Those stars in full

[Tony Finch]

Steve-please!My problem is NOT that anyone should place French haute at the top of a "hierarchy of cuisines".Its that Michelin do not acknowledge THE EXISTENCE of any meaningful cuisines outside of French haute.

In order to rank order cuisines,should one feel the need,one has to recognize their existence and their validity to be ranked in the first place,even if they finish bottom of the ranking.I sometimes like to play this little game for myself,though heaven knows what for.

Michelin has got its head so far up its own haute backside  that only grudgingly recognizes a world where other cuisines are valid enough to be mentioned in the same breath,or  pages.Hence their guide has become increasingly irrelevant and anachronistic,and will continue to do so unless they broaden their scope and admit that another culinary world exists out there.

[Bux]

This is like a train on a looped track. It's been a while since this discussion has appeared to go anywhere, but it moves slowly enough so that each time we come to the same place, the view changes. I suppose you have to enjoy the ride or get off.

Shaw can climb out on a limb even better than I can, but what I really admire is his confidence in the ability to eventually describe the tree as breaking away from that limb.

Tony, Michelin need not acknowledge other cuisines. It's that simple. Not every guide book can be all things to all people. For Michelin to virtualy ignore Chinese and Indian cuisines is quite reasonable as they cannot be judged by the same set of standards nor should they be judged by those who are expert in judging the restaurants now receiving stars. It would not be fair to them, nor would it be fair to anyone to have separate teams do that work for a single guide. If Michelin is irrelevant it will change or die. Even in France, gastronomes know that Michelin is slow to recognize change. The trick in using guides is knowing how to use them, not in knowing how to complain about their shortcomings. Michelin conforms to the tastes of its readers as much as it forms that taste.

I agree with Plotnicki, it's just that I don't support what he says. ;)

Actually, I am very much on the side of relativity, but French food has set the standard for the western world and particularly for the way the English speaking world thinks about food. We raise pigs, but eat pork. Cows have calves, but we eat veal. Perhaps even more telling is that we speak of Indian cuisine, but never of French cucina. Michelin is the dominant French guide that represents our history. Time will tell if it represents our future.

Plotnicki, I don't know Chinese food very well, but I believe it is a melting pot cuisine far more than the French. First of all China is too enormous a country to have "a" cuisine. What it has internally, is a melting pot of regional cuisines far more distinct in origin than than France. France is a tiny little country that has borders with many other countries and regions that have been French, foreign and independant back and forth through time. If China does not import its tastes, then Worcestershire sauce must have originated in China as I've only had it in context with Chinese food. I am repelled by mayonnaise in Chinese food, but restaurants in Chinatown are eager to offer their Hong Kong dishes. The Japanese are more interesting in this apsect. Dishes we consider typically Japanese may still be considered Portuguese food in Japan--tempura, tonkatsu, etc.

Other "cuisines" have risen to the heights of French food, but they have done so on a different scale of values and in a society with different standards that are no better or worse than those of anglo-saxon countries, but they are standards that are somewhat alien to our standards. Our standards of taste come from France, or maybe Italy by way of France and we judge the food we find that meets our standards to naturally be the best. Except of course that some of us may disagree for reasons that our tastes are perversely insensitive or inquisitively sensitive.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony - You keep complaining about what Michelin isn't trying to do. They aren't trying to rank cuisines, they are ranking restaurants WITHIN THE CUISINE THEY CONSIDER THE BEST, FRENCH. If you disagree with that, fine. But if you want to be critical of the job they do, it has to be within the context of the argument they are making. To complain that they give short shrift to Korean Bulgoki is pointless. Michelin is a poor source for information about Bulgoki and if you want a great version, I would look elsewhere. And if you think they should more sensitive to the Bulgoki lovers of the world, well that is an objection to the philosophy of their approach, not the quality of their judgement within the philosophy. You can argue either one of those things, philosophy or quality, but they are not interchangeable and there is no connection with their giving the Fat Duck two stars and their not being the right place to source out Bulgoki.

