What/Who is a "Foodie"?

[sigma]

Sounds like those damn white people are at it again.

[Lisa Shock]

Sometimes, I think that Slate is just a bunch of people writing contrarian articles in an effort to appear to be ahead of the curve in everything.

[Mjx]

Yawn. This must be only the 800th article rehashing the identical thoughts it contains. If people didn't insist on using the label, 'foodie', writing this sort of article wouldn't even have been possible; imagine that first sentence re-written as 'People who appreciate good food culture demands a similar self-serving fantasy. . .'. It's too imbecilic for even this author to have been willing to publish it. Boo to labels.

Silly as hell, anyway, since what Pearlman describes as 'cultural appropriation' and the near-exclusive purview of the urban elite/white people is simply what cultures all over the world do when they come in continuous contact with another culture's appealing food. Worst of all, this sort of argument manages to imply that 'other' (an iffy term at best) cultures couldn't possibly produce food that people simply cannot stay away from because it's really tasty.

[HungryC]

Also makes the assumption that "fusion" is primarily generated by white privileged folks.....guess the author never worked in a resto kitchen with multiple ethnicities, where some killer new combos are hatched and all kinds of culinary cross cultural improv takes place. That scene plays out all over the country.

[SylviaLovegren]

If people didn't insist on using the label, 'foodie', writing this sort of article wouldn't even have been possible; imagine that first sentence re-written as 'People who appreciate good food culture demands a similar self-serving fantasy. . .'. It's too imbecilic for even this author to have been willing to publish it. Boo to labels.

Thank you. Exactly to the point.

[huiray]

Yawn. This must be only the 800th article rehashing the identical thoughts it contains. If people didn't insist on using the label, 'foodie', writing this sort of article wouldn't even have been possible; imagine that first sentence re-written as 'People who appreciate good food culture demands a similar self-serving fantasy. . .'. It's too imbecilic for even this author to have been willing to publish it. Boo to labels.

Silly as hell, anyway, since what Pearlman describes as 'cultural appropriation' and the near-exclusive purview of the urban elite/white people is simply what cultures all over the world do when they come in continuous contact with another culture's appealing food. Worst of all, this sort of argument manages to imply that 'other' (an iffy term at best) cultures couldn't possibly produce food that people simply cannot stay away from because it's really tasty.

This seems just a wee bit on the defensive side… :-)

Are you saying you’ve read 800 similar articles? If so you must really be into food culture. Even so, it being the “800^th article” doesn’t make the issues raised unworthy of discussion or dispute or updating in my view, just not novel anymore. Perhaps there are also folks who have not read 800 articles on this topic. :-)

As for the term “foodie”, I rather like that it is present in the lexicon – it has its uses. I don’t think the term is always pejorative; my view is that there are subsets of folks within the term “foodies”. The substitution of “People who appreciate good food culture” for “foodie”in that first sentence of the paragraph I quoted doesn’t change the underlying implied sentiment for me.

Yes, the book reviewer (not Pearlman) called the phenomenon he was outlining “cultural appropriation” and what you point out about cultures around the world doing the same is indeed true – but I wonder if perhaps it’s possible that in at least some of those cultures there isn’t the same extent or degree of, uh, extravagant enthusiasm (perhaps even bordering on fetishism) from *some* about “foodie culture” as is present (maybe) in this part of the world and which provokes responses such as from this reviewer above? (I’m not saying anyone on eG is like this)

[There’s also the related issues discussed (subject to disagreements on them too, of course) such as in this article from last year, or this one…]

Anyway, I myself don’t get an implication from the review’s argument (and similar ones) “…that 'other' (an iffy term at best) cultures couldn't possibly produce food that people simply cannot stay away from because it's really tasty.” I would have thought that if there were “cultural appropriation” going on (in whichever direction) it would be because the other cuisine was producing food that people simply couldn’t stay away from because it was really tasty. :-) Eh, YMMV.

p.s. I’m aware of that interesting old eG thread on fusion food.

[huiray]

Also makes the assumption that "fusion" is primarily generated by white privileged folks.....guess the author never worked in a resto kitchen with multiple ethnicities, where some killer new combos are hatched and all kinds of culinary cross cultural improv takes place. That scene plays out all over the country.

Well, he didn't say "all"... and his characterizations are subject to debate, such as we are having now, right? It's also not clear to me from the way he wrote it that he was referring only to the chefs or cooks who create or generate Fusion dishes - in the context of the article I suspect he might have also meant to include the diners eating those dishes since he is talking about the "foodie" culture in general.

