"Authentic": what does that mean, anyway?

**Kevin72** · December 17, 2004

Love those authentic Olive Garden dishes.
←

Yeah, the first thing that came to mind when I saw this thread was "Definitely not Olive Garden.

SobaAddict70 · December 17, 2004

"authentic" is whatever you want it to mean. I'm serious. authenticity means different things to different people, from a philosophical term (Heidegger) to genuine chili (some with beans, some without) to Italian-American classics (Chef Boy-ar-dee).
I do not think that meaning of "authentic" is what changes, I'm quite certain the abstract concept is not dramatically different in most people's definitions. What can be extremely different is the set of value that defines that meaning.
To make a simple example, when Melissa writes the following, I do not agree:
used in the context in which I did in the food trends thread? Authentic Italian cuisine as opposed to American-Italian cuisine ... that was all I meant, chrisamirault ...
nothing either fancy nor convoluted ...
Mario and Lidia versus Chef Boyardee ...
←
For my set of "values" Mario and Lidia are much closer to authentic Italian cuisine than chef Boyardee, but they're not authentic. Almost there, but not quite, for a series of reason which would be too long and off topic to describe here.
And yet I perfectly understand why Melissa made the example, although I might not have made it myself, and I find it appropriate.
←

Well, let's take fried chicken.

There are many, many versions of fried chicken out there and I'll wager most of us would have a not so difficult time differentiating what is "authentic Southern fried chicken" from the inauthentic ones (McDonald's chicken McNuggets for example), but rather be unable to determine the "sole authentic version" from all of the so-called authentic versions out there.

With or without breading? Egg or no egg in the breading? Buttermilk or regular milk? Spices? Garlic/onion? And so forth.

Or how about "authentic New England baked beans"?

With or without salt pork? Removed at the end or served along with the beans? Anything season the salt pork?

With or without an onion buried in the pot?

What kind of beans go into the dish? Baked for how long? etc.

Or how about bolognese sauce? :raz:

With or without headcheese? Mortadella? Addition of nutmeg? Both butter and olive oil in making the soffrito? How much milk? Beef and pork that's first been cooked and then shredded or hand cut OR do you use ground beef and pork? Tomato paste or crushed tomatoes? etc. etc.

People have many different views of what is authentic and what is not. I have no doubt that buried in the morass of opinions, there is probably one authentic version of fried chicken, baked beans or Bolognese sauce. But then....how are you going to know?

Soba

SobaAddict70 · December 17, 2004

whoops, double post.

=Mark · December 17, 2004

[...]
Logically, adapted food must, on average, taste better than authentic food, for if authentic food did taste better, there would be no need to adapt. If it were not for adaptation, then Italian cuisine would be missing the pasta that originated from China and tomato that originated from America and would be much poorer for it.
←
Well, yeah. I guess to take that argument to its logical conclusion would take us to the time before human beings learned how to harness fire for cooking. Most of us don't want that kind of "authenticity."
←

Picture grimacing cave men holding meat over fire with bare hands, looking at innovative guy at the next fire over. Their leader states authoritatively: "I don't care what he's doing, sticks are not authentic."

NulloModo · December 17, 2004

We love to pick on Olive Garden here, but I think that statement brings up a good point: One of the original questions is whether or not authenticity matters, and to me, it simply doesn't.

Now, I see the point in keeping the original recipe around for history's sake and all that, and I feel that a person should probably sample an 'authentic' version of their favorite dishes at some point in their lives. However, past that, I don't see why it matters.

Olive Garden, Chi-Chi's, Bennegan's, none of these are 'authentic' cuisine (unless we can qualify US Chain Restaurant as a cuisine ;) ) but I still enjoy the majority of meals I sit down to at these places. Yes, your pasta dish at OG will be nothing like it would be in Italy, but who is to say the original way was the best way?

I don't think we should lose the authentic ways of doing things, because from a purely educational standpoint it is important to know where things come from, but I personally think my marinara sauce tastes better with a couple slugs of butter in it along with a ton of rosemary (neither completely authentic), and that Chili is improved by the addition of cocoa, clove, cinnamon, mace, ginger, and black soybeans. Authenticity is nice, but I prefer it in a book as opposed to on my plate.

