29 replies to this topic

[bleudauvergne]

Thank you for your kind participation in this round table, it has been extremely interesting so far...

I've been doing some research into the historical development of nouvelle cuisine in France and was reading an article "Institutional Change in Toque Ville - Nouvelle Cuisine as an Identity Movement in French Gastronomy", (pp795-843, AJS volume 108, No.4 January 2003) that puts forth some theories about why the nouvelle cuisine movement took off when it did in France.

The article statistically examines the timing of the the transition Careme/Escoffier classical cuisine to the Nouvelle Cuisine movement and cites radical social change as the actor for this movement gaining its necessary impetus to become a movement that actually shifted the institutional structures of the kitchens of fine dining in France. The specific turning moments were fueled by the events of May 1968 in Paris. (mass uprising of youth against existing power structures...)

"Nouvelle activists celebrated their differences with the dominant orthodoxy of classical cuisine but also exploited the foundations of classical cuisine for their project. Bocuse and other activists were able to denounce the lack of autonomy for chefs in classical cuisine because their criticisms resonated with the sentiments against hierarchy gaining ground after the events of May 1968 and were also in tune with the avante garde movements in the literary and artistic worlds." (p.805)

They preface this by a list of which fields made revolutionary changes and in what order, with the area of gastronomy falling last in line after many other radical changes in theory and language in film, the visual arts, and dance, etc. So the timing of institutional change in cuisine took place a good 15 years after a revolution in film language we see developing in the Nouvelle Vague, for example.

Basically the article goes on to define this institutional power shift as a new delegation of much more direct power into the hands of the chef than ever before and actually re-defining the role of the chef from technician to actual chief actor in the creation, preparation and serving of food (before the nouvelle cuisine movement the plating was executed by the waiter, menu planning done by owner, etc).

Thinking about today, and this round table of the Future of Dining, I look at some of the radical trends that are crossing cultural borders in the area of fine dining and questions come to mind - I wonder if this same kind of institutional trend in the new gastro-science movement - introducing the new battery of kitchen equipment for example, is falling on the heels of the information technology movement. The changes that have taken place in the last decade - particularly the radical drop in cost of industrial production of equipment through automation and development of mega manufacturing regions in Asia that through information technology can execute ideas much more quickly than ever before - that make the cost of equipping a custom built laboratory of sorts much more accesible - have these changes opened a path from an economic perspective for institutional change in mainstream cuisine? Meaning available and accesible tools and industrially extracted ingredients that at one time were not available to the food service industry in general...

Could we ever see this working its way into mainstream dining? Can the round table members give their thoughts on what might be a few general results in mainstream dining from this kind of insitutional change?

[PassionateChefsDie]

I've tried to discuss this before and as Bocuse and several of these Nouvelle Cuisine chefs started with Fernand Point surely we can go earlier! I understand that a lot of relavence is given to when the term was first used, yet before Point as you mentioned it was very much careme etc. But what Point did was highlight the ingredient and bring it to the plate as the main star, most of these chefs seem to be only following Points philosophys even Bocuse has acknowledged Point.
Yet when I've tried to discuss this people seem to get wrapped up with the coining of the phrase in the 70's rather than the movement from Carame/Escoffier to a cleaner less messy style where ingredients are highlighted and no longer extravagent ingredients embellishing every dish but begin to highlight and bring to the fore ground the main article.
Surely it comes down to more than whether its plated in the kitchen or at the table? This is a style of service not a movement away from cookery style. This is is all from the 30's onwards nearly forty years before the phrase is coined. I've tried to expand the subject but have found very little input from others on a Fernand Point thread! I am bias and do believe that this chef was probably the chef that changed cuisine yet will perhaps die in history for ever forgotten except by a few food historians!
And Point certainly didn't have any one write his menus!
Just my opinion Stef

[ChefDanBrown]

I think that experimental cooking, as well as working more with textures and seasonal ingredients will continue to spead.

I believe that the influence that the Chicago scene will spread out in pockets throughout the midwest in strip malls and mid level restaurants which will eventually improve the structure of chain restaurants as they gradually hire in cooking school gradutes who are creative, but prefer structure.

I believe that restauranteurs must be prepared to code invoices for equipment that is not traditionally thought of as "kitchen smallwares". Yes, new equipment costs money, but when you can reduce loss, improve quality and efficiency, you will have a positive return on the initial investment.

