What/Who is a "Foodie"?

[huiray]

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.)

I myself would probably consider the hot dog aficionado a foodie. (presumably one of the "good foodies"). The other two I would probably think of as folks who like food. Which of them would you consider a foodie?

All your points about fusion food are valid, especially the ones about it being present from the very beginning of exchanges of dishes or ingredients & etc around the world - but that is in the broad sense. I *do* think of it, as a practical matter, in terms of modern usage as you allowed. I would say Wolfgang Puck and his quasi-Chinois fusion food was one of the fore-runners of this modern concept of "fusion food", yes. As for examples like Creole cuisine, "American cuisine", etc - I tend to try to make a distinction between "Fusion Food" (modern usage) and what I would think of as incorporation of foreign influences into a cuisine, "organic growth" over time, so to speak, as ingredients & techniques are absorbed into the cuisine. Or when a cuisine is adapted to new circumstances. Vietnamese phở, for example, I would consider the result of gradual absorption of external influences into the cuisine whereby it becomes part and parcel of it. "Fusion cuisine", OTOH, to me has a whiff of forced smacking of two or more things together, sometimes felicitously, sometimes dreadfully; but in both cases there is an undercurrent of "Oh look, how cool is it for me to combine these two things together!!! Lookie!!!"; or what seems like a shotgun marriage in other cases. It has also been described by some as "Confusion Cuisine". Perhaps I can't define it properly, but perhaps (for me, anyway) it may amount to what Potter Stewart said about pornorgraphy. California pizza is sort of on the borderline, to me.

Of course, my views are subject to change...just as people change over time...

Edited May 9, 2013 by huiray (log)

[patrickamory]

Not to jump into some of the more intense debates here... I do think strawmen are being created, and semantics and language are playing a huge role.

I will point out that Jim Leff intentionally created the word "chowhound" to distinguish his approach from that of "foodies" at the time, which was of course the mid-'90s.

I'm presuming that everyone here has heard the catchphrase "Food is the new rock." So to that extent, the comparison with "hipster" is intelligible to many of us. But then what is a hipster?

The whole argument feels very played and boring to me... language and labels aside, it's possible to care about food, cooking and enjoyment without somehow casting aspersions on the rest of the world. If they feel denigrated in some way then that's their lookout, right?

[nickrey]

Reading through the book review there are significant indicators that Pearlman's book is yet another example of deconstructionist drivel.

I suspect the book author doesn't see the irony that her approach in relation to more conventional academic analysis echoes closely the position of the very approaches to food that she is decrying in relation to her (presumably) unspecified model of a good approach to food. Perhaps if you are guilty of something yourself you are better at identifying it in others and in other areas.

[huiray]

(snip)

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

(snip)

The Myers article is indeed somewhat over-the-top even if it is entertaining in its own way. To be fair, It *was* dissed by Anderson in the first paragraph of the review where it was pointed out (in effect) that Myers was a vegan^¶ - which makes sense in terms of the diatribe unleashed in that article against meat-eating folks. Just sayin'.

[That Myers polemic stirred up quite a few people when it came out. :-) It was also noted that he was an animal-rights activist. ;-) ]

^¶ See also:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/2011/02/yes_foodies_are.php

http://www.salon.com/2011/02/11/br_myers_moral_crusade_against_foodies/

Edited May 10, 2013 by huiray (log)

[huiray]

Reading through the book review there are significant indicators that Pearlman's book is yet another example of deconstructionist drivel.

I suspect the book author doesn't see the irony that her approach in relation to more conventional academic analysis echoes closely the position of the very approaches to food that she is decrying in relation to her (presumably) unspecified model of a good approach to food. Perhaps if you are guilty of something yourself you are better at identifying it in others and in other areas.

You think so? Interesting point. I'm not sure I'd call it "(deconstructionist) drivel", though - howsoever much one may dislike her approach. But I've not read the book itself either. I wonder, as you say, whether she described her idea of a "good approach" to food. I could see, though, how that might lead to accusations of interpreting the data on the basis of a personal subjective standard, which no doubt lots of folks would disagree with. Damned if you do, damned if you don't? I'm not competent in analysis of the Social Sciences and their methods, though - would such an approach as hers as you infer be not uncommon in the field, or is it an exception?

What does come over from the posts on this thread, though, is that folks consider the review (and the book) to be an attack upon their food sensibilities and are venting hot words.

Edited May 10, 2013 by huiray (log)

[annabelle]

The entire field of Social Sciences is subjective. Your analysis is as good as the next person's, huiray.