Bux - French food has assimilated western European cuisines, some Middle Eastern cuisines and some far Eastern cuisines. Chinese cuisine is only a compendium of the Chinese provinces and a few countries it borders on. But I have to say that French cuisine is starting to fall behind New York, London and Sydney for being the most prolific melting pot. And that's because in days of yore, France was the axis for European travel. One could hardly get from the South of Europe to the North, and vice-versa, without traveling through France. That is a lot of culture for those French chefs to absorb. Now in the days of airplane, TV's and fax machines. let alone the advent of the Internet, culture doesn't travel by foot anymore. Hence, the melting pot can solely be a function of where capital markets are, and information can "jump over" countries like France.

[MarcCosnarddesCloset]

Hi Guys,

Michelin does have a 1 star Chinese restaurant "Chez Chen in the 15th arrondissement in Paris. It caused a huge uproar when it was announced. I haven't been there but heard it is magnificent. In general Michelin gives stars to restaurants who they feel meets their criteria, whatever that is. They remove stars from restaurants who no longer meet the criteria or who change chefs and/or owners. This is one of the reasons they have never rated US restaurants. They feel the restaurants change hands too often. They also don't have a ton of money to go around the world and visit places. I have eaten in many starred restaurants that I would never go back to, but chefs have bad days too. I believe the restaurant guide system is at best a lowest common denominator of common experience. I am thrilled that forums like e-gullet exist to connect like minded people and allow them to share their eating experiences. I would probably take advice from e-gullet over Michelin any day.

[Bux]

I would probably take advice from e-gullet over Michelin any day.

In some ways, the Michelin guides work best as I first used them traveling in Europe without an itinerary and without the means to eat at starred restaurants. As meal time neared, we might look for a logical place to eat.

I doubt anyone here has a recommendation for A Cañiza in Galicia. Michelin did and the place was terrific, if not star worthy. You are correct however, if I can get a good set of recommendations along any route I'm traveling, I may try to plan my stops beforehand.

[Wilfrid]

Well, nice to catch up, but I do agree the thread is starting to go in circles.  I thought the issue about what Michelin are doing had been clarified and resolved way back:  they are indeed using criteria derived from French cuisine as the basis for their judgments of restaurants, and if anyone can think of a practicable alternative to using one clear-cut set of criteria, which would improve the guide - it would be interesting to hear it.

Messrs Plotnicki and Shaw are not, I contend, living up to the obligation to explain the thinking behind their views.  Mr P did advance a "naturalist" explanation of the basis of taste (or critical judgment if you prefer).  I indicated first that this approach had come under attack in the past because, if anything, it threatened to lead to radical relativism - truth of judgments being subject to facts about physiology - and second because it can't account for disagreements over matters of taste.

The first response was that there's actually a lot of agreement over, for example, whether roses are prett or whether to drink white wine with fish.  Sure, but the challenge is to account for the disagreements which are legion  (This goes for the Shaw example of Montrachet v St Veran; it's easy to account for agreements on the "absolutist" view, it's disagreements you need to explain).

But in more recent posts, I detect a change of tack.  The 'bug eaters' or 'rice eaters' out there are going to need some education before they come to agree with more enlightened value judgments.

Well, I would absolutely agree that they would need to come to share the relevant criteria if they are to appreciate judgments made in  cultural contexts of which they were previously unaware (I take out the assumption that we are teaching something better rather than just something different).  But - whoops - there goes the "naturalist" foundation for the Plotnicki position.  If the "correct" judgments of taste come to us naturally, what has education to do with it?

Bux put his finger on this, and the Shaw response -which is that some natural things are, in a way, taught - misses the point.  Maybe wolf cubs need to be taught how to hunt, but it's not like they have a range of different views on the best way to go about it.  When we are talking about judgments of taste in cooking, in art (or indeed moral judgments), and see a wide range of different opinions, I don't think the issue is clarified by the example of animals teaching their young pretty much instinctive behavior, which doesn't really vary significantly in peformance.

