France and Asia

[Bux]

Britanny is more celtic than it is French. If you go from there to Provence, it's almost like being in a different country.

←

If you go from Brittany to the Brittish Isles or Ireland, or from Provence or the Côte d'Azur to Italy, you will see far less change than if you go from Brittany to Provence, with the exception of the fact that almost everyone between Brittany and Provence will speak the same language. The four corners of France very much resemble their neighbor across the borders in each corner. At the north and southeast, those borders were still changing in the 20th century. In that century Alsace has been German and Savoy, Italian. The Basques often express a kinship with the Basque nation that crosses the border. The foridable border of the Pyrenees is not much of a cultural border at either end. There's a Catalan culture that exists on both sides of the border and you will see both the Catalan flag flying proudly on both sides. You will also see cultural institutions operated by the same Catalan cultural organization.

For all that however, there's a Frenchness that doesn't celebrate diversity quite the same way Americans do. There are no hypenated French. The don't have Algerian-French or Celtic-French, the way we have Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Chinese-Americans, etc. France may, or may not be more of a melting pot, but it prentends to be one in which all the cultures merge. Lately it's had some awakenings. Things are not always as they seem.

[Pan]

I understand that the same dialect spoken in Rapallo, Italy is spoken in Provence. My father likes to tell a story about a man he knew who was nervous about being understood in I believe Marseille because he didn't speak French, but when he spoke to them in Rapallo-dialect Italian, he found out that they spoke the same dialect, which I guess is essentially Provencal though called something else in Italy.

[chefzadi]

I found this informative site about French dialects.

http://french.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite..._language.shtml

"In Gallo-Roman France, a split occurred between north and south, assisted by incursions of Germanic-speaking Franks--whence the name "France"--into the north. Here, too, further dialectalization occurred throughout the Middle Ages, resulting in a multitude of speech forms such as Francien, Picard, Norman, Lorrain, and Walloon. Southern French, or Provençal, split into Languedocien, Auvergnat, and many other dialects. The dialect of Paris gradually became the national language, however, because of the political prestige of the capital and today is accepted as the model for the French language."

I want to add that the dialect of Paris became the standard in an effort to create a National cultural identity in France.

The linguistic influences can be broadly applied to regional/border cuisines.

[francesco]

I understand that the same dialect spoken in Rapallo, Italy is spoken in Provence. My father likes to tell a story about a man he knew who was nervous about being understood in I believe Marseille because he didn't speak French, but when he spoke to them in Rapallo-dialect Italian, he found out that they spoke the same dialect, which I guess is essentially Provencal though called something else in Italy.

←

I am from Rapallo and so is my wife and she looked at me in bewilderment as I read your post to her. Rapallo's dialect is essentially Genoese and significantly different from Provencal. In any case, with few exceptions, you will find that dialects will be more similar the closer the locations are, so that if Rapallo's dialect was similar to Provencal, even more so would be the dialects of any town or city between Rapallo and Provence, essentially the whole west part of Liguria, Genoa included. Which would mean that Provencal and Genoese are the same thing which they are aren't.

The only exception to this rule would be if for some historical accident a colony of people from Provence had established itself in Rapallo and had managed to remain relatively isolated from the surrounding towns. This is clearly not the case. Perhaps your father's acquaintance found that he could manage to make himself understood in Marseille by speaking the dialect (Provencal is closer to Genoese than regular French is) and embellished it by claiming they were the same language.

Francesco

[Pan]

[...]Perhaps your father's acquaintance found that he could manage to make himself understood in Marseille by speaking the dialect (Provencal is closer to Genoese than regular French is) and embellished it by claiming they were the same language.

←

That seems like a plausible explanation.

[FaustianBargain]

Ermm..has anyone tasted Chef Ducasse's food here? Does anyone else feel that Chef Ducasse crowds way too many flavours in one recipe? I felt the same way when I watched one of the Pourcel twins cook. I found out later that there was a Ducasse-Pourcel connection and the latter were influenced by the former.

bleudauvergne, actually, in that recipe the only ingredient that makes sense to me is the badiane or staranise. It marries well with the fumet de poisson just as anything from the anise family(aniseed, fennel, staranise etc) will..the rest dont make sense to me. at all. I see no method.

