SOCIOLOGY Vol. 33 No.

1 February 1999
105–127

CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY:

CULTURAL OMNIVOROUSNESS, SOCIAL
DISTINCTION AND DINING OUT

ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

Abstract In the light of the work of Pierre Bourdieu, this paper begins by reviewing
an argument that Western populations no longer recognise any fixed cultural
hierarchy and that, instead, individuals seek knowledge of an increasingly wide
variety of aesthetically equivalent cultural genres. Contrasting versions of this
argument are isolated. Data concerning the frequency of use of different commer-
cial sources of meals and the social characteristics of customers using different types
of restaurant in England are examined. An attempt is made to infer the social and
symbolic significance of variety of experience and, in particular, of familiarity with
diverse ethnic cuisines. The findings are interpreted in terms of the complex role of
consumption in personal assurance, communicative competence and social dis-
tinction. It is maintained that the pursuit of variety of consumer experience is a
feature of particular social groups and that some specific component practices
express social distinction.

Key words: Bourdieu, consumption, cultural capital, cultural omnivores, dining out,
distinction.

Pierre Bourdieu’s book Distinction: The Social Judgment of Taste (1984) has
probably been the primary landmark in the sociology of consumption in
Britain and North America. For Bourdieu, lifestyle was an expression of class
position, which, according to another essay on the topic (1987), was
identifiable by the volume and composition of types of capital – economic,
cultural, social and symbolic – which were typically available to given house-
holds. He argued that styles of consumption are means not just of deploying
economic resources but also especially of exhibiting ‘cultural capital’. The
display of goods is part of a system of reputation, involving judgements about
good taste, which results in members of different social classes systematically
picking some items in preference to others. In his view there was always
struggle over the legitimacy of the definition of what was in good taste, but
nevertheless there was widespread agreement at any point in time about its
existence, its hierarchical character and its distribution. Social distinction was
marked by tastes which were formed as part of class habitus and were
mutually recognisable between individuals and groups in society. Symbols of
distinction were of many kinds – for instance including body posture and
accent – but possessions and pursuits were important parts of the common
systemic code.
Bourdieu’s analysis, applied to France in the 1970s, has been subjected to
106 ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

extensive, though often highly sympathetic, critique. North American socio-

logists of culture have engaged in some increasingly sophisticated empirical
research in order to sustain and support their objections. For example,
Michèle Lamont (1992) compares the ways that upper-middle class men in
four cities in the United States and France draw social and status boundaries.
They distinguish between themselves and others, and attribute superiority and
inferiority, in terms of three dimensions of status – moral, socioeconomic and
cultural. National differences in bases of status estimation were apparent; the
American men focused more on moral judgements (including estimates of
friendliness, honesty and co-operativeness) and socio-economic judgements,
whereas the French emphasised cultural exclusiveness and refinement, which
they assessed in relation to a hierarchy of cultural forms. She was thus able
persuasively to criticise Bourdieu both for his theoretical limitations and for an
exaggeratedly Parisian interpretation of the rigidity and social centrality of a
particular form of hierarchical cultural capital. Her evidence from the provin-
cial city of Clermont-Ferrand, and even more so from New York and
Indianapolis, indicated that cultural boundaries were less clear and less rigid
than had been suggested by Bourdieu. Indeed, Lamont suggests that
differentiation in the sphere of culture is a relatively weak source of status
competition in the United States. She thus endorses DiMaggio’s (1987)
depiction of the United States as having ‘loose boundaries’, especially in the
field of culture, which prevents the formation of a strong universal hierarchical
cultural system. The United States is perhaps itself special because of its wider
appreciation of forms of popular culture and the absence of any pattern of
cultural hegemony. However, if this were a feature not just of the United
States, but a tendency of contemporary cultural change more generally, then
the processes which Bourdieu identifies as means of establishing and repro-
ducing social distinction might generally be in abeyance.
One highly consequential feature of contemporary commodity culture is the
enormous variety of cultural items in circulation. Potentially, this poses addi-
tional problems for Bourdieu, since his account depends upon a generalised
societal capacity for the identification and interpretation of key markers of
social position. A proliferation of items may dilute the concentration of
preferences within any group or, perhaps even more likely, make it impossible
to communicate refinement or distinction. If, for instance, it is true that
people today are compelled to use consumption behaviour to signify who they
are to other people, from whom they hope to gain approval and esteem for
their ‘style’, then identifying an appropriate and effective means to achieve this
becomes increasingly difficult. With more signifiers available, and with
shortages of time, money and information being inevitable constraints upon
their employment and enjoyment, how can anyone be sure to transmit the
correct impression or be sure that the impression will be read correctly? In
such a society, then, two typical problems occur for groups or classes trying to
establish their claims to good taste; firstly, to legitimate the superiority of their
 CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY 107

own cultural practices and, secondly, to demonstrate in communication with

others that they are indeed members of a superior grouping.
The question of whether there is a cultural hierarchy reflecting class
position and how it might have been affected by the variegation of cultural
items in circulation has exercised many scholars recently. Three different types
of conclusion have been drawn from very recent North American empirical
research. The first is that class distinctions are rapidly waning, are com-
paratively harmless, and that appreciation of a much wider variety of cultural
genres – dubbed ‘omnivorousness’ – is spreading, if somewhat unevenly,
replacing snobbish attitudes with a comparatively benevolent and tolerant
pluralism. The second maintains that omnivorousness is itself exclusionary, a
form of cultural symbolism, perhaps exhibiting a qualified cultural tolerance
but with a significant, if residual, class basis. A third view identifies an
instrumental purpose for omnivorousness, one which directly, but very
selectively, reinforces class inequalities because it bears a capacity to transform
cultural into social capital.1 We find examplars of these positions in articles by
Peterson and Kern (1996), Bryson (1996), and Erickson (1996) respectively.
Peterson and Kern (1996) argue that there has been a trend over the last
fifteen years in the United States for persons with ‘high-brow’ cultural tastes
in music (measured as having professed liking both opera and classical music
and liking one of these genres best of all types of music) to claim to like an
increasing number of middle-brow and low-brow genres too. This process
they call ‘omnivorousness’, which they measure ‘as the number of middle-
and low-brow forms respondents choose’ (1996:901). They note that high-
brow people are more likely to add low-brow genres (like country music,
blues, rock and gospel) rather than middle-brow items (such as Broadway
musicals and big bands), although they are adding these too. Moreover, while
low- and middle-brow people also claim to like more genres in 1992 than in
1983, the rate of increase of omnivorousness is fastest among the high-brows.
They note that high-brow people on average had two years more education,
$5,000 more household income, were ten years older and more likely to be
white and female. They interpret the trend as one whereby omnivorousness
replaces snobbishness, a status system which was more hierarchical and more
closed, in which an elite liked only exclusive forms of culture and refused
either to recognise or appreciate other less exalted forms. Peterson and Kern
offer a somewhat ambivalent, and perhaps generous, interpretation of omni-
vorousness: ‘it is antithetical to snobbishness, which is based fundamentally
on rigid rules of exclusion’ (1996:904). It is not ‘liking everything
indiscriminately’, but ‘an openness to appreciating everything’. Moreover, it
‘does not imply an indifference to distinctions’, for the high-brow does not
actually embrace the low-brow forms, but merely seeks to ‘appreciate and
critique in the light of some knowledge of the genre’.
The authors attribute the growth of omnivorousness to structural changes
which have made different cultural forms more widely available, ‘a historical
108 ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

