my family, I manage myself calmly, I am at ease and I have the impression that the weight goes away by itself too (Amélie).
These findings invite the question of well-being related to eating together, echoing the work of Mugel et al. (2019). This work employs the concept of eudemonic food well-being, according to which well-being is not only about pleasure (hedonic well-being) but also about the role of experience and the meaning given to actions. In light of this concept, we understand that eating together is not an absolute guarantee of well-being, and that it is necessary for the experience to be in line with the meanings of individuals for it to be a source of well-being. More broadly, particular circumstances, such as the lockdowns experienced by the French from March 2020, make it possible to qualify the fact that eating together is always a vector of well-being: in circumstances as constrained as the lockdowns were, preparing a meal every day for a household in which relationships are not always easy can be a major challenge, and the shared meal does not always have the power to generate conviviality and shared well-being. This invites consideration of a complex relationship between eating together and well-being that takes into account the constraints: eating together can increase well-being, but it is also necessary that some form of well-being (e.g. good understanding between guests) precedes – or is associated with – eating together.
1.7. What are the perspectives for promoting eating together?
The objective of this chapter was to better understand the conditions that influence the implementation of eating together, in order to reinforce the recommendations made in the PNNS. In particular, it allows us to distinguish the different practices of eating together (festive vs. daily, systematic vs. flexible). Moreover, this work shows that meanings play a major role in the emergence of eating together practices. In order to contribute to the maintenance or acquisition of a positive meaning for consumers, encouraging them to maintain this practice even when the material conditions are not necessarily present, it is essential to address all consumers, taking into account the various practices that exist: eating together to meet, eating together to exchange ideas about cooking and eating together in the face of different constraints or in different contexts. The practice-based approach allows for a good understanding of eating together according to the context, making it possible for several forms of eating together to be adopted by a given individual, as shown in the study presented.
In order to foster eating together, the public authorities could broaden the scope of the PNNS recommendations by not limiting themselves to the discourse on the website. A first step could be a real communication campaign, like the one undertaken for fruit and vegetable consumption. In connection with the results presented in this chapter concerning the importance of the meanings associated with eating together, such a communication would promote maintaining the institutionalized shared meal time in society. But communication alone cannot guarantee the emergence or maintenance of a practice (Keller et al. 2015); it requires concrete relays, particularly to counter changes in society that erode the practice of eating together. Thus, maintaining times and spaces dedicated to eating together would materially contribute to the implementation of this practice. We could thus ensure that meal breaks are maintained during the work day, and that workplaces are equipped with rooms adapted for shared meals (tables and chairs, microwave oven to bring our own food, etc.). Outside of the workplace, initiatives such as “Voisins solidaires” could provide an opportunity for people who are unable to eat with family and friends even if they want to. The association Neighborhood Solidarity (Voisins solidaires2), launched by the founders of the Fête des Voisins (part of www.world-neighbours-day.org), is developing a national mobilization scheme to strengthen local solidarity throughout the year. The actions are carried out through seasonal meetings (back to school, Christmas, etc.) and thematic meetings (extreme cold, waste sorting, etc.). We could imagine making these meetings even more regular and developing a theme targeting meal sharing in order to offer regular opportunities to eat together. Such a system could be the relay of the recommendations made by the public authorities within the framework of the PNNS, from a real perspective of accompanying consumers.
Other initiatives could also address the issue of screens, which are currently one of the major competitors of shared consumption times. In order to eat together, we must not be parasitized by screens, which capture attention to the detriment of the attention paid to the guests. The PNNS website recommends: “no screens at the table”. To accompany this, phones could now be equipped with a “meal” mode like the “airplane” mode, which would allow for selecting the notifications to be filtered (e.g. we can keep the possibility of being called in case of emergency and receiving notifications on the news, but cut the notifications of social networks). This would also have a strong incentive dimension, legitimizing the fact that meal times should not be interfered with.
To conclude the reflections, this chapter also invites us to explore the new forms of conviviality and eating together that are emerging. This is especially true since the recent lockdowns due to the Covid-19 pandemic have probably redefined some of the basics of household food consumption. Moreover, this unprecedented situation has prompted many consumers to practice cyber-eating together: having “Skype happy hours”, making “Zoom meals”, etc. The materiality, skills and meanings of eating together are probably redefined in these situations. Beyond the new conditions for implementing the practice, these developments may raise questions in terms of promoting eating together for nutritional reasons: do we retain the nutritional benefits of commensality when screens are invited to the table?
1.8. Appendix: Sample summary
| Respondent’s code name | Gender | Structure of the home | Age |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marion | F | Lives with a partner | 33 |
| Esther | F | Lives alone | 67 |
| Paola | F | Lives with a partner | 29 |
| Valérie | F | Lives with husband and two children | 48 |
| Noémie | F | Mother | 26 |
| Bérengère | F | Lives alone | 29 |
| Arnold | M | Lives with wife and daughter | 46 |
| Maurice | M | Lives alone | 69 |
| Roxane | F | Lives with husband and son | 33 |
| Camille | F | Shares with a friend | 21 |
| Amélie | F | Shared custody of daughter |
