Thursday, October 29, 2009

A Chef’s Culinary Critique of Assimilation and Affirmation

In the United States, children in their primary education are told, often repeatedly, that their nation is the “melting pot” of the world, the place where all cultures come together and are blended into a new, unique mixture. As a peer of mine recently stated, all the flavors added to the melting pot remain to be tasted. The melting pot, however, should not be the analogy of choice when describing the United States—it does not accurately reflect the nature of the mix of cultures in the US nor is it a very flattering one, for the melting pot is a cauldron of one homogenized flavor that masks its individual components, rather than allowing the sweet and sour, the salty and bitter to mingle on the tongue, each flavor in turn adding to the experience, rather than detracting from it. Instead of a pot that melts all things into one glob of viscous matter, America should embrace the kitchen as a whole: each race, nationality, subculture, and ethnicity sending its own chefs with their own dishes and spirits.

It is easy to see why assimilation is such a desirable thing, why the melting pot takes hold so greatly over the American heart. It unifies and solidifies—it brings disparate elements and melts away the unwanted bits (those that can’t melt can be scooped out and thrown away). As an object, the pot is solid, cast-iron. It suits the patriotic ebb and flow of the American ego that sometimes spills over into jingoistic rhetoric. It is tall and wide, just like America itself, but it is also contained within itself though its source of energy is foreign, just as America prides itself on an imaginary self-sufficiency that is made imaginary by its reliance on foreign oil.

The pot fails precisely because it is a singular entity that tries too hard to contain all within it. As any chef can tell you, too many spices will ruin the food. The wrong mixture will smother the flavor or overpower the senses. It takes a balance of a fine palate and understanding to truly craft a delicious dish. And when we extend this metaphor to the reality of race relations in the United States, we see that a prudent hand has not been applied to the mixing of a thousand thousand different ethnicities and cultures. The English have dominated the French, Spanish, and Dutch influences. The western Europeans have made southern Europeans into easily caricatured mobsters and depressed communists of eastern Europe. Whites plucked unheeded from the gardens of west Africa, destroying them in the process and losing trace of where the ingredients came from, but not caring, what with their cavalier attitude towards their human produce. Asians have been made bland and marketed as a soft, narrow-eyed “Oriental” whose meals are finished with fortune cookies, that most American of ethnic treats. The maize of the First Nations is now the corn on the cob of the white man and the Indian has been forced to market a doughy, greasy, sugar coated confection (the ubiquitous Indian fry bread, also known as "elephant ears") that bears the name Columbus gave them while simultaneously mocking the rampant diabetes (the modern smallpox, with its twin brother alcoholism) that inhabits the Rez. The pot no longer operates as a means of making a soup or stew of many ingredients, but instead as the source of fondue—a viscous (slow to move, slow to change) mess that tastes like plastic left in the noonday sun, its burnt offerings crusting over on the side and top. It loses its dynamism that different flavors (ethnicities, races, etc) can bring and instead becomes a homogenized mess that takes forever to clean up and is really only presented at parties where people coo and awe over it with feigned interest. The melting pot, indeed, is not the way to go.

But should we go so as to say that all the ingredients should be sent back to their respective owners, with a note that says “Thanks, but the soiree is cancelled”? Good gravy, no. When the Seneca chief Sagoyewatha, whose double-breasted jacket is called Red, rejected the Christian missionaries of Boston, he retorted that the Great Spirit made his white and red children for different purposes. Maybe. But Sagoyewatha goes too far when he claims that no shared comingling should occur. “[Our young men who study under whites] become discourage and dissipated—despised by the Indians, neglected by the whites, and without value to either—less honest than the former, and perhaps more knavish than the latter….We believe it wrong for you to attempt further to promote your religion among us, or to introduce your arts, manners, habits, and feelings.” (Sagoyewatha 33) It is a fallacy to say that people of different cultures can not peacefully join and stay together—Sagoyewatha is chief of the Seneca, one of the seven tribes of the Iroquois. In China, Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism coexist and dip peacefully within each other’s realms of influence to the point where the priesthood of one faith is readily accepted as priesthood in the others. Turkey, a nation long associated with its Muslim Ottoman rule, seeks entry into the European Union. This is not to say that such interaction is easy—quite the contrary, in fact. But it is also not impossible. Medieval European philosophy certainly would not have flourished in the direction it did if not for the preservation of ancient Greek texts by Arab scholars. International trade would not occur without the mixing of races—to be fair, while the rest of the world learns English, the anglophones learn Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Russian, and a dozen different languages. His Holiness the Fourteenth Dali Lama (a Central Asian) would not maintain a strong friendship with the Archbishop Desmond Tutu (a black South African) if such interaction between peoples was impossible and unwarranted nor would George Harrison (a white Englishman) have collaborated with Ravi Shankar (a Bengali Indian). These examples may be among the more famous, but the fact of the matter is that different cultures can and will influence one another through means peaceful. The meaning of peace here is not merely “non-violent,” but also non-coercive, non-threatening, a willingness to both compromise and debate with passion.