trend towards greater tolerance of those holding different values’ (1996:905),

the decline of a single standard in the art world, the effect of generational
politics as tastes developed from the 1950s onwards, and a change in the
operation of status group politics. They maintain (1996:906) that:
Dominant status groups have regularly defined popular culture in ways that fit their
own interests and have worked to render harmless subordinate status-group
cultures. One recurrent strategy is to define popular culture as brutish and some-
thing to be suppressed or avoided; another is to gentrify elements of popular culture
and incorporate them into the dominant status-group culture. Our data suggest a
major shift from the former strategy to the latter strategy of status group politics.

Peterson and Kern conclude by claiming that ‘omnivorous inclusion seems

better adapted to an increasingly global world managed by those who make
their way, in part, by showing respect for the cultural expressions of others’,
that omnivorousness is ‘better adapted’ to the late twentieth century, and that
it has an elective affinity with a ‘new business and administrative class’. How-
ever, the statistical relationships demonstrated are fairly weak and the absence
of occupation among the independent variables (though see Peterson and
Simkus, 1992) renders the argument frail.
Bryson used the 1993 US General Social Survey (with a sample of 1,606
people) also to examine musical taste, exploring which of eighteen genres
were disliked by respondents. She showed that there is no general tendency for
higher class people to express dislike for lower status tastes. Length of time in
education reduces the number of genres disliked. However, the educated
display a patterned tolerance, favouring some higher status black and foreign
music while rejecting the music associated with low status groups (specifically
rap, heavy metal, gospel and country). At the attitudinal level she finds
evidence of class rather than racial prejudice. She also shows that less edu-
cated people claim knowledge of fewer genres and suggests that there is some
kudos associated with possession of ‘multicultural’ capital (defined as a
knowledge of selected diverse forms). She observes (Bryson 1996:897) that:
increasing tolerance has undoubtedly made high-status culture more open to racial
and ethnic cultural differences. However, tolerance itself may separate high-status
culture from other group cultures. This tolerance line recreates the pattern of high-
status (cosmopolitan) culture in opposition to non-high-status (group-based)
culture. Thus, it provides a new criterion of cultural exclusion.

Incidentally demonstrating the value of a method of examining aversions as a

basis of symbolic differentiation (as advocated by Douglas 1996), she (Bryson
1996:897) claims that:
focusing on cultural dislike has allowed me to make a crucial distinction between
difference (a prerequisite of preference) and inequality (a matter of exclusion). That
is, to the extent that symbolic boundaries are used as a basis of social exclusion,
study of the politics of taste is essential to our understanding of the subtle forces at
work in power relationships and the reproduction of the social structure.
 CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY 109

Bryson concludes by advocating further research: cross-national comparison

to distinguish theoretical generalities from local strategies of symbolic exclus-
ion (for content need not be the same from place to place); investigation of
other objects of taste; and exploration of the hypothesis that tolerance is itself
a principle of good taste. Bryson (1996:897) speculates that we might then be
able to ‘make sense of the contradiction between increasing social inequality
and what appears to be a flattening cultural hierarchy’.
Erickson (1996) offers a very sophisticated account of a complex social
distribution of cultural knowledge. In a study of the personnel of the security
industry in Canada, she offers a stronger argument about the way in which
knowledge, though not experience, of cultural variety is instrumentally and
selectively used in directly class-based processes. She shows that there are
social differences in omnivorousness between people at different levels of the
occupational hierarchy, with employers and managers being the most
omnivorous and with others in lesser positions of authority also scoring higher
than employees. She argues that business organisations have dual require-
ments, to exercise control and to ensure co-ordination through maintaining
social integration and effective communication. For the second function the
capacity of management to be able to talk to as many ranks as possible is
advantageous. Hence there is value in cultivating the social and cultural skill
of having a wide range of topics of conversation in order to ease com-
munication. Omnivorousness is thus instrumental in the management of
workplaces; occupational class structure is implicated in the reproduction of
symbolic differentiation.
Empirically, Erickson demonstrates that high culture (books and art) is not
important to business people, who concentrate on those cultural elements
which are business-related. There are many genres where there are no per-
ceptible differences between groups. Thus, recognition of esoteric sports,
esoteric art, Canadian books, chain restaurants and popular magazines were
not preferred by any class in particular, presumably implying that these are
either mass or enthusiast items. The key discriminating items tend to be ones
which she claims have direct relevance for business activity: it was knowledge
of popular sports, mainstream art, books, better restaurants and business
magazines with which the more omnivorous people were disproportionately
familiar. So, for example, extent of knowledge of better restaurants is the
prerogative of owners and managers and of people with extensive social
networks. Such knowledge is also greater among the Canadian-born, whites
and women.
Separating the effects on the diversity of cultural knowledge of primary
socialisation (natality, parental characteristics and own education), secondary
socialisation (respondent’s previous job experience) and current social
location (determined by current job and nature of social network), Erickson
demonstrates that the third set of factors are particularly powerful. This casts
some doubt on Bourdieuvian emphases on the role of engrained habitus:
110 ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

