Food Fight!!- John Dietrich
There is no question that culinary tourism, by most definitions, draws on a specific social class and relies tremendously on distinct cultural definition in order for it to thrive. There is everything appealing and enticing about it as an experience, and what other form of performance manages to heavily integrate all the human senses? Its’ power lies in its’ immediate emotional and psychological reaction upon just mentioning the notion of it. It almost always boasts a highly romantic, often nostalgic and decidedly sophisticated setting and event. Is food worship costly? More often than not- yes. Wine tours in Sonoma, tasting getaways in Tuscany, culinary studies in Geneva, often integrating celebrity chefs and counting on faraway, exotic locales. I imagine a tour of Route 66 roadside diner and truck stop cuisine exists, but more than likely any culinary adventure will require good American dollars, thus making it more suitable for an upper class clientele. This new found appreciation for it and sophisticated offering of it is recent, particularly with Americans who for years, particularly the post World War II “Leave it to Beaver” baby boomers, lived in the shadow of the customary European approach to cuisine and its’ appreciation. Long multi-course meals, sacred regional delicacies, and a connoisseurs mentality could be found in every home, in every village, among every class of people and needless to say, there is something strongly luxurious about this way of living. Are western cultures finally waking up to this “joie de vivre” spirit and approach? In the typical American way, they seem to be embracing it with a need for immediate consumption and gratification all wrapped up in a little bit of Yankee commercialism. There is the fear that globalization may be threatening regional distinction when it comes to culinary traditions. This is partly the result of the mass marketing of more regional products and the ability for worldwide distribution of them. “One World- One Taste, is the most horrifying mantra of all. On that note is where I find Adrian Peace’s “investigation”, into the Barossa Slow experience rather sarcastic and somewhat cynical, particularly when cultivating regional culinary authenticity on almost any level should be respected. She requires involvement by all in the community means of validation of authenticity, and throws around the word “myth” as if it is a crime against historical accuracy. This is not 1860, these people are trying to keep tradition alive based on whatever information is passed down through generations, but they are not specifically trying to live it. They are trying to sustain its’ worth and value for a new generation. What they are creating is part myth and part history. Her notion of “A skewed view by a select few” is an example of her crossed arm, nose raised, “just prove your authenticity” viewpoint. Comments like: “Johnny Fechner, as Nipper, nicknames, of course, being a defining feature of rural community”, and “Jimmy, for example, is Nipper’s right-hand man and has “been with” him (note, not “employed by” him), only show her inability to approach an experience such as this with an open perspective. These are small town enterprises simply trying to revive and sustain culinary heritage. Maybe they sincerely believe in their personal mission to carry on tradition, maybe they prefer a work environment that prides itself on developing a sense of family and not some impersonal corporate setting. Isn’t it admirable to strive for the ideal? What’s worse: culinary elitist or egocentric anthropologist?