Finally, I'd like to meet the "averager philosopher" to whom Steven Shaw alludes!  Philosophers don't agree on these things, and relativism is not all that popular as a philosophical view.  As I mentioned, you've got Plato, Hegel, Husserl, and a host of others on your side.  And I thought I explained above that I certainly do not think that every judgment - moral or aesthetic - is equally valid.  I have been trying to give an account, which doesn't have obvious gaping holes in it, of how such judgments derive validity at all.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - This horse is so dead that it is ready for the .25 ride in a supermarket. But since you've thrown the quarter into the machine, here goes. Your entire argument rests on the fact that the differences in opinion we have with each other are considered vast. If one takes the opposite point of view, and looks at our opinions as alarmingly similar, and the differences as small ones not large ones, your entire argument, oops excuse me, rationality of your position goes away.

So I guess I'm saying that it's a bit of a straw man. Build up the differences in order to ask, "how can we diverge from each other to this extent?"

But if you look at this from the other perspective, that we all look the same, we believe in monotheastic gods, we eat with utensils, we have all decided to cover the same parts of our bodies, we all ride in planes, automobiles, etc., the correct conclusion is that we are the same, not that we are different. In fact we spend most of our life trying to figure out how to differentiate ourselves from others around us.  You don't have to look any further than the college admission process for proof. A five point difference on the SAT exam can mean the difference between getting into school A, and being forced to go to school B. Can you really describe the two students in my example as different?

So Shaw is right. Certain things take education of the palate. Bitter chocolate is the most common example of educating one's palate to like something that seems wrong on its face. But the fact that only a few people get it in the first place is still an argument for the naturalist position. That's because it takes at least one person to "get it" naturally.

[Bux]

Bitter chocolate while appreciated by few is better chocolate, but St. Veran is not better than Montrachet. The first requires an education, the second does not. Apologies for the simplification, but that's the way it seems to boil down.

I didn't respond to the glove of Shaw's position regarding the alien's choice between Montrachet and St. Veran. For one thing, dead horses are not pleasant to be around let alone ride. For another I don't want to be thought of as the lout who can't see Montrachet's natural superiority, but the ability to identify the superiority of Montrachet is exactly what I think Michelin does well. What I think is far mor difficult as well as a thankless task, is choosing between a fine wine and a fine sake. To declare one example better than another in a similar set may be a matter of small arrogance or just some discernment, but to compare across borders requires a whole other chutzpah.

[Fat Guy]

Wilfrid: Animals do not teach one another instinctive or sort-of-instinctive behavior. Instinctive behavior by definition does not have to be taught. The behaviors taught by adult wolves to wolf cubs are counter-instinctive. Take for example where to urinate and defecate, or bite-inhibition. The natural instinct of these animals is to eliminate wherever they are, and to bite whatever they want to bite. Left alone, they would do that their whole lives. That's their instinct. The parents and the pack teach them where and when not to engage in these instinctive behaviors. You would be fascinated, I think, to read some of the scientific material on learned animal behavior, especially the work of Karen Pryor. Here, I am happy to say, I know a lot. Have you ever trained a dog? It offers incredible insight into human behavior that is not learnable through abstract philosophical inquiry.

I see no tension at all between a natural order of things and the need for learning in order to recognize that natural order. There are so many examples of this in nature, in every animal species more complex than a slug, that it presents an overwhelming body of evidence without us even having to engage in philosophical inquiry.

I also -- and I don't know what Plotnicki says here, and I'm not sure I get lumped in with him -- do not believe this natural order of things depends on our senses. I agree with those who say this would introduce a form of uncertainty. I believe these absolutes precede the senses, and that the senses merely detect them. A person who is sensorily impaired and likes St. Veran better than Montrachet because something in his body makes a chemical compound in Montrachet taste like rotten eggs does not have a valid opinion on the St. Veran versus Montrachet issue.

