Let's Talk: Presumed Rich
14 Comments
I’ve been thinking about the great responses to my declaration of independence last week. If you haven’t checked back in to that post to read the comments, there’s a lot of food for thought. Click here for more.
Truth be told, I’ve been pondering a couple in particular—one about how telling people to take the time to make real food is about as callous as telling them to spend more money on it. And the other, about how the farmers’ market too often proves out of range.
Have we bitten off more than we can chew?
Thirty years ago, Americans went to Europe and were confronted with established food traditions that put the U. S. to shame.
That’s all changed. The United States now has a food culture to rival any in the world. We have excellent chefs, stellar restaurants, a large cookbook industry, whole TV networks devoted to food, a zillion food blogs, fantastic farmers’ markets, and high-end grocery stores. It's the kind of food culture we coveted thirty years ago. And arguably better than anything we hoped for.
In fact, food’s gotten better across the globe. The bar has been raised. You can find Florentine gelato or Shanghai Ba Bao Fan in most major cities.
Of course, much of this has happened at the hands of the foodies—who do what they do, which is fetishize what we’re supposed to eat.
Yes, conspicuous consumption has been with us since the Jazz Age; but those who consumed conspicuously back then were the Gatsbys, a tiny minority. These days, people have sacrificed their homes to triple mortgages to adorn themselves in the necessary accoutrements.
Which include food. When I glance through the glossy food magazines, I’m confronted with an appalling presumption of wealth, as if everyone has the money—not to mention the time—to char cauliflower, or deglaze the skillet with cognac, or buy fifteen spices (and thus spend forty bucks) to make a proper tagine.
Bruce and I are certainly guilty of it. I’ve posted and published many recipes with a zillion spices, expensive whole grains, what have you.
I fear this presumption of wealth has a slight sneer to it—along the lines of “why don’t you just eat better?”
It’s caused by a host of problems. Yes, by the fetishization that foodies bring to the business. And by an increasingly baroque food scene where everyone's trying top everyone else. But there’s more and it’s a little explosive.
So much of this food-writing business is carried on by people whose spouses or partners make enough money that the writers can explore their passions without the need for economic recompense.
I don’t mean to be harsh: much good work has been carried out by these people. But let’s be honest: in a day in which the average pay for a magazine article has dropped to a few hundred bucks, when newspapers pay far less than that, and when book advances have fallen through the floor, there’s no way to run the business except on the generosity of spouses and such.
But these passionate people bring a presumption of leisure and wealth with them. That presumption colors what they do, as if everyone has the time and the money to bake artisanal bread or can four-berry chutney.
Maybe it’s always been this way. After all, Julia Child relied on home support. Martha built a business off a Wall Street career. And Ina had a husband who was more than happy to let her follow her passion while he provided a sumptuous Hamptons life.
I don’t begrudge any of them this. But I ask you: how do you have aspirational cooking without the presumption of wealth? How do you eat real food without turning it into a matter of “keeping up with the Joneses”? How do you keep real food from becoming a fetish, something that is encrusted with cultural and social issues, with nodes of class status?
Yes, what you eat is not only who you are, it is also an indicator of what class you belong to. But have we set the bar at impossible heights for many people, not only in terms of the time and money it takes to make real food, but also in ways that make most people lose interest and turn away, unable to aspire to the trappings of social ease when so much of life is so darn difficult? Is it all a self-defeating proposition based on class assumptions?
Reader Comments (14)
Thank you for giving me something to think about this morning, Mark. I don't have any responses just yet, but I'm cogitating. Many of your same statements could be made of my industry as well. Of course there's no daily need for knitted goods, but we have moved from an industry that was once based on frugality to one of conspicuous consumption.
