Why is Haute not Hot?

[mongo_jones]

adam,

thanks for the very informative posts and for historicizing this conversation. it is a good idea to separate the "what gets or doesn't get to be haute" line of conversation (which is where my posts earlier in this thread were going) from that about the cultural history of one particular haute tradition. for the western european haute tradition then it would appear that while the category itself is fairly dynamic--spice/heat is not definitive of haute but an active strategic differentiating characteristic, deployed to distinguish it from the low, that moves up or down in different times--its latter day proponents' take on it is fairly static. this latter is not particularly surprising or specific to this discourse--the present always looks self-evident and inevitable. looking at it historically, though, in light of your posts it would appear that there is no reason why even western european haute cuisine might not take on a "hotter" avatar--especially as it comes more in contact with asian and other cuisines. "spice destroys taste", "heat masks ingredient quality" etc. emerge as unexamined, if persusasive, ideological, benevolently ethnocentric fluff.

from the indian point of view--and again i'm not a big authority here--i'd suspect that the high-ness of high cuisine is determined more by labor intensity than by heat (of course capsicum doesn't even come to india till the 15th century so we're talking about relatively recent cuisine anyway). in other words, both high and low cuisines are likely equally variably spicy but certain kinds of preparations (not just ingredients) are/were not possible except in the homes of the wealthy. just a hypothesis.

it would be interesting to read about how this gets sliced in different parts of the world. there's a book project in there if someone hasn't already got to it.

regards,

mongo

edit to fix grammar

Edited February 11, 2004 by mongo_jones (log)

[Adam Balic]

mongo - well I think that there is no getting away from history. I think that there is a tendency for people to look at what they are doing now, and even very basic things like what we eat, and see it as all very self evident and conclude from this that what they are eating now is a natural progression from the past and by a strange twist of thinking, conclude as it is a "natural progression", it must be better, logical and more advanced.

One only has to see how the Victorians reconsructed the dinosaurs at Crystal Palace to see how this type of thinking can lead you to the wrong conclusions.

What is interesting about the introduction of the chilli from the New World, is the timing. Before the 17th C. thinking tended to be dominated by Galen philosophy (the four humours:moist, dry, hot, cold), everything had its place depending where it resided on this layout. Pepper, was considered "hot and dry" and so quite dangerous in large amounts unless you were old etc. At the time where chilli where being introduced this type of think was being replaced by a more modern, rational approach (Black pepper became much more dominant at this point), but I suspect that the chili was treated with much suspicion for a long time due to a hang-over of the old thinking, "Bugger me, that was hot, it can't be good for you".

Oh if you give me money I will write your book.

[ExtraMSG]

Adam, it seems that you might be putting a little too much emphasis on the evident fit between Western haute cuisine not having heat and Western haute cuisine emphasizing the natural flavors of the ingredients in simple preparations.

What it doesn't explain is the love of strong flavors that exists in haute cuisine -- truffles, caviar, liver, balsamic and other reductions. Obviously, you can say, people love these for their own sake. They have intrinsic value. Any more than a jalapeno? It's rare to even get something fiery as an accent in the same way you would get other bold flavors.

I think it's entirely historical/cultural: we haven't done so recently, and people aren't used to it. There's no reason, outside the historical/cultural context, not to have capsicum used in haute cuisine. It just hasn't been.

As mongo says:

the present always looks self-evident and inevitable. looking at it historically, though, in light of your posts it would appear that there is no reason why even western european haute cuisine might not take on a "hotter" avatar--especially as it comes more in contact with asian and other cuisines. "spice destroys taste", "heat gets masks ingredient quality" etc. emerge as unexamined, if persusasive, ideological, benevolently ethnocentric fluff.

The thing about history is that it isn't a thing, but more like a process. I think there's enough cultural interaction, enough experience with heat in our country, especially through Chinese, Mexican, and Thai food that's enjoyed by all classes, that people are ready for fiery haute cuisine -- at least in moderation and intelligently planned as part of a dish or meal. We just need chefs who make the effort to show what hot haute can be.