In your experience are such kitchens with multiple ethnicities with cross-cultural improvisatory dishes being put out in the dining room the norm in the US nowadays and form the majority of all restaurant kitchens? (As distinct from having them "present in many places")

Yes, Roy Choi's food trucks in California with the Korean-Mexican fusion stuff (yes it's an old - by now - story) also comes to mind in this context. Or Mission Chinese, etc.

[SobaAddict70]

someone who likes Shake shack over Mcdonald's, or hamburgers from the local greasy spoon joint over White Castle, is that person a "foodie"?

there's an eG member, can't recall his name, who knows all about hot dogs from the dirty water food carts all the way up the scale. is he a "foodie"?

someone who thinks Paula Deen's creations are the goddess' gift to mankind, is she a "foodie"?

that's the problem with labels -- because, depending on whomever it is who answers, any of those people could be "foodies" or, they could be people who just like to eat but don't see themselves as "foodies".

Louisiana Creole is "fusion" -- it's French-Spanish-Portuguese-Amerindian-African. traditional Mexican is "fusion" -- it's Lebanese-German-Spanish-Amerindian-Chinese cuisine. "fusion" doesn't just mean a modern mish-mash of cultures like Korean-Mexican. it's been around since humans have travelled to other parts of the globe and back.

if technicalities matter, if you want to consider modern usage, "fusion" has been around since the 1960s, but it wasn't until chefs like Wolfgang Puck came onto the scene that 'fusion' as a concept really took off (although even some people may quibble with that). my argument is that "fusion" is just a word for something that's been around since the dawn of time, where an apple and an orange decide to have some sexy fruit funtime and a baby comes out nine months later.

to answer your question directly, consider this: what is sometimes thought of as traditional American cuisine -- baked beans, Southern fried chicken, BBQ -- has its roots in many disparate cultures but is uniquely our own. something like pizza is "fusion". you've got taco pizza, pizza with BBQ lamb, pizza with General Tso's chicken, and pizza with sausage in the crust. the other day, someone on Facebook mentioned they had spam musubi pizza. (blech.)

Edited May 6, 2013 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[Ericpo]

Wow.

I suppose I am probably in the minority here, but I have never ever heard "foodie" used as a negative or pejorative term. Maybe it has to do more with my location(midwest US), but in my circles, foodie simply means one who enjoys and appreciates good food. They can be a cook, but it's not a neccessity.

Labels are IMO perfectly fine. They let us clean up our conversation and facilitate speedier communication. If I had to say, "one who enjoys and appreciates good food" everytime I wanted to refer to a fellow foodie, I would go nuts! Labels are not the problem, it is how they are used that makes the difference.

Also, while I may understand PC terms, anybody not involved in the foodie scene most likely won't. So when I start rhapsodizing about the joys of a properly made Mousse, and my pride at having made it...I can say to the uninterested party, "Please forgive me. I am a hopeless Foodie."

It is a label that I will keep using, to describe both myself and others. If listening parties do not recognize it as the badge of honor that it is, then it is their loss.

[annabelle]

Just call yourself a gourmet, Ericpo. People will instantly know what you mean and you won't sound like a teen or a new mother.

Foodie. Veggie. Sammie.

Blech. Who started this nonsense?

[Ttogull]

"Gourmet" is not the same to me, as it sounds high-falutin. As in one appreciates only sophisticated food. I agree with Ericpo - until I read this thread, I never imagined foodie meant more than a person who enjoys food. A foodie can give me advice about good BBQ restaurants; I'd avoid any BBQ place recommended by a gourmet.

[gfweb]

Foodie is the culinary equivalent of "hipster".

[Mjx]

Just call yourself a gourmet, Ericpo. People will instantly know what you mean and you won't sound like a teen or a new mother.

Foodie. Veggie. Sammie.

Blech. Who started this nonsense?

The same 'adults' who say 'bunny' and 'kitty', or describe themselves as 'mommies' or 'daddies'

What I'm not getting is the conciseness argument for 'foodie', at least when it's self-referential: 'I'm [such] a [major/total] foodie' is at best marginally briefer than 'I appreciate food' or 'I'm into food'. And why make things more convenient for those who seem to believe that having a strong interest in food is a character flaw?

