Food Snobbery

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Good tomatoes taste better than bad tomatoes. There really isn't anything else to say about it.

Plotinki, you confuse (deliberately) 'sensory taste' with 'social taste'; the discernment of what is socially right.

Comparing like with like; tomato A vs. tomato B. is a non sequitur. If you like tomatoes and have gustatory perception a flavoursome tomato will taste better than a bad one. On the other hand, if you don't like tomatoes you either won't like either, or you'll like the good tomato less because it tastes more tomato-like.

A better test would be; what should one drink with steak frites?

[spqr]

is wilfrid right:  is taste subjective.

please discuss.

again.

I thought we settled this already. Yes, "taste" is entirely subjective. I said everything I need to say on this subject on that other thread, but you can see how obviously attitudes about this pervades most other food topics. There are those who think that there is an objective standard as to what is good to eat. Not surprisingly, these people think that what they eat is, objectively, the best possible. And there are those who realize that people everywhere and at all times past and present developed their own standards based on what was possible in their social/cultural/ecological context. On what objective basis can we compare the cuisines of, say, equatorial Africa with those of India, with those of Maylasia with those of France with those of France in the, say, Middle Paleolithic?

There are always everywhere people who are self-appointed arbiters of what is good to eat. They are, almost by definition, snobs (NOT merely, appologetically, "discerning"). For them, it is a way of defining an "in" crowd and an "out" crowd. Not surprisingly, snobs always classify themselves as being in the "in" crowd. But the game is fixed because these same snobs are the ones setting the rules and making the judgements. And, as LML has pointed out, having a pot of money allows one to indulge him/herself in a way that is not practicable for most of the rest of us. I believe it's true that one can eat well without having to spend huge amounts of money, but this takes a kind of education in cooking that is not generally available or practicable for the rest of us. And there are some, my physician among them, who view food merely as fuel, and don't understand at all how or why people take pleasure from eating.

[Stone]

Putting aside subjectivity/objectivity which has been beaten to death, Steve P -- do you consider yourself a snob? If so, do you consider it an insult? Notwithstanding my enjoyment of Bud, I consider myself somewhat of a beer snob. I don't think there's any reason to drink light beer. It's 30 fucking calories. Nor should any person drink "light ice" beer. If you don't like beer, drink water. I'm comfortable.

Is snobbery a bad thing? Why assume that snobs judge other people? A snob may refuse to eat store bought salad dressing without looking down on those who do.

Perhaps snobbery is beneficial. I chide my parents for eating strange things out of the freezer section at Costco. I try to convince them that they can make something themselves and it would be better. They have no time constraints. I think I'm helping them enjoy their food more.

A more interesting topic was touched upon by spqr -- "Fuck the French." Someone should start a thread on that.

LML -- would you be comfortable with the statement that anyone who thinks that Titanic is the best movie of all time is wrong? Or that anyone who thinks Leo is the best actor of all time is wrong?

[Lord Michael Lewis]

LML -- would you be comfortable with the statement that anyone who thinks that Titanic is the best movie of all time is wrong?  Or that anyone who thinks Leo is the best actor of all time is wrong?

No, I wouldn't. I haven't seen Titanic, but if that's what someone thinks that's fine, as long as that person can accept that there are as many best films of all time as there are filmgoers.

[Bux]

I say:  fuck France and the French. Their hegemony on all things culinary in the Western world should be overturned. It's long overdue.

Why do you say that, especially as you go on to say you have at best very limited experience with European cookery--"I seriously doubt that we in the US have anything that is the equivalent to the peasant fare of Europe you refer to." There's a sort of snobbism, or reverse snobbism in assuming Americans haven't got a lot to learn from French culinary tradition.

[Bux]

Forgive me for speaking for him - but I feel much the same way.  I do indeed use what I see as "best" as a benchmark by which to judge others, and other things, etc.  It's called discernment.  How else should we "judge?"

Why should you judge others?

I love it when a food magazine asks a talented chef, one who rose to the prominence by virtue of his refined cuisine, about his favorite food "vices." Invariably, each and every chef I hold in great regard has a addiction to some food I wouldn't touch. I'm amused and find no reason to reassemble my pantheon.

