Cookie Cutter wrote:

> Interesting. When I encounter claims that this or that country's
> food is or is not a cuisine, your(Belasco's) first component, "a
> limited number of 'edible' foods" seems to be just the opposite in
> other people's minds.

This feels like splitting the hairs in a wig made from synthetic
fibers. Limited number means not a small number, just a customary
number. One implication that might be mistakenly assumed is that that
number remains static. New things are always coming into view and old
ones are always being discarded in all the major cultures.

> For instance, France has a cuisine because its foods and
> preparation are varied and sophisticated.

To say that France has *one* cuisine is to not know the pieces that
comprise France.

> On the other hand Germany does not have a cuisine because it is a
> cold climate where the "limited number of 'edible' foods" are
> potatoes, turnips, cabbage and sausage.

And, of course, this is nonsense because the culture has a vast armory
of dishes. The "limited number" in this case is being defined from
outside the culture. Insiders would be able to shatter that picture.

> One writer declared that Spain did not have a cuisine because
> Spaniards lived on snack foods. Although I find it hard to believe
> that Spaniards subsist on tapas at the home dining table, if they
> indeed do, then it seems to me that tapas would fall under "a
> preference for particular food (techniques)" and would indicate
> that Spain did, indeed, have a cuisine.

Spaniards don't live on tapas in their homes.

Mostly what I get from this paragraph of quotes and paraphrases is
that there are many fools writing about food. I think cuisine is like
pornography, I can't precisely define it, but I know it when I see it.

> Andy & Bob -- Belasco's definition seems designed for scientists to
> evaluate the food systems of primitive cultures to determine if
> one society can be singled out as different when compared to its
> neighbors.

I don't agree. The hallmarks seem as applicable to developed societies
as the primitive. France and Finland are both developed
countries/cultures. Not much confusion between the dietary styles and
components of the two.

> The definition does not seem to lend itself easily to
> comparisons among, say, European countries that have somewhat
> different foods and cooking techniques and whether the cookery of
> one meets some abstract definition of "cuisine" and another does
> not.

Aside from the lofty theoretical amplifications, there are the daily
functions that define the mentality of the culture. What people
actually do. What people actually prefer. What people actually avoid.
The sum of that list is the practical definition of the culinary
practices and the menu components of the culture/nation. I think my
approach is more libertarian - what they do is what defines them and
the starting assumption is that each culture has its own cuisine. I
think I'm starting with the notion that everyone is part of some
cuisine by nurture. It's the default condition.

Given that until a bit more than a century ago, all cuisine was
regional, and small regions at that, it seems, in view of the changes
we've all seen, that the definitions are now simultaneously subject to
both micro and macro views. The Chinese all use soy sauce, but they
eat wheat in the north and rice in the south. The macro view defines
it against soy products, the micro by the preferred grain. China has
many cuisines that would require a huge matrix to accommodate both the
similar and different elements. While the distinctions might seem
needlessly subtle to an outside observer, the internal definitions
would make clear the divisions. And, more important, they would see
the differences and the variations would be of consequence to them.

Pastorio


> ASmith1946 wrote:
>
>> There are several definitions of cuisine. I like Warren Belasco's
>> best:
>>
>> "Drawing largely on anthropological sources, I define cuisine as
>> a set of socially situated food behaviors with these components:
>> a limited number of "edible" foods (selectivity); a preference
>> for particular food (techniques); a distinctive set of flavor,
>> textural, and visual characteristics (Aesthetics); a set of rules
>> for consuming food (ritual); and an organized system of
>> producing and distributing the food (infrastructure). Embedded in
>> these components are a set of ideas, images, and values
>> (ideology) that can be "read" just like any other cultural
>> "text." Source: Warren Belasco, "Food and the Countercultu A
>> Story of Bread and Politics," in Raymond, Grew, ed., Food in
>> Global History. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999. 276.