Foodies are decadent, hyperbolic, and cultureless obsessives -- or so says B.R. Myers in the most recent issue of the Atlantic. Ostensibly, his article is a review of four food-related books, but perhaps it would be best characterized as a rant, in which he rails against a "gourmet community [secure] in its newfound reputation...that it now proclaims the very qualities -- greed, indifference to suffering, the prioritization of food above all -- that earned it so much obloquy in the first place in the first place."
On the one hand, I agree with him. Foodies and their ilk have gotten a bit out of hand. Suffice it to say that a lot of the time, foodies can be insufferable creatures, constantly discussing how many Michelin-starred restaurants they've been too, what obscure dishes they've eaten, or what hidden ethnic-restaurant gems they've discovered in some bland strip mall. It's quite reminiscent of the hipster who promotes the band he loves that you've never heard of, and how he was the one who discovered Vampire Weekend before they were famous. It's interesting at first and gets tiresome very quickly.
But foodies represent a broad culture, one replete with both positive and negative aspects. Respect for food, a desire not to waste any of it, a desire to combat obesity, or revel in the cuisines of other cultures that have radical different flavors than ones' own, drawing attention to the problems within the American food production system, and a general open-mindedness -- these are good things.
In his diatribe, 'The Moral Crusade Against Foodies,' Myers sees and describes only the negative aspect of foodie culture and none of the positive. His take on foodies' concern for the lives of the animals that they've eaten, for instance, is narrow-minded to the extreme. Instead of seeing the good that comes from promoting small farming operations that treat their animals well, he sees "doublespeak," "affectation[s] of piety," and "feign[ed] concern" -- all on the part of the foodies.
Myers is a vegan, and he brings his biases to the table, turning the article into a subtle, clandestine polemic designed to stress the carnivorous aspect of foodie culture as degeneracy. Almost every single anecdote or example that he gives as a sign of the foodies' decadence and hypocrisy involves meat, fish, or game.
The few, and I mean few examples he gives that don't involve flesh are brought to the table to rail against the obsessive nature of the foodie. Myers is unable to understand why someone would devote "Eight pages [to] marshmallow fluff" or "expound[] unironically on the 'ritual' of making the perfect slice [of milk toast]."
Note that these are both comfort foods, in a sense -- marshmallow fluff is reminiscent of childhoods, happy ones if they were spent with some marshmallow fluff, and milk toast involves sugar, butter, toast, and warm milk -- a dish that just sounds reassuring. To this inability to understand nostalgia, I want to say, "My god man. Do you not understand that food, a multi-sensual experience, has the ability to tie in indelibly with our memories, so that someone might actual feel passion for a particular food, and want to explore it through their pen, and perhaps honor it in their own way??" This type of food writer, the borderline obsessive, the "milk toast priest," write as much for themselves as they do for us.
But Myers fails to see this. He fails to comprehend, as Francis Lam puts it, "that there might be value, however odd or small, in this kind of examination. He offers no sense, even, that a person interested in food can actually process it as an interest." This is a cold person indeed, who rejects outright that can be really enjoyable, and thus deserving of praise. Food can be, and is to so many people, more than simple nourishment. We, as humans, don't eat flavorless, vitamin-filled mush for breakfast, lunch, and diner, because we like taste. We enjoy eating -- and Myers won't see this.
It's a shame, really, because by affecting a purely contrary and vitriolic position, he weakens the most powerful part of his article. The presence of gluttony in foodie culture is certain something that we can all agree should go, just as easily as we can all agree that it should be banished from American culture. Unfortunately, though, Myers groups all foodies under the banner of gluttony -- surely this isn't correct. After all, the mantra of Michael Pollan, whose book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, Myers explains "now informs all food writing" is: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." Gorging is conspicuously absent. Instead, Myers would have us believe that every foodie is Anthony Bourdain -- letting alone the common knowledge that Bourdain's shtick is impudence and hyperbole, and that he writes in such a way as to attract outrage or controversy.
Gluttony amongst the foodie world isn't right -- but to fallaciously suggest that all foodies are devoted to "the same mindless, sweating gluttony" is a deliberate mischaracterization. We could give Myers the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that he's specifically discussing the books that he's reviewing. That would be an error on our part, though, since Myers makes it clear that it's the entire foodie world that falls prey to this vice.