If it werent attributed to Chef Ducasse, I'd say that the creator of the recipe is using his pan as a trashbin for the ingredients. I am still tempted to say it, but then again one must respect experience over instinct and/or doubt.

It is a sad day when ingredients become more important than technique. If ingredients deserve respect, techniques ought to be worshipped. The strength of a dish resides in its ability to combine flavours and textures through sound techniques, not in the novelty value of its ingredients or the hidden agenda to achieve world peace by allowing foreign ingredients to mingle and marry.

Curious. Why do you think Spoon is 'French to the core'? What defines 'Frenchness' for you?

I never understood French cuisine until I gave it the Rene Descartes' Wax Argument treatment. When the defining characteristics of a piece of wax(as recognised by our senses..texture, size, colour, smell etc) disappear when it is brought near a flame, it is only our perception that causes us not to recognise it as wax even though we can recognise it(rightly and logically so) as wax. Similarly, ingredients in any form regardless of the country of its origin, is composed of certain properties. It is because of these properties of the ingredient, it is defined as such and such. The foreign sounding name or its origins or packaing doesnt matter. French cuisine makes use of an ingredient' fundamental nature and not the perception of an ingredient's characteristics.

By this explanation, I submit that the Spoon recipe is less 'French' than most of Chef Adria(a Catalan Chef)'s recipes.

Why is this necessarily attributed to 'French cuisine'? Well..imo, all of France was transformed after the publication of Descartes' works and the widespread acceptance of his ideas. Everything from its cerebral, linguistic(French, despite its strange insistence that vagina(le vagin) be attributed the masculine gender, is arguably the most logical of all languages. French people are bound by their language. The character of a Frenchperson lies in his linguistic loyalty. It is like this they recognise each other and like chefzadi and others said, not by how they look or where they come from..culturally or geographically or religiously. It is, like everything else, a double edged sword. And to this end, France has paid a price through its reputation for conformity that has caused it to be the laughing stock of the world, but it is a small price to pay. The slightly unjustifiable price the country paid was the ruthless and brutal suppression and finally the eradication of many of France's local languages/dialects from as early as the 16th century ) landscape to how food was to be cooked and how ingredients have to be treated was dictated and guided by his Method. Hence the 'inflexible' codes and rules of French cusine. Nobody celebrated and embraced Descartes into their lives as much as the French did and they gained by this, the world's most logical language(supposedly) along with its stunningly efficient and brilliantly structured culinary codes.

[Ptipois]

Ermm..has anyone tasted Chef Ducasse's food here? Does anyone else feel that Chef Ducasse crowds way too many flavours in one recipe? I felt the same way when I watched one of the Pourcel twins cook. I found out later that there was a Ducasse-Pourcel connection and the latter were influenced by the former.

I find this a bit surprising. What exactly was the Ducasse-Pourcel connection as you found out? To my knowledge there isn't any particular connection of this type, of any significance anyway. The Pourcels' "connections" were originally Bras, Trama and Gagnaire. Then they developed, very early, their own personal style. Ducasse and the Pourcels are "both" three-star chefs, but their ways and their attitude towards cooking are very different.

Curious. Why do you think Spoon is 'French to the core'? What defines 'Frenchness' for you?

Well, you probably read what I wrote about this in the thread. I wouldn't define the recipe as French. It doesn't reflect our ancestral search for harmony, and the fact that it does emanate from a French chef in this case that doesn't mean anything special. It is, in my personal opinion, international cuisine, with the slight show-offiness and opportunism that the idea implies.

Why is this necessarily attributed to 'French cuisine'? Well..imo, all of France was transformed after the publication of Descartes' works and the widespread acceptance of his ideas. Everything from its cerebral, linguistic(French, despite its strange insistence that vagina(le vagin) be attributed the masculine gender, is arguably the most logical of all languages. (...)

