Food Snobbery

[Lord Michael Lewis]

The fact that some people have better ears or better palates or whatever is irrelevant to the concept of Food Snobbery. No matter how acute one's faculties are, and discarding humility, the most you can claim is to have an acute palate. It is an abysmal and arrogant leap in logic to suggest that this gives one any rights to pre- or proscribe foodstuffs for anyone else other than oneself.

[Tonyfinch]

Less people like mustard inflected mased potatoes but there are enough of them, and it has been going on long enough, for a consensus to have been reached.

Fine. No problem. Those who like mustard in their mash may reach a consensus. Like those who like wine with steak frites. I've said that all along.

My point is/was that those who do NOT like wine with steak frites or mustard in their mash do not have "inferior" palates and are not "wrong" by ANY standards.

[Steve Plotnicki]

It is an abysmal and arrogant leap in logic to suggest that this gives one any rights to pre- or proscribe foodstuffs for anyone else other than oneself.

But you made that part up so you can use the word arrogant. Nobody is looking to foist their opinions on others. It's a free world and you have the right to eat drivel if you so choose. But those who know better have the right to tell you it is drivel. Because indeed, it's a free world for speech as well as drivel. And the tactic of calling the person who recognizes drivel or pap for what it is, arrogant or a snob, is intended to surpress that concept from coming into the marketplace of ideas. Like I said. Vanity over quality. Thanks for proving the point .

Tony - I find your last sentence to be at odds with the first one. If there is a standard, as you have agreed there is in your first sentence, then why aren't people "wrong" when they are measured against the standard? And again, not wrong on a personal basis, just against the standard? And I have to add, I quite like when there is mustard in my mash. Especially that grainy French mustard.

[John Whiting]

SteveP writes:

So for the purpose of my original point, please understand that my example subsumes these conditions you have identified, and others which haven't yet been identified.

In other words, those fine gradations which are so vital in constructing the perfect dish are, in music, simply to be swept together into an undifferentiated pile.

[cakewalk]

The comparison between the mathematical designation of musical notes and salting food sets a new low in reasoning.

Actually, I think it sets a new low in seasoning.

[=Mark]

I've not visited this thread in quite some time. Having taken another look I remember why, it's brain numbingly BORING!

[Tonyfinch]

Tony - I find your last sentence to be at odds with the first one. If there is a standard, as you have agreed there is in your first sentence, then why aren't people "wrong" when they are measured against the standard?

Steve,you have the most amazing facility for only reading what you want to read.

What I said was that amongst those who like wine with steak frites a broad consensus MAY emerge as to which is the "best" wine to have with steak frites.

The majority of the world's population do not like wine. They don't drink wine. They have no interest in wine. Wine is irrelevant to them.

You appear to believe that because people like you and me enjoy wine and because people who you call "experts" but who in fact have a massive vested interest in promoting wine, say that wine is the "correct" thing to drink with steak frites ,then it is the "correct"thing to drink with steak frites.

Who actually says so but yourself? The wine experts comment on which wine to drink. They pre-suppose that you wish to drink wine. The consensus is arrived at AFTER the preference is made clear. To the non-drinker the wine expert would say:"I've nothing to say to you" NOT that you have an inferior palate or defective taste.

The preferences and the standards do not exist independently of each other . The latter is a fuction of the former.

[Wilfrid]

And indeed everyone particpates in the free market. They just do not particpate equally because depending on the currency used, which can be monetary, hard goods, services, or inteligence, not everyone has the same things or amount to offer. But the system is available to everyone and therefore democratic.

Not equally available it isn't, but that's a political debate and not, in my view, for eGullet.

On topic: Tony, I can't tell you how much I would prefer to disagree with Steve, as that makes life more fun. But this time I am with him, although my position is both more nuanced and more evolved .

Certainly, wine isn't an issue for most of the world's population. But neither is steak frites, so I'm not sure where that point gets you. Personal reminiscence. Growing up in the UK in the '60s and '70s, what was the typical drink which accompanied dinner in the evening. I am talking about an ordinary family, eating at home? Well, unless you were from a pretty posh family, I would contend that it was a "nice" cup of tea. Some daredevils might open a bottle of light ale. A glass of milk, perhaps. Wine was rarely seen on the table, except a bottle of Liebfraumilch to accompany the Christmas turkey. Times have changed, and for the better I would say.

Repeating myself (as everyone else has), I cast no aspersions on an individual who prefers to drink a cup of tea, milk and two sugars, with their chateaubriand. They are certainly not a worse person for doing so, and it doesn't necessarily follow that they have a poor palate - they may have excellent reasons for drinking the tea.

But I maintain that, as a broad, general standard, there are drinks which accompany chateubriand better than sweet milky tea. And I do not think that standard has been set exclusively by wine merchants or by an elite of fine-becs. And I do not think it is invariable. But I think it's progress.

