Every strong food town develops critics; only a few birth Foodie Police—the small, loud faction that turns taste into a badge of moral superiority. They don’t just review; they gatekeep: deciding who counts, what’s “worthy,” and who must be shamed or silenced. That behavior isn’t just annoying. It corrodes trust, depresses experimentation, and silences new voices through classic gatekeeping dynamics and the “spiral of silence.”
At root are familiar human tendencies: we boost self-worth by elevating our in-group and demoting out-groups (social identity theory); we perform virtue or “purity” in public to signal status (virtue signaling, moral grandstanding); we use taste and price as class markers (Bourdieu, Veblen). When these combine inside a passionate scene like food, snobbery becomes a status theatre that harms real people and real businesses.
Below are four toxic patterns we see (in Asheville and everywhere)—and the damage each does.
1) The Anti–Fast-Food (and Anti–Buc-ee’s) Crusade: Moralizing Taste, Punishing Neighbors
Some Foodie Police funnel huge energy into rallying against chains—fast food, convenience stores, even Buc-ee’s—insisting these places “steal” dollars that “should” go to their preferred spots. The problem isn’t having a preference; it’s moralizing a market choice and policing anyone who deviates. Research shows “buy-local” movements can reflect shared values—but they also become social identity projects where conformity is enforced and dissenters are shamed. That’s not community; it’s coercion.
Why it’s harmful:
- It others neighbors who have different budgets, schedules, or dietary needs, teaching them to stay quiet (spiral of silence).
- It narrows the ecosystem. Healthy scenes blend independents and chains; the mix funds jobs, training, and foot traffic that spill to local spots.
- It distracts from constructive action (e.g., mentoring new owners, advocating fair leases, boosting transit/parking) toward symbolic fights that change little.
A better stance: Advocate for independents by building them up—not by shaming customers who grab a drive-thru on soccer-night.
2) Attention Gatekeeping by “Scene Authorities”: If It Didn’t Go Through Me, It Doesn’t Exist
A classic tell: if you post about a restaurant the gatekeepers dislike (or, ironically, do like), they accuse you of “going around” them. Some marketers and social managers even bury organic praise so owners only see “approved” coverage. That’s textbook gatekeeping—controlling what gets through the gate to shape perception. And online, it feeds the spiral of silence: creators learn which opinions are “safe,” and only those circulate.
Why it’s harmful:
- It starves owners of signal. When earned media is hidden, operators lose real feedback and momentum.
- It breeds dependence on one “authorized” channel, stunting the word-of-mouth that actually fills seats.
- It invites crisis. We’ve seen public blowups where control tactics backfired, costing reputations and jobs—proof the attention economy punishes bullying.
A better stance: Treat attention as commons, not property. Re-share good faith reviews—especially from outside your circle. Build many ladders up.
3) Erasure and Control of Independent Voices: “We’ll Hire You—Until You’re Uncontrollable”
Independent reviewers, bloggers, or everyday diners who post honestly are often ignored into invisibility unless they submit to a gatekeeper’s template. Some are “brought inside” as influencers—until they exercise autonomy; then the machine turns on them. This is status maintenance: protecting the in-group’s role as sole arbiter of taste. It’s also grandstanding—public moral talk weaponized for self-promotion instead of community benefit.
Why it’s harmful:
- It shrinks the sampling frame. Fewer independent tastings = less discovery = flatter scene.
- It warps feedback loops. Owners hear only curated praise or curated outrage, not the nuanced middle that helps them improve.
- It burns talent. Young creators, writers, and photographers leave—or go quiet—because collaboration feels like co-optation.
A better stance: Publish standards (disclosure, comps policy, corrections). Then welcome plural voices that meet those standards—even when they outshine you.
4) Budget-Shaming as “Purity”: When Price Becomes a Moral Test
Another tell: If you don’t pay top dollar—$10 milk “straight outta cow,” $10 eggs—you’re the enemy. That’s conspicuous consumption as virtue: using high price and niche sourcing as markers of superiority. Bourdieu showed how taste signals class; Veblen showed how spending signals status. When turned into ethics, it becomes price-based purity tests that humiliate people and families juggling rent, childcare, and time.
Why it’s harmful:
- It erases constraints—time, transport, disability, sensory needs, caregiving, and budgets are real.
- It worsens inequity. When “good person = high-priced eater,” lower-income neighbors are cast as morally suspect.
- It shrinks demand for mid-range spots—the core that sustains a city’s dining fabric.
A better stance: Champion range—from splurge-worthy temples to anonymous counter joints. Celebrate how people gather, not just where.
Why This Happens (and How to Dismantle It)
- Identity & esteem: Policing others boosts in-group pride (Tajfel & Turner). Counter with cross-group contact and shared projects that widen identity from “my chef/my clique” to “our city.
- Public performance: Virtue signaling and grandstanding flourish on feeds that reward outrage. Replace performative purity with verifiable contribution: mentoring, sharing resources, and amplifying new owners.
- Silencing effects: When dissent risks pile-ons, people self-censor (spiral of silence). Leaders must model psychological safety: thank dissenters, correct errors publicly, and separate taste from character.
A Code for a Thriving Food City (Use, Adapt, Post in Kitchens and Groups)
- Live and let live. Taste is not a moral ranking.
- Many ladders up. No single “gate.” Elevate others’ coverage without permission games.
- Assume constraints. Budget/time/health are real; remove shame from the table.
- Credit generously. Share praise, cite sources, welcome independent reviews.
- Debate dishes, not dignity. Critique is specific, useful, and never personal.
- Invest locally—without policing. Build up independents by mentoring, not by mobbing.
- Model repair. When you err, correct. When you learn, share. When you win, pull someone up.
Asheville (and every city) thrives when curiosity beats conformity and generosity beats gatekeeping. Eat where your soul smiles. Write with rigor and warmth. Celebrate the whole table.