[nickrey]

?..The pattern she describes is one in which privileged, mostly white people elite and hijack cultural differences in order to soothe their own anxieties about social change. Comfort food, indeed.

Not deconstructionist drivel? Really?

I actually thought we ate ethnic food because it was exciting, exotic, and a change from our normal eating habits. To think I was really suppressing my inner prejudices.

As a psychologist who tests these sorts of statements for veracity using experiments all I can say is the author is guilty of unsupported assertions using as its basis a socio-political framework that deconstructs the foodie phenomenon. Call it what you will but I'll call it what I did above.

Edited May 10, 2013 by nickrey (log)

[huiray]

?..The pattern she describes is one in which privileged, mostly white people elite and hijack cultural differences in order to soothe their own anxieties about social change. Comfort food, indeed.

Not deconstructionist drivel? Really?

I actually thought we ate ethnic food because it was exciting, exotic, and a change from our normal eating habits. To think I was really suppressing my inner prejudices.

As a psychologist who tests these sorts of statements for veracity using experiments all I can say is the author is guilty of unsupported assertions using as its basis a socio-political framework that deconstructs the foodie phenomenon. Call it what you will but I'll call it what I did above.

Uhh, I didn't say it *wasn't* "deconstructionist drivel". I said I wasn't sure I would call it that, which is not the same thing, basically because I have not read the book. Neither have you, I gather. What you quoted seems to be the words of the REVIEWER (in my reading of that review), upon which much opprobrium has already been heaped by folks here very worked up over it. :-)

[annabelle]

I must be reading an alternate thread on this topic since I haven't seen that anyone is worked up about it. I have also not read the book and don't intend to. The quoted sentence from the article is indeed deconstructionist drivel. By that I mean, the reviewer is ascribing an intent to the author that may not be what the author intended. It's the same impulse that drives deconstructionists to find homosexual subplots or hidden fascist impulses in Shakespeare plays or Herman Melville novels.

[nickrey]

No, Huiray is right in pointing out that I hadn't read the book.

I went in to the book on Amazon preview and far from being In the tone of the review it seems to be a well researched and well argued thesis on the transformation of American dining. The writing is measured and supported by extensive footnotes. Not quite my preferred reading as I am not part of that scene but one that should interest many of the foodies on these forums.

The reviewer on the other hand ...

[marlaine]

Thanks all for clarifying fusion, never realized when I made a ratatouille I was actually making a fusion dish. I read three times the very first post and I still don't understand what the fuss is all about. And I have been to college and speak two languages not that it is a big deal but to let you know I am familiar with different writings.. If it is about the word comfort food, I think it means simple easy to make foods that taste and looks really appetizing on your plate therefore making you feel good-------> comfort-able-------> comfort food , no?!!!

[liuzhou]

"Foodies" are people who obsess about food.

 

They are the sort of people who turn to the restaurants reviews page in the newspaper before checking the front page to see if World War Three has broken out. They spend hours poring over reviews of restaurants they know they will never, ever visit, then go online to check out the same restaurants' menus.

 

"Foodies" are people who read recipes for things they can't buy where they live or can't afford. "Foodies" even buy cookbooks in languages they can't read or speak.

 

"Foodies" think about food with their full senses. All six.

 

But, more than anything, "foodies" like to talk about food. They like to talk about food to the extent that they seldom talk about anything else. They talk about food to the point where their friends glaze over and their partners lie awake at night planning the grisliest way to murder them the next time they again mention those skylarks in aspic they ate twenty years ago half way up a mountain in Andorra, while the "foodies" lie next to them dreaming about that smoked snake soup they ate up a different mountain in SW China. "Foodies" know that the best food is always found halfway up mountains in other countries. 

 

Having alienated their entire extended families and their entire social network, these miserable wretches end up joining internet forums like this in order to carry on with their evil addiction.

 

"Foodies" who reached such terrifying depths of depravity spend hours, discussing food, sharing food experiences, recipes, restaurant tips. "Foodies" take pictures of everything they eat and post them on the forums. "Foodies" even cook food just to take the photographs. "Foodies" plan the menu for dinner around what they plan on posting on the forums. Check out the Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner threads. "Foodies" happily post two dozen photographs of poached eggs they prepared for breakfast on different days - always with the money shot. How many bacon sandwich pictures have I posted? I dread to think.

 

"Foodies" discuss, share and get inspiration from like minded people. A bit like a support group. 

