960). Contraculture and subculture. American sociological review, 625- 10 635. 11 12 Zepeda, L., & Li, J. (2006). Who buys local food?. Journal of food distribution research, 13 37(3). 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 25 65 Manuscript - anonymous

The contradictions of a superfood consumerism in a postfeminist, neoliberal world

This article examines the rise in the consumption of superfoods as a normative food trend amongst affluent groups in the global North that has embedded itself in Western food culture (Statista, 2918; Gamboa et al, 2017; Groeniger et al, 2017). I argue that superfoods are a marker of idealized identity that is mobilized using neoliberal, postfeminist, and food justice discourses. I examine the visual and textual framings of these products as they are implicitly and explicitly taken up on social media. In particular, I examine the material and ideological outcomes of tensions between the binaries of plenty and constraint, ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ foods, and individual identity and conformity as they are expressed in the visual and textual discourse surrounding foods like goji berries, chia seeds, maca powder, and hemp. Also examined are the effects of a kind of body entrepreneurism that is encouraged by these discourses, which further pathologies non-conforming bodies and produces, on the part of the consumer, corporal anxiety and a pained relationship with food. Superfood, postfeminist, neoliberalism, food ethics, body, identity

In this paper, I make the argument that the superfood movement is best thought of as a unique hybrid of postfeminist and neoliberal displays of individual choice that have been parlayed into loose lifestyle affiliations and are progressing towards strong subcultural formations. The placement of superfood consumers, activists, and communities on this spectrum is indicative of the strength of three central binaries made concrete through the degree of polarization of their terms: plenty and constraint, ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ foods, and individual identity and conformity. I examine binaries these as they are expressed in online visual and textual discourse surrounding superfoods. As these binaries become more pronounced, I contend that their wider cultural, political and social effects also

1 become more manifest. These include, but are not limited to, the pathologization of non- conforming bodies, personal corporal anxiety, including a pain relationship to food, and a tangled conception of food justice that oftentimes clashes with neoliberal and postfeminist political positions. As such, food practices that share material resources and power equitably, promote environmentally sound engagement and participation in food production and procurement, highlight gender and racially just food practices, and thematize the rich cultural and historical significant of food beyond that of physicality, are proposed as a counter-model (Dowler, Caraher, 2003; Perez and Allen, 2007; Allen, 2010; Mares and Peña, 2011; Delormier et al. 2009)

Currently, superfoods do not have a precise definition in the medical community or in nutritional and food sciences and thus should be understood as more of a marketing term. Broadly, they refer to foodstuffs and dietary supplements that are thought to contain particularly beneficial set or sets of health promoting properties (often in the form of vitamins and minerals contained in the foods themselves) and are believed to fight or prevent degenerative disease. Properties of foods like antioxidants, polyphenols, phytochemicals and enzymes are highlighted as particularly health promoting. They have also been described by Georgy Scrinis as foods that are consumed functionally to enhance health and wellness where the nutritional benefits are largely naturally occurring (Scrinis, 2007, 2013, also see Loyer and Knight, 2018 on ‘nutritional primitivism’). While the specific foods that fall into this category are context dependent, the most visible include foods like goji berries, kale, acai, wheatgrass, green tea, turmeric, edamame, spirulina, chia seeds and flaxseeds (Hancock et al, 2007; Daugherty, 2011; Sikka, 2016).

It is significant that many of these foods are often not immediately recognizable or easily procurable by Western consumers in the first instance, which forms part of their appeal. Their framing as exotic, rare, hidden from Western culture (until now), natural, and magical in their marketing, health magazines, and popular nutrition literature makes them purveyors of a kind of health halo or distinctly health-based cultural capital on consumers while also implicating their procurement in cycles of postcolonial economic and cultural exploitation (Fonseca, 2016; Loyer, 2015/2016, Kerssen, 2015).

Superfood discourses and consumption practices are socially and politically fraught - particularly since their consumption often results in problematic material and ideological outcomes that intensify as individuals become more wedded to superfoods as a culture or lifestyle. The source material used to assess these variations in commitment, and thus the extent to which the indicated binaries (e.g. clean/dirty, good/bad) apply, focus on digital platforms like blogs, branded websites, online forums, Instagram accounts, and conversations on Reddit. The distinction between plenty and constraint, ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ foods, and individual identity and conformity become manifestly more pronounced as we move along the superfood spectrum from consumer identification, to lifestyles, and finally subcultures. In problematizing these binaries, what becomes clear is that as food practices become increasingly associated with rigidity, individualism, normative judgement, and purity, in ways that are both gendered and racialized, the most significant and culturally rich elements of food culture that integrate conviviality, history, culture, ritual, community and justice are elided.

Ostensibly, alternative food paradigms are meant to strengthen collective action, promote food justice and, in practice, “support capabilities for practices that enhance health without oppressively enforcing their achievement in individual subjects” (Carter et

2 al, 2011, 58). In the context of superfood consumption, these ideals around food justice are present, particularly when they are part of a larger health and wellness movement or as a part of a move to reclaim historical food practices, but, increasingly, superfood identities, lifestyles, and subcultures are also oriented towards individualist assertions of self-control and choice, even when they occur under conditions of subcultural organization.

These modes of neoliberal superfood subjectivity can be further understood through the lens of Foucault’s conception of governmentality and biopower in which media, culture, technologies, and government policies set the context within which individuals are made to monitor and survey themselves and their food consumption practices (Foucault, 1984; Bernstein, 2001; Dean, 1999). The more ominous reading of this application of Foucault sees superfood companies, media, and government policies as producing docile bodies – that is, “bodies that have been discursively inscribed to embody the moral, political, and social conventions of a socio-political system” (Carolan, 2005, 98; Foucault, 1986, 1991). It appears the more wedded individuals become to superfoods as a lifestyle and/or subculture, the more internalized these norms, values, and strictures become even under the conditions of in-house subcultural sociality.1

Either way, consumption of superfoods, coupled with knowledge about the molecular makeup and nutritive benefits of the foods themselves, have become tied to expressions of self and group identity. This management of self-identity and lifestyle performance through consumption is managed carefully through dietary selection and display. As Warde argues, in a world where there are an “increasing number of commodities available to act as props in this process, identity becomes more than ever a matter of the personal selection of self-image. Increasingly, individuals are obliged to choose their identities” (Warde, 1994, 878; Hetherington, 1988; Giddens, 1991). While levels of commitment change as one moves from superfood identities and lifestyles to subcultures – personal striving, normative bodily comportment, and idealized consumption practices continue to be fetishized and persist in conferring a degree of incorporated cultural capital on its adherents in “the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and the body”, which entail socialisation, personal effort, and time investment that becomes a part of the individual’s habitus (Bourdieu, 1986, 47; Kamphuis et al, 2015).

The superfood media ecology that gives rise to these movements, and the ones I have analyzed, include health magazine content, both online and offline, blogs, and popular superfood Instagram accounts that appeal most to individuals that drift in and out of superfood culture and for whom health, as a normative ideal and expression of identity, is important but not dispositive. Individuals involved in superfood practices in a more consistent way tend to frequent these blogs and accounts more consistently, engage in superfood related conversations online, and express their identities through these practices as a kind of lifestyle. The most committed superfood consumers are those that not only patronize the platforms listed above, but do so to an intensified degree and whose commitment to the superfood culture is also expressed on platforms like the superfood Reddit and in meetups and retreats worldwide.

1 The use of a Foucauldian lens, while signposted here, is not employed in this analysis although future studies should do so.

3 As such, it is important to differentiate between distinct superfood positionalities in the form of individual choice or preference, lifestyle movements, and subcultures. These groupings are reflected in the source material collected for this study which were restricted to the past five years) and which includes superfood marketing, distinct forms of media coverage and engagement (particularly in magazines but also in newspapers), and social media in the form of health and beauty blogs, superfood forums, social media instigated social events and lifestyle websites. By distinguishing between these three manifestations of superfood identity and practice, we can better understand the meaning and significance of the binaries outlined as below as well as their effects.