Busboy · December 17, 2004

"authentic" is whatever you want it to mean. I'm serious. authenticity means different things to different people, from a philosophical term (Heidegger) to genuine chili (some with beans, some without) to Italian-American classics (Chef Boy-ar-dee).
I do not think that meaning of "authentic" is what changes, I'm quite certain the abstract concept is not dramatically different in most people's definitions. What can be extremely different is the set of value that defines that meaning.
To make a simple example, when Melissa writes the following, I do not agree:
used in the context in which I did in the food trends thread? Authentic Italian cuisine as opposed to American-Italian cuisine ... that was all I meant, chrisamirault ...
nothing either fancy nor convoluted ...
Mario and Lidia versus Chef Boyardee ...
←
For my set of "values" Mario and Lidia are much closer to authentic Italian cuisine than chef Boyardee, but they're not authentic. Almost there, but not quite, for a series of reason which would be too long and off topic to describe here.
And yet I perfectly understand why Melissa made the example, although I might not have made it myself, and I find it appropriate.
←
People have many different views of what is authentic and what is not. I have no doubt that buried in the morass of opinions, there is probably one authentic version of fried chicken, baked beans or Bolognese sauce. But then....how are you going to know?
Soba
←

I'd disagree. I think there are many different but equally "authentic" variations on a number of dishes. The cooking we're talking about isn't Escoffier, it needen't adhere to one Uber-recipe and it never has. Authentic cooking adheres to the spirit, ingredient and techniques of its place of origin, not necessarily to a single recipe. Remeber, the people who "invented" this stuff cooked like you and I do at home -- the same dish changes with mood and whatever's on hand. Got some salt pork? Throw it in the beans. Trying to save the pork for Sunday dinner? Don't throw it in. Got some canned tomatoes? Why not? And put a little extra molasses in because Grandma's eating with us tonight and she likes 'em a little sweet.

In France they have bitter debates about what constitutes a proper cassoulet. Not surprisingly, regions with a lot of geese think geese should be part of the dish. Other areas use duck. Some use lamb, some don't. Is any version more authentic than the other? Nope. Because, depite their differences, everyone's paying attention to the spirit, ingredient and techniques of their region.

Of course, "authentic" isn't a synonym for delicious. And, as someone said upthread, liberal use of the word on a menu is usually a red flag. On the other hand, a cook or restaurant that strives for authenticity or its near approximation is probably going to be serving up honest food with a respect for ingredients and the art of eating. There's no reason to be bound by something that an Italian peasant did in 1643 that became part of the Bolognese recipe you're using, but trying to think the way she did is likely to lead you down a good path.

SobaAddict70 · December 17, 2004

Love those authentic Olive Garden dishes.
←

Someone, somewhere out there thinks so.

We know better of course.

Look, my point is that the word "authentic" gets bandied about by a lot of different people. As I said earlier, the word means what it means but the concept takes on new meaning depending on the person and the context. In my view, there isn't a right or wrong answer....you just have to consider the argument from different points of view.

Soba

FistFullaRoux · December 17, 2004

I still think that the grandmother (or aunt, or whatever) argument holds true. If my Cajun grandmother, picked up and brought to Tokyo (for example) was asked to prepare a gumbo, she could probably pull it off, with a little translation help at the grocery store.

Would it be "the perfect gumbo?" Maybe not. But it would be fine food, it would be enjoyable, and as far as I'm concerned, authentic.

Chris Amirault · December 17, 2004

Well, let's take fried chicken.
There are many, many versions of fried chicken out there and I'll wager most of us would have a not so difficult time differentiating what is "authentic Southern fried chicken" from the inauthentic ones (McDonald's chicken McNuggets for example), but rather be unable to determine the "sole authentic version" from all of the so-called authentic versions out there.
With or without breading? Egg or no egg in the breading? Buttermilk or regular milk? Spices? Garlic/onion? And so forth.
[snip]
Soba
←

This reminds me of a recent family gathering. My dad's massive family is from Nova Scotia, and they make this dish called "rappie pie," which involves lots of pork fat, chicken, pork fat, onion, bacon, and potato. And pork fat.

So there were something like eight trays of the stuff, and each one looked different, and everyone was chatting about how could you not crisp the pork rinds, and you have too much chicken....

I don't think that they were arguing about authenticity, though; I think that they thought that ALL of them were authentic. But different.

And this is just one family came down from Novie eighty years ago. Who knows what happens nowadays at parish socials up there.....

PS. Here's a recipe from an Acadian web site. Not enough pork fat, if you ask my family....

Pan · December 18, 2004

[...]
People have many different views of what is authentic and what is not. I have no doubt that buried in the morass of opinions, there is probably one authentic version of fried chicken, baked beans or Bolognese sauce. But then....how are you going to know?
←

No, there is no one authentic version; as you and Busboy pointed out, there are various different authentic versions. However, there are also inauthentic versions.