I think there's been that effort in certain limited circumstances, some of which have already been mentioned, but I'd like to see the top tier restaurants using it more. I'd like to see places like Trotter's and The French Laundry and other New American five star restaurants making use of capsicum. Maybe Trotter's next book shouldn't be "Raw", but rather "Fire". It'd have a wider audience, I bet.

[robyn]

Robyn, if you prefer a small amount of spices and herbs, that's what you should have. But I don't think that makes your taste more refined than someone who prefers a more robust amount of spices and herbs. Oversalted food, though, is terrible.

I don't think I made my point very well. What I was saying is if you're used to using tons of herbs/spices - try cutting back a lot for a while. Then gradually reintroduce the herbs/spices. You'll be surprised how a little goes a long way. And - to me at least - the tastes are - for lack of a better word - clearer - less muddied. Robyn

[mongo_jones]

this is probably a separate discussion but there's also the question of why we privilege (or at least use language that indicates we do) an experience of food that involves reflection, contemplation etc -- a sort of detached classicism--over an experience of food that hits you in the face (so to speak). both are valid but only one usually makes strong global claims for itself.

[Pan]

I don't think I made my point very well. What I was saying is if you're used to using tons of herbs/spices - try cutting back a lot for a while.

No thank you. I'd rather not bore myself with tastelessness. Again, the key expression in your post is "to me." Chacun a son gout, n'est-ce pas?

[Pan]

Adam, Humoral theory was pretty nearly universally accepted in the West through the 19th century at least.

[Pan]

Oh, and about Indian food: Before the arrival of chili, presumably a lot of black pepper was used. Ditto in Nusantara (Indonesia/Malaysia, et al.)

[robyn]

from the indian point of view--and again i'm not a big authority here--i'd suspect that the high-ness of high cuisine is determined more by labor intensity than by heat (of course capsicum doesn't even come to india till the 15th century so we're talking about relatively recent cuisine anyway)...

I think we all have to do a little historical homework. And the history of spices is really intertwined with a lot of important historical events. Salt and the use of it is ancient. I suspect it was reasonably widespread around the world - but it wasn't easy to get for the most part - and it wasn't cheap. Black pepper came from the "east". It too was hard to get - and not cheap. When Columbus went to the "New World" in 1492 - he was trying to find an easier way to get to the "east" - in part to get spices - including pepper. According to historical accounts - he was the first European to discover capsicum - chili pepper - which was native only in the "New World". And a lot of discoverers around that period of time were also driven in part by the desire to expand the "Spice Trade".

Now maybe some chili peppers made their way to India (and other countries) before the end of the 15th century - but - if they did - I doubt there were many. They weren't on the shelves of the local supermarkets . And although food items from the New World did make their way to Europe over the next 300 years - I doubt they were - for the most part - anything other than exotic expensive items which were sometimes used by the "rich and famous" - sometimes not - depending on what was fashionable at the time (just think of what it was like to travel from Europe to the "New World" and back even in the 19th century). In fact - a lot of these products - like chocolate and tobacco and corn - have pretty interesting histories.

So perhaps the cuisines that developed outside of the "New World" - which many people think of as "haute" these days - developed the way they did simply because New World products were hard to come by. Robyn

[mongo_jones]

from the indian point of view--and again i'm not a big authority here--i'd suspect that the high-ness of high cuisine is determined more by labor intensity than by heat (of course capsicum doesn't even come to india till the 15th century so we're talking about relatively recent cuisine anyway)...

I think we all have to do a little historical homework. And the history of spices is really intertwined with a lot of important historical events. Salt and the use of it is ancient. I suspect it was reasonably widespread around the world - but it wasn't easy to get for the most part - and it wasn't cheap. Black pepper came from the "east". It too was hard to get - and not cheap. When Columbus went to the "New World" in 1492 - he was trying to find an easier way to get to the "east" - in part to get spices - including pepper. According to historical accounts - he was the first European to discover capsicum - chili pepper - which was native only in the "New World". And a lot of discoverers around that period of time were also driven in part by the desire to expand the "Spice Trade".