I suppose that I do belong to a different social class because of the food I buy and prepare for my family. It's sort of funny, really. I would like to think it isn't a socio-economic thing, but I guess it is. We have a median income, but I think it's more a matter of being creative and making healthful eating practices a priority. It's also time. I told my daughter that when we're out of peanut butter, I'm making the next batch. It will certainly take a lot more time to buy, roast, and blend peanuts than to pick a jar off the shelf and put in a cart, but it's about teaching them what life and healthful living is really about. It doesn't have anything to do with money. Sometimes I think I spend more money on food than other people, but I don't buy any junk food at all, so my grocery bill is less than many people, I'm sure. Maybe it's education and knowledge. . . but there are a lot of educated people who have a lot of money and they don't eat "real" food or even care to. I know this doesn't address all of the questions you had, but I do appreciate your article and your thought provoking comments.
It is a puzzle, that's for sure. I think the bar should be lowered for the average family. Being aware of what you're buying, where it came from, and how much it was processed is not always that easy. But getting families to cook from scratch even two more days a week, than previously, is a marked improvement. Having food writers expound on the greatness that is real/organic food can be one way to teach the masses; but as much as I try, I know I'll never be Alice Waters.
Don't stop posting those recipes that take all kinds of spices and ingredients, as they're great for inspiration and special occasions, but I think most home cooks would prefer a few simple recipes; all that use similar spices and ingredients in slightly different ways. This would give someone a reason to buy that spice or ingredient -- knowing that, should they follow through with the different recipes, they'll actually use most of it up.
I don't have the answer for this, but I have been wondering for a while. What makes some food so inexpensive (i.e. dollar menu cheeseburgers, 10# sacks of potatoes, bags of frozen veggies), and what makes other food so expensive (i.e. grass fed beef, fingerling potatoes, fresh sugar snap peas). Is it Government subsidies? Or is it ease of growing, transportation, and shelf life? How can I pay $1.99/lb for hothouse tomatoes all the way from California, but $3.99/lb for a tomato grown 5 miles from my house?
I am a huge supporter of local, family owned farms. I'm not saying they should lower their prices, because I know they're not getting rich off the products they sell. But clearly the playing field is not level, and people are having to choose between something yummy like an heirloom tomato still warm from the sun, and feeding their family! Does my local farmer (if he wanted to, that is) get any help from the Government at all? Or are we, as American taxpayers, subsidizing corn and soybeans to the exclusion of everyting else? (Sorry, that was a little Pollan-ish, but it actually seems to be true)
Ha! Pollan-ish. But he's right--and you, too--about those subsidies. Where I part company is on the food fetishization question. That somehow killing a wild boar is more "real" than buying a chicken breast at the supermarket. I'm not sure it is. I am sure it's more of a fetish.
When you count factors into the cost of food, don't forget that price itself is often a matter of class markers. We live near a high-end restaurant that serves lovely, farm-fresh food. The burgers at lunch crest at about $15. Pricey, to say the least. However, I recently discovered that the exact same, small, organic, local farm makes a second delivery every week--to a down-scale, mom-and-pop pizza parlor not far from us. Believe it or not, this pizza parlor does a land-office business in burgers. And they sell those same burgers for $6 a piece. Same meat. OK, maybe the buns are better at the fancier place. But $9 better? I don't think so.
M.
Why does cooking have to be aspirational? Why does meal planning and budgeting when done by women in a heterosexual household have to be a death-knell to feminism? Why can't it be about contributing to one's health (or family's health) through control of ingredients, warmth, simple meals/recipes, and in some small way a lesser impact on the environment by getting away from processed food? And why does everything about cooking have to be black and white? Sure, I want everything from the latest Chanel collection, but since I have zero clothing budget (and am 8 months pregnant), I'll settle for just picking up ideas and using what's in my closet. Can't cooking books/advice be the same? Be inspired by it, use it if/when it fits, but strive to do the best you can with what you have?