I don't expect us to agree on the meaning of "authentic," but I do use the word. If something tastes "authentic" to me, that means it's like real X food that I ate and liked in X country or region. But I'm probably more likely to use "inauthentic," and I'm probably more likely to use that with the negative connotation of "adulterated" than in the context of "Well, it's not authentic, but I like it anyway."

**andiesenji** · December 18, 2004

My head is spinning - the semantics exhibited in the various posts has confused me beyond reckoning.

I think of "authentic" (except in certain, well-defined cases) as referring to something that isn't as variable as a recipe. Perhaps it would apply to an ingredient, i.e., authentic Spanish saffron or an authentic black truffle from the Luberon, meaning it is the true article and not something from who knows where.

For the sake of clarity, perhaps dishes or recipes would be more aptly described as "traditional" from a certain area. This would cover the regional variations so a "traditional" cassoulet from Brittany would indeed be different than than a "traditional" cassoulet from Dauphine. (I only mention these because I happen to know a couple who come from these two areas of France and I have heard many arguments about what constitutes a "proper" cassoulet and it usually involves what sausage to include in it. Tinnie fixes it his way and Lucie fixes it her way as they take turns cooking. I like both versions and refuse to take sides....)

In certain cases there are "authentic" versions of a particular food that is "traditionally" related to a particular place and named for that place. There can be other versions but when something has been made a particular way for a hundred years, people expect it to conform to that look and taste.

"Classic" is another term that begs consideration.

Consider the "Authentic" or "Classic" or "Traditional" Linzertorte. If you stray from the preparation or method with which people are familiar, you will hear about it.......

I speak from experience.........

Busboy · December 18, 2004

At this point I'm just weighing in (again) because words and their meanings --subjective, objective, whatever -- are almost as important to me as ingredients, and sometimes even a dead horse can be fun to flog.

I'd suggest that "traditional" is more restrictive than "authentic." Authentic strikes me as more of an attitude, whereas tradition seems to hew to some commonly accepted specific standard. Not that there isn't significant overlap. But, if you were a great-grandma from Brittany and you'd been making Dauphine-style cassoulet since before the Great War, it would sure as hell be authentic, even if it weren't a traditional style for the region. Individuals can be authentic, tradition requires a group.

Regarding ingredients, I'm not sure that either word is particularly useful. Both "authentic" and "traditional" imply a pre-existing archetype after which the current version or reproduction is patterned. Ingredients, on the other hand, exist without reference to prior versions. Saffron either is or is not from Spain. Truffles are or are not from the Luberon. There's no need to refer to past editions to confirm the worth of the present version, it's simply a fact.

Pan · December 18, 2004

But facts can be authenticated, or at least items can be. That's another, rather more precise meaning of "authentic."

MarketStEl · December 18, 2004

In this sense, The notion of uncooked fish in Sashimi would be authetic since it conveys something which is unfamiliar to the classical western palate. But each dish can contain authentic and adapted notions and I don't believe it to be an either/or type scenario.
←

"Philly roll" sushi?

Chris Amirault · December 18, 2004

I think andiesenji and BusBoy are onto something here when they compare "traditional" and "authentic":

I think of "authentic" (except in certain, well-defined cases) as referring to something that isn't as variable as a recipe. -- snip -- For the sake of clarity, perhaps dishes or recipes would be more aptly described as "traditional" from a certain area. This would cover the regional variations so a "traditional" cassoulet from Brittany would indeed be different than than a "traditional" cassoulet from Dauphine. (I only mention these because I happen to know a couple who come from these two areas of France and I have heard many arguments about what constitutes a "proper" cassoulet and it usually involves what sausage to include in it. Tinnie fixes it his way and Lucie fixes it her way as they take turns cooking. I like both versions and refuse to take sides....)
←

I'd suggest that "traditional" is more restrictive than "authentic." Authentic strikes me as more of an attitude, whereas tradition seems to hew to some commonly accepted specific standard. Not that there isn't significant overlap. But, if you were a great-grandma from Brittany and you'd been making Dauphine-style cassoulet since before the Great War, it would sure as hell be authentic, even if it weren't a traditional style for the region. Individuals can be authentic, tradition requires a group.
←

I seem to remember a scuffle about authenticity and tradition that was about the very subject of cassoulet. I'm bit foggy on it, but I believe that the last two versions of Larousse Gastronomique got some heat about required ingredients, and the tiffs about authenticity were settled by producing certain claims about regional traditions and thus dodging the issue about one authentic master recipe.