Now maybe some chili peppers made their way to India (and other countries) before the end of the 15th century - but - if they did - I doubt there were many. They weren't on the shelves of the local supermarkets . And although food items from the New World did make their way to Europe over the next 300 years - I doubt they were - for the most part - anything other than exotic expensive items which were sometimes used by the "rich and famous" - sometimes not - depending on what was fashionable at the time (just think of what it was like to travel from Europe to the "New World" and back even in the 19th century). In fact - a lot of these products - like chocolate and tobacco and corn - have pretty interesting histories.

So perhaps the cuisines that developed outside of the "New World" - which many people think of as "haute" these days - developed the way they did simply because New World products were hard to come by. Robyn

robyn,

vasco da gama landed on the konkan coast in 1498--i haven't examined his cargo manifest but i therefore used the 15th century as the earliest possible cutoff for the incorporation of chilli peppers into any indian cooking practices. this is not unsound historical procedure. my point was/is only that indian food doesn't get spicy in the capsicum way until relatively recently in indian history.

mongo

[robyn]

I don't think I made my point very well.  What I was saying is if you're used to using tons of herbs/spices - try cutting back a lot for a while.

No thank you. I'd rather not bore myself with tastelessness. Again, the key expression in your post is "to me." Chacun a son gout, n'est-ce pas?

So here we get back to the heart of the matter again. Tasteless or allegedly tasteless food. Now I have had tasteless food before. Like when I would visit the town where my inlaws used to live and went to the Golden Corral (best place in town ) - and had macaroni and cheese which tasted like styrofoam with glop (you can understand why people who eat like this all the time get fat - they just keep eating to try to get a taste of something). Or one of those things that frequently passes for a tomato in a supermarket.

But real food/ingredients have taste. Sometimes it's bold - e.g., a ripe Epoisses. Sometimes it's subtle - e.g., a briny oyster. And sometimes the basic ingredient is bland - a foil for other tastes - e.g., most mashed potatoes. But you don't want to dose all of these varying ingredients with large amounts of herbs/spices so they're totally overwhelmed. That would be like a symphony orchestra that had one volume level - loud! You could never hear the flute.

By the way - I was just having random thoughts about instruments and thought of Peter and the Wolf. Have you run across the new politically correct Peter and the Wolf yet (it played for the first time here this year - and I thought it was totally ridiculous). Robyn

[ExtraMSG]

Salt doesn't only come in its refined, crystallized form, however. Soy sauce, fish sauce, and the Meditteranean version, liquamen, all provided salt. I'm sure there are others. Though I'm not sure how that helps the discussion too much.

[Pan]

Yes, Robyn, sometimes an ingredient can taste good without any seasoning at all. And no, for what it's worth, I haven't heard the "politically correct" Peter and the Wolf, though that idea sounds either dumb or/and funny.

[chromedome]

Re the Robyn/Pan exchange:

I can't help thinking that the differences in individual palates tend to get lost in discussions such as this one.

I recently spent five weeks in a class with twelve other people, studying "International Cuisine." Part of the process was that each day, everyone cooked representative dishes from a different culture: some assigned, some chosen. At the allotted time, each of us would present our dishes in turn to be tasted and critiqued by the others (and let me say, you'd be astonished how quickly you get full on one bite of each...). It quickly became evident that we had very different perceptions of each individual dish.

In my case, for example, I am very sensitive to salt. Almost anything I've ever eaten in a restaurant has been too salty, by my lights. On the other hand, I love hot peppers and find them to stimulate, rather than deaden, my perception of the other flavours in a dish. I also tend to use fresh herbs and freshly-ground spices with a generous hand.

Others in my class proved to have very different sensibilities. One, for example, was inordinately sensitive to cilantro and cinnamon. Either of these, in a quantity that the rest of us could barely detect, would have her making faces and looking for someplace to spit out her mouthful. "I don't mind cilantro," she would say, "but that's waaaayyy too much." Yet this same person was prone to using unusual quantities of garlic, which she perceived as quite mellow.