Due to the nature of the data collected and analyzed, which is constituted by multiply mediated websites embedded with images, sounds, and texts about superfood and superfood culture, the method used to examine these polysemic and multimodal media messages is that of a semiotic and textual analysis that combines critical reflection with interpretation to reveal social values, ideological assumptions, and relations of power.2

This mode of study, as Deacon et al argues, “helps us to think analytically about how such texts work and the implications they have for the broader culture in which they are produced and disseminated” (Deacon et al., 2007, 141). The strength of this approach lies in its ability to produce close, exploratory, and descriptive readings of media texts that are critical and deconstructive, in that they aims to assess socio-political interests, while also exploring the actions and reactions of readers/interpreters (i.e. the target audience) through their choices in joining and participating in superfood activities and groups. This approach provides an alternative to positivist and/or empirical studies of media which, while also necessary, often fail to centre the rich history of signifying practices from a readerly perspective (Wexler, 2017). As such, my approach engages in interpretive work through the detailed study of select cases and examples which, ostensibly, “stands or falls on its analytical integrity and interest rather than on its applicability to a wide range of material’” (Rose, 2002: 73).

Before engaging in the analysis of these media texts, it is important to establish the extent to which these movements are populated by individuals who are overwhelmingly affluent, urban, white, and who base their consumption on superfoods procured from the Global South (i.e. Mexico, Peru, Senegal) (Alkon et al, 2011; Alkon, 2013; Guthman et al, 2011). The myriad way in which these movements are classed and racialized varies only slightly with some groups, particularly in subcultures, paying closer attention to provenance, labor practices, and processes of gentrification. This, however, is not always the case. I return to this further on.

The expression of body normativity and food choice amongst superfood adherents is also explicitly gendered in ways that perpetuate gender norms and preserves a very particular kind of performed and displayed femininity. It is notable, for example, that the majority of superfood bloggers, Instagrammers, lifestyle specialists, and magazine articles are written by and for women (Cairns et al, 2010; Little et al 2009). While this might appear positive at first glance, it is also the case that this kind of corporate entrepreneurialism and consumer-based feminism is more in line with a postfeminist

2 One of the central problems with a study like this is the lack of empirical studies on superfood consumptions habits. Those that do exist tend to come from industry rather than public health or nutritional science groups.

4 ethos that privileges neoliberal forms of self-reliance, self-branding, and innovation as the way to achieve ones’ authentic self (Gill and Scharff, 2013; McRobbie, 2008).

Having purportedly met all of the objectives of feminism, postfeminists remain wedded to an individualized mode of authenticity which produces a subject that is not “only individualized but entrepreneurial in the sense that she is oriented towards optimizing her resources through incessant calculation, personal initiative and innovation” (Rottenburg, 2014, 428), but which, ironically, ends up “foster[ing] a new sense of isolation among women” (Braidotti, 2006, 45). While it is absolutely the case that men are also avid superfood advocates and consumers, being well represented in superfood subcultures, it is notable that their objectives with respect to consuming superfoods have more to do with strength and performance as opposed to beauty and weight (Beardsworth et al, 2002; Gough, 2007). This, as will be made clear, is reflected in superfood media coverage and advertising as well.

The power dynamics expressed on the levels of class, race, and gender are consistent themes in all superfood cultures and often intersect and overlap in ways that are overlooked and discounted. Keeping this in mind, as such, is essential in order to better understand how a food movement that is ostensibly oriented towards health, wellness, environmental sustainability, and conscious eating can in fact work against all of these ideals (MacKinnon, 2013; Cho et al, 2013). As stated, I return to these themes throughout the remainder of the article, particularly in the sections that engage in an examination of the expression of the binaries identified as they relate to superfood consumers, lifestyle adherents, and those involved in subcultural movements. The distinction between these levels of superfood consumption has to do with increasing levels of dedication, time, money, and social commitment.

Superfood Consumers For the most part, generalized ‘superfood consumers’ who engage in performing superfood identities in their most flexible form, fall into the category of individuals who are interested in pursuing healthful living and who engage in basic social media interaction and health advice about food and nutrition on a regular basis but for whom it is also possible to move in and out of superfood consumption without social penalty (Slocum, 2007; Allen and Sachs, 2012; Zepeda and Li, 2006).

The decision to consume superfoods, usually in the form of marketed products and prepared foodstuffs, are thought to be in keeping with ones’ own personal choice and health objectives. Powders, smoothies bought at smoothie bars, shakes, and packaged food products constitute a large part of their superfood consumption (Global Industry Analysts, 2018; Mintel, 2016). These individuals are far less rigid in their superfood consumption or adherence to a preset dietary program than those involved in lifestyle or subcultural activities but can still be seen to embody a kind of neoliberal subjectivity reflected in superfood advertising where neoliberalism, to be clear, is understood, as articulated by Harvey, and expanded upon by Guthman as a set of “political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade” (Harvey, 2005, 2; Guthman, 2008; Ferguson, 2010).

5 These consumers, and the perceived context in which food choices are made, is expressly that of the neoliberal, health conscious subject whose health is a product of rational, self-activating, disciplined choice and where the solution of health problems are seen “as matters within the boundaries of personal control” (Crawford, 2000, 408; Bell and Green, 2016; Ayo, 2012). Magazines like Health, Shape, Women’s Fitness, Men’s Fitness etc. are all popular and widely accessible texts that have regular articles supporting the consumption of superfoods for better health and preventative care. Health for example, in an article titled ‘America's Healthiest Superfoods for Women: Superfoods for Superwomen,’ lists 33 foods it argues are important for their “mega [health] benefits” and, when put together, can produce a “breakfast that’s good for your heart, a dinner that fights cancer, a sweet treat that helps keep your tummy calm and mind sharp.”3

Even the less specialized Reader’s Digest magazine contains a conspicuously large number of superfood articles including ‘Superfoods that Stand the Test of Time,’ ‘Surprising Superfoods to Boost Your Diet,’ and ‘Fall Superfoods to Add to Your Diet.’4 There is even a more specialized magazine published by the Guild for Master Craftsman Group called Superfoods (https://www.suppeerfoodmagazine.com), which caters to slightly more committed. Twitter and Instagram are other popular purveyors of superfood identities with #superfood listed as a consistently popular health and wellness hashtag and Instagramers like @MindbodyGreen, @Foodbymars, and @thepeckishgirl serving as popular and representative superfood-based accounts that thematize aesthetic imagery as well as superfood consumption practices.

What is unique about this particular food trend, at this level, is that adherence to its rules tend to be additive or substitutive to one’s current diet rather than functionally transformative. This is particularly because the penalties for eating outside the parameters set by these magazines and social media sites are significantly lower than in superfood lifestyles of subcultures.

Superfood Lifestyles

The next level of superfood consumption includes more committed consumers who take on superfood lifestyles that seek identification with others in an act of community formation based on particular cultural practices (Warde, 1992; Zablocki and Kanter, 1976). Superfood lifestyles, as such, have become manifest in online spaces where knowledge of and engagement in conversations about scientific and anecdotal evidence related to the health effects of superfoods are more specialized, focused, dedicated, and performed. More consistent and politicized values, beliefs and behaviors are increasingly important to those engaged in superfood lifestyles –particularly as it relates to environmental issues and a critique of corporate production practices (Freudenberg, 2012; Närvänen et al, 2013). Notably, the ability to become part of this community is only slightly more difficult than that of superfood identities so the pool of potential participants is significantly larger than that of superfood subcultures.