As andiesenji's two friends and their sausages indicate, of course, cassoulet is one of those dishes that provokes bitter arguments about the many master recipes around, and thus demonstrates how deeply held ingredient rules can be perceived as flexible by some and as utterly inflexible by others. Many years ago, when the Al Forno spin-off restauarant, Lucky's, was still around (and you could get their astonishing dirty steak all the time -- but that's another thread), they had a cassoulet with most of the usual ingredients, but the duck wasn't confit; it had been braised in fat or something. I had a foodie friend, a regular at Pot Au Feu, the local French joint, who sniffed, "That's not cassoulet. It's beans." Not authentic, not traditional, just... not.

edited for clarification -- CA

Edited December 18, 2004 by chrisamirault (log)

Mabelline · December 18, 2004

Oh, Chris, I saw that Julia show the other day with dirty steak and fanny sauce! I got tickled by how amused Ms. Julia was with the 'fanny sauce'- not to mention how good it all looked.

Sorry to get off the scrimmage. I am real ambivalent about 'Authentic' as a useful word at all. Whenever I've encountered it, it was usually associated with dodgy articles of consideration.

Shalmanese · December 18, 2004

Heres my take: An Authentic version of a dish is one that has existed in some incarnation of other for an unspecified but long period of time, at least 1 generation. Over that period of time, it has continued to be cooked and refined and cooked again and evolved with every cooking. Every ingredient is in there for a reason and every ingredient left out was also left out for a reason, the dish is safe because it's been tasted and tweaked by 100 people. That sense of history, to me, is what defines an authentic dish.

cakewalk · December 18, 2004

Heres my take: An Authentic version of a dish is one that has existed in some incarnation of other for an unspecified but long period of time, at least 1 generation. Over that period of time, it has continued to be cooked and refined and cooked again and evolved with every cooking. Every ingredient is in there for a reason and every ingredient left out was also left out for a reason, the dish is safe because it's been tasted and tweaked by 100 people. That sense of history, to me, is what defines an authentic dish.
←

That process is precisely what would lead me to say the dish is no longer authentic. And here's where connotations loom large. By saying it is no longer authentic, I do not mean in any way to disparage the new dish that has been (lovingly but deliberately) created. But if it has undergone such a process of refinement, it is a different dish; it is not the authentic dish it started out as. Or you could say it is an "Authentic X dish" rather than an "Authentic Y dish," but it is something "other."

Pan · December 18, 2004

But cakewalk, everything changes! You can't walk in the same river once, let alone twice. So if authentic means "never changed," it's a purely theoretical subject and does not in fact exist.

jschyun · December 19, 2004

Personally I think it's like pornography. Everyone seems to think they know it when they see it but they just can't describe it.

Shalmanese · December 19, 2004

That process is precisely what would lead me to say the dish is no longer authentic. And here's where connotations loom large. By saying it is no longer authentic, I do not mean in any way to disparage the new dish that has been (lovingly but deliberately) created. But if it has undergone such a process of refinement, it is a different dish; it is not the authentic dish it started out as. Or you could say it is an "Authentic X dish" rather than an "Authentic Y dish," but it is something "other."
←

I think you misuderstand me. Lets take the example of carbonara for instance, the "authentic" carbonara contains some sort of preserved meat, eggs, parmesan, pepper, spaghetti. It also doesn't contain cream or onions or a dozen other things which the non-authentic versions have.

Now, presumably carbonara didn't give birth fully formed. It originated from another dish or an idea and was gradually tweaked over the centuries until we have the "authentic" carbonara we have now. Now, I don't have to know the reason why cream or onions were rejected or why a certain technique is used to cook the eggs but I can know that hundreds of cooks before me have made this recipe and they ended up agreeing that this particular incarnation of carbonara is the one that should be made.

Now, with foods that are recent, we don't have this guarentee. It might be good but it hasn't gone through this tweaking and changing that only history can bring to it.

cakewalk · December 19, 2004

But cakewalk, everything changes! You can't walk in the same river once, let alone twice. So if authentic means "never changed," it's a purely theoretical subject and does not in fact exist.
←

Oh that darn river!

I don't think "authentic" means "never changed." That's not even a possibility, what with that river and all. Even if the same cook is making it with the intention of not changing anything, there will be subtle changes each time a dish is prepared. There is a huge gap between "authentic" and "never changed," if there is any relation between the two at all.

But maybe that's why I think the term "authentic" can only be applied accurately to things like paintings, etc. Like the authentic Renoir I mentioned somewhere upthread. Which can be authenticated. The word authentic denotes something very specific, and, I think, it should be verifiable in some way. Perhaps it just isn't applicable to cuisine or recipes at all, unless we want to play Humpty Dumpty with the definition of the word authentic. Which is what we do, I suppose. Can there, by definition, be more than one authentic version of the same thing?