←

Your message is interesting. But Frenchness is not that easily defined; do not yield to the temptation to believe that Descartes and Cartesianism are convenient tools to define and describe it. They were rather convenient means to cover up our inner chaos and help us build up a certain type of "classical", structured and logical culture that is still with us today but is by no means the only facet of our national character. France was always, and still is, a country of conflicting values (rational, irrational, lighter, darker, stiff, hedonistic, humanistic, tyrannical, cold, warm, Southern, Northern, Celtic, Latin, Germanic, etc.) that keep fighting each other. This complexity is a difficult thing to swallow: throughout its history, France more or less managed to present it in a deceptively unified shape, and to achieve this we were more helped, I believe, by our worship of the "juste milieu", of finding a measure in all things, than by any natural gift for rationality (which we have no more and no less than any other nation). And this rationality was more a heritage of Greek and Roman Antiquity than an innate character, for the deeper soil of French culture is definitely Celtic. Given the great diversity of French regions, climates, landscapes and philosophies, it was necessary (and long before Descartes too) to develop some sense of harmony in order to bring out the best in all this.

This is exactly what made our national cuisines great — the secret of French cuisine is the exact and precise dosage of ingredients, a sense of moderation that led us to prefer the natural taste of foods, brought forward by a minimal use of spices and seasonings, and the application of a sense of proportion brought to a great refinement. This is what I find in every style of French cuisine — ancient, regional, modern, bourgeoise, gastronomique, even nouvelle — and I do not find it at all in the Ducasse recipe that we are dealing with.

Also, I don't know how well you know the French language, but it does have its irrationalities, like defective verbs, different pronunciations for words with identical spelling, some pretty mysterious grammar items, pretty irrational spelling rules and as many awful irregular verbs as any language may boast to have. There is also a great difference between spoken language, which is fairly intuitive, and a more rational written language.

Edited February 22, 2005 by Ptipois (log)

[FaustianBargain]

I find this a bit surprising. What exactly was the Ducasse-Pourcel connection as you found out? To my knowledge there isn't any particular connection of this type, of any significance anyway.

This isnt from any reliably traceable or quotable source, but I was told that one of the Pourcel twins studied under Ducasse? The other comment was that since both of them have farflung interests(I disagreed at this point. I dont think the Pourcel twins' consulting gigs compare with Ducasse's empire) and especially in Asia, they share a similar attitude towards 'interesting' ingredients.

Curious. Why do you think Spoon is 'French to the core'? What defines 'Frenchness' for you?

Well, you probably read what I wrote about this in the thread. I wouldn't define the recipe as French. It doesn't reflect our ancestral search for harmony, and the fact that it does emanate from a French chef in this case that doesn't mean anything special. It is, in my personal opinion, international cuisine, with the slight show-offiness and opportunism that the idea implies.

It was directed towards bleudanvergne. I enjoyed reading your reply, but I was curious about bleudauvergne's impressions as she is a foreigner residing in France.(American in France? I think..I apologise if I got that wrong)

Why is this necessarily attributed to 'French cuisine'? Well..imo, all of France was transformed after the publication of Descartes' works and the widespread acceptance of his ideas. Everything from its cerebral, linguistic(French, despite its strange insistence that vagina(le vagin) be attributed the masculine gender, is arguably the most logical of all languages. (...)

←

Your message is interesting. But Frenchness is not that easily defined; do not yield to the temptation to believe that Descartes and Cartesianism are convenient tools to define and describe it. They were rather convenient means to cover up our inner chaos and help us build up a certain type of "classical", structured and logical culture that is still with us today but is by no means the only facet of our national character.

I agree. I was exploring the past to understand the causes that led France to be..well..French. It will be interesting to return back to France in 3000.A.D.

France was always, and still is, a country of conflicting values (rational, irrational, lighter, darker, stiff, hedonistic, humanistic, tyrannical, cold, warm, Southern, Northern, Celtic, Latin, Germanic, etc.) that keep fighting each other.