As I would not even know about sous vide without eGullet, I must agree with you that this forum is spreading information in a manner that was not previously available. Cuisine is being influenced and inspired by the appreciation of chefs; and respect for and interest in the craft.

[bleudauvergne]

I've tried to discuss this before and as Bocuse and several of these Nouvelle Cuisine chefs started with Fernand Point surely we can go earlier! I understand that a lot of relavence is given to when the term was first used, yet before Point as you mentioned it was very much careme etc. But what Point did was highlight the ingredient and bring it to the plate as the main star, most of these chefs seem to be only following Points philosophys even Bocuse has acknowledged Point.
Yet when I've tried to discuss this people seem to get wrapped up with the coining of the phrase in the 70's rather than the movement from Carame/Escoffier to a cleaner less messy style where ingredients are highlighted and no longer extravagent ingredients embellishing every dish but begin to highlight and bring to the fore ground the main article.
Surely it comes down to more than whether its plated in the kitchen or at the table? This is a style of service not a movement away from cookery style. This is is all from the 30's onwards nearly forty years before the phrase is coined. I've tried to expand the subject but have found very little input from others on a Fernand Point thread! I am bias and do believe that this chef was probably the chef that changed cuisine yet will perhaps die in history for ever forgotten except by a few food historians!
And Point certainly didn't have any one write his menus!
Just my opinion Stef

Hi Stef, I am not claiming that this article is 100% correct on the origins of Nouvelle Cuisine. However I do understand that they are picking up on some historical trends, patterns that have taken place. I know that you have had some ideas about Point and his influence in this, and I'll do more research into Point and discuss this with you further in the Point thread in the France forum. For the moment I would love to hear what the round table panelists think about the historical elements that lead to the creation of trends in general, no matter who is the initial instigator of the movement. ok?

[russ parsons]

bocuse once famously remarked that the real revolution of nouvelle cuisine was that chefs started owning restaurants.

[PassionateChefsDie]

Surely this comes down media even Escoffier's word was spread by the media, if you open a grand hotel filling it with grand things(This could be a fantastic kitchen) you'll be talked about! How much relavence to Curnosky for Escoffiers reputation should we give?
Prior to the pair of them Soyer recognised this to Quote him "Publicity is like the air we breathe, if we have it not, we die,"
Surely trends are dictated by the publicity that the chef gains, now this would imply that journalist probably dictate trends more than chefs do! Which could turn me back to Bocuse-Point one is the movement the other the Publicity machine of the 20th century and for that Bocuse has to be recognized! He was one of the first chefs to realise that he could sell more than food, though I suppose the other greats also did this particularly Soyer! Which is continued by Chefs now, endorsing products!

[russ parsons]

if i recall, escoffier endorsed products too.

i don't find the reliance of publicity new or even strange. restaurants are a business and all businesses--from restaurants to shoe stores--rely on publicity.

i think one thing that may be different post world war II is what seems to me to be a drastic increase in restaurants that aspire to that "world-class" level. so there is much more competition for a finite amount of publicity. in the days of escoffier, there were only a few restaurants where people who wanted to dine seriously in that fashion could eat. post-point, that number increased some, but in the last 20 years, it seems to have really boomed. this would be easily verifiable by counting the number of 2 and 3 star rstaurants in michelin over time. maybe some hyperactive cia student will do a paper on it.

[Bux]

People who study a field and who are too closely related to that field often see it develop as a history unto itself. We all study a bit of history in school. It's really political or geopolitical history that is generally referred to has history. Some of us may get to study art history or music history and traditionally, or should I say historically, we often study more than one history without interrelating them. We see a painting or hear a musical composition performed and don't necessarily think of the historical context of wars and fallling governments or social upheavals. In a sense we're not bilingual the way some people hear a French word and think of the English equivalent, while others get the same meaning in their mind whenever they hear either language. When Pollack was dripping paint was the cold war beginning or ending. What did either of them contribute to the way people thought and how did the way people thought have an effect on either?

Was Bocuse affected by the events of the times? Was the political thinking and the gastronomic thinking affected by the intellectual thoughts of the day. I find these all like chicken and egg questions. Even within a discipline, how accurately are those with handsight actually able to portray the intellectual process of creation. Barnett Newman once said that art history was for artists as ornithology was for the birds. Cooks will be cooks without thinking about it most of the time. All we can do is try to do is make sense of things after they happen.