‘family is not destiny’, for ‘culture includes many genres learned at different
times of life’ (Erickson 1996:223). She also indicates a very significant role for
networks, especially networks of weak ties (compare Granovetter 1973).2
Overall, Erickson stresses that there are many dimensions of difference
across diverse classes and groups and between different fields and genres.
However, she perhaps overstates her case when concluding that ‘diverse net-
works encourage cultural omnivores, not specialists in distinguished culture
nor specialists in culture specific to higher classes’ (Erickson 1996:238). For,
as with Bryson, the evidence does not demonstrate an absence of specialis-
ation, for neither have a measure of intensity of involvement. The possibility
that people have concentrated specialisms (which might constitute
enthusiasms) as well as a veneer of knowledge of diverse other genres, is not
inconsistent with the evidence. Indeed, the omnivore who likes the high
culture items might use more intensive knowledge of these as grounds for
establishing and recognising symbolic superiority. It may be significant that
Erickson’s sample contains few professionals and comes from private sector
industry, Lamont (1992) having demonstrated that it was intellectuals in the
public and charity sectors who drew the strongest cultural boundaries. Finally,
Erickson (1996:219) investigated claims to knowledge rather than actual
practice, on the premise that ‘cultural inequality is not so much a hierarchy of
tastes (from soap opera to classical opera) as it is a hierarchy of knowledge
(from those who know little about soap opera or opera to those who can take
part in conversation about both).’ Hence her conclusion that ‘the most widely
useful form of cultural resource is cultural variety plus the (equally cultural)
understanding of the rules of relevance’ (Erickson 1996:219). However, she
denies that this is directly a function of social class. She explicitly distinguishes
correlation with class from usefulness in class processes (1996:221), and
concludes that ‘advantaged people, including high-class people, will certainly
have better cultural resources, but this is not because of their class as such but
because of the diverse networks that advantaged people have.’ It is, however,
difficult to see how the design of her inquiry can permit such a definitive
separation.
The evidence provided by Peterson and Kern, Bryson and Erickson is
strictly incommensurate, as are their conceptualisations and their conclusions.
Their indicators of cultural distinction, their interpretations of the meaning of
such differentiation, their operationalisation of social class, and their accounts
of the prevalence of omnivorousness are, at the detailed level, non-com-
parable. Yet all work effectively with a broadly similar Bourdieuvian prob-
lematic, while seeking to modify and moderate his conclusions about the
direct superimposition of cultural or symbolic differences upon social
divisions.
This paper adds evidence to the debate. It examines another field, eating
out, in another country, England, and deals with practices rather than
attitudes or awareness. It seeks to clarify whether omnivorousness is a
 CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY 111

solution to the anxiety associated with an ambivalent modernity, an

expression of greater cultural tolerance, or a particular form of social
distinction. It contests some of the more simple pluralist assumptions by
claiming that omnivorousness and distinction are not mutually exclusive. In
the next section we explain the significance of the case study of dining out
and describe briefly the empirical investigation upon which the argument is
based. Then we present data about which sorts of people use what range of
different types of commercial eating places, particularly identifying those who
frequent restaurants specialising in ethnic cuisine. We look for evidence of
omnivorousness and distinction. The penultimate section offers an
interpretation of the symbolic significance of the celebration of variety for the
middle classes, in terms of personal reassurance, communicative competence
and the instrumental and expressive role of omnivorousness in demonstrating
social distinction.

Methods for the Study of Eating Out in England

In the spirit of Bryson’s recommendation to undertake more case studies, we

consider eating out habits. Of course, the evidence from a single field is
incapable of providing a definitive assessment of the most general thesis, for
Bourdieu’s argument hangs upon the combinations of a group’s practices
across all fields. However, the subtleties of cultural distinctiveness are such
that for empirical purposes there is much to be gained from exploration of
specific areas. We consider eating out a good case study, not so much because
the metaphors of the omnivore and taste fit so well, but because it is a highly
differentiated and popular activity where selection among alternatives might
be expected to exhibit a social logic. An earlier study of household expen-
diture patterns reported that money spent on eating out was a pronounced
indicator of social class differences (Tomlinson and Warde 1993; Warde
1997). Not only Erickson (see also 1991), but also DeVault (1991) have
provided evidence of considerable concern and talk about food, particularly
among the middle classes. In addition, eating out presents both a considerable
range of alternatives and the opportunity for repeated selections. It represents
a much less decisive financial commitment or cultural statement than would,
say, house purchase. Despite exceptions, prices of meals out are sufficiently
moderate and varied for financial considerations to be not entirely compelling
in the process of differentiation.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted in thirty households in Preston,
a medium-sized city in North-West England, to elicit discussion about eating
out. Subsequently 1,001 people, aged between 16 and 65, were surveyed in
three cities in England: London, Bristol and Preston. A quota sample
matched respondents to the overall population of diverse local wards by age,
sex, class and ethnic group. The survey was undertaken in April 1995 and
112 ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

questions were asked about frequency of eating out, types of outlet visited,
attitudes to eating out and the nature of the most recent meal eaten away from
home. The answers to these have been analysed to explore social variations in
eating out by class, income, age, gender, education, place of residence, and so
forth.
In this paper we report some findings from the survey, particularly from a
question which asked respondents what types of place they had visited in the
last twelve months. We use this to explore the extent to which people had used
the available range of options, which social groups sought the widest
experience, and whether particular types of outlet appeared, on the basis of
their clientele, to be socially exclusive.
The statistical analysis reported here is based upon techniques of cross-
tabulation and multiple regression, with measures of commercial eating out as
dependent variables and a range of socio-demographic indicators as
independent variables. Though not a national random sample, there is no
reason to believe that the survey contains any particular bias as a portrayal of
urban English practice. The qualitative interviews were consistent with the
quantitative evidence.

Data: Varieties of Experience

We presented a list of types of commercial eating out place, based on an

earlier market research report (Payne and Payne 1993), asking respondents if
they had eaten a main meal in such an establishment within the last twelve
months. This is effectively a measure of recent familiarity, rather than
popularity. The frequency of response is listed in Table 1. The taxonomy is
problematic because it indiscriminately mixes types defined by cuisine, such
as Italian, by manner of delivery, such as bar meal, and by function, such as
roadside diner. Nevertheless, labels caused respondents no perceptible diffi-
culties of comprehension.3 As can be seen, pubs, fastfood places and teashops
were familiar to more people than were wine bars, vegetarian and ethnic
restaurants.
The pattern of who goes where is complex. All types of venue are to some
degree socially differentiated in their custom; there is usually some statistically
significant association with age, education and income, though not always in
the same direction. Patterns vary for each type of outlet. For example, those
independent variables which predict the likelihood of having eaten in a
fastfood place in the last twelve months are significantly different from those
for ethnic cuisine; for fastfood places where meals are eaten on the premises
(like McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken), income, class and city make
little difference, while household composition and especially age are very
strongly associated.4 However, the first key question is who uses a wide range
of options, who comparatively few?
 CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY 113

Table 1
Type of Restaurant Eaten in during Last Twelve Months

Our sample (1995) Payne and Payne (1993)

Pizza 41 24
Fastfood outlet 49 n/a
Fish and chip (eat in) 18 23
Wine bar 17 8
Roadside diner or service station 31 28
In store or shopping mall 31 n/a
Café or teashop 52 n/a
Steakhouse 19 21
Pub (bar meal)
Pub restaurant
49
41 }60}
Other British 6 16
Indian 33 24
Chinese 29 29
Italian 31 16
American-style 12 16
French n/a 7
Other ethnic 21 n/a
Greek n/a 7
Vegetarian 9 4
Other 1 6
None/don’t know n/a 13

Note: The table shows the percentage of respondents in each survey who had eaten in
each venue at least once within the past twelve months.