According to Feedspot, an aggregator of the web’s most viewed blogs, juliemorris.net, Berlin Organics (berlinorganics.de), and Loving Superfoods (lovingsuperfoods.com), are

3 http://www.health.com/health/gallery/020331905,00.html#superfoods-for-superwomen-0 4 https://www.rd.com/health/wellness/11-superfoods-that-stand-the-test-of-time/ https://www.rd.com/health/healthy-eating/surprising-super-foods/ https://www.rd.com/health/healthy-eating/fall-superfoods/

6 three of the most popular superfood blogs. All of these blogs have relationships with superfood producers, write and sell books, review products, and hold public events. Julie Morris, whose tag is ‘savoring the superfood lifestyle,’ is a spokesperson and executive chef for Navitas Naturals, a noted superfood company, has several cookbooks and teaches superfood cooking classes.

Naturally Sassy is a health and wellness website and blog which integrates fitness, lifestyle and food in ways that reflect all of these entrepreneurial ideals. Recipes like ‘Superfood Gluten-Free Quinoa Bread,’ Tiger Nut Milk, and Raspberry and Coconut Chia Pots are presented as foods that are “simple, “full of flavor,” “incredibly nutritious,” easy to make, and which feature popular brands.5 Additionally, some of the more established and popular social media engagements with superfoods on both Instagram and Twitter also cater to those adhering to a more committed superfood lifestyle particularly if they revolve around a particular kind of superfood. For example, Instagram’s #acaibowl has almost 1 million followers as does #spirulina.

Superfood Subcultures Subcultures, on the other hand, tend to be more limited in the number of participants and select with respect to entry than lifestyles. They also contain tribal elements where personal tastes and lifestyle affiliations are themselves subsumed into the tribal identities of its members which are “linked with certain commodities they prefer, with certain social roles they chose and display, and with the social fantasies they identify with” (Keliyan, 2011, 97). Traditionally, subcultures rooted in music, fashion, and technology, for example, also retain rules or norms around dietary expectations that are part of their ideological framework. Punk subcultures, for instance, tend to reject industrial foodstuffs as tantamount to filling “a person’s body with the norms, rationales, and moral pollution of corporate capitalism and imperialism,” opting, instead, for food that is raw, wild, and uncultured (Clark, 2004, 19).

Moreover, subcultures, as opposed to food lifestyles or personal choice-driven superfood consumption, require elements of conformity and the display of shared values that run counter to dominant norms and expectations around food consumption in, for example, social situations (Yinger, 1960; Hesmondhalgh, 2005). Superfood movements that express elements of subcultural anti-conformity are the exception and are often accompanied by critiques of globalization, genetic modification, and industrialized food production (Caruso et al, 2016; McDonell, 2016). It is this latter incorporation of the political, as well a higher level of commitment to particular practices, values, and norms, that differentiates the more subcultural superfood movements from those oriented to engaged lifestyle and less inflexible superfood identities.

Elements of subcultural expression in relation to superfoods can be seen most conspicuously in a host of meetup groups that have popped up worldwide in which members are more likely to be personally and perfomatively dedicated as in the Seattle Superfood & Raw Food Meetup Group, the London Raw Food Community, Superfood London, and Toronto’s Raw Superfood Lovers Meetup Group.6 The majority of these groups are instructional and involve tastings and sharing of health-oriented recipes. Others, however, have clearer political orientations that include enhanced environmental

5 http://naturallysassy.co.uk/recipes/superfood-gluten-free-qunioa-bread/ 6 These meetups were located from the popular meetup.com online service. Others were found through links emanating from superfood blogs and magazine articles.

7 consciousness and a critique of corporately produced and highly processed foodstuffs (Scrinis, 2007; McMichael, 2005). Many display the kinds of tight bonds, commitment, and restrictions that are constitutive of dietary subcultures. They are also likely to engage in displays of subcultural capital, which confers status on members who have high levels of knowledge about superfoods, display a conspicuous commitment to their consumption, and whose bodily comportment is consistent with idealized norms and standards (Thornton, 1996). For example, there are strong and thriving online superfood communities hosted by superfood producers (e.g. BōKU® Superfood, Navitas Organics), nutritionists and chef’s branding, bloggers like Naturally Sassy and Superfoodista, and some that have been organized for and by regular people interested in food and nutrition and who have found superfoods to be useful to them in their daily lives.

Reddit is another platform in which superfoods are discussed and addition to several companies using to advertising. Reddit itself is a hub of subcultural activity in which frequenters are often more technically savvy and also more committed to the topics and activities they feel passionate about and are interested in (Olson et al, 2015; Massanari, 2013). Top articles on the superfood Reddit are those that assert clear connections between food and health including the life expanding capacity of Okinawan superfoods, the energy benefits of ‘mushroom coffee,’ and a discussion of an article on the ‘Five powerful superfoods to eat everyday to increase your energy, improve your gut health and simply make you look and feel your best.’ There are also superfood specific Subreddits of note including ones on spirulina, kombucha, and wheatgrass.7

The central concern with respect to these positionalities is that as these superfoods become more readily available, affordable, and strategically marketed, claims about their purported health benefits, oftentimes lacking justifiable evidence, will multiply in an unregulated online environment and result in a more confused, alienated, marketized, neoliberal, gendered, and neocolonial relationship with food that undermines prosocial eating practices that are embodied, embedded and ecologically just. In the remainder of this article, I articulate and unpack some of the most problematic binaries that constitute superfood consumption, lifestyles, and subcultures.

Clean and Dirty/Good and Bad

The clean/dirty and good/bad food binaries are ubiquitous in discussions and judgments related to food choice and consumption habits. They have been placed together in this context because of their close proximity on the food-value spectrum and the way in which they are interchangeably used in superfood discourse where ‘good food’ is seen as clean and pure and ‘bad food’ as dirty or polluted. These value judgments are made in a manner that is intimately connected, even conflated, with the person consuming the food itself.

A salient example of how the good versus bad food binary manifests itself can be seen in the context of the ‘clean eating’ trend – a dietary movement with which superfoods are closely associated. Its modus operandi entails engaging in food practices that are believed to translate into desirable bodily comportment, i.e. to get one closer to an idealized hegemonic feminine body. One of the most clearest definitions of clean eating comes not from academic texts, but from Fitness Magazine which defines it as a

7 https://www.reddit.com/r/superfoods/new/

8 …deceptively simple concept. Rather than revolving around the idea of ingesting more or less of specific things (for instance, fewer calories or more protein), the idea is more about being mindful of the food's pathway between its origin and your plate. At its simplest, clean eating is about eating whole foods, or "real" foods — those that are un- or minimally processed, refined, and handled, making them as close to their natural form as possible. However, modern food production has become so sophisticated that simply eating whole foods can be a challenging proposition these days.8

These eating behaviors carry a high level of symbolic capital and are often portrayed as in line with an ethic of virtuous self care (Pond, 2010, Fullagar, 2002). Bourdieu’s conception of the habitus is particularly useful here with respect to how status distinction is gained through eating practices that display one’s knowledge of “what is good and what is bad, between what is right and what is wrong” (Bourdieu, 1998, 8). Cairns and Johnston, in their book Food and Femininity, make a complementary argument demonstrating how food is used to perform femininity through a logic of consumer choice and empowerment (Cairns and Johnston, 2015). Clean eating regimens feature superfoods prominently with ingredients like kale, matcha powder, chia seeds, and chlorella that are thought to “balance mood, protect against disease, boost immunity and support your overall health.”9

The notion that certain foods are good or bad, dirty or clean is culturally entrenched yet variable. These binaries are skillfully discussed by Claude Lévi-Strauss who, using an structuralist lens, demonstrates how linguistic binary pairs, like the raw and the cooked, exist in a hierarchical relationship that produce cultural ‘facts’ about gender, class, and race (Lévi-Strauss and Weightman, 1969). In relation to the good/bad binary, the general idea is that the consumption of so-called unhealthy ‘bad’ foods (e.g. processed, non-nutritious, fattening) is symptomatic of being a ‘bad’ person, that the denial of pleasure is morally commendable, and that abstaining from eating dirty or bad food confers a kind of health halo onto people can be persuasive motivators to engage in superfood based dietary practices (Mirels and Garrett, 1971; Whorton, 2014; Steim and Nemeroff, 1995). Differences of class are strongly felt in this context with those holding a higher socioeconomic status significantly more represented in all three categories of superfood consumers. Groeniger et al, in a 2017 study of how distinction is displayed through the consumption of superfoods, found that, amongst the Dutch, young adults were more likely to consume superfoods and participate in its culture if they had high educational attainment and were relatively wealthy (Groeniger et al, 2017). While direct studies of this sort are limited, similar examinations of raw food and vegan lifestyles or subcultures have found comparable correlations between socioeconomic status and ‘desirable’ food consumption (Shugart, 2014; Moore and Del Biondo, 2016).