In this spirit of peace, the kitchen becomes the ideal that the pot by itself failed to uphold. In the kitchen, several cooks can work together in harmony, crafting dish after magnificent dish. In the kitchen, the cook can specialize in the regional treat, a national entrée, or an international style. Each person can present their unique contribution—spicy Szechuan peppers in one plate, Indian style curry in another, with spiced German and Italian cold cuts occupying a third while French, Belgian, and Swiss cheeses rest next to fruit from Brazil and the Philippines. For dessert, a bitter-sweet Mexican chocolate sauce with Japanese wasabi flavored ice cream.

The kitchen is the place where races are recognized not as the ingredients of the dish, contained within its cast iron walls of conformity. Rather, the kitchen is the place where races are recognized as cultural and historical constructs, not simply as a biological one. In his work, “On Race and Philosophy,” Lucius T. Outlaw argues that if the act of philosophizing is recognized as a verbal term denoting the practice of thinking by different people at different times in different places on different subjects, then the very act of philosophizing is diverse. As people are drawn towards certain epistemic, metaphysical, and ethical questions (let alone political, logical, aesthetic, etc), philosophizing becomes a universal art of all people. Philosophizing acts as bond between the people of a singular place and time asking one question, the answer which acts as a guardian against the threat of existential angst. Because philosophizing is not restricted to one culture/ethnicity/race/etc, it cannot be truly used as a way of domination of other cultures as an act—philosophizing as a verb is a process in which humans engage one another and their environment. The kitchen is the environment of American thought—it is the place where ideas and thoughts are cooked up, taste tested, and approved or disapproved on their merits as dishes, both artistically (their presentation), pragmatically (the use of ingredients), and practically (their taste). “If biodiversity is thought good for other species and for the global ecosystem, why not for the human species and its biocultural ecosystems?” (Outlaw 67) Just as every other living thing in the world is suited to a particular place and time, so too are humans. But humanity, in its continual act of philosophizing, is not restricted to just one place, one time. Different cultures may, through philosophizing, encounter one another, grow stronger in that meeting and yet let the other survive just as strongly as well. Philosophizing prevents cultural entropy, prevents the victory of angst. In the kitchen, cooking introduces the cooks to each other and their ingredients. It engenders innovation between cooks, between ingredients, between styles.

Anthony Bourdain is no philosopher, in the academic sense of the word—he is a trained and respected chef and host of the popular television show No Reservations on the Travel Channel. But he is a philosophizer—someone who engages in the act of philosophizing. He is an advocate of multiculturalism, if only for the culinary experience, though he rightly notes that culinary practices derive from cultures. To wit, he is fond of pointing out that several dishes of modern haute cuisine originally came from the kitchens of the peasantry and working class. Multiculturalism also allows a chef to experiment not only with the ingredients of a dish, but also in its presentation, learning about and from the aesthetic values of a different culture, a different culinary style. Bourdain correctly points out that a non-assimilatory approach to the kitchen has broadened the culinary styles—as he discusses in both his television shows and books, recent Spanish and Japanese influence has revolutionized how restaurateurs view not only food, but its presentation, its composition, the very way that it is served. Bourdain rails against the assimilation present in the American fast food industry, how it homogenizes our culinary experience, how it stifles change and culture in favor of expediency and mass productivity. Yet he praises the fast food of other nations—such as the Spanish tapas bar, where eaters grab only what they like, taking a little snack as they move to the next location of food. This process, this interaction between consumer and consumed, between peoples, is the culinary equivalent of philosophizing. It is a process by which people accept the many without blending them into the one. It highlights all the ingredients yet combines them into one meal, just as the kitchen does not homogenize the meals. “Who the hell is America if not everybody else? We are—and should be—a big, messy, anarchistic polygot of dialects and accents and different skin tones. Like our kitchens.” (Bourdain 45)

Indeed. Bon appétit.