Relativism is not en vogue among philosophers, yet most philosopher's opinions -- such as yours -- boil down to relativism despite stern protests to the contrary. So far I still don't understand how you avoid relativism, and I don't think this is because I've failed to understand your explanation. I think it's because you haven't given one.

It's just like with most people who think they believe in god. It's a simple matter, through very basic argument, to demonstrate that they actually believe in nothing. There are plenty of people who do believe in god, but most people who think they do don't. Too many philosophers labor under the same type of illusion when they say they aren't relativists. They have very complex arguments, and they build impressive-sounding constructs of ethics and whatnot, but underlying them all: Nothing.

I think I speak for Plotnicki when I say we argue for a kind of radical a priori elitism. There are those in society who figure out the truth about things. They are rarely the majority (just as wolves with leadership skills are not in the majority). But they nonetheless are able to recognize a truth, and evangelize regarding that truth, and perhaps bring that truth to the surface society-wide. Or not.

Bux: Wine is better than sake. How could you possibly argue otherwise?

[Jinmyo]

Hm. Although I prefer sake to wine, I am willing to admit that the best wines are better than the best sake. This has to do with many many factors, not the least of which is that sake does not age. But comparing wine to sake is not that fair as wine is fermented from fruit and sake brewed from grain. Is the best sake better than the best scotch? That would depend on what you want to do with it. But scotch is distilled from grain, not brwed. The process of making sake is most similiar to that of making beer. Is sake better than beer. Definitely. Even on the level of of a cool thirst-quenching drink. But I still like lime in a Mexican beer with my quesidillas.

(Edited by Jinmyo at 7:52 am on Feb. 5, 2002)

(Edited by Jinmyo at 7:54 am on Feb. 5, 2002)

[Wilfrid]

Apologies for the brevity of this, but real life beckons:

Steven Shaw, I will concede the points you make about animal behavior; that certainly is not my area.

If anyone thought I was denying generally that education takes place, I was failing again to make myself clear.  Of course humans (and doubtless animals) get educated about all kinds of stuff.  Nor am I denying that we humans have similar physiological make-ups and find ourselves surrounded by "nature".  I really do concede all that obvious stuff.  And similarly, if someone has suffered brain damage which affects their olfactory/taste responses, I do not consider them a qualified judge in those areas.  And yes, Steve Plotnicki, we agree about all kinds of stuff, especially those of us from similar cultures.

Sweeping all that aside, I hope, what I was trying to get at was this.  The "Plotnicki position" seemed to be that on many - maybe all - questions of taste/critical judgment, there is a position which is correct.  And it is correct independently of the admittedly contingent critical criteria which some cultural community might develop.  What I have been asking for is a plausible account, under this theory, of disagreements between competent judges, who are not brain damaged, but who perhaps share different sets of critical criteria.  How do we know that one side is right and the other wrong, and how do we tell which is which?

The "naturalist" position got advanced, but seems to be getting withdrawn in favor of education.  I still think my Moby-Dick example is neat, because there you have wildly divergent opinions from groups of intelligent people, from a similar culutre, separated only by time.  And I do not find it self-evident that one view or the other is enduringly and absolutely correct.

And finally, I wish I'd quoted Steven Shaw's assertion about the relativist position boiling down to "Nothing".  I would need more time to attempt a clearer explanation of how I try to avoid relativism, but I have exactly the same sense about "absolutist" positions.  Many people sincerely and strongly feel that some of the judgments they make are absolutely and inctrovertibly correct - as a matter of fact about the university, not as a contingent effect of human beliefs - and yet when you ask them what this is based on - and you can take your pick of Platonic Ideas, the self-understanding of The Spirit in history, Husserial self-evidence, or indeed a kind of psychologism or naturalism - a convincing answer is not forthcoming.