I went through the whole "cooking is a hassle" while living alone despite (or maybe as a result of) the fact that my mother ALWAYS cooked. Going out for dinner or ordering in was very rare. Food from a box was also rare, with the exception of condiments and desserts. We're from the "old country" and kept up the "stretch the dollar" or in our case, rubel, strategies that got us through the food shortages in the USSR. Even here, fruit was bought in season for best taste and to save money. When fruit was (relatively) cheap, Mom planned ahead, stocked up and made jam. Oh, and Mom loves sitting down with a book or watching TV in the evening and she, too, had to deal with the demands on her time by shuttling kids to piano lessons, and voice lessons, and violin lessons, and soccer practice, and Hebrew school 3 nights a week. And she worked full time, along with my father. But somehow, despite a less-than-ideal family budget, there was always dinner on the table (and breakfast, and stuff to pack for lunch) and something to serve friends who dropped in unexpectedly.
When I moved out on my own and set up my own housekeeping I could not understand how she managed it all. Being single at the time, I didn't try too hard to imitate her efforts, despite having plenty of extra (i.e. no family/parenting responsibilities) time. When my school day/work day was finished, the TV and couch called. Now that i'm married, with a second child on the way and my husband out of work, when I have considerably less free time due to work and family, I've finally figured out how Mom made it all happen. It's called planning and maybe a little sacrifice of the instant gratification. Yes, chopping takes time but beans, soup, even home-made farmer's cheese all cook without my having to stand at the stove. I can teach my kindergartener to read, surf the web, watch a show (although, wow, has TV ever become inane), or read a library book while the stew simmers. I rarely cook in the evenings, but do devote a couple hours on the weekend to prepping the meals that will carry us through the week. The time in the kitchen is almost meditative. No one's allowed to disturb me and I can let my mind wander.
Michael Pollan's and Alice Walter's early books were inspirational. Despite my education as a chemist, I really had not given the food industry and its products a whole lot of thought until Michael's "Eat Food" book. The internet is also an incredible source of recipes (just look at this site). I used to subscribe to Cooking Light - I liked the inspiration of paging through the magazine, but the ridiculous amount of ingredients put me off - and now I read through a host of blogs whenever I need inspiration. And then I look at the ingredients, the store sales, how much money, time and energy I have, and I plan.
And while I'll occasionally wander into the center isles of a store for condiments or flour or canned tomatoes, everything else comes from the perimeter. That IS good advice; it just takes a little effort.
The only thing that's a little difficult to fit into the cooking at home = less expensive equation is the apparent dearth of fresh produce (relatively inexpensive fresh produce) in urban areas. I won't preach to what I don't know, with one minor exception. The first year after we emigrated to the US we lived in an urban area without a car in a city famous for its blizzards and snowfall. On even the snow-filled weekend the family took the bus to the grocery stores that were not within walking distance, and those who could carry grocery bags in their hands an on their backs, did. The bus stop was not all that close to home, but then back in the USSR we didn't have a car either and always used either public transit or our own two feet.
Dare I say we Americans are just a teensy-bit spoiled with out instant gratification culture and that is the root of a lot of our problems? Notice, I fully count myself among the spoiled, but I'm willing to try and modify my habits.
i've tried to stay away from this one, because you know me... i tend to get carried away. i have no clue who is in it just for the money, and who is exploiting staff and frankly, i don't care. there's nothing wrong with having an ideal. people have long since stopped abiding by the bible. i'm sure we can ignore a couple food rules. i didn't make it halfway through that one, but 'the omnivore's dilemma' has helped me understand some things about feedlot cattle i had no clue about. it made me want to eat local, from farmers i could meet and who will let me poke around their barn. i'm willing to pay more for healthy food to ensure my daughter's health. it's not because we're rich. it's not because i have to keep up with someone. i'm perfectly willing to cut the cable if that's what it takes. let's not be naive. i will have to cut the cable if i'm to buy only grass-fed beef. but before we're torching our foodie cards protesting the baroque food scene, why don't we show some indignation at the system that allowed four bags of chips to be cheaper than two pears in the first place. cheap food isn't cheap. it's made with cheap corn, that's actually not cheap, it's subsidized, and it's collapsing more than one economy. look at mexico. the math is simple: when you have one buck to spend and kids to feed, you're not gonna buy pears. there is no way to eat better, when all you can afford is chips. if that food had an honest price, healthy alternatives would not seem so expensive after all. ina can't say olive oil without saying good. like i'd purposely get bad oil. it pisses me off every time, and i can't watch her shows. the glossy magazines are all targeted on people who can afford them. mama's two ingredient roast chicken is not going to cause record sales.