It is important to underscore the significance of material inequality in the context of these food trends as well as the incongruence between how men, as opposed to women, are disciplined into policing their bodies in accordance with this binary. Women, for example, tend to be sanctioned more harshly for alimentary and bodily nonconformity whereas “the media frequently seem to promote the idea that a man’s body is invulnerable and

8 https://www.fitnessmagazine.com/weight-loss/plans/diets/clean-eating/ 9 https://www.cleaneatingmag.com/clean-diet/the-10-healthiest-foods-of-the-year-top-superfoods

9 can withstand the effects of unhealthy food” (Stein and Nemeroff, 1995, 482; Bordo, 1989).

Musolino et al goes as far as to call more extreme forms of this dietary restriction as disordered, often referred to as orthorexia, in which one associates “their diet with achieving a sense of purity and cleanliness” consistent with responsible citizenship and hard work publicized through feminine bodily comportment (Musolini et al, 2015, 22; Knight, 2012). Again, the gendered nature of these binaries speaks to the manner in which goodness, control, purity, restriction is positively correlated with idealized femininity. While men are less prone to this kind of policing, it is increasingly the case that the moralization of food as good or bad/clean or dirty also applies to them despite the tradition association between men, appetite, and masculinity (Ruby and Heine, 2011; Rothegerber, 2013).10

Basic superfood proponents, both male and female, who are considered modest consumers, appear to display less of the more extreme food practices and for whom the good/bad, clean/dirty binary is important but not dispositive. This is in line with their ability to move in and out of the superfood culture in light of their participation in diverse social groups which entail food and eating practices that are not exacting, where pleasure and food is positively correlated, and for whom sociality often requires the consumption of ‘bad’ or ‘dirty’ foods at, for example, an event or celebration. This is a key feature of how women have had to navigate the food choice and foodwork terrain wherein food restriction is necessary to conform to hegemonic body norms but excessive restriction is stigmatized as fanatical or even pathological. This places women in a particularly difficult double bind (Cairns and Johnston, 2015). A recent example that speaks directly to this can be found an article in an article from mindbodygreen, a popular health and wellness website featuring superfoods, which details the indulgences of fitness instructors during the holiday season.11 It states, “While we're all for eating healthy a majority of the time, we believe holidays are the exception to the rule.” The piece details the indulgences of these fitness experts including ice cream, baking, and alcohol. It is notable that superfood consumerism leaves room for similar behaviours in the context of family of friends, but that this ostensible freedom has to finely balanced such that, as one instructor suggests, one does not feel “roly-poly and stressed out about my shape come January 1.”

Those with the monetary and cultural capital to participate in superfood lifestyles, however, may feel the weight of this binary more acutely. The manner in which the good/bad or clean/dirty food binary is expressed is through the embrace of a much more functionalized and less flexible mode of food consumption and practice. Irrespective of the degree to which these behaviors appear to be performed through choice, it is important to note that these decisions are not made in a vacuum but within a social environment that reifies particular alimentary practices (clean, good) and a specific kind of body normativity (the desire for a slender/thin or muscular/strong body) over others. Food choice, under the superfood paradigm, is consistent with what Gyorgy Scrinis refers to as nutritionism, defined as the functionalization of food products with respect to

10 For a more fulsome discussion of the constructed differences between men and women in terms of their motivations around diet and food choice (particularly with respect to masculinity, strength and power) see Kiefer, et al, 2005 and Beardsworth et al, 2002). 11 https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-27983/how-these-12-fitness-instructors-indulge-during-the- holiday-season.html

10 their precise nutritional makeup and fortifications such that food becomes valued according to its ability to “achieve an enhanced state of health…target particular bodily functions and health conditions…optimize nutritional and dietary intake, and…personalize foods and diet to one’s specific bodily requirements” (Scrinis, 2012, 269). Scrinis warns that this reductive ethos abstracts food and eating out of its larger socio-cultural, cultural, sensual and ecological context and, in doing so, labels food practices as good, clean, and desirable if they adhere to certain principles” (Scrinis, 2008, 40).

The blogs and lifestyle websites popular with superfood lifestyle adherents are illustrative of the nutritionism upon which the good/bad, clean/dirty binary hinges. One particularly salient example is the ‘Your Super Foods’ company, which is a Berlin based manufacturer of superfoods with a significant web presence and lifestyle-oriented marketing platform.12 A nutritionistic approach to food and eating appears frequently throughout the site, which is grounded in the company’s founding story involving one of its two founders who claims that “nutrient-rich superfoods” formed a large part of his recovery from cancer. Apart from the compelling origin story, the products themselves are all marketed in line with nutritionistic determinism. Their matcha blend, for example, is advertised as promoting “optimal focus, brain power and higher productivity;” mixtures with acerola cherries are associated with “bioavailable…natural vitamin C,” and thus connected to products promoting healthy skin and hair; while alfalfa is said to contain the “entire spectrum of B-vitamins, A, D, E, and K and other powerful minerals like iron, calcium, magnesium….” which contributes to “metabolism and healthy weight.”

This kind of adherence to superfood lifestyles is made easier through acts of consumerism that call for a greater commitment to superfoods and for whom the salience of binaries like that of clean/dirty, good/bad are significant but not necessarily life-defining. They also call for eating practices and choice making that reflect adherence to “what is right, good, expedient and beautiful” (Veblen, 1912, 194), in the context of food.

Adherents of superfood subcultures on the other hand, i.e. those to exhibit a firm and socially grounded commitment to superfoods, perform eating practices that are firmly rooted to the functional nutritionism discussed above, are associated with internal display, and for whom a shared set of structured beliefs, values, jargon, and symbolic expressions are particularly salient (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995, 43). The distinction between foods that are seen as good/bad, clean/dirty is particularly pronounced for superfood subculture adherents with strong nutritionistic understandings of the value of food.

The rise in wellness retreats featuring superfoods as part of their activities and meal plans constitute a salient example of how this binary functions in subcultures. Specifically, these rarefied spaces reinforce and perpetuate the association between good, clean foods and ethical probity while also enacting nutritionistic determinism in specific ways. Canyon Ranch is one such American retreat, named the country’s top wellness destination by Forbes with locations in Arizona, Massachusetts, and Las (Chang, 2017), for whom superfoods are an explicitly marketed part of its meal plan. The cost and time necessary to attend such retreats requires a particular level of dedication and consistency not seen in superfood lifestyles. All of this sustained participation,

12 https://yoursuperfoods.eu/pages/about-us

11 dedication, and commitment are meant, in very specific ways, to cultivate subcultural cohesiveness and belonging.