[PassionateChefsDie]

if i recall, escoffier endorsed products too.

i don't find the reliance of publicity new or even strange. restaurants are a business and all businesses--from restaurants to shoe stores--rely on publicity.

i think one thing that may be different post world war II is what seems to me to be a drastic increase in restaurants that aspire to that "world-class" level. so there is much more competition for a finite amount of publicity. in the days of escoffier, there were only a few restaurants where people who wanted to dine seriously in that fashion could eat. post-point, that number increased some, but in the last 20 years, it seems to have really boomed. this would be easily verifiable by counting the number of 2 and 3 star rstaurants in michelin over time. maybe some hyperactive cia student will do a paper on it.

So how come Fernand Point didn't get the publicity, he was one of the few? Seen a thread recently looking for his book and a several people mentioned you'd have to be ancient to know who he is! Yet we all know who Escoffier so whats the difference? Point was batting in the world class Level!

[PassionateChefsDie]

.......Cooks will be cooks without thinking about it most of the time.

I said something very similar in a MG thread i.e cooks have been using copper bowls for egg whites for yeas without knowing the science.
But back to the ? what dictates trends, I'll never be able to get people to appreciate what Point did! But my argument was Publicity is what makes a chef or history to a certain extent. With out it it cant live it will die as local news, and only be a local trend not the next international one! Not so long ago we saw the Pacific Fusion where's it gone as someone said to me food is time and cultaraly specific which means it doesn't really care for trends, but peoples tastes!

[russ parsons]

So how come Fernand Point didn't get the publicity, he was one of the few? Seen a thread recently looking for his book and a several people mentioned you'd have to be ancient to know who he is! Yet we all know who Escoffier so whats the difference? Point was batting in the world class Level!

in the first place, i would dispute that point is forgotten--people who know food certainly know who he was. bocuse, troisgros, keller, they all cite him as important influences.

granted he's not as famous as escoffier, but other than bocuse, who is? that said, i think escoffier is probably best known today because of his book, which was used as the "bible" for a couple of generations of chefs (if not for that, he'd be as forgotten as careme). as much as i like "ma gastronomie", it doesn't approach that level--and neither was it intended to.

[Bux]

Point is, I believe, far more famous than Dumaine, although I'm not sure how great the difference in their reputations was when they were both alive and cooking. Publicity is, as Passionate implies, a key to fame and to the effect you will have on future generations. There's some snowballing of effect. We assume a certain connection between talent and fame, but there's rarely a direct connection. The more talented of two chefa may not be the more famous one. The more talented one may not get the most publicity. Publicity tends to get more publicity and that's what the famous have--more publicity.

Escoffier didn't just write a cookbook however, as I understand it, he really codified the cooking of the day and by doing that, establlished a bible that would set his interpretation of cooking as the standard. As Russ says Point didn't write a book intended to be the same kind of bible or one that could be used as that kind of bible. Sometimes those codifications are written by a strong man, but often they're dependent on that strong man coming along at the right time. One needn't write a bible to be a seminal figure. Adrià may be as influential as Bocuse, Point or even Escoffier, but he's not published a codex. Rather his collection of recipes and ideas, far more inclusive and expansive than Escoffier's in its way, offers the opposite of guidelines. It offers freedom. It takes far more talent to build on freedom than on a good tight set of recipes. Adrià is not llikely to have the effect on cooking that Escoffier had. A great craftsman could run a great kitchen with Escoffier at hand. A good cook would be a better one relying on Escoffier. Adrià's DVDs are a great accomplishment in their own right, but almost useless to the average cook.

[russ parsons]

the escoffier book is an interesting case. i'm not sure of the details, but i'm sure someone out there may be. there may have been an earlier book that escoffier "based" his code on. several years ago i did a piece on ranhofer's "the epicurean" that i then adapted for an article in the oxford companion to american food. in the pieces i remarked upon the similarity in structure (and in dish composition) between escoffier and ranhofer--the point being that ranhofer came first. a copy editor much more steeped in food history than i pointed out that there was another book that escoffier had based his work on, and that in all likelihood so had ranhofer. can't for the life of me remember what it was, though.

i think bux's larger point is very important: escoffier's fame comes not so much from ground-breaking culinary innovations during his life, but because his "code" was relied upon and replicated by so many (mmm, usually mediocre?) chefs after he was gone.