I agree here too. I find the French people fascinating because they remind me of Indians in many ways. India has over a hundred languages unlike France that is unified by one language. We have multiple faiths and among them, sub divisions. Shamefully, we also have the caste system and intriguingly a class system that exists along with democracy. We are divided in our culture, food and outlook. Poverty exists underneth the palaces walls. Contradictions and diversity. I dont know what makes India tick, but tick, it does. A billion times over. France's solution was its language. I dont think India has one. I am not sure at this point that she needs one. My opinion may change in the near or distant future.

This complexity is a difficult thing to swallow: throughout its history, France more or less managed to present it in a deceptively unified shape, and to achieve this we were more helped, I believe, by our worship of the "juste milieu", of finding a measure in all things, than by any natural gift for rationality (which we have no more and no less than any other nation). And this rationality was more a heritage of Greek and Roman Antiquity than an innate character, for the deeper soil of French culture is definitely Celtic. Given the great diversity of French regions, climates, landscapes and philosophies, it was necessary (and long before Descartes too) to develop some sense of harmony in order to bring out the best in all this.

Rationality is most definitely acquired. France before and during Descartes was not the greatest place to live in...the Jews were expelled, Protestant Church was all but crushed.In fact, Descartes had to flee to Netherlands to escape the clutches of the Chruch in order to write. Also, he wrote Discourse on Method in FRENCH! Not Latin, not Greek, but in French that conveyed to one and all..to the lay French person...the importance of reason and rationality. By this very conscious choice, brilliantly, he contributed to France the blueprint for the workings of the mind and a provisional moral code. Ok, so it was thrust on provincial France as she kicked and screamed. Like I said earlier, being French is like standing on the pinnacle underneth which many languages and dialects were crushed. Anyways, the transformation didnt really begin before Method simply because the great works of times past were not accessible to the general public. My 2c.

This is exactly what made our national cuisines great — the secret of French cuisine is the exact and precise dosage of ingredients, a sense of moderation that led us to prefer the natural taste of foods, brought forward by a minimal use of spices and seasonings, and the application of a sense of proportion brought to a great refinement. This is what I find in every style of French cuisine — ancient, regional, modern, bourgeoise, gastronomique, even nouvelle — and I do not find it at all in the Ducasse recipe that we are dealing with.

Oh! I cannot disagree with you.

Also, I don't know how well you know the French language, but it does have its irrationalities, like defective verbs, different pronunciations for words with identical spelling, some pretty mysterious grammar items, pretty irrational spelling rules and as many awful irregular verbs as any language may boast to have. There is also a great difference between spoken language, which is fairly intuitive, and a more rational written language.

Yes. It is quite terrible. Great swaths of my childhood were wasted because of my silly determination to obtain a passing grade in French. I file it under childhood trauma.

I passed. Barely.

Another point and I will stick to food. With cuisine as an example for our purposes, take the terroir and climate of France. Within her borders, France enjoys every possible kind of soil and weather conditions making the diversity work. Except maybe the tropical, I suppose. It is easy to integrate different ingredients into the French scheme of cooking, but the reverence for technique shouldnt be tampered with...If diversity of terroir and climate is an advantage, this previlage must be accorded the respect it deserves and chefs cooking French food using French codes for cooking must not forget the relevance of technique to ingredients and the compatability of flavours.

Chefs like Ducasse, Adria and even Cantu are performance chefs. Their food can be showcased, but it cannot 'live'. It is a completely different category of food. Fecundity is key to the perpetual survival of any idea. Only food that is understood by all and easily reproduced can become 'classics'. How many home cooks can reproduce recipes from the Spoon book?

[chefzadi]

To quote Ptipois

This is exactly what made our national cuisines great — the secret of French cuisine is the exact and precise dosage of ingredients, a sense of moderation that led us to prefer the natural taste of foods, brought forward by a minimal use of spices and seasonings, and the application of a sense of proportion brought to a great refinement. This is what I find in every style of French cuisine — ancient, regional, modern, bourgeoise, gastronomique, even nouvelle — and I do not find it at all in the Ducasse recipe that we are dealing with.