Hypocrisy makes an appearance in the article, too, as Myers tries to excoriate foodies for "their traditional elitism" (this is his basic tack throughout the entire article). He does so, though, without realizing that he's the one staring down his noses at "these people" -- his words, I kid you not. Over the course of the article, he criticizes foodies because "no one shows much interest in literature or the arts -- the real arts," because they "eat with the indiscriminate omnivorousness of a rat in a zoo dumpster," and as mentioned before, they write odes singing the praises of specific foods. But by assuming the moral and intellectual high ground, he instead ends up ceding it through his judgments and outright dismissals. Who knows -- there might just be something to the resume of foods that Bourdain's eaten: "'I've eaten raw seal, guinea pig. I've eaten bat.'"
But even if Myers were not a vegan, he would never deign to try these foods. They're below him, after all, even if they are what another culture subsists on or even loves. Here he betrays his inability to consider other perspectives or to accept other points of view. And yet he chooses to close his essay with this: "[Foodies] are certainly single-minded, however, and single-mindedness--even in less obviously selfish forms--is always a littleness of soul."
I'll leave it to you, readers, to decide who's displayed the littleness of soul.
Yes, Foodies Are Ridiculous. But Then So Is B.R. Myers! - New York ...
I enjoy Anthony Bourdain. His tastes are far from exclusive...... in fact, in light of his passion and admiration for dishes of the common man using obscure animal parts, I think he revels in food that can only be considered, traditional in nature.
Sure he visits the trendy futuristic restaurants from time to time, but if you watch him regularly you know his eyes really light up when someone says bone marrow or street food.
But watching people like Anthony Bourdain allows me to live vicariously through his travels and culinary adventures. I know I wont be able to eat in all the countries he's been but thats okay. I dont fault him for being a 'foodie' if thats the term for it. People work their whole lives developing their OWN unique palette and not everything is going to be their liking--let alone everyon elses'.
So who cares? Really, at the end of the day, you just have to eat what you like and try to enjoy it in such a way that it doesnt make you snob. An easy way to do this, is to remember that the majority of people dont get the privilege to eat at 5-star restaurants or travel to distant to lands to have some good curry..Just be grateful that your able to broaden your tastebuds' horizons and remember that not everyone is going to agree with you about what tastes good.
We are all going to judge. It's a good idea to try to be balanced about it, though. You can't ask for more than that without kidding yourself.
There certainly is a place in this life for social responsibility too, and I think Myers has a point about certain foodies and certain food programs promoting unhealthy eating habits that seem an attempt to utterly decimate any concern for the starving people all over this world of ours (ahem... Man v. Food, ahem...).
All of that said, why are people arguing about veganism?
"Ben Franklin loved food. Just look at how fat he was." Miss Pace, my 4th grade teacher
What is seen as unhealthy to some is not seemed unhealthy by all. Mr. Richman's show is about eating. It is a travel show first, but one with a stunt at the end. Is doing a challenge now promoting unhealthy eating habits? Is it gluttony? What about the challenges where he eats super hot foods? Those challenges aren't about copious amounts of food. All the places he eats at are independently owned and operated, they are not "chain" restaurants. He is not a "sport" eater, he just likes to promote and support independent places.
Being an American male, I can tell you that in my youth, at places near the college I went, there were a number of eating challenges. I was dared to try one. A three pound burrito that if finished in under an hour you would get the food for free. Being of impoverished means it seemed like an easy task. I was so wrong. In the end I paid for the burrito and the sickness that came with it. I was young and being in friendly competition is what males do. That's Man vs. Food. It's a young man's right of passage. You don't see forty+ year old's doing it as men generally have leaned their lesson by that then.
Do you also feel the same way about Alice Waters? Mr. Meyers takes her writing to task for writing about the eating of meat. Mr. Pollan and Ms. Waters talk about humane/local ways of raising animals for food. Does the killing aspect of animals rile you so? Are you a moralist in regard to sustainability of where, we who eat meat, get our meat? You paint with a wide brush that all "foodies" are somehow complicit with the eating of "endangered species" and what you term "grotesque", "obscure", "exotic" and "hard-to-come by". What do you do with the rest of the animal that has graced us with it's presence at our table? You eat every bit. Nose to tail. Honor the animal. Waste nothing.