there's a lot of people out there who are so busy getting by that food is the last thing on their minds. whatever will chase hunger away will do. i think people understand this. but there's a lot of comfortable middle class, educated people who simply don't care. nothing but a strong message will dissipate the turpitude. and the bit about waters - she said don't buy designer sneakers, not cancel your life insurance to buy organic grapes. buy it if you can afford it, because the greater the demand, the better for all of us. wouldn't it be better if real food was more in demand? producers would compete and prices would be driven down, no? look at wal-mart, they put in organic milk and yogurt because it sells. what's wrong with setting the bar high? no one says we have to get there overnight. so long as we're making an effort, it's allright.
Wow. I'm beyond impressed. The quality of the talk here is ridiculously good. I was hoping to be a bit of a provocateur but I got more than I imagined. So far. I can't wait to see what else!
For now, I'd just like to cull two sentences that really jumped out at me:
Dana: People have long since stopped abiding by the bible. I think I have to disagree here, my friend. I realize I'm pulling out a side point--but perhaps not. I think one of the hardest things for Europeans to understand about the US is how deeply religious it is. Deeply. Arguably more than any developed country. People here still do abide by it. And I think that colors their food-thinking. I'm not willing to engage in an argument about the bible--but I am willing to say that some people are on the look out for "the word of God" at every step of their lives, not just in church. And so they treat certain things said or written as "gospel," even if they have nothing to do with the Bible. It's a predisposition to belief, not to difficult analysis.
Tanya: I can teach my kindergartener to read, surf the web, watch a show (although, wow, has TV ever become inane), or read a library book while the stew simmers. Among all the fantastic things you wrote, this brought me up short. I can teach my kindergartener . . . to watch a show. I had a dear friend who has been dead of breast cancer now for many years, but her mantra when we were back in grad school together was that her kids were not allowed to watch TV without her in the room--so that she could teach them how to watch TV and how to talk back to the TV. She encouraged them to say "That's not true" to commercials--and then would ask why it's not true. I felt this was one I think I would have loved to pass on to children, had I had any.
As to TV and Ina and the rest: I think it's important to remember that it's all entertainment, not so pure and not so simple. Those people are not going on TV because they really want to teach us about food. If that were the criteria, I can think of legions of people who should be on TV right now. Rather, those people are on TV as a business, to make money, to draw in sponsors. I don't mean to sound cynical at all. In fact, I think I'm not. Rather, I mean to point out and highlight the obvious: that the point of TV is to watch the commercials, not the shows. The point is to get you to sit through the content so that you'll stay put through the commercials--which is the "reason" TV exists in this country.
M.
i forget to tell you the thing that bothers me most! so, my daughter now goes to daycare. they serve breakfast, lunch and two snacks. they're overly proud of their healthy hot meals. i asked how they're prepared, but i had to call their caterer since i couldn't get a straight answer from the director. about 80% is highly processed food, and the rest fresh fruit and veg. veggies of course are served with bottled dressings, every time. not a single honest ingredient in those. so i decided to pack her food from home. i first had to get a doctor's note, even though i explained she's not ill or allergic and this is a preference, not a condition. i have no choice but to continue to pay full tuition. and every day as i walk her lunchbox to the kitchen i have to ignore exchanged glances and the occasional whispers. you've once lived here, mark, it's a 'presumably wealthy' suburb. this is the best daycare around. it's sure not cheap, i pay more for two days here than i pay for a week's worth of food. today her teacher was glowing: she didn't eat your food! she wanted ours. well, no kidding: i packed fish and green beans and they're serving chicken nuggets. tomorrow this is the line-up: waffles and milk; chocolate pudding and juice; sloppy joe with baked beans and confetti slaw, cantaloupe, milk; pretzels. none of these foods save the melon and the milk are prepared with basic ingredients. i attempted to explain i'm just trying to do my best for my kid: her teacher told me to stop expecting life to be perfect and i nearly choked with frustration. like i'm some control freak maniac, some sit-on-her-hands-lunatic who must boycott their perfectly good food. i have a lot of foodie friends, a lot of them virtual, who could say anything to me at any time, and yet i've never been patronized for not using grey salt or truffle oil and i've never felt looked down on for not buying organic sugar. but here i am being condescended every day for not wanting junk in my daughter's diet. this is the attitude i'm sick of, and i'll support changing it every way i can. i don't think it makes me a snob, but if it does, i can live with that.