Canyon Ranch’s operating ethos, when it comes to food and nutrition, relies heavily on the dirty/clean, good/bad food binary. For example, one of the Ranch’s blog posts on clean eating details the most significant brain superfoods, including green tea, which is said to contain antioxidants that “protect against Alzheimer’s and other degenerative brain diseases,” as well as turmeric, which it claims “may bind to and dissolve plaque in the brain, preventing harmful build-up.”13 Their food philosophy similarly highlights foods that retain a superfood health halo, i.e., foods that are “simple, healthy, and clean…organic…free range…non-GMO…humanely raised…unprocessed…and biodynamic”14 All menus contain caloric values and other nutritional indicators which is consistent with the nutritionism embraced by dedicated superfood devotees. This instrumentalizing of food undermines the importance of enjoyment, conviviality, a relationship with nature and others, and pleasure in preparing and eating food. In place of this, we have a food ethos that can result in an impoverished and highly classed, as in cost dependent, relationship to food, a troubling correlation between thinness, discipline and distinction, and the pathologization of non-normative fat bodies as abject sites of, often corporate, intervention (Gracia-Arnaiz, 2010; Inthorn and Boyce, 2010).

Plenty and Constraint

The second central binary that constitutes superfood consumerism is that of plenty versus constraint which, like the other binaries identified, expresses itself more conspicuously the more embedded one is in the superfood paradigm. This particular binary is manifest most clearly in the rule making with respect to general portion size, comportment to food and eating, as well as motivation. This is made all the more difficult in a culture which simultaneously encourages conspicuous consumption, in line with living in a hyperconsumerist society, and context-dependent constraint. When it comes to food and the body, it is only particular kinds of classed and gendered bodies that are permitted plenty and only under very specific circumstances. Living under such strict and often implied rules can be psychologically difficult, anxiety-inducing and materially constraining. Hyers et al, in an article titled, ‘Awakening to the Politics of Food: Politicized Diet as Social Identity,’ offers an inventory of the most significant rule and constraint inducing Western dietary practices to which superfoods can be added:

 only organic, chemical-free, and genetically modified-free foods  only local foods  only “whole foods” that are not excessively processed  only fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, eggs, and fish (“pescetarian”)  only fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, eggs, (“vegetarian)  only fruits, vegetables, grains (“vegans”)  only raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds (“raw”)  only “slow foods” that are local, region specific, and in opposition to fast food

13 https://www.canyonranch.com/blog/nutrition/12-recipes-that-support-detoxification/ https://www.canyonranch.com/blog/nutrition/brain-superfoods/ 14 https://www.canyonranch.com/tucson/overview/dining/

12 Dietary rules in general do contain elements of control and rule-enacting. Carole Counihan, in her study of the food journals of U.S. college students, found that their food practices “manifest concern with individual free choice in diet and self-control towards food so as to be thin, moral, and admirable” (Counihan, 1992, 55). It is the normative pull, intentional group grounding, and the unique nature of social and alimentary boundary drawing that is distinct when it comes to superfoods.

What is most significant about the plenty/constraint binary in relation to the three superfood identities (consumption-based, lifestyle, subcultural) is the degree to which constraint is enacted. As one moves from enacting and participating in superfood consumption on an ad hoc basis to membership in a more socially insular and proscriptive subculture, the more ‘constraint’ as a normative and regulative ideal becomes significant. Magazines, for example, engage in a much less long-term and dogmatic framing of constraint pedagogy and highlight the vibrancy, choice, freshness, and pleasure involved in consuming superfoods. In an article for Self, titled ’30 Superfoods for Weight Loss,’ vibrant pictures of spinach, chia seeds, and gogi berries are featured with descriptors like “delicious goodness,” “colorful potential,” “taste,” and “satisfaction” given priority.15 Yet, in other areas, the fact that these foods are “low calorie,” “hunger curbing” and ‘burn calories’ are also highlighted. It is notable that the headline contains the phrase ‘for weight loss’ which signifies a temporal limit, unlike more lifestyle and subcultural content which are more indicative of long term, committed food and life practices.

Superfood blogs, which are more inline with lifestyle consumption practices, contend with the plenty/constraint binary in a more holistic way – i.e. it is not just about the food but about spreading superfood principles into other areas of one’s life. There is still a discursive focus on the pleasure that can be derived from superfoods, with their framing as plentiful and beautiful, yet the number of rules, lists, and guidelines increase. Iris Huebler’s ‘Super Food Academy’ blog, for instance, is replete with posts on how to have a ‘Superfood Easter’ and ‘Superfood Thanksgiving” as well as how to throw a Superbowl party with superfoods of plenty, sociality, and abundance, which then exists alongside posts and recipes that list the latest superfoods, recipes, meal plans, and food rules that communicate constraint.16 Associated books, podcasts, and lectures that articulate the rules and principles of ‘superfood living’ serve to increase the cohesiveness of these lifestyles.

Finally, superfood subcultures tend to abide by a more strict and controlled dietary regime in line with constraint over plenty with an established, albeit attenuated, discursive framing of this dietary practice as abundant and satiating. The Boulder, Colorado ‘Raw Superfoodies Meetup,’ for example, articulates an inclusive philosophy that frames superfood living as plentiful stating,

If you would like to participate in these soul-nourishing events and indulge in some delicious, gourmet raw living superfood-packed foods, and connect with like-minded folks, we'd love to have you part of our group.17

15 https://www.self.com/gallery/20-superfoods-slideshow 16 https://www.superfoodacademy.com 17 https://www.meetup.com/boulderrawsuperfoodies/

13 The Message Board, however, is also filled with posts promoting regulatory behaviors like 30 day super-cleanses, detox diets, and recipe meal plan sharing – as well as some questioning vaccines and promoting superfoods as a means by which to cure everything from cancer to Alzheimer’s.

While empirical research on superfood consumption and rule-enacting behaviors is still in its infancy, comparable research examining other food trends like veganism, organic, and raw food diets show similar expressions of constraint as ethically commendable and, with respect to subcultures, reflective of group belonging (Dean, 2014; Chuck et al, 2016). The body, in this context, is seen as object or target of control and power, which is transformed through dietary practice. Susan Bordo argues that adherence to these rules are meant to communicate to others “spiritual purification and domination of the flesh” (Bordo, 1993, 185; Foucault, 1990). The danger inherent in how the plenty/constraint binary expresses itself is that it speaks to and perpetuates a kind of health foodism that moralizes food choice, reifies hegemonic body norms, and de- socialises health and eating in ways that preserve neoliberal political and economic modalities. Troublingly, it also considers the body as fixable and correctible through dietary practice and perceives measures of constraint as a sign of moral strength.

Identity and Conformity

Superfood groupings also cleave along the lines of individual identity versus group conformity in which conformity to group standards grow stronger as one moves towards superfood subcultures from generalized consumption. Conformity centers on publicized superfood dietary practice, education, knowledge and discourse, more strongly manifest in subcultures, while displays of individual, identity-driven choice and varying levels of expertise feature more strongly with those identifying with superfood identities. One interesting way outside of food choice that the identity/conformity binary can be seen is with respect to food justice, defined here as a dedication to supporting sustainable agriculture, fair farming practices, and community participation, as a commitment which is intensified in some superfood subcultures. Presumably, alternative food paradigms or networks are meant to strengthen collective action, promote food justice and “support capabilities for practices that enhance health without oppressively enforcing their achievement in individual subjects” (Carter et al, 2011, 58). In the context of superfood consumption, ideals around food justice are often present as part of a larger health and wellness movement (i.e. conformity driven superfood subcultures) or as a part of a move to reclaim marginalized food practices. Essential Living Foods is one such superfood company that prides itself on supporting “family farmers and indigenous communities…fair labor practices…[and] making a positive impact in their communities and ecosystems.”18

Conformity around social justice can also accompany that of food choice, neoliberal displays of autonomy, and bodily comportment. However, this social justice ethos is undermined when larger corporations buy out smaller companies for whom, as least initially, health-focused, sustainable, and ethical production practices may have been a concern (e.g. Nestle’s purchase of Garden of Life).