[Stone]

Forgive me for speaking for him - but I feel much the same way.  I do indeed use what I see as "best" as a benchmark by which to judge others, and other things, etc.  It's called discernment.  How else should we "judge?"

Why should you judge others?

How else to you decide who to invite to dinner? The question is what are meaningful/mature/appropriate grounds for judgment.

[LaNiña]

Exactly. For example, if I'm going to make a certain meal, perhaps with culinary references to certain traditions, or culinary "quotations," as it were, and if I'd like my guests (audience) to understand and appreciate the references, then I'd like to invite people who have a certain level of understanding and experience and basis for discernment and judgment. If somebody genuinely believes that a burger from Arby's is just as good as the burger at Luger's, then I don't want that person to be the recipient of my extensive efforts - I want to know that the "judge" of the meal I've prepared has, to the best of my knowledge, similar taste and discernment. How else can I take their criticism seriously, how else would their opinion have merit in my eyes?

No, there are not as many great movies as there are moviegoers. God forbid. I want to *rely* on the taste of people with whom I know I have taste in common. That's not snobbery, that's just good common sense, and saves me a hell of a lot of time and money.

[Bux]

If somebody genuinely believes that a burger from Arby's is just as good as the burger at Luger's, then I don't want that person to be the recipient of my extensive efforts

Do you feel people are judging you when you post as well as when you entertain? Are you less generous online or at home?

[Lord Michael Lewis]

For example, if I'm going to make a certain meal, perhaps with culinary references to certain traditions, or culinary "quotations," as it were, and if I'd like my guests (audience) to understand and appreciate the references, then I'd like to invite people who have a certain level of understanding and experience and basis for discernment and judgment.

Words fail me.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

For example, if I'm going to make a certain meal, perhaps with culinary references to certain traditions, or culinary "quotations," as it were, and if I'd like my guests (audience) to understand and appreciate the references, then I'd like to invite people who have a certain level of understanding and experience and basis for discernment and judgment.

Words fail me.

No they don't... This is why snobbery is a bad thing.

[Tonyfinch]

There's a sort of snobbism, or reverse snobbism in assuming Americans haven't got a lot to learn from French culinary tradition.

The concept of "reverse snobbism" underlies many of the attitudes towards food and drink in the UK.

Taking an interest in what you eat and drink, discussing it, making a hobby of it etc. is regarded as a sign of pretentiousness and affectation.

I know people who, if you should dare to discuss the qualities of a wine in their presence,will snigger,roll their eyes fake yawns and exhort you to "stop gabbling about it and get it down yer neck".

This reverse snobbism is compensation for the deep insecurity that most Brits feel about food and wine. I mentioned on another thread how Pierre Koffman tells in his book how he offered all the workers involved in re-furbishing La Tante Claire, and their partners,a free meal to celebrate the end of the work. They ALL refused,on the grounds that they would feel uncomfortable and out of place in such fancy French restaurant. Koffman muses on how their French equivalents would have leaped at the chance of a freebie in such a renowned restaurant.

In his book My Gastronomy, Nico Ladenis is scathing about how customers in the provinces compensate for their insecurity by behaving like lunatics in his restaurant -making all kinds of absurd demands, treating the staff like shit, sneering at fellow diners and at the menu etc.

Things are definitely improving but suspicion on culinary matters is still a common response. Suspicion makes people feel uncomfortable so denial kicks in and reverse snobbism is activated.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Gee I gave the most simple example and both Jason and LML didn't seem to buy the concept. So let's remove the embellishment from the concept. Let's make this a simple vote.

Question 1

--------------

1. Who believes that pale and mealy, and without any taste tomatoes taste good?

2. Who believes that pale and mealy, and without any taste tomatoes taste better then perfectly ripe heirloom tomatoes?

3. Who believes that anyone who believes that pale and mealy, and without any taste tomatoes, taste better then perfectly ripe heirloom tomatoes has a valid opinion about tomatoes?