I think this observation is relevant to previous discussions regarding why perhaps French chef's aren't more innovative compared to say American chefs or Spanish chefs (How many famous one's are there by the way? Do a few chefs make the culinary landscape of an entire country great?).

France has the longest tradition of codified professional cooking. The French Chef is taught these traditions first. Basic skills must be learned and mastered through years of training. A great French chef absolutely must be a master of technique. Ideally he trains in cuisine du terroir first. He learns about the seasons and the ingredients, flavors and moods that accompany them. Then he moves up to learn cuisine gastronmique techniques where the lessons are about refinement. Clear, clean, components cooked seperately then blended together seamlessly.

Chefs from countries with a briefer history of codified standards or countries with no codified standards don't have this weight, "burden" you will of all that came before or a "unified" standard. I offer "new" or "innovative" dishes carefully, methodically and rigoursly. Experimentation for me is not so much a mad science. I have a history of theory regarding what tastes good that informs me. Maybe to some this can be seen as a fetter. I disagree. My training tells me that no matter how much artistry or creativity a dish has it must first and foremost smell, look and taste good. It must satisfy the appetite. It must be food. It must be in someway better or as good as the original dish that spawned it.

Being simply different is not what makes food great or a chef great.

If I were to prepare and serve a deep fried fish skeleton for instance, I would ask alot of questions about it first. Does it taste good? Does it look like something that stimulates the appetite? Can the fish skeleton stand alone as a course or is it better as a garnish? Does it satisfy the appetite? Is it something to try once or will it be craved again and again? There are more that I would ask.

The sense of history that French trained chefs have extends to the next generation. There is an awareness that the torch is passed to them. A legacy must be left, something new to teach them that they further. So the sense of history is not static, it is evolving. The new things that last are not decided by chefs it is decided by the next generation.

From this point of view a French chef might question or even resist too much pushing for innovation and creativity in a relatively compressed amount of time.

I sometimes see with very young cooks these days a desire to make a mark too quickly. And there is a conviction that this mark will be made with innovation and creativity before considering that they need more time to master techniques. Of course there are examples on the other end of the spectrum as well. Perfectly executed technique with no soul.

I'm not trying to offer any answers here, just a little context.

[Ptipois]

This isnt from any reliably traceable or quotable source, but I was told that one of the Pourcel twins studied under Ducasse? The other comment was that since both of them have farflung interests (I disagreed at this point. I dont think the Pourcel twins' consulting gigs compare with Ducasse's empire) and especially in Asia, they share a similar attitude towards 'interesting' ingredients.

Well, I don't think either of the Pourcel twins studied under Ducasse. Also, I forgot to mention Marc Meneau as one of their early influences, to add to the others I mentioned. But no Ducasse. Their styles of cooking don't really compare, though both Ducasse and Pourcel make use of "interesting" ingredients. These days, who doesn't ?

It was directed towards bleudanvergne. I enjoyed reading your reply, but I was curious about bleudauvergne's impressions as she is a foreigner residing in France.

Actually I was curious about her impressions too.

Everything from its cerebral, linguistic(French, despite its strange insistence that vagina(le vagin) be attributed the masculine gender, is arguably the most logical of all languages.

Gender in the French language is absolutely illogical. I mean, the gender of a noun is absolutely unrelated to the "gender" of the thing it represents. Nobody expects any logical relationship between the two. This is why nobody in France even thinks of the masculine gender of the word for vagina, and if you knew some of our common slang words in the same category, you'd shiver: the words for male genitals are mostly feminine, and some words (not all) for female genitals are masculine. But if you point this out to a French person, he or she will ponder dreamily over this for a few seconds, and then shrug and smile.