18 https://essentiallivingfoods.com/pages/about-us

14 Overwhelmingly, superfood identities tend to be oriented towards more individualist assertions of self-control and choice. As such, individuals display varying levels of identity expression and group conformity based on one’s commitment to superfood trends. Put another way, whether one is a superfood consumer, lifestyle adherent, or member of a subculture, food choice and consumption practices communicate, to others and ones self, who one is, their class standing, their interests and desires, and what they value. In terms of identity, it is the case that most expressions of food-based values are in line with neoliberal expressions of superfood subjectivity that gain traction and power as one moves from consumption and lifestyles to subcultural belonging. This can be seen through the lens of Foucault’s conception of governmentality and biopower in which media, culture, technologies, and government policies set the context within which individuals are made to monitor and survey themselves and their food consumption practices (Foucault, 1984; Bernstein, 2001; Dean, 1999).

The more ominous reading of this application of Foucault sees these superfood companies, media, and government policies as producing docile bodies, that is, “bodies that have been discursively inscribed to embody the moral, political, and social conventions of a socio-political system” (Carolan, 2005, 98; Foucault, 1986, 1991). It appears the more wedded individuals become to superfoods as a lifestyle and/or subculture, the more internalized these norms, values, and strictures become. Yet, even those who are part of superfood subcultures retain a strong neoliberal ethos – albeit within more tightly knit and self-regulating groups. This reading fits with contemporary social analysis of groups and identity formation that challenge “substantialist understandings of groups and essentialist understandings of identity” (Brubaker, Cooper, 2000; 10; Calhoun, 1994).

Simple superfood consumers gain some of this virtue by purchasing and consuming superfoods through a practice of identity and reputation construction in which, when appropriate, they are able to communicate to those around them an interest in maintaining good health. Because of the positive moral valence that surrounds health and wellness (Conrad, Schneider, 1992), in conjunction with Foucaldian self-regulation, superfood consumers display consumption habits that oscillate between displays of health conscious identity and social conformity depending on context. Kate Cairns and Jose Johnston, in their study of the ‘do-diet,’ talk to women about the importance they place on dietary self-control and body discipline while also being concerned with being perceived as, “the feminine subject who is too informed, and too controlling in her eating habits” and thus “pathologized as health-obsessed” (Cairns and Johnston, 2015). While this tendency applies to both men and women to some degree, it is important to highlight the gendered nature of these pressures (Moore, 2010; Kwan, 2010). Women are especially vulnerable to begin caught within this identity/conformity bind, particularly when hegemonic gender norms that put pressure on women to assert control over they bodies through food regulation conflicts with social pressures of neoliberal consumption that requires that one avoid appearing as either “the anxious health nut addicted to green juices or the uneducated fat person eating Beefaroni” (Cairns and Johnston, 2015).

Overall, conformity with a larger culture for whom food is not always instrumentalized, and often geared towards overconsumption and indulgence, can trigger a movement away from individualized expressions of superfood identity towards one that is more in line with significant others (e.g. family, friends etc.) and social context. Adherents of superfood lifestyles deal with similar tensions, but with some significant differences. On

15 the level of identity, those involved in superfood lifestyles tend to be more dedicated to identity expressions in which dietary choice becomes a key marker of personal values and commitments. On the one hand, the incorporation of superfood identity within the context of a larger lifestyle can create a social context in which one’s significant others are involved in similar dietary practices.

The superfood ecosystem online provides a space from which these lifestyles can be cultivated with superfood bloggers like Sylvia (Foodista) and Julie Morris, a plethora of magazines, Instagram accounts, online communities and products with associated communities, resources, recipes, and lifestyle guides.19 These blogs in particular blend belonging with an embrace of neoliberal autonomy through self-acquired knowledge of food but moderate conformity to rules. Foodista’s collection of recipes using superfoods highlight nutrition as well as taste which can be seen in their Qi’a Superfood Sesame Dressing’ recipe which is self-characterized as “delicious, satisfying, and nutritious.”20 Deliciously Ella is another blogger and superfood proponent whose website stresses that her dietary practice, is “not about diet or deprivation” and is not meant “to be prescriptive in any way.” The presentation of her lifestyle hedges between identity based choice, asserted through a neoliberal and postfeminist discourse of taking charge of ones’ life, and a more conformist group oriented ethos through a discursive framing that incorporates the possibility of acceptable abundance - as in her Christmas recipes which highlight the necessity of “sharing food, games, and stories” with family and indulging, but doing so “with healthier versions of your favourite recipes.” Superfood recipes like Acai, Berry, and Baobab Breakfast Bowl, similarly highlight the possibility for the assertion of autonomous choice and belonging to a lifestyle that values a very specific kind of dietary practice while also remaining part of a culture that perceives taste, flavour, and satiety as important. Deliciously Ella also provides a plethora of options for group engagement through comments, an Instagram account with over 1 million followers, an active Twitter handle, events, and books thus adding to its expression of lifestyle-based “patterns of consumption and use (of material and symbolic goods) associated with different social groups and classes...” which mediate between group and individual identity or, in this case, identity and conformity” (Edgar and Sedgwich, 1999, 216).

When expressed in the form of a food subculture, it is important to point out that the superfood movement (where a movement is understood as groupings of individuals with varying levels of centralization all working towards a similar end) is still in its infancy and remains premised on the consumption of particular foodstuffs. Its focus, as such, continues to retain some of the characteristics of a food trend or set of lifestyle choices that one can move in and out of. If we compare it to veganism, superfood subcultures are far less advanced along the identity/conformity spectrum wherein the former, veganism, has moved fully to identification with networks of others with communally held moral and ethical positions and concerns that involve proselytizing, conversion, and activism as well as codified dietary practices (Cherry, 2015; Cherrier and Murray, 2007).

While superfood subcultures are more nascent developmentally, consumption of superfoods, coupled with knowledge about the molecular makeup and nutritive benefits of the foods themselves, have become tied to expressions of self and group identity.

19 http://superfoodista.com http://www.juliemorris.net 20 http://www.foodista.com/ifbc2014/2014/08/29/cooking-with-superfood-qia-from-natures-path

16 This management of self-identity and lifestyle performance through consumption is accomplished carefully through dietary selection and display. As Warde argues, in a world where there are an increasing number of commodities available to act as props in this process, identity becomes more than ever a matter of the personal selection of self- image. Increasingly, individuals are obliged to choose their identities” (Warde, 1994, 878; Hetherington, 1988; Giddens, 1991)

Yet in subcultures, a sizeable portion of individual identity is given over to the group where adherence to the constraint inherent in superfood subcultures is required. In today’s environment, it is significant, as has been demonstrated throughout this article, that superfood subcultures often manifest themselves virtually, yet these interactions should be seen as equally materially and emotionally significant to participants as groups that meet face to face (Norris, 2002; Wellman, 2018). Costly delivery based dietary meal plans, like that of bodychef, which features a Superfood Plan that is “carefully planned,” and “nutrient rich” with the requisite “vitamins and minerals,” is one such manifestation of superfood subcultures for whom constraint is highly valued.21 22

Another example is a joint venture, called Daily Harvest, between Gwyneth Paltrow and Serena Williams that ships frozen superfoods to your front door.23 Paltrow’s lifestyle branded website, Goop, and health practices are notorious for their rigidity and valuing of dietary constraint which, despite its popularity (e.g. its $1500 a ticket “In Goop Health” summit, a quarterly magazine, and sale of costly Goop products) has been roundly criticized for its reliance on pseudo-science, implicit stigmatization of non-conforming, largely female, bodies, promotion of unrealizable body expectations, and capital and time intensive requirements (Caufield, 2016; Johnston et al).24 Not adhering to the constraint that is part of this kind of superfood subculture, places one in danger of jeopardizing ones’ sense of subcultural belonging, a certain level of accumulated cultural capital, and a degree of class distinction gained through overt displays of knowledge, bodily health, and disciplined food choice to others in the group as well as those outside (Shilling, 2017; de Morais Sato, 2016).

