Laura Einhorn Food, Classed? Social Inequality and Diet: Understanding Stratified Meat Consumption Patterns in Germany Studies on the Social and Political Constitution of the Economy Laura Einhorn Food, Classed? Social Inequality and Diet: Understanding Stratified Meat Consumption Patterns in Germany © Laura Einhorn 2020 Published by IMPRS-SPCE International Max Planck Research School on the Social and Political Constitution of the Economy, Cologne imprs.mpifg.de ISBN: 978-3-946416-20-3 DOI: 10.17617/2.3256843 Studies on the Social and Political Constitution of the Economy are published online on imprs.mpifg.de. Go to Dissertation Series. Studies on the Social and Political Constitution of the Economy Abstract Based on a complementary mixed-methods design, the dissertation sheds light on the relationship between meat consumption practices and consumers’ socioeconomic po- sition. In a first step, two large-scale data sets, the German Einkommens- und Ver- brauchsstichprobe (EVS) 2013 and the Socioeconomic Panel (GSOEP) 2016, are used to establish empirical relationships between meat consumption practices and consumers’ socioeconomic position. Education and income do not show the same effects across social groups. Income most strongly affects the meat consumption patterns of low-in- come consumers, and income effects diminish as income increases. Furthermore, in- come does not make much of a difference for consumers with low levels of education. Meat-reduced and meat-free diets are also more common among students and among self-employed persons, even after controlling for income and education. Income does not necessarily influence the amount of meat that is consumed but the type and price of the meat purchased. In a second step, data from 46 semi-structured interviews with non-vegetarian and vegetarian consumers is used to gain a profound understanding of the mechanisms behind these statistical relationships. Differences in consumption pat- terns do not result from differences in food ideals, but from different capacities for implementing dietary changes. These capacities are significantly shaped by material and non-material resources. I argue that 1) reducing consumption does not require fi- nancial resources, but voluntary meat reduction is significantly linked to financial -re sources in different ways; 2) university education is conducive to meat reduction as it fosters scientism and the ability to quickly gather and exploit new sources of informa- tion; 3) high-SES consumers value self-improvement and uniqueness which encourages dietary changes and aids in dealing with social conflict arising from such changes; 4) food neophilia is an important precondition for the adoption and maintenance of meat-reduced diets, and income and education foster food neophilia; 5) familiar foods are an important compensatory tool that offsets negative emotions arising from mate- rial scarcity, stress, and social conflict. In the last part, I show that all interviewees cat- egorize, evaluate and judge others’ food and meat consumption practices, and that these judgments have a series of intended and unintended consequences. About the author Laura Einhorn was a doctoral researcher at the IMPRS-SPCE from 2016 to 2020. She cur- rently is a researcher at the Institut für Sozialarbeit und Sozialpädagogik in Frankfurt a. M. Email: [email protected] Studies on the Social and Political Constitution of the Economy Food, classed? Social inequality and diet: Understanding stratified meat consumption patterns in Germany Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Fakult¨at der Universit¨atzu K¨oln 2020 vorgelegt von Laura Einhorn, M.A. aus Potsdam First reviewer: Prof. Mark Lutter Second reviewer: Prof. Clemens Kroneberg Date of oral defense: 09.07.2020 2 List of Figures 1 Distribution of dependent variables for pork, EVS 2013 . 36 2 Effect of education on meat consumption for workers and non-workers . 41 3 Effect of education and income on meat consumption by gender . 42 4 Effect of education on meat consumption dependent on income . 42 5 Effect of education by age on fresh and processed meat consumption . 48 6 Interaction effects between income and education on meat consumption . 49 7 Interaction effects for poultry consumption . 50 8 Interaction effect for fish consumption . 50 9 Effect of income on likelihood of vegetarian diet . 56 10 Effect of education on likelihood of vegetarian diet . 57 11 Interaction effect vegetarian households, EVS 2013 . 59 List of Tables 1 Summary of dependent variables, SOEP 2016 . 31 2 Summary of dependent variables, EVS 2013 . 32 3 Summary of independent and control variables, SOEP 2016 . 33 4 Summary of independent and control variables, EVS 2013 . 34 5 Consumed pork: full sample, single households and couples without children, EVS 2013 35 6 Influences on meat consumption frequency, SOEP 2016 . 39 7 Influences on beef, pork, poultry and fish consumption frequency, EVS 2013 . 45 8 Influences on fresh, processed and total meat consumption frequency, EVS 2013 . 