In the same way that people decorate their homes in either pastels or bright colours; people tend to eat in either very big flavours, or very delicate flavours. I, as you'll have gathered, am a big-flavours person (and we decorate in bright colours, too). I can appreciate the subtleties of sushi as well as any of my sushi-loving friends...it just bores the hell out of me. Give me a nice spoonful of dhansak and a paratha, now, and I'm in heaven.

I guess what I'm saying is, we're all different. To each his own, and vive la difference, and all that.

[Adam Balic]

Adam, it seems that you might be putting a little too much emphasis on the evident fit between Western haute cuisine not having heat and Western haute cuisine emphasizing the natural flavors of the ingredients in simple preparations.

What it doesn't explain is the love of strong flavors that exists in haute cuisine -- truffles, caviar, liver, balsamic and other reductions. Obviously, you can say, people love these for their own sake. They have intrinsic value. Any more than a jalapeno? It's rare to even get something fiery as an accent in the same way you would get other bold flavors.

I think it's entirely historical/cultural: we haven't done so recently, and people aren't used to it. There's no reason, outside the historical/cultural context, not to have capsicum used in haute cuisine. It just hasn't been.

As mongo says:

the present always looks self-evident and inevitable. looking at it historically, though, in light of your posts it would appear that there is no reason why even western european haute cuisine might not take on a "hotter" avatar--especially as it comes more in contact with asian and other cuisines. "spice destroys taste", "heat gets masks ingredient quality" etc. emerge as unexamined, if persusasive, ideological, benevolently ethnocentric fluff.

The thing about history is that it isn't a thing, but more like a process. I think there's enough cultural interaction, enough experience with heat in our country, especially through Chinese, Mexican, and Thai food that's enjoyed by all classes, that people are ready for fiery haute cuisine -- at least in moderation and intelligently planned as part of a dish or meal. We just need chefs who make the effort to show what hot haute can be.

I think there's been that effort in certain limited circumstances, some of which have already been mentioned, but I'd like to see the top tier restaurants using it more. I'd like to see places like Trotter's and The French Laundry and other New American five star restaurants making use of capsicum. Maybe Trotter's next book shouldn't be "Raw", but rather "Fire". It'd have a wider audience, I bet.

I never ment to imply that Western cuisine is lacks 'heat' (obviously this isn't true), if that is the impression I made should clarifiy that point. I agree with you on the strong flavour point (especially on the truffle from, truffles are 'spice'). But none of these ingredients will case you physically pain. That is what distinguishes chili from all other spices and ingredients in the Western pantry. There is an obvious avoidence of pain and if you couple that with the suspicion that the West showed these new ingredients, especially nightshade family members (potato,tomato, eggplant (look at its Italian name for instance)), it isn't difficult to see why chili wasn't accepted into haute cuisine. There are a few very comical accounts of the treatment of chilli from the early 17th C.

I agree in principle about the inclusion of chili into european haute cuisine, but as much as I want to I find it very difficult to eat Scotch bonnets, even though I am told that they have a distinctive and pleasant flavour. Yes indeed this is entirely cultural, but at the end of the day, he flavour for me is neurtalised by the pain of the heat and that is not something that can be said of other strong flavours (which I though we had established that the heat from chili is a seperate phemena to the flavour), such as -- truffles, caviar, liver, balsamic and other reductions etc.

[Adam Balic]

Adam, Humoral theory was pretty nearly universally accepted in the West through the 19th century at least.

True, but it was treated in the same way that 60% of the British are nominating themselves as Anglican at this point, not at all in the same way as pre-17th C.

[Adam Balic]

Salt doesn't only come in its refined, crystallized form, however. Soy sauce, fish sauce, and the Meditteranean version, liquamen, all provided salt. I'm sure there are others. Though I'm not sure how that helps the discussion too much.

In which case it is no longer salt, merely salty. These salty sauces also provide "meatiness" (what is that word, "umi"?) as well as salt. On a side note I am interested in historic cooking, so I would be keen to know of a source ( ) of liquamen, as I was under the impression it had died out by the 10th C?