I agree here too. I find the French people fascinating because they remind me of Indians in many ways. India has over a hundred languages unlike France that is unified by one language. We have multiple faiths and among them, sub divisions. Shamefully, we also have the caste system and intriguingly a class system that exists along with democracy. We are divided in our culture, food and outlook. Poverty exists underneth the palaces walls. Contradictions and diversity. I dont know what makes India tick, but tick, it does. A billion times over. France's solution was its language. I dont think India has one. I am not sure at this point that she needs one. My opinion may change in the near or distant future.

I didn't know you were from India. I find your description fascinating. My experience (and interactions with some people from India, China, etc.) has sometimes led me to believe that there are mysterious philosophical affinities between some Asian cultures and the French culture. Strangely, I believe the French are the most "Asian" people in Europe.

This will probably sound daring or strange to you, but when you compare Indian cuisines and French cuisine, it is obvious that they have very little in common. But if you compare the French obsession with harmony (in subdued tones) and the Indian search for harmony through the perfect, fastidious, highly precise use of the spice palette, I do find that French and Indian cooking are very much standing on a common ground. The similarities are not in the ingredients but in the intensity of the "savoir faire" applied to them.

Rationality is most definitely acquired. France before and during Descartes was not the greatest place to live in...the Jews were expelled, Protestant Church was all but crushed.In fact, Descartes had to flee to Netherlands to escape the clutches of the Chruch in order to write. Also, he wrote Discourse on Method in FRENCH! Not Latin, not Greek, but in French that conveyed to one and all..to the lay French person...the importance of reason and rationality. By this very conscious choice, brilliantly, he contributed to France the blueprint for the workings of the mind and a provisional moral code. Ok, so it was thrust on provincial France as she kicked and screamed. Like I said earlier, being French is like standing on the pinnacle underneth which many languages and dialects were crushed. Anyways, the transformation didnt really begin before Method simply because the great works of times past were not accessible to the general public. My 2c.

I am certainly not going to say that French was not the ideal language for Descartes to expose his philosophy. I do believe it needed the French language to exist. Latin would not have made it. Likewise, I believe that some of the French "spirit" is most perfectly conveyed by our language, I particularly mean the French language at its finest period of its history: the 17th century, when it reached a point of perfection and perfect accuracy between each word and its meaning. It it still possible to give the French language its full power through writing — many writers, poets and philosophers have achieved this since the classical era —, but it does require a certain skill. French is like a very sensitive musical instrument that one has to learn to play right.

Another point and I will stick to food. With cuisine as an example for our purposes, take the terroir and climate of France. Within her borders, France enjoys every possible kind of soil and weather conditions making the diversity work. Except maybe the tropical, I suppose. It is easy to integrate different ingredients into the French scheme of cooking, but the reverence for technique shouldnt be tampered with...If diversity of terroir and climate is an advantage, this previlage must be accorded the respect it deserves and chefs cooking French food using French codes for cooking must not forget the relevance of technique to ingredients and the compatability of flavours.

I think, too, that technique cannot be overlooked. When dealing with classical French ingredients — let us say, for instance, poularde, truffles and leeks —, technique should be as strong, precise and skillful as it is discrete, so that the genuine purity of the produce shows through. This is, as I mentioned it earlier, the basic dynamic of french cooking. When dealing with "interesting" ingredients, I believe that the same technique should be there, however strange the ingredients are. Again, I fail to see this technique in the Ducasse recipe. I see where the ingredients came from, they looked like they were picked up last week during a trip. It is all too much, too soon to include them in a way that could make them part of a "french" recipe. It would require years of studying, adaptation, harmonization with other ingredients. Briefly: French cuisine does absorb new ingredients, but it does it slowly. Its tradition is slow to digest, much slower than it takes to make a chutney from seaweed and Dijon mustard because it looks good.

Chefs like Ducasse, Adria and even Cantu are performance chefs. Their food can be showcased, but it cannot 'live'. It is a completely different category of food. Fecundity is key to the perpetual survival of any idea. Only food that is understood by all and easily reproduced can become 'classics'. How many home cooks can reproduce recipes from the Spoon book?

←

I couldn't agree more.

