Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/265812885
CITATIONS READS
15 3,648
1 author:
Fabio Parasecoli
New York University
43 PUBLICATIONS 220 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Redesigning the future of Polish food in the cosmopolitan foodscape View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Fabio Parasecoli on 07 December 2015.
who had emigrated from her village in Abruzzo, Italy, to America in the
early 1930s, invited me to a dinner in Delaware organized by her daugh-
ters and many of her descendants. Food, abundant and delicious, elimi-
nated any distance between my numerous cousins and me during that
emotional and unforgettable event. I soon realized some of the dishes
served had the same names as those I used to eat back home, but they
looked and tasted different. Moreover, the way they were served was
new to me: most dishes came to the table at the same time, and there
was no trace of the sequence of appetizers (antipasti), primi, secondi,
side dishes (contorni), and desserts that structures big, festive meals in
Italy. However, the interactions around the table, the body language,
the sounds, were reminiscent of many of the family occasions that
took place in Italy. Somehow, I was at home away from home. After my
first exposure to Italian-American cuisine, puzzlement was replaced by
amusement and curiosity, which over time led to more systematic and
theoretical questions.
How do culinary traditions develop as they do among migrants?
Why are certain food objects, behaviors, norms, and values from their
places of origin maintained, more or less transformed, to become im-
portant points of reference in the formation of a sense of community
and belonging, while some disappear and others resurface only after
periods of invisibility? What role do cooking and other food-related
In this sense, like any other cultural phenomenon that can be inter-
preted and understood, food can be considered as “an ensemble of texts”
(Geertz 1973, 24). Every ingredient, each dish, the meal structure, and
all the elements forming a culinary culture are connected. They are
inf luenced not only by the past, frequently interpreted and practiced
as tradition, but also by new occurrences resulting from both internal
dynamics and the incorporation of external elements. As a result, mean-
ings attributed to food are never completely defined once and for all
but are uninterruptedly negotiated and transformed through practices,
discourse, and representations. However, despite constant changes, food
cultures present an internal coherence, which provides parameters for
defining behaviors and objects as acceptable or deviant and that can be
interpreted as a form of culinary competence.
A concept originating in linguistics, competence is
416 social research
the ability to perceive phenomena in our environment as
signs, i.e. to understand the connection between present,
(partially) hidden, and entirely absent phenomena. . . the
ability to store information and form interpretive habits on
the basis of either genetic programming or memory and
learning processes (Johansen and Svend 2002, 30).
418 social research
ute to shaping migrants’ new culinary competences in their physical,
emotional, and cognitive dimensions. Newcomers are aware that any
element of the environment around them can potentially become part
of their diet, and they may painfully experience the constant tension,
described by Claude Fischler, between neophilia, the curiosity to try new
foods, and neophobia, the concurrent fear of unknown substances, which
could be potentially dangerous or even poisonous (Fischler 2001; Rozin
1988). Unknown ingredients or dishes, after finding their place in a ba-
sic edible/inedible opposition, can be considered more or less familiar
and more or less palatable on two continuums that go from “totally
exotic” to “totally familiar” and from “totally palatable” to “totally un-
palatable” (Long 1998, 187). Furthermore, a whole set of denotations
are established, hinging on the physical and identifying characteristics,
such shape, color, smell, texture, temperature, and taste.
The basic traits (sensory characteristics, edibility, familiarity,
palatability) that migrants may employ to sort new foods are never
developed in isolation as a result of exclusively individual experiences
and memories. In fact, the personal understanding and use of foods—
how, where, and from whom they can be obtained, how they can be
stored and for how long, and, above all, how they can be processed,
cooked, and consumed—is enriched by the contribution of others who
share the same or a different background, which establishes the “com-
munal” aspects of the experience. Unless migrants find themselves
alone and refrain from any contact, the adaptation process to the new
land is shared, influenced, and constructed through interactions at
least within the intimate circles of family, friends, neighbors, cowork-
ers, and the immediate social sphere. These familiar connections are
particularly important as migrants have to adjust to puzzling seasonal
cycles, foreign calendars, and strange holidays where their food plays
no part. As immigrants collectively expand and reshape their culinary
competence to make sense of new situations, the communal reposi-
tory of memories and experiences related to the place of origin may
also influence the way they relate to each other.
While easing the anxieties caused by the constant and invasive
exposure to Otherness, communal practices such as food preparation,
420 social research
ous. Collective experiences are supposed to be shared by individuals
and groups that might not be in direct contact but somehow share
the same origin and story. For instance, groups of immigrants coming
from different parts of Italy at different points in time with different
motivations, speaking mutually unintelligible dialects and eating very
different food, found themselves establishing a new shared identity
as Italians, partly because the host community bunched them into an
undifferentiated group and partly because they often shared neigh-
borhoods, jobs, and a variety of social activities. Recipes started circu-
lating beyond immediate circles of acquaintances, importers provided
certain products and not others, and a set of holidays and relevant
occasions slowly acquired more importance than others.