Exposure to Variety

The evidence suggests that in practice the pursuit of variety is influenced to a

significant degree by socio-demographic characteristics. We constructed a
simple index of variety. We calculated how many of the nineteen types of
commercial place on our list respondents had visited in the last year. This was
constructed as a simple arithmetic scale which was then condensed into those
who had never eaten out, those using few (1–3) types, those with a moderate
level of exposure (4–7 types) and those who had the widest experience of
alternative venues (8–19 types).5 Crosstabulation of scores on the condensed
scale, our ‘variety index’, with standard socio-demographic independent
variables, produced the high levels of association documented in Table 2. The
number of places visited was associated with many variables; unsurprisingly
with frequency of eating out, but also with income, educational qualifications,
age, social class and employment status.
The ‘variety index’ was then used in linear multiple regression analysis. The
final regression equation (see Table 3, column a) explained 26 per cent of the
114 ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

Table 2
Variety of Restaurants Attended in Last Twelve Months

Association with number of

Social characteristics types of restaurant

Frequency of eating out commercially 0.64***

Frequency of eating at family member’s home 0.22***
Frequency of eating at friend’s home 0.48***
Personal income 0.42***
Household income 0.48***
Employment (full-time, part-time, none) 0.22***
Father’s social class 0.26***
City 0.16***
Sex 0.07
Age 20.20***
White 0.23**
Student 0.28***
Household composition 0.07*
Children under 16 —
Educational qualifications 0.44***
Type of secondary school 0.22***
Retired 0.43***
Occupational class 0.22***

Notes: Scores calculated as 0–3 on the variety index; measure of association, gamma;
significance, z (***¢0.001; **¢0.01; *¢0.05)

variance (adjusted R 2) on the index, a moderate but acceptable level given the
nature of the independent variables and the heterogeneous character of the
components of the index. It indicates that breadth of exposure can be
predicted best by high household income, having a university degree, being in
the middle of the age range, and being currently in a white-collar occupation,
especially being an employer or manager. Being a student, having a high
personal income and holding educational credentials below degree level were
also significant. This is prima facie evidence that a distinct and comparatively
privileged section of the population achieve greatest variety of experience. The
independent significance of income, occupation and educational credentials
suggests that social class is a principal factor explaining differential
experience; in Bourdieu’s terms, a combination of economic and personal
cultural capital influence behaviour. Moreover, it supports Erickson’s observa-
tion that people in positions of authority in the workplace are likely to have
the broadest cultural experience. Employers and managers are the socio-
economic group with the greatest tendency to score highly on the index.
The extent to which this might be interpreted as an indicator of either
instrumental self-promotion or cultural distinction, is one issue at stake in this
 CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY 115

Table 3
Standardised Regression Coefficients for Each Dependent Variable:
Four Models of Eating-Out

Dependent variable

Independent a b c d
variable Variety Frequency Curiosity Commonplace

Household income 0.23*** 0.16*** 0.23*** 0.21***

Personal income 0.08* 0.10** 0.07* 0.06

Degree 0.22*** 0.13*** 0.23*** 0.17***

GCSE 0.08** 0.08*
A-Level 0.08** 0.08* 0.05 0.06

Ethnicity 20.12*** 20.09** 20.05 20.12***

Student 0.10*** 0.11**

Part-time worker 0.05
Single 20.07
Hhsize>2 20.06* 20.08**

Housewife 0.09** 20.09** 20.09**

Preston 0.09* 0.08**

London 0.24*** 20.08**
Father service class 0.08** 0.01

Professional 0.05 0.06* 0.07*

Employer 0.10** 0.07* 0.11***
Intermediate 0.09** 0.11**
Supervisory 0.06* 0.07*
Non-manual 0.07*

Age 20.547** 0.359* 20.210***

Age squared 20.175*** 0.341 20.502**

Adjusted R2 26% 15% 34% 24%

n 1,001 976 1,001 1,001
F-statistic 28.5*** 18.8*** 38.6*** 19.1***

Notes: The four variables are defined in the text. Significance levels ***0.001 or
better; **0.01; *0.05. Variables with significance lower than 0.10 have been excluded
from each model.

paper. It will be appreciated that people with these characteristics are also
those who eat out most frequently and the likelihood of experiencing a wide
variety of types is, unsurprisingly, increased with greater opportunity. It is thus
important to note that an equivalent attempt to predict the frequency with
116 ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

which respondents ate out was statistically less successful. Having asked
respondents how often they ate out, we created a second scale which
distinguished between those who never ate out (7 per cent of respondents),
those who ate out occasionally (less often than monthly, 29 per cent), those
who are out frequently (monthly but less than weekly, 44 per cent), and those
who ate out regularly (at least weekly, 21 per cent). The directly comparable
linear multiple regression analysis, using the same independent variables,
explained only 15 per cent of the variance (see Table 3, column b). Frequency
of eating out is primarily a function of income, though age and, again,
educational credentials are significant. Socio-economic group is of no con-
sequence, but being a housewife, self-allocation as ‘non-white’, and living in
a household of more than two persons were associated negatively with
frequency of eating out. Exposure to variety is not simply a consequence of
frequency of eating out; their correlation is low (R 250.31). The variety index
is more strongly determined by socio-demographic characteristics, suggesting
that omnivorousness bears some social and symbolic significance.
So, some socio-demographic characteristics enhance the likelihood of
eating in a wider range of venues and they are ones associated with social class
and with the distribution of cultural and economic capital. To explore these
relationships further we examine in some detail the use of different types of
restaurant, specifically the socio-demographic bases of familiarity with res-
taurants specialising in ethnic cuisine. The social, or rather statistical, fact that
we wish to concentrate attention upon is that amount of variance explained by
socio-demographic factors for use of ethnic restaurants was significantly
higher than for either the index of variety or for frequency of eating out on
commercial premises.