[PassionateChefsDie]

the escoffier book is an interesting case. i'm not sure of the details, but i'm sure someone out there may be. there may have been an earlier book that escoffier "based" his code on. several years ago i did a piece on ranhofer's "the epicurean" that i then adapted for an article in the oxford companion to american food. in the pieces i remarked upon the similarity in structure (and in dish composition) between escoffier and ranhofer--the point being that ranhofer came first. a copy editor much more steeped in food history than i pointed out that there was another book that escoffier had based his work on, and that in all likelihood so had ranhofer. can't for the life of me remember what it was, though.

i think bux's larger point is very important: escoffier's fame comes not so much from ground-breaking culinary innovations during his life, but because his "code" was relied upon and replicated by so many (mmm, usually mediocre?) chefs after he was gone.

The interesting thing here is that Escoffier didn't want them to become rules/codes I believe in Le Guide Culinaire he wrote "It would be absurd to pretend to fix the destiny of an art which is enhanced by so many aspects of Fashion and is equally as inconstant" Yet as has been mentioned thats exactly what they became.
Regarding Dumaine I was under the impression he wasn't a great teacher without disciples spreading the word you will struggle to survive through history!
Have to say had an interesting evening I've ended up surrrounded by Great Chefs of France, Le Repertoire de la Cuisine and The Cuisine of Paul Bocuse.

[russ parsons]

is that the "great chefs" with the quentin crewe photographs? i love to look through that book, to see all the old lions back when they were pups. if you like that book, you might also like Roy de Groot's "Revolutionizing French Cooking", in which he visits the heroes of nouvelle cuisine, before it was called nouvelle cuisine (he irritatingly refers to it at "the new high-low cuisine" throughout). there's this great sense of excitement and discovery: like listening to the early demo recordings of someone who later became a great star.

[PassionateChefsDie]

is that the "great chefs" with the quentin crewe photographs? i love to look through that book, to see all the old lions back when they were pups. if you like that book, you might also like Roy de Groot's "Revolutionizing French Cooking", in which he visits the heroes of nouvelle cuisine, before it was called nouvelle cuisine (he irritatingly refers to it at "the new high-low cuisine" throughout). there's this great sense of excitement and discovery: like listening to the early demo recordings of someone who later became a great star.

It is(First edition as well, just missing the price corner, I was only 5 when it was printed)!
I get lost in there when I'm sick of the trade reminds me why I wanted to be a Chef! I really wanted to use the nickname Vatel after reading it! The story still tickles me every time I read it, if the fish had only turned up earlier!
As for other book think the one you could be talking about if it wasn't a Careme book could of been A. Viard Le Cuisinier Imperial, Urtbain-Dubois La Cuisine Classique or Livre de Cuisine byJules Gouffe but never seen any so really cant comment(Didn't Bocuse even rework a Book?)!

[russ parsons]

i'm pretty sure it's urbain-dubois that she was referring to. i don't believe it's been translated into english and i have to admit i'd never heard of it. but she sounded pretty convincing.

[Fat Guy]

Culinary history surely follows "regular" history, though it tends to lag behind considerably. The restaurant kitchen was one of the last places to be reached by the industrial revolution. Escoffier largely gets credit for reorganizing the kitchen along those lines -- as an assembly line rather than a pre-industrial craft studio. It would be silly to ignore that Nouvelle Cuisine is a product of the post-War era, both culturally and economically. It's hard to believe it can be tied unequivocally to specific events in 1968, especially since Point died in 1955 and was the father of nouvelle cuisine, but the events of 1968 and the nouvelle cuisine movement certainly have common roots.

In the present day, Adria and Ducasse, among others (Wolfgang Puck, Jean-Georges Vongerichten, Nobu Matsuhisa) represent the latest move forward: Adria leads the culinary avant-garde, and not a moment too soon (a couple of decades behind the avant-garde in most other artforms); Ducasse has brought the modern management revolution to the restaurant kitchen and the restaurant corporation, much as Escoffier did with the industrial revolution -- Puck, Vongerichten and Nobu have played their parts as well.