Pan · December 19, 2004

[...]Can there, by definition, be more than one authentic version of the same thing?
←

Well, let's go back to some dictionary definitions:

1 obsolete : AUTHORITATIVE
2 a : worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact <paints an authentic picture of our society> b : conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features <an authentic reproduction of a colonial farmhouse> c : made or done the same way as an original <authentic Mexican fare>
3 : not false or imitation : REAL, ACTUAL <based on authentic documents> <an authentic cockney accent>
4 a of a church mode : ranging upward from the keynote -- compare PLAGAL 1 b of a cadence : progressing from the dominant chord to the tonic -- compare PLAGAL 2
5 : true to one's own personality, spirit, or character

We'll ignore the "obsolete" definition #1, appealing as it is in some ways.

The problematic part of definition #2b - which is probably closest to the way many of use the word in relation to cuisine - is in identifying which features of a dish are truly essential. One could quibble about what constitutes "an original," too, but I don't think that's an insuperable problem. Providing one can agree on an original, it's really the question of what must and must not be part of a dish (whether in terms of ingredients, techniques, or equipment used in preparation and cooking) that will be likely to create most disagreement. I of course distinguish between "an original" and "the original," given that I figure "the original" form of a dish is usually unknown. But this definition at least leaves room for the concept of more than one "original," and therefore, more than one "authentic" version.

3WholeCardamoms · February 9, 2005

Anybody here/there?

If this topic still burns for anyone a good resource for reflection is Chapter 2 of Lisa Heldke's Exotic Appetites: Ruminations of a Food Adventurer. The chapter is entitled "The Pursuit of Authenticity".

Quoting: "What we identify as authentic in that culture is often simply what is new to us -- which may or may not represent what insiders to that culture would identify as significant, traditional, or genuine elements of it...In fact, our choices reflect our own experiences; whether or not they identify anything important about another culture is often an open question. However, in practice, what counts as an authentic aspect of a cuisine gets built around the expectations of the eater."

Clearly, this may or may not pertain to all of the above discussion(s), or rather, does in varying degrees. I slid over - was directed to - this thread after questioning someone's request for info on "the most authentic Indian food in Vancouver". While the topic of 'authenticity' does deserve its own forum, or even several, I'm a little dissapointed that regional discussions of it get overlooked in favour of a topic-specific 'authenticity discussion' spanning the whole continent. This seems especially important in a multicultural, 'emerging' food city such as Vancouver. A local discussion can confront locale-specific issues. I'm interested in any discussion troubling the casual usage of "authenticity". It seems to me, that its usage often reveals more about the presumptions of the speaker than of any possible or findable so-called authenticity. It is an interesting and messy subject.

Uma Narayan's chapter entitled "Eating Cultures" from her (Dis)locating Cultures is very pertinant to this discussion. And, if anyone can point me to readings they have come accross i would be very appreciative. There is a growing body of literature on this subject, especially as it pertains to food/eating, but it requires alittle networking to find it. Thanks.

3WC

Edited February 10, 2005 by 3WholeCardamoms (log)

itch22 · February 10, 2005

I was reading Chef Tsuji's Complete Japanese Kitchen cookbook, which aims to teach westerners how to prepare "authentic" Japanese cuisine. To paraphrase a section in the preface concerning "authentic sashimi (raw fish).

Tsuji says that if one lives inland and does not have access to fresh fish (and fresh by Japanese standards is still alive), it'd be more authentic to server river fish sashimi then ocean fish sashimi. He says that the essence of sashimi is to server raw and incredibly fresh fish. Serving salmon or yellowtail sashimi with fish that has been flash frozen and then shipped across the country would not be fresh enough and thus not in the true spirit of Japanese cuisine. To use, lets say trout, though you would not see such a fish used in Japan it would be much fresher and thus true to the spirit of Japanese cooking. The spirit, not the ingredient, is what keeps a dish authentic in Tsuji's mind.

Another perspective is Mario's show Ciao America. Is the food on this show "Authentic Italian"? I don't know for certain, but if it is being made by Italians in the spirit of Italian cooking, can't it be considered authentic?

I think authentic gets mistaken for traditional. As long as you stick to the philosophy of the cuisine, respect the ingredients, culture, and techniques, it's good enough to be authentic in my opinion.

Sign In

"Authentic": what does that mean, anyway?

Recommended Posts

Similar Content

Recently Browsing 0 members