Use of Specialised ‘Ethnic’ Restaurants

As in other parts of Europe, restaurants claiming to specialise in the

preparation of distinctive foreign cuisines have flourished in Britain as the
habit of eating out for pleasure has developed. The term ‘ethnic’, when
applied to food, is inherently problematic. In a country like England, where
foodstuffs have been imported in quantity for centuries and which is
increasingly affected by the international economy and global culture, purity
or authenticity of cuisine is hard to identify. A potential technical difficulty
therefore arises, how to decide what should count as, for instance, an Indian
or an Italian restaurant. Should a pizza and pasta place be deemed Italian? Is a
certain level of authenticity to Italian regional cuisine required, since many
will serve English dishes too? Our study left the respondents to decide,
offering a list of types of eating-out place which included Italian, Chinese/
Thai, American, Indian and ‘Other ethnic’. The last, we assume, will be
mainly French, Greek and Turkish restaurants – because although Nepalese,
 CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY 117

Indonesian, Mongolian and other ethnic restaurants can be found in Britain,

their numbers are few. Because we recorded respondents’ answers to a list
offered by the interviewer, we cannot be sure that the establishments
supplying meals would see themselves in the same way.
Wide availability of ethnic restaurants is a relatively recent development
which is still far from evenly dispersed across Britain. A considerable
proportion of people in our survey avoided ethnic restaurants altogether: 48
per cent had never eaten in any such establishment in the last 12 months.6
Nevertheless, substantial minorities of the population have eaten different
sorts of ethnic cuisine, on commercial premises, in the last year. Nationally,
more have been to Chinese and Indian than any other, but in our sample
Italian food was widely eaten as were ‘other ethnic cuisines’ (see Table 1).
Factors which encourage use of one type of specialist ethnic restaurant
increase the likelihood of eating at each of the others too. Table 4 records the
strength of statistical association between socio-demographic factors and
whether a respondent had visited particular types of ethnic restaurant during
the last year. Probably the clientele of Chinese and ‘Other ethnic’ restaurants
are the most socially distinctive, and American-style restaurants the least. But
overall the same factors operate in all these types, which is not the case for

Table 4
Cross tabulation of Respondents Visiting Particular Types of
Ethnic Restaurant During the Last Twelve Months (%) and Their
Social Characteristics

Indian Chinese Italian American Other

Respondents visiting 32.9% 29.2% 31.0% 11.7% 21.3%

Frequency of eating out 0.51*** 0.58*** 0.54*** 0.53*** 0.53***

Respondent’s income 0.42*** 0.50*** 0.47*** 0.39*** 0.53***
Household income 0.41*** 0.46*** 0.44*** 0.34*** 0.59***
Father’s social class 0.32*** 0.38*** 0.35*** 0.29*** 0.47***
City 0.42*** 0.49*** 0.33*** 0.39*** 0.58***
Gender 0.09 0.11
Age 20.23*** 20.14** 20.17*** 20.41*** 0.11**
Household type 0.10* 0.14* 0.13* 0.31*** 0.12*
Children — 20.10 20.14* — 0.11
Employment status 1 0.19*** 0.17** 0.26*** 0.17** 0.26***
Education 0.50*** 0.50*** 0.51*** 0.47*** 0.63***
School 0.23*** 0.35*** 0.28*** 0.33*** 0.42***

Retired 20.52*** 20.40** 20.44*** 20.59*** 20.59***

Social class 0.20*** 0.26*** 20.28*** 0.27*** 0.35***

Note: Measure of association, gamma; significance z (***¢0.001; **¢0.01; *¢0.05).

118 ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

many other kinds of venues. These findings were confirmed by use of logistic
regression analysis (see Olsen, Warde and Martens 1998).
Many factors are associated with the propensity to use ethnic restaurants.
Among these are the extent to which one eats out; the more frequent eating
out, the more likely a respondent is to try ethnic cuisine. The same practical
and instrumental factors that underpin general frequency of eating out operate
too: living in a household containing two adults in full-time employment, living
alone or in a student household, being single, being young, and so forth
increase likelihood of eating in a foreign restaurant. However, some factors are
particularly associated with the extension of the experience of specialist ethnic
restaurants, implying that the field of ethnic cuisine carries a certain level of
cultural distinction. Throughout, there is more pronounced involvement by
those with higher income, by those living in London, by the better educated
and by higher social classes than is the case with other forms of eating out.
More precise delineation of the factors influencing familiarity with ethnic
restaurants was obtained by constructing a ‘curiosity index’, a scale which
recorded the number of different types of ethnic restaurant a respondent had
visited in the last year. The scale included four types, Indian, Italian, Chinese/
Thai, and ‘Other ethnic’ restaurants, thus permitting scores from 0 to 4. The
index exhibited measures of association greater than for other forms of eating
out. As Table 3, column c, indicates, 34 per cent of the variance was
explained by the socio-demographic characteristics of our respondents.
Involvement is more pronounced among those with higher income, those
living in London and those holding a degree-level qualification. Household
income was very important, personal income less so, though still significant.
London residence was very important, reflecting in part the superior supply of
the metropolis, which has a long history (Driver 1983). Restaurants with
different specialisations are unevenly distributed throughout the country; for
example, Preston has a greater than average number of Italian and Indian
restaurants and living in Preston was, compared with the third city Bristol,
also likely to enhance familiarity with meals in ethnic restaurants. Again, being
a housewife and living in a large household reduced familiarity. But parti-
cularly interesting is the effect of social and occupational class. There was a
significant association with the social class of the respondent’s father at age
16, a variable which had no impact in almost any other statistical test we have
attempted. Having a father who held a service class position enhanced
curiosity, implying a process of inter-generational transmission of cultural
capital. Association with measures of class based on socio-economic group of
the respondent’s household were also significant with respect to professional
and managerial occupations.
Prima facie, attendance at a wide range of ethnic restaurants indicates
possession of high levels of both economic and cultural capital. This strongly
suggests that social distinction is being maintained in at least one corner of the
immense field of food provision.
 CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY 119

Variety and Curiosity

A comparison between the variety index and the curiosity index (Table 3,
columns a and c) suggests that people scoring high on our curiosity index
were exhibiting a specific form of social refinement exceeding any concern to
pursue variety for its own sake. For if pursuit of variety per se were a strategy
for exhibiting refinement, then the scores on the variety index would be as
strongly and comprehensively explained by socio-demographic characteristics
as were those for ‘curiosity’. That the latter correlations were stronger,
appears to be evidence that a taste for ethnic cuisines is especially distinctive.
To explore this line of interpretation further we constructed a further index,
which for want of a more informative label we call ‘the commonplace index’,
which measured how many types of outlet had been visited during the last
twelve months, excluding the four ethnic specialist cuisine restaurants. The
maximum possible score was 15. One hundred and six respondents scored 0
and one person 15. We again regrouped this variable into four categories,
from none to high. This scale was also subjected to linear multiple regression
and achieved an adjusted R 2 of 0.24 (see Table 3, column d).
Comparison with other models have some points of interest. Exposure to
the ‘commonplace’ is determined by many of the same features as is variety
(column a). The exclusion of specialist ethnic restaurants confirms that
Londoners are strong aficionados of ethnic cuisine (partly because they make
little use of pubs and pub restaurants, see Martens and Warde 1996) and that
ethnic minority respondents exhibit an aversion to ‘British’ food outlets.
Compared with the curiosity index (column c), the impact of having a degree
was reduced in strength, inherited cultural capital (as indicated by having a
father in the service class) became insignificant, and the role of London
residence was reversed. The comparison affirms the importance of higher
education, and cultural capital more generally, in enhancing tastes for the
exotic. The amount of variance explained is substantially less than that for the
curiosity scale (24 per cent compared with 34 per cent), again implying that
higher levels of cultural capital are associated with the consumption of ethnic
cuisine than with simple pursuit of variety.