[FaustianBargain]

I didn't know you were from India. I find your description fascinating. My experience (and interactions with some people from India, China, etc.) has sometimes led me to believe that there are mysterious philosophical affinities between some Asian cultures and the French culture. Strangely, I believe the French are the most "Asian" people in Europe.

I am from South India which quite different from North India. The former consists of only four states and the latter has over 20 states. The significant difference between the South and the rest of India(with the possible exception of the farthest states of East India) is that it is possible to navigate through most regions of India with the knowledge of Hindi but the four Southern states have stubbornly hung on to their own languages. Everything about the four languages is different. The script, speech, grammar etc. I believe that language greatly defines us. While Hindi evolved after the Moghal invasion of India, it served to unite the people, both invaders and the natives, as they mingled and assimilated. Note that this is distinctly different from the latter colonisation of India by the British. The British were 'visitors' and even though they were enarmoured by India, they failed to integrate and always stood apart. Compare this with other 'colonisers'. France and Vietnam/North Africa/Carribean(?).

Back to food, the 'bastardisation' of local lingo is evident on the kitchen tables. Indian 'curry' was easy to export because it lent itself to endless amount of manipulation as the rules are relaxed in order to accomodate everyone. Chicken Tikka Masala came to India from the UK, actually. A lot of Indian ingredients as we know it and Indian dishes you see in Indian restaurants came from outside. The Portuguese, English, Arabs, Persians came and whatever they brought with them was 'Indianised'. This seeming cohesivness extends to culture, architecture, culture and even fashion. The South, on the other hand, not only resisted Moghal invasion, it also successfully managed to keep at bay alien influences when it came to food. My grandfather, for example, shunned peas, carrots and cauliflower because they were 'english' vegetables and not native to his region. Silly man.

It is very difficult to make South Indian food appealling to all. Either you like it or you dont. The rigidity comes from strict rules and this itself arises from resistance to other languages. Well, that is my theory anyways. When you are surrounded by people who think in the same language as you do, there is very little motivation to 'please' or co-operate with the 'others'.

France, unlike South India which resisted other influences and kept its dining culture 'pure', drew in other influences and welcomed them as their own. The French language assisted them in this respect and sucked in foreign influences into the greater French consciousness.

I too feel that there is a very Oriental element to the French way of thought. I attribute this to the grammar structure and codes of their respective languages. I may have to read up on this, but I think Sanskrit, one of India's oldest language(itself a member of the indo-aryan family of languages and from which are derived many south east asian languages), is very similar French in its linguistic structural integrity. Panini, a mathematician, came up with over 4000 rules for the highly systemised Sanskrit grammar. Inside my head, I visualise every thought that is 'spoken' in a language goes into compartments and 'converted' through a complex series of assignation, processing, translation and recognition before it can make sense. The more complex the grammar/structure/script of a language, the more processes are involved. I dont know the language, but I think Chinese Mandarin too is highly complex and requires the memorisation of tedious grammar. Japanese too. And we havent even touched upon the different scripts. Sanskrit is notoriously slippery that a change of a single written word or inflection when spoken will change the entire meaning. Mandarin requires correct stressing and the right pitch at the right places if the intended meaning is to be conveyed. You see where I am going now? A blind theory, but I think there might be something to do this. Do we 'think' in the same language as we speak? Does thought even need a language? I think it does. I think the more complex the grammar, greater the urgency for elegant logic to process thoughts. This elegance of thought processing will trickle down to everything else we do. It can also be reflected in our cuisine. I think I have digressed too much.

This will probably sound daring or strange to you, but when you compare Indian cuisines and French cuisine, it is obvious that they have very little in common. But if you compare the French obsession with harmony (in subdued tones) and the Indian search for harmony through the perfect, fastidious, highly precise use of the spice palette, I do find that French and Indian cooking are very much standing on a common ground. The similarities are not in the ingredients but in the intensity of the "savoir faire" applied to them.