Overall, from bone broth to acai, chia seeds to bee pollen, engagement in superfood consumption, whether in the form of individualized consumer practices, lifestyles, or subcultures, relies on and perpetuates an impoverished and alienated relationship with food and ones’ body. As Caplan argues, this relationship is expressed both “in terms of the over-determination of women’s body shapes by outside forces, and…power through control not only over appetite but also over social relationships” (Caplan, 1997, 11). Whether it is plenty and constraint, ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ foods, or individual identity and conformity, the binaries that express themselves in superfood cultures need to be more critically examined in order to understand some of the more pernicious and troubling consequences that might result going forward. In conjunction, it is important to point out and highlight the more progressive and prosocial food practices that fulfil sound environmental principles while also being racial and gender just, body positive, and

21 https://www.bodychef.com/diet-plans/superfood-diet/ 22 According to Packaged Facts, a market research publisher, healthy meal kit delivery services generated $1.5 billion in 2016 (Cole, 2017). 23 https://www.daily-harvest.com 24 Goop.com

17 culturally respectful. Environmental and food justice movements that actively challenge hegemonic gender norms and racism, conceive of food in terms of sovereignty and control, security and access, sustainability, nourishment and pleasure, and push back against neoliberal globalization offer viable alternatives (Slocum, 2007; Lappe et al, 1998; Bradley, Herrera, 2016). Community supported agriculture, some manifestations of the slow food movement, urban and diasporic farming, and indigenous food systems form part of a larger food justice movement that, going forward, might challenge food practices, including the superfood movement in ways that fulfil many of the priorities and principles of an authentically just, sustainable, and fulfilling food culture.

Bibliography

Alkon, A. H. (2013). The socio‐nature of local organic food. Antipode, 45(3), 663-680.

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (2011). Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press.

Allen, P. (2010). Realizing justice in local food systems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(2), 295-308.

Allen, P., & Sachs, C. (2012). Women and food chains: The gendered politics of food. Taking food public: Redefining foodways in a changing world, 23-40.

Ayo, N. (2012). Understanding health promotion in a neoliberal climate and the making of health conscious citizens. Critical public health, 22(1), 99-105.

Beardsworth, A., et al (2002). Women, men and food: the significance of gender for nutritional attitudes and choices. British Food Journal, 104(7), 470-491.

Bell, K., & Green, J. (2016). On the perils of invoking neoliberalism in public health critique, 239-243.

Bernstein, B. (2001) ‘From pedagogies to knowledges’, in A. Morais, I. Neves, B.

Bordo, S.R. (1989) The body and the reproduction of femininity: A feminist appropriation of Foucault. In Bordo, S. and Jaggar, A. (Eds.)

Bordo, S. (1993). Unbearable weight. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gender/Body/Knowledge: Feminist Reconstructions of Being and Knowing. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Bradley, K., & Herrera, H. (2016). Decolonizing food justice: Naming, resisting, and researching colonizing forces in the movement. Antipode, 48(1), 97-114.

Braidotti, R. (2006). Transpositions. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond “identity”. Theory and society, 29(1), 1-47.

18 Cairns, K., & Johnston, J. (2015). Choosing health: embodied neoliberalism, postfeminism, and the “do-diet”. Theory and Society, 44(2), 153-175.

Cairns, K., Johnston, J. (2015) Food and Femininity. London: Bloomsbury.

Cairns, K., Johnston, J., & Baumann, S. (2010). Caring about food: Doing gender in the foodie kitchen. Gender & Society, 24(5), 591-615.

Calhoun, C. (1994). Social theory and the politics of identity. In Calhoun, C. (Ed.) Social theory and the politics of identity. Oxford, U.K. and Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.

Caplan, P. (1997). Approaches to the study of food, health and identity. In Alkon, HA, Agyeman, J (Eds). Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability (pp. 1-31). Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Carolan, M. S. (2005). The Conspicuous Body: Capitalism, Consumerism, Class and Consumption. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology, 9(1), 82-111.

Carter, S. M., Entwistle, V. A., McCaffery, K., & Rychetnik, L. (2011). Shared health governance: the potential danger of oppressive “healthism”. The American Journal of Bioethics, 11(7), 57-59.

Caulfield, T. (2016). Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong about Everything?: How the Famous Sell Us Elixirs of Health, Beauty & Happiness. Beacon Press.

Chang, K. (2017). Why Canyon Ranch remains the country's top wellness destination. Forbes Magazine. Accessed 1 May 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiechang/2017/06/25/why-canyon-ranch-remains-the- countrys-top-wellness-destination/#1a2ef326abdd

Cherrier, H., & Murray, J. B. (2007). Reflexive dispossession and the self: constructing a processual theory of identity. Consumption Markets & Culture, 10(1), 1-29.

Cherry, E. (2015). I was a teenage vegan: Motivation and maintenance of lifestyle movements. Sociological Inquiry, 85(1), 55-74.

Cho, S. et al (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785-810.

Chuck, C., et al (2016). Awakening to the politics of food: Politicized diet as social identity. Appetite, 107, 425-436.

Clark, D. (2004). The raw and the rotten: Punk cuisine. Ethnology, 19-31.

Cole, N. (2017). The healthy meal kit service industry Is worth $1.5 Billion (here's what the future of food looks like). Inc. Available at: https://www.inc.com/nicolas-cole/the- healthy-meal-kit-service-industry-is-worth-15-billion-heres-what-the-future.html. Accessed 12 October 2018.

19 Counihan, C. M. (1992). Food rules in the United States: Individualism, control, and hierarchy. Anthropological Quarterly, 55-66.

Crawford, R. (2000). The ritual of health promotion. In S. Williams, J. Gabe , & M. Calnan (Eds.), Health, medicine and society: Key theories, future agendas (pp. 219- 235). London: Routledge.

Caruso, C. C., McClintock, N., Myers, G., Weissman, E., Herrera, H., Block, D., & Reynolds, K. (2016). Beyond the Kale: Urban Agriculture and Social Justice Activism in New York City. The AAG Review of Books, 4(4), 234-243.

Daugherty, B. (2011). Superfoods: The Healthiest Foods on the Planet. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(3), 207-e7.

Davies and H. Daniels (eds) Towards a Sociology of Pedagogy. de Morais Sato, P. et al (2016). The use of Pierre Bourdieu's distinction concepts in scientific articles studying food and eating: A narrative review. Appetite, 96, 174-186.

Deacon, D. (2007). Researching communications: A practical guide to methods in media and cultural analysis. Hodder Arnold.

Dean M (1999). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. California, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Dean, M. A. (2014). You Are How You Eat? Femininity, Normalization, and Veganism as an Ethical Practice of Freedom. Societies, 4(2), 127-147.

Delormier, T., Frohlich, K. and Potvin, L. (2009). 'Food and eating as social practice -

Dowler, E. and Caraher, M. (2003) Local food projects: the new philanthropy? Political Quarterly, 74: 57–65.

Edgar, A and Sedgwick, P. (1999) Key concepts in cultural theory, London and New York: Routledge.

Elliott, R., and Timulak, L. (2005). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research. A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology, 1(7), 147- 159.

Ferguson, J. (2010). The uses of neoliberalism. Antipode, 41(S1), 166–184.

Fonseca, V. (2016). Chia: From tribute to superfood. In A Stakeholder Approach to Managing Food (pp. 87-100). Routledge.

Food & communication: proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 2015, 2016 / McWilliams, M. (Ed.), pp. 236-246.

Foucault, M. (1984) The History of Sexuality, Volume I: an introduction, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Peregrine, Penguin Books.

20 Foucault, M. (1986). The Care of the Self: Volume 3 of The History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1991). “Governmentality,” in G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 87-104.

Foucault, M. (1990). The care of the self: The history of sexuality vol.3. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Random House.

Freudenberg, N. (2012). The manufacture of lifestyle: The role of corporations in unhealthy living. Journal of public health policy, 33(2), 244-256.