The Meaning of Variety

Cultural variety generally poses a problem, identified by Simmel (1968) as a

problem of attention, about the relevance and value of the many cultural items
which present themselves in modern societies. Ignorance of socially meaning-
ful items might be shameful, a preference for vulgar items revealing, display of
intended markers misleading, interpretation of signs mistaken. Examination of
the clientele of restaurants in England indicates yet again the complexity of
cultural practices and the difficulty of analysing differentiation in the field of
120 ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

consumption. The evidence does not easily distinguish between the theoretical
accounts of the symbolic significance of omnivorousness. Rather it suggests
that each account may have purchase in different respects. Eating out seems
to present the middle classes with opportunities for personal reassurance, for
demonstrating social competence and for staking claims to social exclusivity.
One form of modern ambivalence has been described as consumer anxiety.
For example, Bauman (1988) suggests that consumption is a source of anxiety
because choices are constitutive of self-identity. To the extent that individuals
are free in the sphere of consumption, and identity is no longer guaranteed by
or even closely associated with social position, then misconceived aesthetic
decisions will convey regrettable and damaging messages about the self.
Hence, anxiety is associated with choice. Arguably, in societies where there is
an established and widely recognised cultural system individuals are much less
likely to make a mistake. In such systems the upper and middle classes are
likely to ensure that they are well acquainted with the canons of ‘good taste’
and will, economic resources permitting, act accordingly. Once the certainties
implicit in societal notions of good taste are shaken, then groups for whom
appearances matter are more likely to experience ambivalence. Proliferation of
varieties of cultural items threatens to increase anxiety.
One simple strategic response is to extend knowledge and familiarity of as
many items as possible and to advance the claim that refinement is to be
identified through breadth of experience or awareness. In such circumstances,
omnivorousness may come to be valued in its own right, as an end rather than
a means. Knowledge and experience of the widest possible variety of alterna-
tives are equated with cultural sophistication. Anxiety may be avoided by
reasoning that every experience is justifiable and valuable because part of a
learning process. Personal responsibility for judgement is relieved. Capacity to
make ‘reliable’ aesthetic judgements on every occasion is no longer required.
Personal reassurance and comfort may emerge because omnivorousness
evades prior responsibilities for aesthetic judgement of the kind that deter-
mined which of a variety of practices or items was better than another. Placing
variety on a pedestal legitimises aesthetic indecision by re-evaluating it as
laudable. The implication is a shift from connoisseurship or refinement –
knowing what is best – to having a wide knowledge of all the alternatives. This
may serve as a claim to cultural sophistication, permitting an opinion about
everything without need for judgement concerning quality. This parallels the
shift of orientation of contemporary intellectuals described by Bauman (1987)
as the move from legislator to interpreter. The implicit evasion of aesthetic
judgement constitutes a strategic solution, or resolution, to the problem of
selection among the huge array of items in the contemporary market place.
Expression of personal identity is generally connected to codes of social
identification. The recognition of an individual’s claim to esteem depends
upon others being able to recognise to which category of person s/he belongs.
One of the problems with intensification of variety is precisely that it puts a
 CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY 121

severe strain on the capacity of codes of consumption to communicate social

membership. In this context some groups develop what are effectively
uniforms; the stylisation of consumption is part of this process. An alternative
response is to increase the means to communicate with many other groups on
their own terms, hence increasing communicative competence. The strategy
involves extending vocabularies or repertoires of different genres of sym-
bolically significant cultural fields and practices, so as to be able to
communicate with a maximum number of people in other groups. Celebration
of variety makes it possible to operate in the world of diverse mass-produced
commodities before a very heterogeneous audience (or more likely con-
secutive audiences) to achieve a level of cultural communication and to make
symbolic statements about identification. Thus people might develop a coded
cultural repertoire that will speak to the young, the English, the foreign visitor,
the senior citizen, etc.
Our data demonstrated that this strategy is more extensively adopted by
particular class fractions. Both DeVault (1991) and Erickson (1991) reported
that a capacity to talk about food and restaurants was generally expected in
professional and managerial circles in North America. The same happens in
Britain. We asked respondents whether they talked to others about where and
what they ate out. White-collar workers were more likely to talk about eating
out then were manual or self-employed workers (see Table 5). Employers and
managers talk more frequently with colleagues than any other socio-economic
group, though not much more than professionals and intermediate white-
collar workers. If knowledge of food is an element in middle-class social
competence, then it is probably largely because it is a topic of conversation. It

Table 5
Categories of People to Whom Respondents Talk about Eating Out, by
Current Occupational Class

Anyone Family Colleagues Friends

% % % % n

Employer/manager 81 47 53 76 74
Professional 77 47 49 67 57
Intermediate white-collar 87 46 41 79 1070
Petit bourgeois 50 33 17 42 24
Supervisor/skilled manual 66 41 33 53 83
Junior non-manual 73 48 43 65 1670
Semi/un-skilled manual 57 37 31 50 90
No current job recorded 56 35 6 53 3990

Notes: The table records percentages responding affirmatively to the questions: ‘Do
you ever talk to other people about the places where you eat our or about what you
ate when eating out?’ (column 1); ‘What sort of people would that be?’ (columns
2–4). Total number of respondents was 1,001.
122 ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