I can ask 1000 questions of this sort including whether McDonald's hamburgers are better than a fat, juicy burger from the best bar or restaurant in NYC. Who believes that McDonald's makes better hamburgers then places who make them from top quality, fresh meat?

For some reason, even though the answers to those questions are obvious, there will be people here who refuse to say that obvious answer is the correct one. In fact they will say there is no correct answer. They will say that food preference is all a matter of taste. And that taste is subjective, therefore there is no *right* answer. Jason best sums up this philosophy by saying the following;

Anyone who proposes that their taste is better than anyone else's is not a food snob. They're just arrogant assholes

Well to me that comes down to saying that heirloom tomatoes are better then pale and mealy, have no taste tomatoes, and burgers as good I can make with meat from Lobel's are better then burgers from McDonald's. But people can't express that by saying their taste in food is better then yours.

Bullshit.

For people who can't recognize good quality food, I don't like it and I don't understand the way it tastes are statements about one's self. Not about the food they are eating. People who can't recognize great food are like people who can't recognize good music, art, film etc. Their opinions have no validity outside the scope of their own person. They are expressing preference, not valid opinion.

Last night I had dinner with Macrosan and he was telling us a story about beautiful looking peaches his wife bought from the grocer. But when biting into them he found that the area around the stone was brown and pappy (I'm learning all my British terms .) Macrosan, tough bargainer that he is, is bringing the peaches back for a refund. But I guarantee you there are people out there who will not only keep those peaches, but will like them. Call me a snob. In fact call me anything you want. But people who accept brown and pappy peaches do not know anything about peaches. It's not a matter of opinion. And not only are there people who know better then they (or have better taste as Jason refuses to admit) but this notion that they are entitled to their opinion is what allows food producers to ship brown and pappy peaches in the first place.

[Scottf]

(I'm learning all my British terms  .)

Tidy, Tidy

[John Whiting]

But people who accept brown and pappy peaches do not know anything about peaches. It's not a matter of opinion.

There are people who are not ignorant, but who don't like to make trouble. They would rather eat them anyway, or just throw them away, rather than confront a shopkeeper and complain. It's not a uniquely British charactaristic, but it's especially prevelant here, under the long, long shadow of "Don't you know there's a war on?!"

There's another aspect. I grew up eating green (runner, snap) beans from my father's garden, cooked to perfection by my mother. One day at the age of about eight I came home from a friend's house and announced that I'd had green beans that were different and really good. My mother phoned our neighbor who had fed me and asked what she had done to them. She admitted shamefacedly that they had come out of a can. I of course had never tasted canned beans and so they were an interesting novelty. Were they objectively better by any reasonable standard? I would say no. But the open, still unformed palate of a child who liked good food had tasted something which he found interesting, and it was specifically the metallic edge of that primitive canning process of more than sixty years ago, in impact not unlike the tannic edge of an immature red wine. I have never had a canned green bean since, but I can still remember the surprise that came when something that looked familiar tasted dramatically different.

Note: I consider this, not a refutation of Steve's argument, but merely an added dimension.

[macrosan]

I think that last post of Steve's is a concise and accurate overview of the subject, with one exception. Of course it is clear that there is an objective good and bad in most areas relating to quality (like my disgusting peaches). And it's clear that some people don't recognize that because they simply don't have the education or the knowledge. And it's right that those people don't have a view on that subject which will command respect.

However, I think the point that Steve is missing is that those people are entitled to hold the view that it doesn't matter. They may be quite happy to eat my rotten peaches, and they might even enjoy them, and they might even be aware that they're not good but they don't care. There is no justification for looking down on them for that; they just have different values in life, and those values are entitled to respect.

Although I love classical music, I happen to dislike ballet. I know people who consider me a Philistine and who deplore my attitude towards ballet. They tell me that if only I learned about it, and got to understand it, how much I would love it. They think my life is lesser for "missing out" on the joys of this inestimable art form. They think less of me for my ignorance of their chosen love. They are snobs.