not to get into a polemic, but there's a difference between being religious and going to church, and actually living your life accordingly. i don't believe in god one teensy bit but i respect most of the principles laid out in the bible. i have an uncle who never misses church, and he's a drunk who abuses his wife and kids. it's not about god, but the idea of redemption, the idea that all your bad deeds can be forgiven. so all week long he can lie and do just about anything for a fifth, but come sunday he's a new man. a lot of people i know here are christians by mere social convention, because society expects them to be. it's a bit of a paradox, for such a deeply religious country to have such a high crime rate.
How do you keep real food from becoming a fetish, something that is encrusted with cultural and social issues, with nodes of class status?
Nothing can be free of class status -- including the effort to transcend class. Hey, I may have quit grad school five years ago, but I still remember my Bourdieu... 8^)
On a more serious note, Mark -- and with apologies in case you've already dealt with this in RFHC -- but I wonder if an argument can't be made for a certain trickle-down effect in terms of food consciousness. This is a purely anecdotal example, but my impression is that those little pocket-sized, impulse-buy recipe books you see at the supermarket checkout ("30 Quick Dinners Your Family Will Love!") seem to be reflecting at least a little of the "real food" consciousness that has become so prevalent in foodie circles. The promise can no longer be limited to easy, affordable, and tasty -- there has to be at least a cursory nod in the direction of fresh and healthy. Now, this may well be nothing more than good marketing, with little or no substance underneath the buzzwords. But the fundamental awareness of what constitutes good food does seem to be shifting on some level, even outside upper-middle-class foodie circles. What do you think?
Steve: I think that the "fresh" and "healthy" monikers should be given a pretty jaundiced eye, in the same way "sugar free" and "fat free" are. Most are ploys. Still, health is in right now. Let's see if it's anything more than a fad, class consciousness or not.
Dana: Sigh. What can I say? It's a horrid story, even in a nice 'burb. And yes, most kids like the processed, corn-syrup doped stuff. After all, it's sweet. And we're predisposed to want sweet. That whole mother's milk thing, after all! In fact, research suggests that sweet is the ONLY thing we're predisposed to, in terms of taste. Everything else is developed. Which means that aversion to Brussels sprouts is learned, not birthed. (Lots more on this in the book REAL FOOD HAS CURVES.) But as to religion: we'll just have to table the discussion, although I could go on and on, having been reared by Southern fundamentalists.
M.
Mark,
Apparently my sentence structure needs work. Allow me to rephrase: While the food is cooking on its own (soup, stew simmering, etc.) I can teach my kindergarterner to read, OR *I* can watch a show, OR *I* can surf the web. Since I work full time, AND I try to spend my free time with my child, any weeknight cooking is preparation for the remainder of the week and typically takes place AFTER she has gone to bed (when I'm about ready to fall over). HER TV time is limited to specific days, pre-recorded shows or select DVDs and I fully applaud your friend's efforts to educate her children on how to avoid being taken in by what's on the screen.
Both my husband (he of the one-trick-omelet) and I include our daughter in food preparation whenever possible. As a result, she can now beat eggs and some of the runnier cake batter like nobody's business.
Mark,
You take the snobbish class distinction out of food by taking the snobs out of the equation add real people with real budgets, and chefs that will develop recipes that call for "normal" / easy to find foods.