46 9 Meat and fish consumption of vegetarians/vegans, SOEP 2016 . 52 10 Summary of measures of vegetarianism, EVS 2013 and SOEP 2016 . 53 11 Likelihood of vegetarian/pescetarian diet, SOEP 2016 . 55 12 Likelihood of vegetarian/pescetarian diet, EVS 2013 . 58 13 List of vegetarian interview partners . 171 14 List of non-vegetarian interview partners . 172 15 Influences on meat consumption frequency, SOEP 2016 . 174 16 Influences on meat consumption frequency, SOEP 2016, Version B and C . 175 17 Influences on beef consumption, EVS 2013 . 177 18 Influences on pork consumption, EVS 2013 . 179 19 Influences on poultry consumption, EVS 2013 . 181 20 Influences on fish consumption, EVS 2013 . 183 21 Influences on fresh meat consumption, EVS 2013 . 185 22 Influences on processed meat consumption, EVS 2013 . 187 23 Figure 2: Average marginal effects of education on meat consumption for workers and non-workers . 188 24 Figure 2: Predicted frequencies of meat consumption by level of education for workers and non-workers . 188 1 25 Figure 3: Average marginal effects of education and income on meat consumption for women and men . 189 26 Figure 3: Predicted frequencies of meat consumption by level of education and by income for women and men . 189 27 Figure 4: Average marginal effects of education on meat consumption by income . 189 28 Figure 9: Predicted probability of vegetarian diet by level of education and income . 190 29 Figure 10: Average marginal effects of education on probability of vegetarian diet by income . 190 30 Figure 5: Average marginal effects of education on fresh and processed meat consump- tion by age . 191 31 Figure 6: Average marginal effects of education on fresh and processed meat consump- tion by income . 191 32 Figure 6: Average marginal effects of income on meat consumption by level of education 192 33 Figure 7: Predicted frequencies of poultry consumption by income in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas . 192 34 Figure 7: Predicted frequencies of poultry consumption by level of education for workers and non-workers . 192 35 Figure 8: Predicted frequencies of fish consumption by level of education for pensioners and non-pensioners . 193 36 Figure 11: Average marginal effects of education on likelihood of vegetarian diet by age 193 37 Figure 11: Predicted likelihood of vegetarian diet by level of education and age . 193 2 Contents 1 Introduction 7 2 Theoretical underpinnings 10 2.1 Meat consumption patterns as expression of classed lifestyles: Cultural class analysis . 10 2.2 Meat consumption patterns and dietary changes: Reflexivity, agency, and emotional states 15 2.3 Meat consumption patterns in applied research: Sustainable consumption . 21 3 Mixed-method design 23 3.1 Part I: Quantitative analysis . 24 3.2 Part II: Qualitative analysis . 25 4 Empirics I: Establishing links between socioeconomic position, meat consumption and vegetarianism 28 4.1 State of research . 28 4.2 Level of meat consumption . 30 4.2.1 Dependent variables . 30 4.2.2 Independent and control variables . 32 4.2.3 Methodological considerations . 35 4.2.4 Results . 37 4.2.5 Interim conclusion . 49 4.3 Vegetarianism . 51 4.3.1 Dependent variables . 51 4.3.2 Independent and control variables . 53 4.3.3 Results . 53 4.3.4 Interim conclusion . 59 4.4 Summary and Discussion . 59 5 Empirics II: Understanding links between socioeconomic position, meat consump- tion and vegetarianism 62 5.1 Food ideals and meat consumption . 62 5.2 Material and non-material realities: The role of economic, cultural and social capital . 70 5.2.1 Economic vegetarianism . 71 5.2.2 Scientism and communal knowledge . 73 5.2.3 Substituting social capital, ’fitting in' and 'standing out' . 80 5.2.4 Food neophilia . 89 5.2.5 Familiar food . 99 5.2.6 Household relationships . 103 5.2.7 Interim conclusion . 112 5.3 Symbolic realities: Valuation and boundary work . 114 5.3.1 Boundary work by vegetarians . 114 5.3.2 Boundary work by non-vegetarians . 119 3 5.3.3 (Mis)recognizing costs . 123 5.3.4 Consequences of boundary work . 127 5.3.5 Interim conclusion . 133 5.4 Diets, capital endowments and boundary work: How material and symbolic realities interact . 135 6 Summary and contributions 139 7 Discussion and implications 148 8 Bibliography 152 9 Appendix 168 4 Prologue During my Master's studies, I spent a considerable amount of time researching people's attitudes to- wards domestic and international redistribution, learned about theories of justice and fairness, and received detailed information about the history and workings of the European Union and its institu- tions. I planned to do a PhD on the emergence of authoritarian attitudes, and how they relate to different economic policy paradigms across countries. So in 2016, when the research for this disserta- tion project started, it was something completely new and unknown to me, at least theoretically. I had a strong sense of compassion for and interest in the topic since I went vegan more than three years prior to starting my PhD, and I was often accused of doing `me-search'.