In the future, I think we can expect to see culinary history continue to go along for the ride with general history. In some cases, food may even drive history. The modernization of the food business -- here I'm talking about the food industry as a whole rather than the fine dining business -- has been one of the most powerful historical forces of the past 60 years. Eric Schlosser probably overstates the case when he views contemporary American society through the lens of fast-food, but he contributes much in terms of showing how influential the food business has been on American culture.

[bleudauvergne]

How will the slow food movement work into this? It will be interesting to see how this works itself though in the next decade.

[Pan]

[...]In the future, I think we can expect to see culinary history continue to go along for the ride with general history. In some cases, food may even drive history.[...]

Didn't that already happen when the invention of canning was crucial to the initial success of Napoleon's army?

[PassionateChefsDie]

How will the slow food movement work into this?  It will be interesting to see how this works itself though in the next decade.

I've known about the Slow Food movement for about 10 years I'd expected it to of grown a lot bigger in the 10 years that I've known about it. I hope that they can gain more ground in the US, over here I'd say there's few people that know of the movement and most or the majority are in the trade not the consumer. If I wanted to find there magazine I can honestly say I wouldn't even know where to look. Which would suggest they need a publicity campaign.
Regarding canning made me think of sous-vide In Britian, the roux brothers tried to corner the market in the 80's and it's still yet to really take off on this side of the Atlantic, as to why I wouldn't even like to speculate. Yet in other countries its a growing industry, from a finiacial point of view it makes sense yet it's made little head way over here.
As for culinary history if you look back over time these are associated with the lay man and very little to do with chefs more food history is regarding the lack off food, the tampering of food, food poisoning, for canning isn't really different from confit, all was done was change the method and technique using new found materials! The principles where already established i.e the removal of air and cooked produce!

[akwa]

isnt the irony that we the observers are trying to imagine a cuisine to spring from this history that we ourselves are embedded in
where does perspective fit in
i find it impossible to believe that current humans could adequately identify the "time" they are living in and understand its place in history
my question is, what is the underlying historical trend that will affect perception of consumption

[Pan]

isnt the irony that we the observers are trying to imagine a cuisine to spring from this history that we ourselves are embedded in
where does perspective fit in
i find it impossible to believe that current humans could adequately identify the "time" they are living in and understand its place in history[...]

Very well stated. And yet we try, because it seems to be part of human nature (or at least the nature of a large number of human beings) to try to make sense of everything.

[bleudauvergne]

Certain individuals can do this. It takes an approach that must be constantly changing to consider the present. It's that method (or lack of method) that sometimes can't be put into words that I see in Clark Wolf's roundtable posts here. He reads the pulse of the past and imagines where this will be going, and then makes forward thinking short term predictions in the present. It must be very exciting being so close to the fiber. Knowing that decision being made today are going to have an impact, because they do at the level where he practices his vocation, must be exhilerating.

I tell them to look back a couple hundred years and roll forward. Look back again about 20 or 30 years, and then order lunch.

I know that French institutional changes in the way that restaurants came to be run in the 70s and 80s is definitely only an itty bitty part of the whole. But at the same time the trickle down effect from that revolution was far reaching. As for today, I'm hoping very hard that America is living in a revolutionary time when it comes to an awareness of food, and that something big is happening. But at the same time I wonder if everyone at every time has that impression, and we all feel that way when we reach, say, our late-30s.

[PassionateChefsDie]

....... But at the same time I wonder if everyone at every time has that impression, and we all feel that way when we reach, say, our late-30s.   

I'd imagine theres more truth in this statement than humour, for every decade I would imagine generations have seen the next food revolution! An example when flour become less messed with. If I'm not mistaken hasn't the better flour changed over the centuries several times white flour then brown then back to white then back to brown. Which is what I said earlier its Cultularly and time specific and has no real relavence to history!
Fundamentaly we eat to survive and beyond economic reasons or times that dictate production i.e Wars. We cant change the masses what we really are talking about is the history in regards to the Gourmet(Not quite what I meant, but not sure what to use). Hasn't every poor generation eaten badly yet in the 21st century we believe we can change this, surely nothing more than the amount of available money and price of produce really dictates what will survive the test of time.
Christ even last night I ate 20 naff chicken nuggets why price dictated, they ended up in my freezer not a gourmet choice!

Edited to Add
Surely if we are really honest the last real revolutionary change was Mr Birdseye! Nothing since really compares!

