Essay #5: Mukbang and Mary Douglas
Mukbang and Mary Douglas
--------------
Mukbang falls under a branch of material culture known as foodways: “all of the activities, rules, and meanings that surround the production, harvesting, processing, cooking, serving, and consumption of food” (Peres 421). To interrogate the serving and consumption of food in relation to mukbang, I’m using Mary Douglas’s essay, “Deciphering a Meal.”
Douglas’s essay posits that different parts of a meal (drinks, appetizers, entrees, desserts) carry different intimacies and meanings: drinks are for strangers, and meals are for family/close friends.
While “[the people] we know at meals we also know at drinks” (66), the inverse is not necessarily true. Bringing a “drinks-only” acquaintance into the intimacy of a meal is awkward. There’s a time investment (meals last longer - what if the conversation is awkward?) and a monetary investment (meals are usually more expensive than drinks). Meals are “structured social event[s]” (69) that connotate closeness/intimacy, while drinks equal distance.
Douglas was writing in the 1970s; obviously, cultural norms have changed since then. Still, her essay provides useful language to examine mukbang.
We’re living in lonely times. Especially post-pandemic, social interactions are stilted. Even getting drinks with someone (drinks, a la Douglas, typically being a marker of distance/lack of intimacy), is a feat in and of itself.
Both cooking and going out for a meal with a friend are expensive endeavors, too. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the cost of food has risen from 2020-2025. A food item that would cost $20 in 2020 now costs $25.15 in 2025 - in other words, prices are 25.93% higher than they were in 2020 (Official Data.org).
This data doesn’t even account for the labor and other costs associated with a restaurant (“food” = supermarket prices). Chain restaurant iHop alone has gone up in price by 82% between the years 2020 and 2025 (Bryant).
If two friends can’t even afford to go out to iHop (living large here) without worrying how the bill will impact their ability to pay for groceries and other expenses, then a distance has been wedged between our most intimate relationships. And, sure, we can do other things with our friends, but going out to eat is one of those staple friendship “things.”
It’s Audre Lorde 101: the personal is political, and the political is personal. Economic changes impact interpersonal relationships. So, if we’re still using Douglas as a touchstone, the cost of maintaining intimate friendships is skyrocketing along with the cost of food/going out to eat.
Material conditions impact cultural choices.
Enter Americanized mukbang.
The videos pop up on your Instagram, TikTok, or YouTube feed (or you seek them out deliberately) and you don’t have to pay anything to watch them. Putting aside the earnings they make from viewers, it’s the creator who “foots the bill” - they “pay” for the food they’re eating. So, the companionship of the creator is free - no cost-to-entry.
--------------
--------------
When we watch mukbang videos, we digitally recreate the intimacy we would experience when going out to eat with a friend. Yes, the distance is there (they’re not literally in the room with us), but watching mukbang gives the illusion of connection: even if the mukbang creator isn’t sharing a “storytime” while they eat, they are mirroring/engaging in a behavior that reflects closeness.
Maybe this is one reason why mukbang is so popular, and one reason why people are drawn to it. Eating in front of someone is both expensive (see statistics above) and vulnerable. When we eat in front of someone, we are biologically trusting them to watch out for us, as we can’t defend ourselves in the event of an ambush/attack. Mukbang offers a free, accessible means of intimacy and vulnerability - an attempt to mediate the loneliness crisis.
And maybe that’s also why I watch videos of beautiful women eating fried chicken when I’m stressed. While everyone’s stress response is different, my impulse is to seek closeness. Mukbang provides me a way of feeling connected without actually being connected: I can bedrot while engaging in the illusion of intimacy (watching someone eat) to curb anxiety.
Or something like that.
Or maybe this “good side” of mukbang is overshadowed by its “dark side.”
But that’s for another essay.
--------------
For Claire: my word count is 700.
Scholarly Stuff:
Bryant, Kelly. “Prices at this Beloved Chain Restaurant Spiked 82% Since 2020 - See How Your Favorite Restaurant Ranks.” Reader’s Digest, April 9th, 2025. Prices at This Beloved Chain Restaurant Spiked 82% Since 2020
Camp, Charles. “Foodways in Everyday Life.” American Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3, 1982, pp. 278–89. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2712779. Accessed 2 May 2025.
Douglas, Mary. “Deciphering a Meal.” Daedalus, vol. 101, no. 1, 1972, pp. 61–81. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024058. Accessed 2 May 2025.
“Food price inflation, 2020-2025.” Officialdata.org. Official Data Foundation (they interpreted/took statistics from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics). Food price inflation, 2020→2025
Comments
Post a Comment