I find that there is a lot common(not ingredients and probably not even techniques, but in terms of how both resolve the question of flavour marriage and texture combination...not to mention the strictures that does not lend itself to manipulation. i dont think of this as 'rigidity'. i see it as controls to a process oriented activity) between French cuisine and South Indian cooking(the food I grew up with). Northern Indian food is entirely alien to me(kinda. i am rather fond of some of the northern preparations. i am especially partial to all things dairy) and this is a concept I struggle to explain even to Indians.

Thank you for this discussion even though I strayed far from food more than once. I do believe that food cannot be divorced from language or how we think, but such discussions do have the tendency to quickly go off-topic.

[Ptipois]

Thank you for this discussion even though I strayed far from food more than once. I do believe that food cannot be divorced from language or how we think, but such discussions do have the tendency to quickly go off-topic.

←

It is my turn to thank you. This discussion has been a real pleasure. If food had to be divorced from language, thinking and other aspects of culture, all food writing - based on recipes and ingredients alone - would be either inexistent or at least very boring.

[touaregsand]

I've made comparisons between French culture and various Asian cultures to my husband before. My husband is a certain French Chef of Algerian descent who posts on egullet. I'm using the word culture in a very broad sense sometimes interchangeably with weltanschauung. The comparisons that I've made aren't inch by inch or pound by pound. They have been more abstract. I'm struck more by the lack of linearity in France. In a sense it is softer, rounder than perhaps other European cultures. But like a coy and shrewd woman, it is not as supple or pliant as one might be teased into believing, nor is it as frustratingly impenetrable. French culture cannot be sliced into. An antithesis will not be directly argued about and then readily embraced to form a hasty synthesis. The complex whole is already believed to be harmonious. New elements are viewed not so much with caution or suspicion, but more "organically." There is a lack of force, appropriation or consumption. They are absorbed slowly through tiny pores over a period of time. "Sour" notes, or flavors as the case may be, are blended into subdued tones that do not disturb overall harmony.

The taking of time can be a good thing. Remember the tortoise and the hare? Not a perfect analogy here. But it's the one that comes to my little mind at the moment. In the culinary world I hear more thunder and see more lightening in say America or Spain right now than I do in France. But the history, the legacy, the future...I don't see French cusine hitting an aporia anytime soon.

[cigalechanta]

I'll be spending a night and dining at the L'Hotel. Les Ateliers de L'Image in St Remy, Provence

www.hotelphoto.com

The food is French/Japaneese. Has anyone dined there?

[Ptipois]

I've made comparisons between French culture and various Asian cultures to my husband before.  My husband is a certain French Chef of Algerian descent who posts on egullet. I'm using the word culture in a very broad sense sometimes interchangeably with weltanschauung. The comparisons that I've made aren't inch by inch or pound by pound. They have been more abstract. I'm struck more by the lack of linearity in France. In a sense it is softer, rounder than perhaps other European cultures. But like a coy and shrewd woman, it is not as supple or pliant as one might be teased into believing, nor is it as frustratingly impenetrable. French culture cannot be sliced into. An antithesis will not be directly argued about and then readily embraced to form a hasty synthesis. The complex whole is already believed to be harmonious. New elements are viewed not so much with caution or suspicion, but more "organically." There is a lack of force, appropriation or consumption. They are absorbed slowly through tiny pores over a period of time. "Sour" notes, or flavors as the case may be, are blended into subdued tones that do not disturb overall harmony.

The taking of time can be a good thing. Remember the tortoise and the hare? Not a perfect analogy here. But it's the one that comes to my little mind at the moment. In the culinary world I hear more thunder and see more lightening in say America or Spain right now than I do in France. But the history, the legacy, the future...I don't see French cusine hitting an aporia anytime soon.

←

This is a remarkable and, I believe, very accurate description.

(Yes, French cuisine not hitting an aporia — I agree. As long as it remains French cuisine, which as you say is not a matter of ingredients but of spirit.)

[Hector]

Did you knew that Ho Chi Minh was actually serving as a chef under Auguste Escoffier. And was in Escoffiers eyes, the best chef he had ever worked with.