[ExtraMSG]

I never ment to imply that Western cuisine is lacks 'heat' (obviously this isn't true), if that is the impression I made should clarifiy that point. I agree with you on the strong flavour point (especially on the truffle from, truffles are 'spice'). But none of these ingredients will case you physically pain. That is what distinguishes chili from all other spices and ingredients in the Western pantry. There is an obvious avoidence of pain and if you couple that with the suspicion that the West showed these new ingredients, especially nightshade family members (potato,tomato, eggplant (look at its Italian name for instance)), it isn't difficult to see why chili wasn't accepted into haute cuisine. There are a few very comical accounts of the treatment of chilli from the early 17th C.

I agree in principle about the inclusion of chili into european haute cuisine, but as much as I want to I find it very difficult to eat Scotch bonnets, even though I am told that they have a distinctive and pleasant flavour. Yes indeed this is entirely cultural, but at the end of the day, he flavour for me is neurtalised by the pain of the heat and that is not something that can be said of other strong flavours (which I though we had established that the heat from chili is a seperate phemena to the flavour), such as -- truffles, caviar, liver, balsamic and other reductions etc.

Ugh. I just wrote a response, hit the backspace while I wasn't in the field, and it went back on me erasing everything. SOB!!!!

Anyway, basically what I said was that pain is an issue of toleration. Pain is sensation that is no longer tolerable. eg, if I scratch my arm it may relieve and itch and be pleasurable. But then I scratch harder and harder and suddenly that same sensation begins to hurt. The change is in the intensity.

Likewise, when my mother made me gargle salt water for a sore throat, it was painful. I gagged. What is normally something pleasant, saltiness, was so intense that it was intolerable. I think this can be classified as pain. I have a similar reaction to unsweetened grapefruit juice. I know people with similar reactions to vinegar.

The confusion comes I think because fiery is a sensation that's not only felt while eating. Your hands can't feel saltiness, bitterness, or sourness. But they can feel a burning sensation. So "burning", that fiery sensation, is more commonly associated with pain. But one man's pain is another man's pleasure.

You mention that the fiery sensation neturalizes or obstructs your ability to taste otehr flavors. The same can be said of sour and bitter flavors. But whether it's intolerable and a bad is contextual, both in how it's used and by whom it's eaten.

I said this all much better the first time. But the point is that no one would be surprised to see grapefruit or vinegar or other such ingredients on a haute cuisine menu even in concentrated forms (I've seen them as such). I don't think it should be surprising to see something fiery on a haute cuisine menu, either. But currently it is.

btw, on liquamen I don't think it's made anymore either. That's why I used the past tense. I wish it were. I love fish sauce. "Umi" is one name for that "meaty" flavor, I believe. Another is MSG. And as you might guess, I say the more of it the better. I have seen recipes for it in food history books. I can't remembe how specific they were. It'd be interesting if someone tried to make some. I can't remember why it disappeared. Was it the fall of the Roman empire that did it? I thought it was used more widely.

[Adam Balic]

You mention that the fiery sensation neturalizes or obstructs your ability to taste other flavors. The same can be said of sour and bitter flavors. But whether it's intolerable and a bad is contextual, both in how it's used and by whom it's eaten.

Well I agree with this, but I suspect any level of heat will be seen as a negative for a long time in Haute cuisine, after all Western Haute cuisine is a specific thing, not a contextual situation. If anywhere it will most likely turn up in deserts I would guess.

btw, on liquamen I don't think it's made anymore either. That's why I used the past tense. I wish it were. I love fish sauce. "Umi" is one name for that "meaty" flavor, I believe. Another is MSG. And as you might guess, I say the more of it the better. I have seen recipes for it in food history books. I can't remembe how specific they were. It'd be interesting if someone tried to make some. I can't remember why it disappeared. Was it the fall of the Roman empire that did it? I thought it was used more widely.