 

When asked why they like a certain food, "foodies" never answer "because they taste good and it's pleasant to eat them" That is a given. They will tell you why they taste good, why it's pleasant to eat them. They will go on for ages about the precise types of sashimi they are eating and compare and contrast them in terms of flavour, freshness, sweetness, saltiness, umami - whether the wasabi is real (rarely) or just dyed horseradish (usually). They will extol the delights of one variety over another. Which is best? The salmon or the tuna. Perhaps, the mackerel. They will discuss the slicing techniques of the sashimi and the precise serving temperature. "Foodies" will whip out a thermometer to check. The will discuss the rolling techniques of the sushi and whether the rice is properly cooked and vinegared. They will discuss the range on offer. Is it balanced? How is the presentation. They will sit as close to the preparation area as possible to make sure they don't miss a trick.

 

Being a "foodie" isn't something you pick out at random in "Every Child's Selection of Hobbies". It is something which develops.

 

Right. I'm off with a friend for some donkey noodles. 

Edited July 12, 2014 by liuzhou (log)

[Anna N]

But I think we need a grading system for foodies sort of like the USDA system for meat. Right up there and designated Prime are the sort of foodie you describe. On the opposite end of the scale are Standard grade foodies. I like to think I fall into this grade. Never been inside a Michelin starred restaurant, rarely read a restaurant review unless it's of a so-called ethnic place because I want some idea of the food offerings. Take photos of my food only to share on eG and so far have always eaten what I photographed. Love to read cook books but rarely in a language I don't speak. Consider scrambled eggs and a glass of wine to be the most delicious and memorable meal of my life because it was shared with the man I loved at a time when life had dealt us too many below-the-belt-blows. Anyway you see where I am going. There are foodies and then there are FOODIES and I am grateful we can all mingle on eG.

[SobaAddict70]

I object to the term because it's infantile in my opinion. So I don't use it. I'm not bothered if someone calls me one, that's on them.

[Katie Meadow]

The term "foodie" simply makes me squirm, and I'm not even sure why. If someone calls me a foodie I take offense; it is infantile, I agree. I like eating tasty food. I like reading recipes and saving a recipe until I either make it and toss it, make it and love it, or don't ever make it and eventually wonder why in hell I ever clipped it in the first place. I cook all the time, mostly because I don't have the money to eat out a lot, or rather I chose to use the money for something other than restaurant meals. And I'm pretty happy with the food I cook and often disappointed in restaurant food, especially when it comes to value. My diet has changed in many ways over the past twenty years. Partly because I am more aware of what can be done with food (become a better cook?), partly because I have some health restrictions and needed to adjust the types of recipes I rely on and lastly because of environmental issues.

 

If pressed, I would say my philosophy of food comes down to this: why eat a lousy tuna melt if you have the time, ingredients and the means to make a good one? I enjoy looking at the food photos on eG but I have no desire to photograph anything I make or eat in a restaurant. I only like reading about food if the writing is good.I admit that I think about food a lot. That's because I love eating and because I'm the one who does all the cooking in my house. And I wouldn't be happy eating the same old thing day in day out and because I'm always looking for ways to make something good even better. I rarely buy or cook expensive ingredients. I want eating to be fun, and mostly healthy. When it is treated as a competitive sport it's a turnoff.

 

The word "gourmet" is also a weird word. What does it mean? It comes with a ton of baggage and never seems a very useful term. Also it is devoid of any political intent and therefore becomes a slippery slope. If you are going to eat bluefin tuna sushi you should know that soon you may be eating the last one. If you are going to eat foie gras you should know how it is made. It irritates me no end when I hear people say that cutting a shark's fin off doesn't hurt it, or that geese like being overfed by a tube or that fish have no lips so they don't feel the hook or that lobsters have no nerve endings or whatever. Okay, I'm done. Not sure why I went on such a rant. Now I'm going to finally go down and eat breakfast. If anyone cares, it will be coffee with chicory, leftover multigrain apple pancakes popped in the toaster and served with butter, maple syrup and whatever fruit has not yet been consumed by my husband. Bon appetit.

[heidih]

As I noted back in 2008, it doesn't bother me. I don't describe myself with the word in conversation. If someone asks if I am a foodie or makes a comment I usually respond that yes I am interested in food and that I find it to be the universal language.