[Adam Balic]

Smug Philosopher Bastard.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony - No you have shifted it around. You have to start with an actual sample. Next time you are in Paris go to a brasserie. I bet you that a majority of the people eating steak frites are drinking wine with their meal. There is your consensus. It already exists. You keep arguing against something that already exists and I can't understand why. Because the fact that some people drink soda, or Perrier, or beer or milk doesn't matter. Most of the people will be drinking wine. That is because wine is the right thing to drink with steak frites. That is already what most everyone does. Why are you arguing against that?

[g.johnson]

Nobody is looking to foist their opinions on others.

It's a free world and you have the right to eat drivel if you so choose.

[Tonyfinch]

Certainly, wine isn't an issue for most of the world's population.  But neihter is steak frites, so I'm not sure where that point gets you

Wilfrid, I'm not talking about the third world or something. The overwhelming majority of the population in Europe and the USA do not drink wine with their meals. I'm sure that also applies to Australia, New Zealand and South America.

Ther's a hell of a lot more people eating steak and chips than drinking wine with their meals

[Lord Michael Lewis]

It is an abysmal and arrogant leap in logic to suggest that this gives one any rights to pre- or proscribe foodstuffs for anyone else other than oneself.

But you made that part up so you can use the word arrogant.

Er,.. No I didn't. And anyway, I'm not sure how you'd know.

[Wilfrid]

Certainly, wine isn't an issue for most of the world's population.  But neihter is steak frites, so I'm not sure where that point gets you

Wilfrid, I'm not talking about the third world or something. The overwhelming majority of the population in Europe and the USA do not drink wine with their meals. I'm sure that also applies to Australia, New Zealand and South America.

Ther's a hell of a lot more people eating steak and chips than drinking wine with their meals

But if that's true, it just brings me to the hot, sweet tea argument. If most of them are drinking hot, sweet tea (not saying they are, mind), I think it would just indicate that gastronomic standards are not set by majority behavior.

Is that snobbish? More people are reading Jeffrey Archer than are reading Iain Sinclair. That doesn't set a standard for excellence in the modern novel.

[John Whiting]

Wilfrid writes:

Some daredevils might open a bottle of light ale. A glass of milk, perhaps.

And don't forget that epicure's delight, lemon barley water!

More people are reading Jeffrey Archer than are reading Iain Sinclair.

That's because Archer is safely tucked away with his word processor, not trudging around the M25.

[LaNiña]

I've not visited this thread in quite some time.  Having taken another look I remember why, it's brain numbingly BORING!

I think posts like this are the height of arrogance. Mark, if this is boring to you, then don't read it. Clearly, there are those of us who do not find it so, and your voicing your opinion in this context merely serves to insult those of us who are interested.

The same goes for Jason and his "are you done yet" comment. If it's an issue of bandwidth, or some other legitimate moderator issue, then say so. If it's merely because you don't care about this topic, or find it "boring," then just say nothing.

People go on and on in threads about many (in my view) mundane and mindnumbing subjects, and sometimes I'll say something like well I just don't get it, or I just don't watch TV, or whatever the case may be, but I don't say oh this thread is ridiculous, or aren't you people tired of this subject, or any such thing. That would be true snobbery.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yeah what Nina said .

[Gavin Jones]

You don't think markstevens is just pointing out that much of this thread falls below the standard consensus of what constitutes an interesting discourse?

[Steve Plotnicki]

You don't think markstevens is just pointing out that much of this thread falls below the standard consensus of what constitutes an interesting discourse?

Absolutely. It's just that the opinion of people who aren't interested in the conversation wouldn't carry any weight in the sample .

[StephenT]

You don't think markstevens is just pointing out that much of this thread falls below the standard consensus of what constitutes an interesting discourse?

Absolutely. It's just that the opinion of people who aren't interested in the conversation wouldn't carry any weight in the sample .

Hrm okay then all conversations are interesting

[Steve Plotnicki]

What I find funny is that the same people who want to say that taste is a matter of opinion, seem to hold that there is a firm distinction between interesting and non-interesting conversation.

[Wilfrid]

That's because Archer is safely tucked away with his word processor, not trudging around the M25.

Hehehe.

On what do we base our judgments of value - whether they be ethical judgments or more general judgments of taste? What validity is there in making evaluative comparisons between individual judgments of taste? How do the judgments of individuals lead to the creation of a hierarchy or canon of taste?

These questions have fascinated millions of people since, oh, around 400 BC. Other people are bored rigid by them. I fall into the first camp, and the second camp might as well get used to it.

[rich]

These questions have fascinated millions of people since, oh, around 400 BC.

This brings up an interesting question. Did the people who lived in 400 BC, know what year it was? Were they coins stamped with a date - I've always wanted to know how those people who lived in BC, knew it was BC.

[Wilfrid]

...and did the Greeks know they were speaking Ancient Greek?

[rich]

...and did the Greeks know they were speaking Ancient Greek?

In Astoria, they still speak Ancient Greek - it's a good thing I attended the seminary otherwise I never would have understood how much I was being cursed at as a kid.