It was pretty much a Roman thing (and earlier) , but there are scattered reference to similar products in Italian literature until the about the 10th C. From the recipes much of it looks similar to the SE-Asian fish sauces, but with more spices. A good approximation could be made by combining fish sauce (especially versions with the chunks of fermented fish still in them) with Wostershire sauce. Medieval Arabic cooking used a similar produce, made from fermented barley (and other ingredients). The food scholar Charles Perry made some and reported that it was essentially the same as soy sauce (although in some of the recipes I have seen it is more a kin to Miso).

[Pan]

Adam, Humoral theory was pretty nearly universally accepted in the West through the 19th century at least.

True, but it was treated in the same way that 60% of the British are nominating themselves as Anglican at this point, not at all in the same way as pre-17th C.

I'd love for you to elaborate on this (for example, how do you measure degrees of commitment to the Humoral System?). Perhaps you could do so in the Food and the Humoral System thread.

[Adam Balic]

Pan - (interesting link BTW). I will try to be brief on this thread: Claudius Galenus "Galen" of Pergamum (131-201 AD) reworked a pre-existing theory on the "humors". Basically this has differed in different times and locations, but in priciple it is that there human body has certain innate characteristics the classical greeks worked this into four principles ("Hot", "Dry", "Wet", "Cold"), combinations of which determined a individuals specific characteristics. Galen indicated that the body itself did this itself, but it could be influenced by outside forces, especially food and drink.

Basically to keep in good shape, it wasn't the Gym, it was keeping the humors in balance. Obviously, this went in and out of vogue like everything else, but in the late medieval period is was being taken very seriously indeed. From the late 16th C. onwards it declined. One of the ways of tracking this is look at consumption of specific food consumption. Black Pepper was considered to be very Hot, very few people could safely take it in quantiy (mostly old people who are colder by nature). Once Galen thinking was on the decline black pepper consumption increased dramatically. In La Varrenes "The French Cook", which represents the first cookbook on the more modern way of thinking, black pepper was a dominate spice. This was un-thinkable a hundred years previously and infact would have been considered dangerous. Wine is another of those life balancers

Obviously we (in the West) are still influenced by some of this type of thinking even now, but it isn't a dominate line of thinking anymore, and the same could also be applied to the 19th C, although they gave it a lot more lip service.

[Pan]

Very interesting, Adam.

So they didn't revise their measures of hot and cold to encompass pepper as not as hot as previously thought or something?

[Adam Balic]

Very interesting, Adam.

So they didn't revise their measures of hot and cold to encompass pepper as not as hot as previously thought or something?

I don't know. I haven't seen any contempory accounts where they say as such. My feeeling is that things occured a lot more organically then that. With the reducion in the uses of all the other spices (which were not now in vogue, and had lost much of the galen 'medical' value), pepper may have been more popular because it makes food more interesting without dominating in flavour. But I really don't know.

[robyn]

Yes, Robyn, sometimes an ingredient can taste good without any seasoning at all. And no, for what it's worth, I haven't heard the "politically correct" Peter and the Wolf, though that idea sounds either dumb or/and funny.

Think we've taken this one about as far as we can go. You'll have to come over for dinner at my place one night .

As for Peter and the Wolf - it was pretty dumb in my opinion.

"...Sergei Prokofiev's musical fairy tale Peter and the Wolf is popular with children but not with wolf lovers, and two former world leaders -- Bill Clinton and Mikhail Gorbachev -- aim to put that right in a new recording. They have teamed up in a new recording that couples the tale with a contemporary version featuring the same two protagonists but a very different ending. Prokofiev's version ends with Peter capturing the wolf and leading a triumphant procession to the zoo, paining music-loving environmentalists with romantic visions of wolves in the wild. In the new version, narrated by former U.S. president Clinton and called Wolf Tracks, Peter again captures the wolf, but this time repents of his act and releases the animal, who howls a grateful goodbye. "Forgetting his triumph, Peter thought instead of fallen trees, parched meadows, choked streams, and of each and every wolf struggling for survival," Clinton narrates. "The time has come to leave wolves in peace," he adds. French composer Jean-Pascal Beintus wrote the score for the new wolf-friendly version while former Soviet leader Gorbachev provides an introduction and epilogue..."