Culinary Anthropology??

[Artusi]

I was listening to NPR radio this week, and they had a topic about Icecream. There was a lady on who was professor in Culinary anthropology, at Boston University.

I checked their class schedule and staff listings, but there is no mention of it, does anyone have information on this topic, sounds interesting.

And how would I picture this science field?

[Fat Guy]

http://www.bu.edu/met/programs/graduate/gastronomy/

[Artusi]

Thanks, Fat guy, know anyone who actually did this program?

[Brad S]

http://www.cheftalkcafe.com/forums/showthr...ht=anthropology

I have a friend whom lives in Greece who may be able to shed some light on this topic for you. She will soon be teaching at one of the states premier universities in Culinary antropology and ancient gastronomy. I will forward this question to her if it's ok. In the mean time I offer a link that may help

[Artusi]

Caped Chef, Please forward, that's great.

Which university exactly, and thanks for the link.

It's good to see there is plenty out there to feed the brain of a simple illiterate chef.

[Brad S]

I have emailed your query to her Artusi,

She will be at Colombia University,I will be attending her lectures,so when I find out more detials I will pass them along.

[Artusi]

Thanks for the help Caped Chef.

[Fat Guy]

I don't know anybody who has enrolled in such a program, and I have my doubts about the so-called discipline of food studies. If I learn anything more, I'll let you know.

[Brad S]

Fat guy,

Can you expand upon that?

What are your doubts about this disipline?

Are you saying there now place for this type of study?

Thanks for your clarification

[Suzanne F]

New York University has, within its School of Education, a Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, chaired by Dr. Marion Nestle (whose book Food Politics came out recently). These folks are scientists and researchers, no less than Adam Balic. Don't worry, though, they don't want to take away all our fun.

[Fat Guy]

Caped Chef: I haven't seen much in the way of valuable academic work-product out of any food studies program, and I'm not really sure what the point of it all is. I could be convinced, but from what I've seen of journals like Gastronomica it all seems rather contrived.

Suzanne: Certainly the nutrition and other vocational and scientific aspects of such a department make sense. My concern is specifically with the softer area of food studies, which if I'm reading between the lines correctly is just a way for a bunch of people to sit around wasting time by writing grandiose dissertations on the social history of the fava bean and the Freudian implications of the French fry.

[Robert Schonfeld]

But, Fat Guy, surely you would support greater learning and understanding of peoples and cultures through anthropological and archaeological examination of their food practices?

[Brad S]

Fat guy,

I'm not so interested in the culinary liniage of the fava bean.

I am however very interested in reading and studying about food history,much of what I read has anthropology as a way to support findings.

I believe documented history regarding to any framework should be substanciated as much as possible with scientific proof.

There is a difference in my mind between "culinary anthropology" and "culinary Mythology" although I enjoy both. It's like comparing Cathrine De Medici with Apicius don't you think?

[cabrales]

She will be at Colombia University,I will be attending her lectures,so when I find out more detials I will pass them along.

A caped chef -- Are the lectures open to members of the public, and is there a charge for attendance?

[Fat Guy]

Robert: Sure. Now show me some real-world examples of how food-studies departments have done this.

Caped Chef: I'm all for science.

[Robert Schonfeld]

FG, I don't know that the examples are in Food Studies departments, nor did I mean to suggest that they are. I suspect that good examples can be found in Anthropology and Archaeology departments, and in related dissertation abstracts all over the place. You're not going to get me to go looking for them, though.

[Brad S]

I agree with R.S...these universities surely have detailed sylibisis (sp)on these issues,

I believe archaeological evidence is very useful and persuasive. Example: the study of bones found at various european sites has already demostrated that beef was the primary meat consumed throughout the middle ages, thus refuting conventional wisdom about the "family pig" thanks to traces of carving, flesh stripping and combustion, we can also desribe how animals were prepared from the slaughter house to the kitchen.

in addition, the pots,pans and other implements that turn up in the course of excavation offer evidence of preparation and cooking techniques. Systematic comparison of archaeological findings with estate inventories and iconographic images in one of the most promising avenues for the study of medieval cookery

[Fat Guy]

Which leads to the question: We have history departments, anthropology departments (as I understand it archaeology is part of anthropology, essentially physical anthropology), etc., and these departments have studied food issues quite effectively for generations, so why do we need food-studies departments? I suspect the party-line answer will be that food-studies departments are somehow "interdisciplinary," which for those of you who haven't been around academia for awhile is code for politicized, lacking in standards, and otherwise unhelpful. I'd love to be shown that my gut instinct here is wrong -- after all food is a very meaningful subject to which I've devoted my life. But I'm not optimistic.