is a medium which is less accessible to visual inspection, for surely only the
few visit restaurants in the expectation that they will be seen by relevant
others. Rather it is more a form of consumption that can be re-visited in
conversation, recollected rather than directly displayed. In this respect dining
out is an important corrective to analyses of consumption which concentrate
overwhelmingly on visual rather than embodied and verbal communication.
Our findings are consistent with those of Erickson regarding the prevalence
of omnivorousness among employers and managers, suggesting that there may
indeed be some instrumental purpose to the strategy. However, Erickson attri-
butes their acquisition of knowledge to their involvement in broader networks
of social contacts rather than to any conscious and instrumental calculation
that they will benefit practically. Hypotheses about networks cannot be
addressed by our data. However, variety probably does help develop and
sustain weaker ties because a larger pool of items provides more sources of
conversation and looser networks may circulate wider knowledge. It might be
hypothesised that the more dense the social network and the more cohesive
the community, the less important will be command of variety. Where social
relations are well established and making new acquaintances is less important,
cohesiveness will often crystallise precisely around a shared sense of cultural
value and judgement. Command of variety might well become a basis for the
accumulation of social capital. Further exploration of such issues will require
explicit investigation of networks probably using new techniques of analysis
(Longhurst and Savage 1996; Bagnall, Longhurst and Savage 1997).
There are several reasons why variety might appeal to members of the
educated middle class in England. It is a corollary of fashion; new fashions
require experience of new items. It may be an integral aspect of the reaction of
the comfortableness of Western middle-class existence which induces
restlessness and disappointment. The appeal of cultural experimentalism and
innovation is widespread. Search for variety could also be a step in the search
for refined excellence, a means to sharpen capacities for judgement and
develop new standards. It might, finally, also be a benchmark of social
distinction in its own right, as suggested by Bryson.
We are not inclined to accept this last view because of the comparatively
weak statistical explanation of our variety index. Although richer, better
qualified, white-collar workers have the widest experience, the degree of
exclusivity is not exceptionally high. This is made apparent by comparison
with the more distinguished clientele of ethnic restaurants. The pursuit of
variety in the field of food, and even more the affection for ethnic cuisine, may
mask a straightforward class-based system of symbolic classification. Indeed,
we maintain that distinction is claimed through extensive experience of
specialised ethnic cuisine. The more pronounced socio-economic exclusivity
of the clientele of ethnic restaurants allows us to infer that there is something
symbolically significant about a taste for foreign foods. It suggests that a broad
repertoire of culinary experience (for purposes of conversation, comparison,
 CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY 123

companionship) is a practical tool of intra-class communication and a type of

symbolic claim among fractions of the middle class with high levels of cultural
capital. That cultural capital is not only derived from the higher education but
also from parental class background, and to some extent metropolitan
location. Possibly the trick of contemporary status competition is to appear to
honour the populist ethic of equivalence among cultural preferences while still
laying claim to cultural refinement and superiority by implicitly marking some
genres as exceptionally worthy. The appeal of ethnic cuisines other than one’s
own is almost certainly symbolic too, linking specialised knowledge with a
cosmopolitan orientation. The attachment to the social value of cosmo-
politanism, both as the sense of being able to fit anywhere (Hannerz 1990) or
as a positive liberal commitment to tolerance (van der Berghe 1984), is
perhaps more pronounced among the British than the American middle class.
We cannot determine conclusively whether cultural differentiation in
Britain does entail a commonly acknowledged hierarchy of taste, for a
plurality of practices need not necessarily stand in relationships of superiority
and inferiority. However, knowledge and experience of a wide range of ethnic
cuisine, or breadth of repertoire, probably is a claim to refinement and is a
part of contemporary status competition in Britain. Moreover, this may
indicate a shift from a relatively transparent to a less easily detectable system
of class-based discrimination, a shift from invidious to insidious comparison.
If there is still a process of competition for status and esteem in which
establishing a claim to cultural sophistication and good taste is central, then it
is less universal and less directly visible than Bourdieu might anticipate.

Conclusions

We have uncovered some evidence of an underlying orientation towards

‘omnivorousness’ among particular social groups. To experience variety
among eating out places is not simply a function of the frequency with which
people eat out. As Peterson and Kern (1996) said, though we believe for
somewhat different reasons, this is a consumer strategy particularly well
tailored to the times when industries produce apparently endless alternative
new and established products and services. A veneer of knowledge about all
things, permitting cultural awareness and a capacity to comment, may be
personally reassuring in networks where self-respect is associated with
recognition of cultural items.
Our review suggests that if modern consumerism is a potential source of
anxiety, then at least some social groups have adopted a coping strategy that
involves the development of a repertoire of knowledge of many cultural
elements. The success of the omnivore strategy is one reason why the levels of
anxiety predicted to overwhelm the modern consumer in the search for self-
identity have not been reached.
124 ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

Elements of Erickson’s account of the social concentration of communi-

cative competence are corroborated. Among occupational groups, employers
and managers command the highest levels of familiarity with the range of sites
for eating out. It is likely that this does have instrumental value for them.
However, the incidence of familiarity with variety among other fractions of the
highly qualified living in middle-class households suggests that in Britain some
more general form of social kudos, transcending narrow instrumentalism, is
attached.
Variety per se proved considerably less amenable to statistical explanation
than familiarity with foreign cuisine, at least as measured by our indices.
Frequenting ethnic restaurants is not symbolically equivalent to using a wide
variety of commercial food services. We are tempted, therefore, to conclude
that differences of social status are displayed through comprehensive
knowledge of ethnic cuisine, it being a form of cultural capital which bestows
distinction. If any type of eating out is associated with style, connoisseurship
and social distinction, as reflected in it being the province of the educated,
metropolitan middle classes, it is the tendency to eat in a wide range of foreign
restaurants. In England experience of foreign cuisines is a mark of refinement,
the possession of which is class-related. Bourdieuvian analysis might readily
account for this particular mode of social display, though the case is far from
thoroughly established.
Bryson (1996) considered anomalous the tendency for social inequalities in
the United States to widen whilst cultural differences became flatter. Such a
trend implies that specifically cultural differences are no longer of great social
moment. Perhaps the immense variety of available cultural items has finally
eliminated people’s capacities, or inclinations, to attribute worth to people in
terms of their cultural preferences. More probable, though, is a version of
Erickson’s thesis. Cultural knowledge is not directly utilisable because of the
substantial problem of mutual recognition between groups. Rather, cultural
judgement has its primary effect through its capacity to solidify and entrench
social networks. It is by achieving communicative competence with others in a
similar social position that the possibility of exchanging or transforming
cultural capital into economic capital or social power is realised. Inter-group
recognition becomes less effective as messages become harder to read. In such
circumstances, the cultural system might become uncoupled or disengaged
from the distributive effects of social and economic processes.
However, the evidence about British dining out does not suggest a
thoroughly flat field of cultural practices. The socially distinguishing features of
the clientele of restaurants, particularly of those who are most widely familiar
with specialist ethnic cuisine, implies that cultural consumption continues to
reflect social inequalities and, if it symbolises refinement, is a potential
mechanism for social exclusion. Also, though more weakly, the evidence of the
breadth of experience of varieties of restaurants implies that competence in this
field serves instrumental ends for fractions of the British middle class. One
 CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY 125

possible theoretical conclusion is that many types of cultural practice lack

symbolic significance, but that some others continue to act as recognised and
recognisable social markers. If there has been some disengagement of the
cultural and social orders, the dissociation remains only partial.
Our research data was not initially collected with the debate about omni-
vorousness specifically in mind and is not entirely adequate to the task of
distinguishing authoritatively between different interpretations. Several
methodological difficulties would need to be overcome in order to determine
whether such a trend was occurring in Britain and what exactly it might mean.
Firstly, we lack suitably organised data on change over time. Secondly, the
positions outlined in the literature are often incommensurate. Some are claims
about the social distribution of knowledge about cultural genres, some refer
explicitly to what people say they like and dislike, while others (including
ours) are about practices, or what people claim to do. The competing
theoretical positions are insufficiently specified to test them effectively.
Thirdly, studies have conceptualised and operationalised social and economic
status differently; class is sometimes measured by education, sometimes by
income, and too infrequently by economic position based on ownership and
occupation. Finally, in all the statistical explanations there remains a large
proportion of variance unexplained. Nevertheless, there seems to be much to
recommend more rigorous analysis of British behaviour in different cultural
fields and genres to evaluate Bourdieuvian explanations.