Edited by PassionateChefsDie, 29 September 2005 - 03:14 AM.

[Carrot Top]

Hasn't every poor generation eaten badly yet in the 21st century we believe we can change this, surely nothing more than the amount of available money and price of produce really dictates what will survive the test of time.

The word "we" is the important one in this thought, though.

For is there a "we"?

Has there ever been a "we" in what "we" call "history"?


Available money is determined by a vast amount of factors, a chaos of factors.


Finally, though, it is defined by the "we" that does not exist.

It is perhaps defined more by the individual persons who are adept at accomplishing what they set out to do. These people who prove that they can "do" , and "do' well, sway and move other people to follow. And often, one of those people has a different agenda in mind than the others. So the available money goes to whomever happens to be best at gathering it in that moment. And even that affects how "history" is written. As for the future, it is important to remember that not everybody wishes the best upon everybody else. That means there is no "we".

Edited by Carrot Top, 29 September 2005 - 04:15 AM.

[PassionateChefsDie]

Hasn't every poor generation eaten badly yet in the 21st century we believe we can change this, surely nothing more than the amount of available money and price of produce really dictates what will survive the test of time.

The word "we" is the important one in this thought, though.

For is there a "we"?

Has there ever been a "we" in what "we" call "history"?


Available money is determined by a vast amount of factors, a chaos of factors.


Finally, though, it is defined by the "we" that does not exist.

And as its our history is it really relavent? From reading that history has no place?
I thought it linked quite relavently to the flour example not sure what you did except pick on a word! History is only relavent to us, it has little more place than a story if we're honest whats your point?

Edited by PassionateChefsDie, 29 September 2005 - 03:35 AM.

[Carrot Top]

And as its our history is it really relavent? From reading that history has no place?
I thought it linked quite relavently to the flour example not sure what you did except pick on a word! History is only relavent to us, it has little more place than a story if we're honest whats your point?

My point is a philosophic one. And the fact that "I" think of things in philosophic or global terms and that "you" think of things in factual actual what someone presented as an actual history in a book, separates the way we see things right there.

Your history is not my history. Yet you and I come from Western cultures.

The history and viewpoint of two people from two cultures that are even more disparate than ours would be even wider.

History is not a fact.

History is written. By human beings. Human beings who can only know what is in front of them within their own culture or the cultures they have been exposed to.
Then of course each historian brings their own "stuff" into the writing of history.

History, even among historians, is up for debate. It is not agreed upon.

I am not "picking" on a word in any way except to define it in the way I see it, and as a word that said a lot within the context of the discussion.

Here's a question: Here "we" are, talking with each other in a "virtual community".
Here you and I are, and many others.

If each of us was to walk away from the computer at this moment, then sit down and write the "history" of even this singular, small discussion, would we come up with the same account of it?

"History" has proved otherwise. We all see things differently.

Therefore, "truth" is plastic. Except when it is a lie or utter bull. Those are somewhat measurable.

Edited by Carrot Top, 29 September 2005 - 03:51 AM.

[Carrot Top]

To bring this back to the point it must be said that there are "trends" that can be found by people who have a talent for spotting them, within their lifetimes based on what they see and sometimes feel.

To my mind, some of this is intuitive. Some people have an eye for the small and unnoticed thing that ties into other things that other people see.

This can be used to create opportunities for businesses to thrive within any given period of time. Even food businesses, to bring it back to the point again.

But beyond using this ability within a certain narrowly defined parameter to accomplish a certain defined task, it's not my opinion that it can be done "across-the-board".

But I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Edited to add: Yeah. I just went back and read your original question, Lucy.
Somehow the discussion went off track. My apologies for any part I played in it.
I really had no idea at all how to answer your first post, so didn't. But the other stuff came up and as it was in the thread, blah blah blah. I talked.

What I should have said was: "Just who is this 'we', Kimosabe?" and left it at that.

Edited by Carrot Top, 29 September 2005 - 06:20 AM.

[chefzadi]

The 60's were volatile in France. You can't look at the changing role/identity of a chef in relation to old institutions in a historical vacuum of just food history and not relate it to other events that were shaping France and her notions of pluralism and what is it is to be French. Maybe my link is shocking and seems out of place. France lost it's colonies, there was a huge wave of post colonial immigration and a cultural identity crisis.... The institutionalized meanings of being French was being questioned and challenged on all levels.