How do we classify cuisines?
O.K I am with the big units, but in to use the language analogy to be part of the language family, a word or concept has to be recognisable as part of that family. I convinced that within Australia that most food eaten within Australia would not be recognised as “Australian”. In this sense a Australian cuisine doesn’t exist.
I’ve struggled with classification in the past as I’m not sure what “cuisine” or “regional/tradional” food actual means. A few years ago I spent a lot ot time looking through the UK gov statisics site for various factoids. One thing that stuck in my mind that was in the early 2000’s pasta (Spag. Bol. actually) was one of the most common Sunday meals in England (Except in Yorkshire, where is was Roast Beef). I couldn’t work out if pasta should be considered part of English cuisine or not. In the end I decided that it wasn’t, as if you gave people a list of food items and said “pick which ones are English cuisine”, Spag. Bol. wasn’t choosen. Like in language, if it isn’t recognised then it isn’t part of that group, I thought.
Two comments from Adam Balic on my suggestion that we can classify cuisines in the same way we classify languages. Incidentally I love the spag bol as English Sunday dinner.
As I understand it, Adam, for a cuisine to be a cuisine those who eat it have to recognize it. So, to give another example, on your view if Americans can’t agree on what counts as American cuisine, then we are stuck.
I think this analysis rests on two assumptions.
1. There is just one correct classification of cuisines (or languages, or clothing or books etc etc)
2. The opinions of those who use those languages should be the deciding factor in determining the classification.
And I think I disagree with both assumptions.
1. There can be multiple classifications of the same phenomenon–think how differently mineralogists, crystallographers, and stone masons classify rocks and minerals. (Sorry for the recherche example, it’s one I worked on years ago).
That’s because how we classify depends on why we are classifying. The stone mason wants stones classified by how they can be worked, the mineralogist by their chemical content, the crystallographer by their crystal form.
Let me add a culinary example. The biologist might say the tomato is really a fruit. And so it is from the point of view of plant physiology. But it’s also really a great vegetable for making a pureed sauce. So from the culinary point of view it’s equally really a vegetable. There’s no contradiction here.
So we could have multiple cross-cutting classifications of cuisines. You have proposed one based on similar aesthetics (taste, flavor etc), I’ve proposed one based on their history.
2. Now if we want to know how people construct their identity, then I think their characterisations of their cuisine are important. The French, for example, have constructed their cuisine around their identity.
But if we have other aims (understanding historical linkages) then I don’t think it matters a hoot how the eaters of a cuisine classify it anymore than how the speakers of a language classify it.
For example, we might say both Australian and American are dialects of modern English. Speakers might agree. But we could then go on to say that English is one particular branch of the family of Indo-European languages. If you ask most English people if they agree, I imagine most of them would not have a clue what you were talking about. But that does not mean that it is wrong to see English as part of the Indo-European family.
So I would say Australian and American cuisines are both subcuisines of English/British cuisine (albeit crossed with other influences) and that British Cuisine is part of Western Cuisine that was created in the seventeenth century (albeit incorporating pre-existing elements of other cuisines).
I think that part of the problem is the way that we use language to talk about food in English. “Cuisine” is a bloody useless term, means to many things, and for some people it is a very weighted term (Some people have said that there are only a few “cuisines”, the rest are “kitchens”, whatever).
So when we are talking about 1).”cuisine” here is it “food that people identify with” or 2).”food that people actually eat (history)”?
I know that we are talking about big units here, but to drop a level of scale, what about the Spag. Bol. example?
We could say that Spag. Bol. is an English/Australian sub-family that belongs pasta with red meat sauce Family? Works for definition 2) or cuisine, but not 1), which is fine? I guess I will have to get over my feeling that definition 1) is what “cuisine” is about. It I change Spag. Bol. to Boloney sausage, then point 1) isn’t an issue and grouping is then all based about the history of the food. So I guess I finally see you point. However, I dare you to write an article on the Englishness of Spag. Bol. for the conventional press.
Finally, I would argue that “British Cuisine” is a 19th century construct. So Australian cuisine is a sub-group, but not American.
it just so happens that the LIDL supermarket chain has made available some new products in their Greek stores, all under the title (I have translated it word-for-word for you): “Traditional cuisine from Great Britain”. When my husband saw the advertising leaflet (delivered to our home), he laughed and said: ‘do they have a cuisine in the first place?’ (people’s attitudes also play a role in defining a cuisine)
and just for you, i am listing the products found in the flyer (they will be available from 26 october, so they havent been placed on the shelves yet):
frozen roast beef (roast chicken) dinner with onion sauce and peas and carrots (all included)
frozen fish and chips (advertised as ‘classic english meal’)
frozen potato waffles
frozen roast potatos
chips (in salt and vinegar or plain flavour)
jarred mint sauce (or mustard sauce)
tinned baked beans
jarred piccalilli
bottled malt vinegar (i actually miss having this – we used to use it in nz in the 70s and 80s when wine vinegar was considered a luxury good)
cheddar cheese
bottled blackcurrant juice
jarred english marmalades (including orange and lemon)
caramel shortcakes and butter biscuits
(they are all packaged under the same label – heatherwood if that means anything for you – and the people who are most likely goign to buy them here in crete are our british resident tourists, meaning they have bought retirement homes but survive off their english pensions)
i hope this has been helpful in the discussion!
Yet another way to classify languages is explained in a joke among linguists, a group that I count myself a member of:
How can you tell a language from a dialect?
The speakers of languages have armies.