  • Sagoyewatha. “The Speeches of Sagoyewatha.” The Life and Times of Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha, or Red Jacket. Ed. William L. Stone. Albany, NY: J. Munsell, 1866. 272-76
  • Outlaw, Lucius T. “On Race and Philosophy.” Racism and Philosophy. Ed. Susan E. Babbitt and Sue Campbell. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999. 50-75.
  • Bourdain, Anthony. “Viva Mexico! Viva Ecuador!” The Nasty Bits. New York: Bloomsbury, 2006. 42-46.
Creative Commons License
A Chef’s Culinary Critique of Assimilation and Affirmation by Christian Mecham is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Who are the Philosophers For Hire?

  • We are: Two unemployed Central Washington University philosophy graduates, with lots of time and no cash.
  • We know: Philosophers and philosophy from Aristotle to Zizek. From Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Kant, and Wittgenstein to Freud, Spivak, Derrida, JS Mill, and Dogen, we are ready to discuss philosophers and their theories with you.
  • We can: Answer basic questions on the history of philosophy, both East and West, as well as cover the five core branches of philosophy: aesthetics, epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics. We are also knowledgeable in a number of specialized topics, including religion, Latin, Russian, and specific philosophical schools of thought.
  • We think: Therefore you pay. We have a suggested donation that can be found at our live events, with varying prices dependent on degree of difficulty in answering and researching the answer.
  • We will: PHILOSOPHIZE FOR MONEY! Entertainment and enlightenment guaranteed.*
* - Enlightenment not actually guaranteed. Sorry, no refunds will be offered. This service is for entertainment purposes only and should not be used as a sole means of living an examined life. All answers should be introspected and examined for logical fallacies by questioner.

As the above indicates, we are two CWU grads who have BAs in philosophy. Together, we are like Voltron: greater than the sum of our parts. We were also both members and leaders of two of CWU's greatest clubs, the award winning GEEC and Philosophy and Religious Studies club. We have since relocated from sleepy Ellensburg to hip Portland to find our way in life. Until our day in the sun comes (which could take awhile, this is Portland after all), we are selling our species being for hard, cold cash. In order to facilitate that goal of living the examined life, we are selling our knowledge to those most in need of it: you. Yes, you.

Everyone has questions, we hope to provide paths to answers and earn a little dough and notoriety along the way.

Our specialties are as follows.

  • Greg Lotze: Utilitarianism, feminism, existentialism, Russian language and philosophy, neo-paganism, logic, psychology, and general geekery. His undergraduate thesis was on feminism, free will, and elective body modification.
  • Christian Mecham: Ancient Asian philosophy, Buddhism, religions of China and India, French philosophy, Latin, Nietzsche, deconstruction, phenomenology, philosophy of music, and pop culture and philosophy. His undergraduate thesis examined the relationship between J. Derrida, M. Foucault, and contemporary alternative rock music.
We also have taken (and passed! with good grades!) courses on subjects such as philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, ancient Greek philosophy, ethical/moral theory (including contemporary ethical theory and biomedical ethical theory), the problem of the Other, etc etc.

We have also acted as:

  • Philosophy teacher assistants.
  • Professional conference panelists, panel moderators, and presenters.
  • Ethics Bowl team members (well, Christian has, where they won 3rd in Regionals).
  • Published authors (Greg has various works published; Christian is currently in the second and final editing round of CWU's undergraduate research journal).
Christian generally doesn't like to talk about himself in the third person. He is making this an exception to the rule. Greg rarely talks in the third person as well, but if paid to do it, can probably do so in Russian. We also have a Facebook group. Please feel free to join it.

This blog's primary intended purpose is to showcase the writing, logical, and philosophical ability of both Greg and Christian, in order to support their claims that they are serious philosophers, undertaking serious business.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.