But I like my life the way it is. I don't lack for aesthetic pleasures, I don't need another, I plain don't want to bring ballet into my life. And it's not for "them" to consider me a lesser person than them, nor to impose upon me their own anachronistic judgements of what represents good and bad in the world. After all, I don't deplore their lack of interest in, and understanding of, good food !

edit disclosure: Brain not working Monday morning. Teacher Jinnysan put a big red ring round "ascetic" and suggested I might mean something else. Jinnysan is right. Nearly changed it to "prosthetic". Finally plumped for "aesthetic"

[Miss J]

LML -- would you be comfortable with the statement that anyone who thinks that Titanic is the best movie of all time is wrong?  Or that anyone who thinks Leo is the best actor of all time is wrong?

No, I wouldn't. I haven't seen Titanic, but if that's what someone thinks that's fine, as long as that person can accept that there are as many best films of all time as there are filmgoers.

LML, your standpoint demonstrates magnificent generousity of spirit. And I'm curious to know if this is what informs your opinion of journalists who think Heston Blumenthal's cooking is as innovative and impressive as that of Fernán Adriá.

[Tonyfinch]

This discussion has lurched back to the old one about "taste". I thought we were discussing snobbery.

Snobbery is about the despisal of others and the self allocation to a social rank above or below others.

If I prefer hamburger A to hamburger B I can disagree with the person who prefers hamburger B WITHOUT despising him. I might despise his taste in hamburgers but i need not extend that to a general despisal of his status as a human being.

If I choose to assign him to a place on a social rank order beneath that of my own that social rank order is of my own devising and does not exist outside of my own construct of the way in which I perceive rank ordering.

In other words I can say that this tomato is better than that tomato because we can probably all agree on the general criteria that makes one tomato better than another.

But snobbery is about saying I am a better person than you on criteria that I alone have devised. Is anybody here really going to argue that we can come up with criteria by which we can all agree on what constitutes better or worse humans?

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Gee I gave the most simple example and both Jason and LML didn't seem to buy the concept. So let's remove the embellishment from the concept. Let's make this a simple vote.

Question 1

--------------

1. Who believes that pale and mealy, and without any taste tomatoes taste good?

2. Who believes that pale and mealy, and without any taste tomatoes taste better then perfectly ripe heirloom tomatoes?

3. Who believes that anyone who believes that pale and mealy, and without any taste tomatoes, taste better then perfectly ripe heirloom tomatoes has a valid opinion about tomatoes?

I can ask 1000 questions of this sort including whether McDonald's hamburgers are better than a fat, juicy burger from the best bar or restaurant in NYC. Who believes that McDonald's makes better hamburgers then places who make them from top quality, fresh meat?

For some reason, even though the answers to those questions are obvious, there will be people here who refuse to say that obvious answer is the correct one. In fact they will say there is no correct answer. They will say that food preference is all a matter of taste. And that taste is subjective, therefore there is no *right* answer. Jason best sums up this philosophy by saying the following;

Anyone who proposes that their taste is better than anyone else's is not a food snob. They're just arrogant assholes

Well to me that comes down to saying that heirloom tomatoes are better then pale and mealy, have no taste tomatoes, and burgers as good I can make with meat from Lobel's are better then burgers from McDonald's. But people can't express that by saying their taste in food is better then yours.

Bullshit.

For people who can't recognize good quality food, I don't like it and I don't understand the way it tastes are statements about one's self. Not about the food they are eating. People who can't recognize great food are like people who can't recognize good music, art, film etc. Their opinions have no validity outside the scope of their own person. They are expressing preference, not valid opinion.

Last night I had dinner with Macrosan and he was telling us a story about beautiful looking peaches his wife bought from the grocer. But when biting into them he found that the area around the stone was brown and pappy (I'm learning all my British terms .) Macrosan, tough bargainer that he is, is bringing the peaches back for a refund. But I guarantee you there are people out there who will not only keep those peaches, but will like them. Call me a snob. In fact call me anything you want. But people who accept brown and pappy peaches do not know anything about peaches. It's not a matter of opinion. And not only are there people who know better then they (or have better taste as Jason refuses to admit) but this notion that they are entitled to their opinion is what allows food producers to ship brown and pappy peaches in the first place.

