When It Comes To Dining, There Are Sharers and Non-Sharers. Can they co-exist?

Sara Flaksbard

Is it possible for a Sharer and a Non-Sharer to dine together? Or be friends? Or what about being in a relationship together? Or even co-exist? Think I'm being melodramatic? Read on my naive friend. There is a split in our social fabric and we need to discuss it before it unravels. 

 Personally, I think different perspectives make an occasion more interesting, an opportunity to learn, to debate. Banter is healthy, right? Different opinions on religion? Halleluleah. Politics? I vote yes. But Sharers and Non-Sharers co-dining? Slow down there, tiger.

 Let’s unpack what we’re dealing with here. Walk into any restaurant or event, and you'll quickly observe a fascinating social phenomenon: the distinct dining styles of two fundamental personality types. No, we're not talking about picky eaters versus those with more adventurous palates, or even early birds versus night owls. We're talking about the fundamental schism that divides diners into two camps: Sharers and Non-Sharers. 

 This isn't just about passing a dish; it's a profound declaration of one's approach to life, food, catering and human connection.

The Sharer: A Culinary Communitarian

For the Sharer, a meal isn't just sustenance; it's an experience to be savoured collectively. They see the menu as a buffet of possibilities, each dish a potential avenue for shared delight. They want to try every possible flavour on offer. Not just from the menu but in life. 

Their tell-tale signs:

The communal gaze: As dishes arrive, their eyes flit between plates, mentally calculating the optimal distribution of each delectable bite.

The "try this!" gesture: They're quick to offer a forkful of their own dish, often before you've even considered asking.

The strategic ordering: They'll suggest appetisers, small plates, and even main courses with the express purpose of creating a diverse tapestry of flavours for the table.

The joy of discovery: For them, the pleasure isn't just in eating, but in witnessing the "oohs" and "aahs" of their companions as they discover a new favourite.

Sharers thrive on variety, on the tapestry of tastes that emerges when multiple dishes are sampled. They believe that food tastes better when shared, that the act of breaking bread together strengthens bonds and creates lasting memories. For them, a meal is a conversation, and each shared plate, a new topic.

Now let’s analyse the other side of our species, the Non-Sharer.  

The Non-Sharer: A Gastronomic Guardian

The Non-Sharer views their plate as a personal sanctuary. It's a carefully curated selection, chosen to satisfy their specific cravings and preferences. The idea of relinquishing a portion of their culinary conquest is, frankly, unsettling.

Their tell-tale signs:

The "I'm good with just mine" deflection: When the suggestion of sharing arises, they'll often offer a polite but firm refusal, perhaps accompanied by a subtle tightening of their grip on their fork.

The territorial lean: As dishes are placed on the table, they might subtly (or not so subtly) angle their plate away from potential invaders.

The silent "don't even think about it" glare: This is a rare but powerful non-verbal cue deployed when a rogue fork hovers too close to their culinary domain.

The meticulous focus: They're singularly focused on their own meal, meticulously savoring each bite, often oblivious to the communal sharing happening around them.

The relief of personal choice: They find comfort in the autonomy of ordering exactly what they want and knowing it's all for them.

Non-Sharers appreciate the purity of their chosen dish. They've made a decision, and they want to fully experience it without dilution or compromise. For them, a meal is a personal journey, and they prefer to navigate it solo. It's not about being selfish; it's about respecting the integrity of their dining experience.

So can these two fiercely opposing perspectives on culinary consumption co-exist?

Short answer - hell no. Long answer - it depends. 

Full disclosure; this writer is a Sharer and I’ve been in relationships with Non-Sharers. And in my experience, it can’t work. The differences in perspective are simply too significant to survive. How can it when one person is vehemently protecting their territory while across the table, the other person wants to initiate trade deals?

 But friends from different sides of the great divide can dine together. The greater the numbers, the less relevant it becomes. Non-Sharers can covet their prize while the sharers enjoy free trade. 

But let’s be serious. The Sharer and Non-Sharer divide isn't about right or wrong; it's about different approaches to enjoyment and connection. Both styles have their merits, and both can lead to satisfying dining experiences.

Perhaps you're a devout Sharer, always eager to explore new flavours through the generosity of others. Or maybe you're a staunch Non-Sharer, fiercely protective of your culinary choices. And then there are those who exist in the fascinating grey area, Sharers with certain dishes, Non-Sharers with others.

So, the next time you sit down for a meal, take a moment to observe. Are you reaching for a shared plate, or guarding your own with a subtle vigilance? The answer might just reveal more about you than you think. And who knows, perhaps understanding these two fundamental dining philosophies can lead to more harmonious meals for all.