"Gourmet" is not the same to me, as it sounds high-falutin. As in one appreciates only sophisticated food. I agree with Ericpo - until I read this thread, I never imagined foodie meant more than a person who enjoys food. A foodie can give me advice about good BBQ restaurants; I'd avoid any BBQ place recommended by a gourmet.

'High-falutin'? 'I'd avoid any BBQ place recommended by a gourmet'? Inverted snobbery is still snobbery, so clearly the 'foodie' label is useless for sidestepping that bullet, and just creates 'I told you so' moments for critics

[Mjx]

Just call yourself a gourmet, Ericpo. People will instantly know what you mean and you won't sound like a teen or a new mother.

Foodie. Veggie. Sammie.

Blech. Who started this nonsense?

The same 'adults' that say 'bunny' and 'kitty', or describe themselves as 'mommies' or 'daddies'

What I'm not getting is the conciseness argument for 'foodie', at least when it's self-referential: 'I'm [such] a [major/total] foodie' is at best marginally briefer than 'I appreciate food' or 'I'm into food'. And who wants to make its derogative use more convenient?

[Bill Klapp]

The review is something of a triple play of rambling and ill-considered food writing: the book, the review and the link to useless B. R. Myers piece in Atlantic. I wonder if anybody has ever finished reading any of the three?

[annabelle]

Just call yourself a gourmet, Ericpo. People will instantly know what you mean and you won't sound like a teen or a new mother.

Foodie. Veggie. Sammie.

Blech. Who started this nonsense?

The same 'adults' who say 'bunny' and 'kitty', or describe themselves as 'mommies' or 'daddies'

What I'm not getting is the conciseness argument for 'foodie', at least when it's self-referential: 'I'm [such] a [major/total] foodie' is at best marginally briefer than 'I appreciate food' or 'I'm into food'. And why make things more convenient for those who seem to believe that having a strong interest in food is a character flaw?

>"Gourmet" is not the same to me, as it sounds high-falutin. As in one appreciates only sophisticated food. I agree with Ericpo - until I read this thread, I never imagined foodie meant more than a person who enjoys food. A foodie can give me advice about good BBQ restaurants; I'd avoid any BBQ place recommended by a gourmet.

'High-falutin'? 'I'd avoid any BBQ place recommended by a gourmet'? Inverted snobbery is still snobbery, so clearly the 'foodie' label is useless for sidestepping that bullet, and just creates 'I told you so' moments for critics

Inverted snobbery indeed, Michaela. "I'm such a major foodie that I reject anyone who calls themselves 'Gourmet' because obviously they are just snobs." I think it speaks to the poverty of modern language. Persons confuse terms such as 'gourmand' (one who is a glutton) with 'gourmet' (one who appreciates good food and cooking) in regard to food. I won't go into the plethora of cursing that takes the place of conversation so that one is now subjected to language that would make a sailor blush, be it in the shops or while eating a meal.

[Ttogull]

Actually, my use of "high falutin" was unfortunate, because where I am from (TX) it means "fancy," not necessarily pretentious as indicated by the online dictionary. I meant it sounds like too fancy of a word for me to describe myself. I do not consider myself a gourmet because I prefer simpler, homestyle food and do not generally get satisfaction from exquisite preparations and platings. I would say foodie describes me, though.

My unfortunate word choice aside, I do not see any inverted snobbery on my part. I would generally take chili recommendations from a Texan, but not a New Yorker. I would take local Szechuan recommendations from somebody who has been there, not from someone who hasn't (or hasn't otherwise proven themselves to be knowledgeable). Maybe, like high falutin, the words have different connotations depending on location.

[annabelle]

The inverted snobbery isn't meant as a critique of you, Ttogull. It is something that happens a lot and isn't just related to food. I like in Oklahoma but was educated on the East Coast so sometimes people think I am trying to show off with my "$50 words" when that isn't the case at all. It's just the way that I speak although I do understand where they are coming from since my own family are Okies although they now live in California and Texas. But enough about me.

I've been steered wrong by recommendations in the Road Food books that raved about diners on Route 66. Guess what? To a one, they have been a disappointment. Likewise, I have eaten at landmark restaurants in different cities, that I cannot understand for the life of me why they are still in business and why they enjoy the reputations they do. Sometimes the little fish shack under the highway overpass in Tulsa is the best fish and chips you'll ever get, with friendly service and spotless tables. Barbeque places that have tables covered in butcher's paper and serve food family style are also much much better than chain barbeque places like the Rib Crib.