 

A conversation in the local big chain grocers the other day jelled that feeling for me. I was third in line and the person being served was writing a check...slowly...so plenty of time to chat. I noted to the gentleman in front of me that the cardboard carrier for his 6-pack of Modelo dark beer looked like it was falling apart. He thanked me and said he had just noticed it himself and would be careful; we didn't want broken glass and beer all over the parking lot. We went on to exchange some jokes about Irish drinkers. As he got to the cashier he said that life was good as it was a beautiful day and he had Rubio's (local chain) mahi-mahi fish tacos planned for lunch. The cashier had never had fish tacos so that discussion ensued and then the man and I discussed the excellent salsa bar at the referenced restaurant. He concluded with "Have a lovely afternoon ladies. I guess we are all foodies at heart". 

[BeeZee]

It could be said, as a gross generalization, that a "foodie" is someone who thinks about the food they eat. How much they think about it, is for the grading scale of obsessiveness.

[Beebs]

I prefer to call myself an "eater". Sometimes "glutton", if I am being honest with myself.

 

In my head, I categorize people interested in food as "food hobbyists".

[CatPoet]

I prefer these terms.  

"The term gourmet may refer to a person with refined or discriminating taste who is knowledgeable in the craft and art of food and food preparation.^[1] Gourmand carries additional connotations of one who simply enjoys food in great quantities. An epicure is similar to a gourmet, but the word may sometimes carry overtones of excessive refinement. A gourmet chef is a chef of particularly high caliber of cooking talent and skill."

 

I am not a food snob, I dont have the cash  or lack of  family to devote my every waken moment  to find  THE perfect  thing or   got to the  in  restaurants .  I take my money and make  wonders out of nothing and  I teach my daughter the joy of cooking and the pleasure of a good meal.  Lots of  poor man food from Italy, France and Spain is served at Michelin star restaurants , so why cant my country and my  poor man food be something fine`?

[Jaymes]

"Foodie" pretty obviously, and pretty simply, means somebody interested in food. 

 

I'm a foodie.  I'm crazy about being a foodie.  I love being a foodie.  Often I get together with my foodie friends and we do foodie things.  Whole new worlds have opened to me because I'm a foodie.

 

If somebody wants to insult me by calling me a name, they're going to have to do better than foodie.

 

And that's not hard to do.  In a world where people routinely call one another the most vile, hurtful, insulting things they can think of, taking umbrage and getting all wrapped around the axle over "foodie" requires far more negative energy than I've got.

 

 

 

.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Jaymes (log)

[andiesenji]

I'm a foodie and I have been one most of my life.  When I have been introduced to a new culture or a new cuisine, I try to sample everything that looks interesting (as long as I am not allergic to a component).

I introduce myself to folks in "ethnic" markets and stores and go to ethnic public celebrations.

 

I don't know why some people abhor the term - it is "folksy" and doesn't  put people off who seem to believe the term "gourmet" is a bit highbrow.

 

And it encompasses all levels and phases of food from the gathering to the preparing to the consuming and all points in between.

 

Food enthusiast, food fan(atic), food lover, &etc.

[Anna N]

I'm a foodie and I have been one most of my life.  When I have been introduced to a new culture or a new cuisine, I try to sample everything that looks interesting (as long as I am not allergic to a component).

I introduce myself to folks in "ethnic" markets and stores and go to ethnic public celebrations.

 

I don't know why some people abhor the term - it is "folksy" and doesn't  put people off who seem to believe the term "gourmet" is a bit highbrow.

 

And it encompasses all levels and phases of food from the gathering to the preparing to the consuming and all points in between.

 

Food enthusiast, food fan(atic), food lover, &etc.

I'm with you and Jaymes. A proud foodie.

[CatPoet]

I am a FoodNerd,  but I am not a food snob, which sadly may foodies are.  

[Porthos]

As a reference point, people who suffer from a true addiction to food, the type that find themselves needing the help of Overeaters Anonymous, are also called foodies by some. It is not a term that bothers me but one I personally choose to avoid.

 

My serious enjoyment of food and its preparation needs no descriptive term, it just is what it is. I take the same delight in making a tasty baked tuna roll with white sauce as I do in turning out a tasty prime rib dinner. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[SobaAddict70]

I prefer these terms.  

"The term gourmet may refer to a person with refined or discriminating taste who is knowledgeable in the craft and art of food and food preparation.^%5B1%5D Gourmand carries additional connotations of one who simply enjoys food in great quantities. An epicure is similar to a gourmet, but the word may sometimes carry overtones of excessive refinement. A gourmet chef is a chef of particularly high caliber of cooking talent and skill."

"gourmand" also carries a pejorative connotation depending on context, to me. It's not a preferred term of mine.

I would rather just refer to people by their names than call them something that may not necessarily describe them. Much safer.