[Brad S]

Suzanne: Certainly the nutrition and other vocational and scientific aspects of such a department make sense. My concern is specifically with the softer area of food studies, which if I'm reading between the lines correctly is just a way for a bunch of people to sit around wasting time by writing grandiose dissertations on the social history of the fava bean and the Freudian implications of the French fry.

FG, I agree with you that there is a lot of wasted time in the acidemic world.

If one's search in life is to study the French fry within a Freudian theroy, so be it. For me, the study of ancient Mediterranean cuisine,Asian,American and all other European countries has really given me a plethora of imformation to chew on. Cato, Apicius, Athenaues, Pliny,Hippocrates amoung others should be taught.

[Suzanne F]

Fat Guy, I've spent a hefty portion of my life in or near academia and academicians -- almost 40 years. In my observations, there is barely one single square inch of that arena that is NOT 100% politicized. So food studies departments are neither more nor less politicized than history, anthropology, physics, English, or any other departments. All academic environments can be hotbeds of navel-gazing and time-wasting, super-esoteric "research." So, for that matter, can the popular media and Internet bulletin boards.

SO WHAT? What harm is being done? Who is being hurt? Sure, people who write theses about the significance of the anchovy in the preparation of garum in ancient Rome are not researching how to counteract generations of overuse of chemical pesticides. Would they ever? Would you? (I'm not saying that to be combative; I just prefer to let benign nonsense continue -- especially since I know I'm powerless to stop it.)

I guess from what you've said that you have no idea about the content and importance of Marion Nestle's Food Politics. I heartily suggest you read it; it is as far from standardless, unhelpful time-wasting as one can imagine.

Does Mark Kurlansky ever look in here? I'd be interested in hearing his reaction to this debate. After all, if one wanted to be ridiculous, one could refer to his books as "grandiose dissertations on the social history of the ..." codfish and the salt crystal. I would not, though.

[Fat Guy]

Suzanne: I said I had my doubts about the validity of the discipline. It sounds as though you agree.

Benign nonsense is, of course, benign. I'm not sure all nonsense is benign, but benign nonsense is.

That being said, were I to counsel a person on his or her choice of a course of academic study, I'd hardly be so blasé about whether or not such a course was nonsensical.

I've read both Nestle and Kurlansky, of course. The Nestle book is a high-quality work from the standpoint of pure research, albeit wrong-headed in most every respect and not particularly readable -- and, it goes without saying, tremendously politicized. Kurlansky's books are superb -- some of the best food books every written in my opinion. But, correct me if I'm wrong, he's not an academic. He's a journalist.

[anil]

As I had posted elsewhere in the board, it is very difficult to get by with a degree in Anthropology without studying about food,cooking or the cultural implications there about.

Having said that, fresh doctorates in Anthropology go find themselves teaching jobs -- or for that matter jobs anywhere. If they land up in Culinary Deptt. they will then devote next few years doing work in related field so as to get tenured. As with any deptt. politics dominates. My two bit

[Wilfrid]

"(I)nterdisciplinary," which for those of you who haven't been around academia for awhile is code for politicized, lacking in standards, and otherwise unhelpful.

Paranoid! "Interdisciplinary" means what it says, and in itself is no bad thing. Politicization of content and low academic standards - too different things - can easily be found in non-interdisciplinary programs.

[Fat Guy]

Wilfrid, without a statement that the ratios are similar, that argument is equivocal.

[g.johnson]

[intererdisciplinary] is code for politicized, lacking in standards, and otherwise unhelpful.

This might be true in the humanities. It is not true in the sciences.