Plotinki, as you clearly don't read any of the posts I will post this again for your exclusive benefit.

" QUOTE (Steve Plotnicki @ Sep 22 2002, 06:57 PM)

Good tomatoes taste better than bad tomatoes. There really isn't anything else to say about it.

Plotinki, you confuse (deliberately) 'sensory taste' with 'social taste'; the discernment of what is socially right.

Comparing like with like; tomato A vs. tomato B. is a non sequitur. If you like tomatoes and have gustatory perception a flavoursome tomato will taste better than a bad one. On the other hand, if you don't like tomatoes you either won't like either, or you'll like the good tomato less because it tastes more tomato-like.

A better test would be; what should one drink with steak frites? "

This thread is about social taste, not sensory taste, if you can't discuss on this level I will have to ask you politely to fuck off.

[Tonyfinch]

A better test would be; what should one drink with steak frites? "

Yes. And no possible answer you could give would reveal that you had better taste than anybody else by any criteria which could be generally agreed.

[LaNiña]

For example, if I'm going to make a certain meal, perhaps with culinary references to certain traditions, or culinary "quotations," as it were, and if I'd like my guests (audience) to understand and appreciate the references, then I'd like to invite people who have a certain level of understanding and experience and basis for discernment and judgment.

Words fail me.

No they don't... This is why snobbery is a bad thing.

What is why snobbery is a bad thing? Because I'm discriminating, because I want to spend my time and energy with and for like-minded people?

[Steve Plotnicki]

I think that Macrosan misses my point (I mean why should he stop now?) Nowhere will you hear me say that people aren't entitled to hold their own opinion. Regardless of how outragous it is. But that has nothing to do with how things get measured. Things get measured according to standards. And poor quality tomatoes are ones that don't meet a certain standard. It has nothing to do with whether you like them that way or not.

To answer LML's fuck off, I don't think this thread has anything to do with social taste. To couch it that way is just a fancy way of saying that taste is subjective. It isn't. Personal taste is subjective. "Taste" is the adoption of a standard and it is objective.

As to what wine goes best with steak frittes, well it depends on where the beef was from. If I was eating Bazas beef, I would want a claret. And I prefer Burgundy with my Charolais beef. And Rhone wines with my Sisteron Lamb. Do you do it differently my lord?

I think that people try to characterize it as snobbery when someone expresses standards that should be adhered to. It is not snobberry to say something isn't good enough for you. Yet one hears people who know what the finer things in life are and prefer to partake of them used against them all of the time. Just think how silly it is to be called a snob because you don't like to eat pale and mealy tomatoes.

[Tonyfinch]

Let's take Michael's example: what should you drink with steak frites?

I say- Chateau Lafite 1947

You say -Milk.

Which of us is "right"? Obvious answer-neither and both,because to arrive at the conclusion that one was right and the other wrong we would have to agree on very specific criteria as to what is and isn't desirable to drink with steak frites.

You may wish to spend time with people who prefer the Chateau Lafite but that doesn't make you a snob. You'd be a snob if you invented that criteria for yourself (I've decided Lafite is "better" than milk) and then ranked ordered people on a social scale according how much they fit or don't fit your self appointed range of preferences.

Right?

[Tonyfinch]

Steve,it's interesting how you read Michael's question not as what to drink with steak frites but what WINE to drink? He never mentioned wine. You are answering a different question which goes a lttle way to narrowing down the criteria so that a consensus could be reached,but only a little way.

[GordonCooks]

SNOB

1 British : COBBLER

2 : one who blatantly imitates, fawningly admires, or vulgarly seeks association with those regarded as social superiors

3 a : one who tends to rebuff, avoid, or ignore those regarded as inferior b : one who has an offensive air of superiority in matters of knowledge or taste

By definition, You’re all snobs, I’m a snob – why else would we be here, in this site discussing this.

I’d like to think of myself more as a connoisseur than a snob. The difference is my mind is that: a Snob is a Connoisseur that relishes his superiority over those of lesser knowledge.