I found you by accident. I "forced" my 3 teenagers to eat recipes from your blog. ( by making that the dinner)
I have shared those recipes with my friends. Your food is good and wholesome and doesn't require crazy foodie only ingredients. You have removed the snob from real food.
When I am asked where I got the recipe I say "From Mark he has a great food blog." Then I tell them how much I save on groceries because I shop on the outside of the grocery store following your direction, then I tell the that a "FOODIE" is involved, by then they are willing to hear what you have to say because they know there is a street level value in your words.
My kids each have to plan a weeks menu and follow through with the cooking. 2 of 3 ( the third is still a 15 year old boy) now check all the labels before they buy anything. You know what? They like the food better and we eat less . It is a game between them "I made this with only _ number of processed foods" ( lower is better) or "I made the _____ from scratch."
We all need to cook real food and share it with someone. I can justify spending more on good cheese rather than the plastic wrapped kind when all I buy is eaten and enjoyed and the mac and cheese is to die for. I cannot justify spending $20 on saffron for 1 dish and then to sit on my shelf so I can say I DO own saffron, but if I can find 4 or 5 things to use it in I will spend the money.Thank you to Bruce for using common sizes and amounts in your recipes.
You and Bruce are on the cutting edge of what will be the next real food trend with the "Normal"/"Peoria" folks by making good recipes that call for real food which even if it is expensive it won't be wasted. As more of us non-foodie people ask for organic / farm fresh / real / food it will become more affordable.
Don't give up now the huddled masses are getting sick of tasteless hamburger helper and we need a mentor/ chef to help us find out the mac and cheese can really have flavor.
Tina
While I think there's an audience for "aspirational cooking", I don't think most people are aspirational cooks. Most people don't aspire to do anything but get decent meals on the table rather quickly. They're not paying attention to the chefs, food writers, cookbook authors, food/cooking bloggers, most magazines or television. I don't think the chefs, food writers and cookbook authors are indicative of our food culture nor do I think food culture has anything to do with the availability of Florentine gelato or Shanghai Ba Boa Fan.
Two articles I found interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/08/us/08cook.html?scp=1&sq=Phyllis%20Pellman%20Good&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/dining/27cook.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=Food%20for%20the%20People&st=cse
My favorite cookbook of the last year isn't a glossy chef-authored volume. It's Clara's Kitchen by Clara Cannucciari -- the 94 year old great-grandmother whose Great Depression cooking videos became a hit on YouTube. She wrote "We never wanted anything because we never realized we could have anything. Things were much simpler back then, and we were stronger for it." My mother was the same age as Clara and I remember eating similar meals while growing up.
I think a lot of cookbook authors, those who write for magazines and bloggers are either trying to continuously raise the bar and/or are out of touch with what and how most people cook and want to cook. I don't think they realize how few people aspire to cook the food that they present in cookbooks, magazines, and blogs.
My biggest complaint about the recipes in the cookbooks and magazine mentioned in the articles is what I consider to be an overuse of barely real or not real foods. I occasionally pick up an issue of Taste of Home and adapt recipes, if needed, to use more real ingredients. Another cookbook author said that if she couldn't find an ingredient in the grocery of her hometown (less than 5,000 people), it didn't show up in her cookbooks. Unfortunately, her recipes fell into the category that I call "better cooking through chemistry." But the ingredients could be found anywhere and the recipes would "play in Peoria" -- or anywhere else.
I agree with Rebecca. I think most home cooks want simple recipes that use simple ingredients that can be used in a variety of ways. They also want things that come together quickly and have a short (5-8 items) ingredients list. I think they see a long ingredients list and assume something is too complicated to cook -- especially for a weeknight meal. I think they also think that a long list might have unfamiliar ingredients that would either require trips to more than one store or inability to find "x".
Unfortunately, many home cooks think that cooking real food from scratch is going to be complicated, time-consuming and/or expensive. It doesn't need to be. While it may take some advance planning and cooking in advance (grains or beans, for instance), it certainly doesn't need to be complicated or expensive.