Gamboa, C., et al (2017). The quinoa boom and the welfare of smallholder producers in the Andes. Bioeconomics Working Paper Series. University of Antwerp. Available at: https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/69038f/143910.pdf. Accessed 3 October 2018.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.

Gill, R., & Scharff, C. (Eds.). (2013). New femininities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism and subjectivity. Springer.

Global Industry Analysts (2018). Rising consumer demand for nutrient-rich juices continues to spur growth in the global smoothies market. Available at: http://www.strategyr.com/MarketResearch/Smoothies_Market_Trends.asp Accessed 1 April 2018.

Gough, B. (2007). ‘Real men don’t diet’: An analysis of contemporary newspaper representations of men, food and health. Social science & medicine, 64(2), 326-337.

Gracia-Arnaiz, M. (2010). Fat bodies and thin bodies. Cultural, biomedical and market discourses on obesity. Appetite, 55(2), 219-225.

Groeniger, J. O. et al(2017). Does social distinction contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in diet: the case of ‘superfoods’ consumption. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14(1), 40.

Guthman J. (2008). Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California. Geoforum, 39, 1171-1183.

Guthman, J. (2011). If they only knew”: The unbearable whiteness of alternative food. Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability, 263-281.

Hancock, R. D., et al (2007). Berry fruit as ‘superfood’: hope or hype. Biologist, 54(2), 73-79.

Harvey D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

21 Hesmondhalgh, D. (2005). Subcultures, scenes or tribes? None of the above. Journal of youth studies, 8(1), 21-40.

Hetherington, K. (1998). Expressions of identity: Space, performance, politics. London: Sage.

Hyers, L.L et al. (2016). Awakening to the politics of food: Politicized diet as social identity. Appetite, 107, 425-436.

Inthorn, S., & Boyce, T. (2010). ‘It’s disgusting how much salt you eat!’ Television discourses of obesity, health and morality. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(1), 83-100.

Johnston, J. et al (2017). A Kind Diet: Cultivating Consumer Politics, Status, and Femininity through Ethical Eating. The Bloomsbury Handbook of Food and Popular Culture, 286.

Keliyan, M. (2011). Kogyaru and Otaku: Youth Subcultures Lifestyles in Postmodern Japan. Asian Studies, 15(3), 95-110.

Kerssen, T. M. (2015). Food sovereignty and the quinoa boom: challenges to sustainable re-peasantisation in the southern Altiplano of Bolivia. Third World Quarterly, 36(3), 489-507.

Kiefer, I. et al. (2005). Eating and dieting differences in men and women. Journal of Men's Health and Gender, 2(2), 194-201.

Knight, C., (2012). An alliance with mother nature’: natural food, health, and morality in low-carbohydrate diet books. Food Foodw, 20, 102-122.

Lappe, F. et al (1998). World Hunger: 12 Myths. New York: Grove Press.

Little, J., Ilbery, B., & Watts, D. (2009). Gender, consumption and the relocalisation of food: A research agenda. Sociologia Ruralis, 49(3), 201-217.

Loyer, J. (2015/2016). Communicating superfoods: a case study of Maca packaging. In McWilliams, M. (Ed.). Food & communication: proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 2015, 2016 (236-246). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Loyer, J., & Knight, C. (2018). Selling the “Inca superfood”: nutritional primitivism in superfoods books and maca marketing. Food, Culture & Society, 21(4), 449-467.

MacKinnon, C. A. (2013). Intersectionality as method: A note. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 1019-1030.

Mares, T. M., & Peña, D. G. (2011). Environmental and food justice. Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability, 197-220.

Mares, T. M., & Peña, D. G. (2011). Environmental and food justice. Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability, 197-220.

22 Massanari, A. (2013). Playful participatory culture: Learning from Reddit. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research, 3.

McDonell, E. (2016). International Journal of Food and Nutritional Science. Int J Food Nutr Sci| Volume, 3(6), 1.

McMichael, P. (2005). Global development and the corporate food regime. In New directions in the sociology of global development (pp. 265-299). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

McRobbie, A. (2009). The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change. London: Sage.

Mintel (2016). Supergrowth for superfoods. Mintel Press Office. Available at: http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/super-growth-for-super-foods-new- product-development-shoots-up-202-globally-over-the-past-five-years Accessed 1 April 2018.

Mirels, H. L., & Garrett, J. B. (1971). The Protestant ethic as a personality variable. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 36(1), 40.

Moore, L. J., & Del Biondo, K. (2016). Considering race, class, and gender. The Routledge Handbook of Food Ethics, 16.

Musolino, C., et al (2015). ‘Healthy anorexia’: The complexity of care in disordered eating. Social Science & Medicine, 139, 18-25.

Närvänen, E., Kartastenpää, E., & Kuusela, H. (2013). Online lifestyle consumption community dynamics: A practice‐based analysis. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(5), 358-369. Norris, P. (2002). The bridging and bonding role of online communities.

Olson, R. S., & Neal, Z. P. (2015). Navigating the massive world of reddit: Using backbone networks to map user interests in social media. PeerJ Computer Science, 1, e4.

Perez, J. and Allen, P. (2007) Farming the College Market: Results of a Consumer Study at UC Santa Cruz. Center Research Brief No. 11. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems.

Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363.

Rose, D. (2015). Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Genre studies around the globe: beyond the three traditions. Ottawa: Inkwell, 299-338.

Rottenberg, C. (2014). The rise of neoliberal feminism. Cultural Studies 28(3): 418-437.

23 Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite, 56(2), 447- 450.

Schouten, J.W., McAlexander, J.H. (1995), Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the new bikers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 43-61.

Scrinis, G. (2007). From techno-corporate food to alternative agri-food movements. Local-Global: Identity, Security, Community, 4(2007), 112.

Scrinis, G. (2008). On the ideology of nutritionism. Gastronomica, 8(1), 39-48.

Scrinis, G. (2012). Nutritionism and functional foods. In Kaplan, D. (Ed.) The Philosophy of Food (pp. 269- 292). Berkeley: University of California Press;

Shilling, C. (2017). Physical capital and situated action: a new direction for corporeal sociology. In Physical Culture, Ethnography and the Body (pp. 47-62). Routledge.

Shugart, H. A. (2014). Food fixations: Reconfiguring class in contemporary US food discourse. Food, Culture & Society, 17(2), 261-281.

Sikka, T. (2016). Contemporary Superfood Cults. Food Cults: How Fads, Dogma, and Doctrine Influence Diet, 87.

Slocum, R. (2007). Whiteness, space and alternative food practice. Geoforum, 38(3), 520-533.

Slocum, R. (2007). Whitness, space, and alternative food practice. Geoforum 38, 3: 520- 533.

Statista (2018). Superfood statistics and facts. Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/topics/3250/superfoods/. Accessed 10 October 2018.

Steim, R. I., & Nemeroff, C. J. (1995). Moral overtones of food: Judgments of others based on what they eat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(5), 480-490.

Lévi-Strauss, C., & Weightman, J. (1969). The raw and the cooked: Introduction to a science of mythology (Vol. 1). New York: Harper & Row.

Thornton, S. (1996). Club cultures: Music, media and subcultural capital. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.

Warde, A. (1994). Consumption, identity-formation and uncertainty. Sociology, 28(4), 877-898.

Wellman, B. (2018). Networks in the global village: Life in contemporary communities. Routledge.

Wexler, P. (2017). Structure, text, and subject:: a critical sociology of school knowledge. In Cultural and economic reproduction in education (pp. 275-303). NY: Routledge.

24 Whorton, J. C. (2014). Crusaders for fitness: The history of American health reformers. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Yinger, J. M. (1960). Contraculture and subculture. American sociological review, 625- 635.

Zepeda, L., & Li, J. (2006). Who buys local food?. Journal of food distribution research, 37(3).

25