I find it absolutely fascinating that my comments here, which do not advocate veganism but instead assail wrong-headed opinions about it, are taken as homiletic. This is an inexplicable and misplaced default position of defensiveness.
Vegans are today's Puritans, on a crusade that has no real morality, since it is against Divine order as well as Nature. Labeling appreciation of food as "gluttony" is as histrionic, and ridiculous as deeming a happily married couple's appreciation of wild sex with each other "immorality."
Health-wise? Again, arguable. I know vegans who eat more fried chick peas than the entire state of Israel. I will totally give you that Americans eat too much meat. But if we retrained our tastes to eat one meat meal a day we would be totally ok, and the health issue would not be an issue. What you, among other people fail to realize is that in order to correct the health issues with the American diet, elimination of meat is not needed, only a reduction in how much and what cuts we eat. That and vegans do not have any sort of monopoly on healthy eating. Then you have Mercola talking about eating more coconut oil-LOADED with saturated fat-as a way of life. Sorry, you do not have any sort of moral or health authority.
Us "enlightened omnivores" have found the third path, and like Captain Kirk and the Kobiyashi Maru, the third path is what gets the commendations.
There is a reason why food tastes better in France, why the produce offered in a small town's bi-weekly market is better than that offered in our grocery stores. There is a reason why in some American cities (NYC or SF) one can walk into nearly any restaurant and get a palatable or great or breathtaking meal. Food is part of the culture, a culture with high expectations. Butchers, bakers, grocers and restauranteurs, strive to meet those expectations. Foodies contribute to the expansion of food culture by making expectations clear. Unfortunately, too many foodies use their newly acquired tastes to set themselves apart from the middling classes. To them food is a social distinction, not a passion. Instead of exploring the food world to find fault and hoarding it to their breast until they can scurry to their blog to report the shortcoming, they should have the courage to tell the restauranteur, butcher, etc. their concerns and to add what they did like, no matter how small it might be.
As to Mr. Myers, I have to admit the vitriol of his article was so offputting that I only read half of it. To say that foodies lack culture is silly. Foodies taste and feel culture through their taste buds and sense of feel. Art-lovers see culture. Music lovers hear culture. Literature is for those who love all culture.
I have no more room.
If people want to truly make a difference, some should just put down the fork, step away from the PC and try to contribute something positive to society.
oh yeah SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!
I do not believe that the Food Network started out to be the next MTV. I think it has become that way over time. Their representatives have stated that they do not believe that anyone can learn by watching TV. Thus we now have competitions and "Best Thing I Ever Ate" shows galore. The Cooking Channel actually has some good programming in older shows by Julia Child, Galloping Gourmet, Two Fat Laddies and Iron Chef Japan. They have cooking shows based on Caribbean, Indian, Chinese, Italian and Vietnamese cuisines. They are also getting worse with the same "Best of" travel shows, Rachael Ray, Bobby Flay and other Food Network Star losers with shows of their own which I refuse to watch.
I mostly stick to real cooking programing without commercials on PBS or Create. That is where the real cooking shows have always been.
PBS is king in my book! I've got a special place in my heart for Lidia! Food Network is unwatchable. Cooking Channel has its good shows and its bad shows... I only hope that they don't trade some of the wonderful shows that they have for more ratings boosting episodes of Guy Fieri and that girl who looks like a female Guy Fieri.
We may disagree on what the foodie movement actually is but I'm pretty sure we're in the same boat when it comes to food itself (which is what it's all about)! Thanks for the advice on the Francis Lam thing. I'm going to check it out right now!
I think the comparison between FN and MTV is an excellent one, and Dr. Funkenstein, I like your analogy. MTV started out trying to be a unique thing, and gradually succumbed to market pressures so that it doesn't resemble what it once was - we're left with crap. Same thing with FN. In my opinion, the best food shows are those that are challenging, teach us something useful, or show us new things we would never have been exposed too - my two personal favorites would be Julia Child and Iron Chef Japan.
Thanks for the comments - and I was not trying to take a dig at Myers for being a vegan. I just think that helps us understand where he is coming from.