Speakers of a language can identify all kinds of characteristics that make social and political sense but little linguistic sense. For example, in some border areas, the language used on each side of the border, analyzed linguistically (syntax, word formation, vocabulary, sound system) are virtually identical. But speakers do not recognize that, they say, “We speak German and they speak Dutch.” Or “We speak Dutch and they speak German.” If I ask a French-speaker in Lyon about the French spoken in Quebec, he will tell me, “Oh. That isn’t really French.”
There are many ways of classifying languages, depending on why one is classifying.
As a speaker of English, I would say that the term “cuisine” is weighted in historical, social, and political ways that add a great deal to its meaning (and its intrigue), and hence its usage.
Also, I love the brand name Heatherwood – very evocative of British Tradition.
Just for the record: Spag Bol would be a British-ism for a mutated Emilia-Romagna dish: Tagliatelle alla Bolognese. Northern and Central Italy are known for fresh egg pasta, not spaghetti, which is a dried Southern Italian product. I think it would be entirely feasible to write an article about the Englishness of Spag Bol. It is one of the most popular dishes on the planet, and shows up just about everywhere under different names. So, where does it belong, and in what context?
Adam, I wonder why you struggle with the idea of regional foods. You know Italy, it’s like discovering an entire country that has lived its life in different sections of a honeycomb. They all know the other sections exist, but they would never mingle outside of their respective comb.
I put a sprinkle of fennel pollen into a vat of “norcina’ sauce…just sausage and panna (cream) and there was a long moment where the other women in the kitchen looked at me in wonder….”Ah, that was the flavor.” The friggin’ sausage is loaded with fennel…but putting that sprinkle in there branded me as a stranieri forever. That is the definition of regional cuisine, accept no deviation from how you’ve done it before.
Rachel, I think the crux of this is the intended use of the classification. The eater probably doesn’t care, the historian sees it in the light of its origins, the linguist wonders at the usage of the words…etc. As you were explaining how a crystal might be classified, I was picturing an Excel spreadsheet where you keep hitting the ‘sort’ button by different criteria. I suppose it all depends on what your intentions are.
My deepest sympathy and empathy with your internet connection. I would personally like to wring the neck of our mayor who declined having the DSL line come up to town because he didn’t know what it meant, and the tech support people in Milano who charge me .13 centisme a minute every time I call in to say my service doesn’t work.
Your sister in stress,
Judith
Is there such thing as a pan-Italian cuisne or is a collection of regional cuisnes that happen to be in the same country? Do the cuisnes of Nice and Genoa have more in common or Nice and Rome? If I served a bowl of soupe au pistou in Naples and asked were it came from, what percentage of people would say “France” do you think?
I would also suggest that regional cuisines are both “real” in the sense that they can reflect a localised development and contrived in that they have also been invented, consciously or otherwise.
Regarding spaghetti, at the begining of the 20th century when you first see references to “Spaghetti Bolognese”, it is often has a note to the effect it is served with tagliatelle, which is a type of spaghetti. So in these sources they were aware of the correct pasta name, but used a more familliar term. One of these days I am going to contact Barilla (Parma based origin) and ask they how long they have been making spaghetti. It will be part of a project to demonstrate the invention/development of a food tradition (different spaghetti grades served with specific food items) as part of a emergent post industrial phenomena.
Ciao Adam.
For Italy, I would say it is a “collection of regional cuisines that happen to be in the same country.”
I bet you would have a damn hard time finding a bowl of ‘soupe au pistou’ in Napoli. You might find a variation on it, such as a minestrone con pesto, but even that’s a gamble as pesto shows up in more central/northern Italy recipes.
Barilla’s website says they’ve been at it for 130 years, for what that’s worth.
Just for fun, I looked up ‘spaghetti’ in my “Enciclopedia Pratica Della Cucina” and they define spaghetti as “pasta shaped like a long string made from grano duro and a industrialized product’.
I’m curious, are you saying that you think the occurrence of different spaghetti shapes and sizes was a result of marketing? Or was it a response to the needs of their customers? Different fresh pasta shapes for different end uses have been around as long as pasta itself, so it would seem a logical step to have dried spaghetti also be a part of this culture with its different shapes.
I said “if I served”, as in an experiement. The point being that there is no recognisable “Italian cuisine”, except in broad brush strokes.
Barilla has been around for 130 years, but how long has this Parma based company being making spaghetti? BTW the suggested recipe for Spaghetti No. 5 on the Barilla site (Australia) is “Spaghetti Bolognese”.
Technology has given the ability to produce and endless variety of shapes. Marketing is about responding to what people will buy, “need” is part of that, but not all of it. Does anybody need rotelle? Do people need to only use Spaghettini no3 for seafood, oil based and spicy sauces and never lighter spicy or tomato based sauces? What is my need for Spaghettini No. 11?
Totally agree with you that Italian cuisine can only be viewed with broad brush strokes.
Not so much in agreement on pasta shapes. You need no. 11 for a very light sauce, say chopped raw tomatoes, fresh basil and grated pecorino.
If you put that sauce on a bucatoni it would be far too heavy a pasta and you’d lose the delicacy and immediacy that you have in the finer pasta.
But, to each his own. (I use 3 kinds of body moisturizer on my one body, so I may be a little over the top!)
Ciao!
Judith
Just because something is marketed or industrial, doesn’t mean that it can’t be good or an improvement on an artisansal product. I doubt that the mangiamaccheroni were all that concerned about exactly what grade they were eating.