I've found most Chinese restaurants in areas that do not host a large Chinese population, are dreadful. Chinese food does not belong on a buffet. Ever. Even in bigger cities, don't be fooled by the old saw that if many Chinese are eating in the restaurant, that it is a good one. Chinese folks will eat at crummy restaurants just as much as any other ethnic group. How much bad pizza or terrible spaghetti have you eaten with your Italian-American friends? I can testify that my Italian in-laws wouldn't know a decent meal if it bit them in the ass.

[Ericpo]

My unfortunate word choice aside, I do not see any inverted snobbery on my part. I would generally take chili recommendations from a Texan, but not a New Yorker. I would take local Szechuan recommendations from somebody who has been there, not from someone who hasn't (or hasn't otherwise proven themselves to be knowledgeable). Maybe, like high falutin, the words have different connotations depending on location.

I think that this is where a large part of the argument is originating. Location location location. And not only location, but also age, group, etc. With such a wide dispersal of English speaking peoples, there is no way that exact meanings of evolving terms will transfer across the board. If a literal meaning has trouble staying constant in such a dynamic linguistic environment, so much the harder for conotations to translate well.

Within my group and milieu, Foodie is more than accurate enough. Gormet, as somebody mentioned, is too often confused with Gourmand, so I avoid using it as a personal adjective. I think that as long as I understand my meaning, and those I communicate with do likewise, who cares what term is used? If there is any misunderstanding then a more in depth conversation may be needed.

So my stance has not changed, although I do feel enlightened(for the most part ) by this discussion. If I ever commit some unforgivable culinary faux-pas by calling someone a Foodie then at least I will not do so from ignorance! lol

[Brown Hornet]

My biggest issue with both articles is that they engage in lazy strawman critiques.

Anderson's review is almost intentionally jejune. Foodies are "disdainful of the poor"? Huh? I've read this review three times and I'm still not sure what point she's trying to make. Query for Anderson, which of the following should I feel most guilty over: (a) ordering a $3 banh mi at my favorite local Vietnamese dive, (b) shopping at the local asian farmer's market, © gushing over the amazing SouthernUS/Korean BBQ joint in town, or (d) blowing out the bank account at a 3 star Michelin restaurant? My elitist foodie guilt wants to know. Her takedown is particularly rich coming from someone whose cooking column is titled "You're Doing it Wrong."

Myers is even more fanciful in describing a foodie culture populated by gluttonous oafs who get their kicks eating endangered species and gleefully butchering animals. Here's a quick memo to Myers: boastful-ortolan-eater Anthony Bourdain is not a represetative sample set of food enthusiasts. Myers sounds like he would be happier if everyone consumed a scientifically designed nutrient supplement like Soylent. See http://robrhinehart.com/?p=298

The folks I know who most enjoy food, cooking and dining, also tend to be the least pretentious and precious about it. To be fair, not everyone enjoys the eating and preparation of food the same way and to the same degree. Indeed, there are certainly interesting cultural and philosophical questions to be asked about the role and importance we place on what is essentially a bodily function. One can address those issues, however, without resorting to lazy and inaccurate caricatures.

[annabelle]

Without lazy and inaccurate caricatures, Slate would have to shutter its website.

[Ericpo]

Without lazy and inaccurate caricatures, Slate would have to shutter its website.

HAAA! Spot on;)

[huiray]

Without lazy and inaccurate caricatures, Slate would have to shutter its website.

HAAA! Spot on;)

Slate.com is one of the most respected on-line magazines around. Your generalized accusation is without merit. Perhaps you disagree with its liberal bent, and your curling your lip at that makes you say stuff like that.

[annabelle]

Not at all. It's a lowbrow magazine that I read with no regularity since its topics are generally poorly researched and badly written.

Kind of like Time.

[gfweb]

Without lazy and inaccurate caricatures, Slate would have to shutter its website.

HAAA! Spot on;)

Slate.com is one of the most respected on-line magazines around. Your generalized accusation is without merit. Perhaps you disagree with its liberal bent, and your curling your lip at that makes you say stuff like that.

Slate.com is respected? Not by the thoughtful. It is one step above Drudge Report and far below even Grantland in serious intent.

Regardless of its political bent, Slate.com is sloppy journalism more intent on sensationalism and page-views than insightful analysis.