Acknowledgement
We are grateful to the Economic and Social Research Council for funding this study. It
was part of the ESRC Research programme, ‘The Nation’s Diet: the social science of
food choice’.

Notes
1. Cultural capital refers to cultural knowledge, competence and disposition,
identifiable through embodied traits, educational qualifications, material
possessions and involvements in cultural practices. Social capital is invested in
social networks, consisting of acquaintances and contacts who may assist in the
accumulation of types of capital.
2. The span of networks was measured by asking in which of nineteen occupational
groups the respondent had a relative, friend or acquaintance.
3. The table offers a comparison with the random national sample survey of Payne
and Payne (1993), which asked the same question but which probably provides a
more accurate picture of the composition of the trade nationally.
4. This is dealt with in another paper which summarises the results of logistic
regression analysis on socio-demographic characteristics of users of various types
of outlet; see Olsen, Warde and Martens 1998.
5. We used the collapsed scale because we sought to compare its statistical
explanation with that of other scales whose maximum range was 0 to 4.
6. In addition, 27 per cent of respondents never ate ethnic take-away meals, even
though they are more widely accessible.
126 ALAN WARDE, LYDIA MARTENS AND WENDY OLSEN

References
BAGNALL, G., LONGHURST, B. and SAVAGE, M. 1997. ‘Social Class, Lifestyles and
Urban Networks’. Paper to BSA Annual Conference, York.
BAUMAN, Z. 1987. Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Postmodernity and
Intellectuals. Cambridge: Polity.
BAUMAN, Z. 1988, Freedom. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
BAUMAN, Z. 1991. Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge: Polity.
BOURDIEU, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
BOURDIEU, P. 1987. ‘What Makes a Social Class? On the Theoretical and Practical
Existence of Groups’. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 32:1–17.
BRYSON, B. 1996. ‘ “Anything but Heavy Metal”: Symbolic Exclusion and Musical
Dislikes’. American Sociological Review 61:844–99.
DEVAULT, M. 1991. Feeding the Family: The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered
Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DIMAGGIO, P. 1987. ‘Classification in Art’. American Sociological Review 52:440–55.
DOUGLAS, M. 1996. ‘On Not Being Seen Dead: Shopping as Protest’, pp. 77–105 in
Thought Styles. London: Sage.
DRIVER, C. 1983. The British at Table, 1940–80. London: Chatto & Windus.
ERICKSON, B. 1991. ‘What is Good Taste for? Canadian Review of Sociology and
Anthropology 28:255–78.
ERICKSON, B. 1996. ‘Culture, Class and Connections’. American Journal of Sociology
102:217–51.
GRANOVETTER, M. 1973. ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’. American Journal of Sociology
78:1360–80.
HANNERZ, U. 1990. ‘Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture’. Theory, Culture &
Society 7:237–52.
LAMONT, M. 1992. Money, Morals and Manners: The Culture of the French and American
Upper-Middle Class. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
LONGHURST, B. and SAVAGE, M. 1996. ‘Social Class, Consumption and the Influence
of Bourdieu: Some Critical Issues’, pp. 274–301 in S. Edgell, K. Hetherington and A.
Warde (eds.), Consumption Matters, Sociological Review Monograph Series A.
MARTENS, L. and WARDE, A. 1996. ‘The Social and Symbolic Significance of Ethnic
Cuisine in England: New Cosmopolitanism and Old Xenophobia’. Paper presented to
BSA Annual Conference, Reading University.
OLSEN, W., WARDE, A. and MARTENS, L. 1998. ‘Social Segmentation of the Market
for Eating Out’. Working Paper No. 2, Graduate School of Social Sciences and
Humanities, University of Bradford.
PAYNE, M. and PAYNE, B. 1993. Eating Out in the UK: Market Structure, Consumer
Attitudes and Prospects for the 1990s. Economist Intelligence Unit Special Report No.
2169. London: Economist Intelligence Unit and Business International.
PETERSON, R. and KERN, R. 1996. ‘Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to
Omnivore’. American Sociological Review 61: 900–7.
PETERSON, R. A. and SIMKUS, A. 1992. ‘How Musical Tastes Mark Occupational
Status Groups’, pp. 152–86 in M. Lamont and M. Fournier (eds.), Cultivating
Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
SIMMEL, G. 1968 [1911]. ‘On the Concept and Tragedy of Culture’, pp. 27–46 in
Georg Simmel: The Conflict in Modern Culture and Other Essays. New York: Teachers’
College Press.
TOMLINSON, M. and WARDE, A. 1993. ‘Social Class and Change in the Eating Habits
of British Households’, British Food Journal 95:3–11.
 CONSUMPTION AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIETY 127

VAN DER BERGHE, P. 1984. ‘Ethnic Cuisine: Culture in Nature’. Ethnic and Racial
Studies 7: 387–97.
WARDE, A. 1997. Consumption, Food and Taste: Culinary Antinomies and Commodity
Culture. London: Sage.

Biographical notes: ALAN WARDE is Professor of Sociology, Lancaster University.

His recent work has been in the field of the sociology of consumption with particular
reference to food. His book, Consumption, Food and Taste: Culinary Antinomies and
Commodity Culture, was published by Sage in 1997. He is currently completing a
volume on eating out with Lydia Martens. WENDY OLSEN is a Lecturer at the
Development and Project Planning Centre and the Graduate School of Social Sciences
and Humanities, University of Bradford. She is currently working on socio-economic
aspects of development and on research methodology. She is the author of Rural Indian
Social Relations: A Case Study in Southern India (Oxford University Press, 1996).
LYDIA MARTENS is Lecturer in Sociology, University of Stirling. She works on the
sociology of consumption and the sociology of work. A book, Eating Out: A Sociological
Analysis, jointly authored with Alan Warde, will be published by Cambridge University
Press in 1999. Her book, Exclusion and Inclusion: The Gender Composition of British and
Dutch Work Forces, was published by Avebury in 1997.

Address: Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YL, UK.

e-mail: soaaw@msmail.lancaster.ac.uk