I had a dream last night that involved food: Belgian waffles, a Mexican restaurant, and a Chinese restaurant. No need to bore you with the details of the dream, but it made me think about the discussion we had about food in class. When can food be considered racialized and when is it ethnic?
If we apply the threatening-exotic distinction to food, we may be able to assume that any food that is too "out there" for our tastes is threatening and therefore falls into the racial category. Chicken feet? Goat eyes? Intestines? Most of those fall outside the range of acceptable foods in our minds and to our palates. Are they seen as more racialized than ethnic?
But wait -- what about travel shows and cooking shows that feature people eating unfamiliar (to us) foods? Is it the setting that makes those foods seem more exotic and less threatening? Is it the fact that they are being eaten IN THEIR NATIVE LAND that makes them less dangerous because the chance that WE will have to encounter them is more remote?
Do "too native" foods only seem dangerous (we need a better term for this, I think) when they are encountered HERE?
Or, is food a marker that we can manipulate more such that what was once viewed as threatening (still need a better term) is now exotic? Sushi? Guinea pig?
And if we can move the needle on food from dangerous to exotic (and sometimes to mainstream: some accounts put salsa sales ahead of ketchup, but there goes the Wall Street Journal to tramp down that statistic -- is salsa that threatening to the Wall Street types??), can we move it in other areas (language, religion, phenotype -- GASP!)?
This is what happens when I dream about food....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found it really interesting that the WSJ would go out of its way to defend ketchup. No way could salsa be dominant in their (readers') eyes!! Makes me wonder what they would say about Grey Poupon...
ReplyDeleteDude, those are some good points! I think you're right in saying that if it's in the native country, it's not dangerous simply because it doesn't "threaten" American borders. It does, similarly, seem like certain foods have been around long enough to pass the American test--Lo Mein and Kung Pao Chicken seem to be OK since they've been around awhile. I think you're also right about the implications of your consideration: religion, for instance, can be adapted to American ways of life just as certain foods have. It gets more complicated because of more political and other stigma that might get attached (Islam, for instance, as compared with Zen Buddhism).
ReplyDeleteI think it's also fun to consider WHY certain foods have become OK to eat over others. Dog is eaten--albeit rarely--in China, but it's similar to folks eating tripe in the US today (who the hell does that??!). Culturally, I think Americans place a high value on pets, whereas in China, pets (small ones) are often found only in city apartments since most folks in the countryside wouldn't be able to afford looking after a dog. Tripe itself is eaten frequently in China, probably due to the historical need to use all parts of the animal. Why do the French eat snails, though? And, as China becomes more affluent, will the use of all the animal be put to the wayside as it has in the United States?
I'm hungry.
Dr. Fathman and Johanna, you two have shared interesting thoughts with all of us. The labels applied to food are of real importance because food is at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy and essential for human life. In the United States we have a land of immigrants and a mixing of cultures. This leads to stigmatization: dangerous, exotic, or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI think you both are onto something with the difference between a perceived invasion (see: salsa) and a novelty. Once something becomes gentrified, like sushi, it becomes an exotic, but non-threatening, cuisine. Thus, it becomes acceptable even within our borders.
Another way to achieve acceptance is to cater to the new population's tastes and needs. Mexican food in this country is often more Tex-Mex and adapted. Tacos are never hard-shelled and there is no such thing as a burrito in Mexico, but these concepts appeal to Americans, so that is what is made in restaurants and sold in stores. Chinese food has become similarly Americanized.
The cultural differences that Johanna raised are significant because of the way they create boundaries. China and the US are not always comparable, and neither is the US with other countries. When comparison is lacking, it is a lot harder to work though it. Even when it is available, one can use it for good or bad. I am wondering what will be the next battle (it may be grey poupon versus heinz mustard) or the next cuisine to be accepted as exotic, but non-invasive/threatening.
I, too, am now starving.
I am so glad about this blog-post! So I just finished my paper for class and my topic was looking at food as a marker of Indian identity. A couple of the journal articles analyzed ethnic foods of immigrants (particularly Indian and Ghanaian immigrants) in England.
ReplyDeleteThe studies focused on the effects of colonialism and post colonialism. But the interesting thing that I came across is that recipes for "curry" are found in cookbooks devoted to 'British Cooking' and NOT under 'Foreign Food" recipes. Surprised? It gets more surprising.
How many of you know that Chicken Tikka Masala is a British national dish and that the masala sauce was actually added to appease the British? I didn't.
What my research revelead further, however, is that there is a difference in the way Indian foods are viewed in certain contexts. There are palces (restaurants, curry houses, etc) that are seen as "too Indian" or "not Indian enough" in the use of certain spices and ingredients. So in this sense, the variation in menus and dishes is in a way marked as ethnic.
I know that this may be off-topic now, but one of the articles made a very good point in that it states that simply going to an ethnic restaurant and eating foods marked as "ethnic" doesn't eliminate racism and it doesn't necessarily make one more aware about that particular culture's identity.
I have to admit I love watching travel shows about food! Anthony Bourdain might be a guilty pleasure of mine. For me, I think a lot can be shown about a country through the food- through the spices, different tastes, how its prepared, etc. Its fun to see how different people can be in tastes! We are all human and biologically very similar after all. For me, the setting does not make the food less threatening, it makes it more real. Thai food is out of context here and while fun to eat, its not exactly a cultural experience to the highest degree. I love trying "ethnic food" because I feel like its the same thrill of for 30 minutes kind of traveling somewhere else. I think food can bind people and trying new things makes us realize that we arent really that different.... tripe and snails might seem weird but I bet we would feel differently if we actually could close our eyes and try it! Or maybe not...
ReplyDeleteAnd the ketchup thing, while funny, is I think a defense mechanism. Some intense reaction to something traditionally American being seen as taken away, or replaced, with something not so traditional to white America. Its a bit of a non issue, I think, but it probably stems from the lack of a truly developed American ethnic food culture. Sadly...it really does boil down to some ketchup, hot dogs, and hamburgers... A girl from Spain once told me "I thought all you ate was grapes and hamburgers!!!" Its funny, but really shows you how little America actually has as its own food identity.