The “collective” aspect of migrant culinary experiences is con-
structed through constant interactions not only among community
members and the host community but also with the communities of
origin. Many migrants, especially those who are first generation, main-
tain close connections with their place of origin through relatives,
friends, remittances, participation in events and special occasions, and
occasional trips. However, migrant culinary canons often develop fol-
lowing their own dynamics that are not necessarily the same as their
cuisine of origin: the context, the external pressures, and the internal
structures are not the same. Within these canons, dishes and practic-
es connected to special occasions and celebrations assume particular
visibility and relevance. We can mention the Italian-American “Seven
Fish” dinner on Christmas Eve, Seder for Jewish communities, Lunar
New Year menus for immigrants of Chinese descent, Diwali specialties
for the Hindus, desserts for the Mexican Dia de los Muertos, and dishes
sold at the Caribbean parade in Brooklyn. Interestingly, these practices
have the potential to become objects of dissension among older and
younger generations, who might have very different takes on their rel-
evance in the new environment. Furthermore, food-related traditions
are filtered through cookbooks, media, and other discursive elements,
together with restaurants, stores, and other institutions, which over
time establish conventions and expectations, often shared and rein-
forced by the host community.
422 social research
Administrative bodies, tourism boards, and business associa-
tions at all levels also use food to promote their locations as tourist
destinations. As dining and discovering new ingredients and cuisines
is considered an essential component of a vacation by an increasing-
ly large segment of tourists, in particular those with higher spend-
ing power, it becomes a priority to provide visitors with a clear set
of choices of dishes and traditions that can be experienced in a safe
and pleasurable way and that somehow distill the culinary essence of
a place. Political and economic negotiations determine what dishes
get included in the canon, which versions are considered “authentic,”
and what dishes are excluded. Certain places are identified as the cru-
cible or quintessential expression of migrant culinary traditions: New
York City, Little Italy, Chinatown, Jackson Heights, and Washington
Heights have all been turned into imaginary projections of homoge-
neous communities.
424 social research
and divide. They connect those who share them, confirm the eaters’
identities as individuals or as part of a collective. At the same time,
meals exclude those who do not participate in them, marking them
as outsiders. Participants in the same culinary culture acknowledge
each other by the way they eat, by what they eat, and by what their
diets exclude. Food is not only central to the emergence of a shared
identity that is framed by the host community as “ethnic”; it is also
paramount to the formation of the migrants’ opinions on their own
history. Within the same population, the past can be projected as per-
fection and happiness, where food was healthier and more tasteful, or
remembered as marked by hunger and deprivation. These perceptions
cannot be belittled as fantasies and imagination because, as Arjun Ap-
padurai has argued, they constitute functional social phenomena. In
fact, they interact with and have actual consequences for the econom-
ics and the politics of the communities involved (Appadurai 1996).
The rediscovery, protection, and promotion of “traditional”
foods and foodways, together with the construction of historical nar-
ratives around them, actively contribute to the creation of a sense of
a shared experience among migrants. These discursive formations are
not mere reflections of communities that already exist but instead
shape the very emergence of the set of dynamics that is retroactively
projected as a coherent and stable social structure, the “community.”
Communities might not exist prior to the issues that precipitate their
activation; instead, they come into being at the very moment when
they rediscover certain elements of their material culture as central to
their shared identity. For this reason, “community” can be interpreted
as a shifting series of both concurrent and successive configurations,
even when composed of the same members. If this is the case, com-
munities should rather be considered as emerging from specific situa-
tions, calling on individuals and groups in their various and complex
subject positions to generate new and ever-evolving formations. From
this point of view, communities are never stable, not having any kind
of essential and enduring traits.
426 social research
ly felt, but needs to be projected onto imaginary spaces. However, An-
derson also wonders about the actual power of such a seemingly flimsy
and recent concept as the imagined community known as nation, re-
minding us that many of its members were, and still are, ready to die
for it. The specter of the Motherlands, the Fatherlands, the Holy Lands,
and the Promised Lands that has scourged human history is too close
for comfort. When talking about the willingness of people to sacrifice
for an abstract concept, Anderson admits that the concept must be not
only politically viable but also “emotionally plausible” (51).
The emotional and ultimately embodied aspects of the human
experience are often problematic for political theory, since they can
be easily identified with irrational phenomena such as witch hunts,
crowd behaviors based on anger or panic, and rallies hailing dictators.
Insurgencies do not limit themselves to questioning the status quo and
asking for new beginnings: they have been known to generate fren-
zies that are likely to end up in massacres. As Mao Zedong famously
stated, revolutions are not dinner parties. In all these extreme cases,
the emotional aspects of social behaviors are connected to a physical
dimension of spatial proximity, highlighting the role played by the
actual bodies of the participants, beyond their rational motivations
and their political projects. Anonymous bodies, moving in their own
accord and following unknown priorities, can be scary, especially in
close proximity, as Nobel Prize recipient Elias Canetti reflected in his
1960 masterpiece, Crowds and Power:
There is nothing that man fears more than the touch of the
unknown. . . . It is only in a crowd that man can become
free of this fear of being touched. That is the only situation
in which the fear changes into its opposite. . . . Ideally, all
are equal there; no distinctions count. . . . The most impor-
tant occurrence within the crowd is the discharge. Before
this the crowd does not actually exist; it is the discharge
which creates it. This is the moment when all who belong
to the crowd get rid of their differences and feel equal
(Canetti [1960] 1984, 17–20).
428 social research
Paradoxically, because of the economic and social dynamics
that determined its inevitable and unstoppable expansion, the city,
the exemplar modern community, was always at risk of being tainted
by the lack of actual communal life, especially painful for those mov-
ing from the rural world or from the peripheries of the empires. It is
no wonder that the newcomers found in their own bodies and in what
they ingested the points of reference to build new communities and
fight the tendency that cities demonstrate to alienate its inhabitants.
When examining The Image of the City by urban planner Kevin Lynch in
Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Frederick Jameson
defined the alienated city as
430 social research
act in a similar way to the pervasiveness of corporate food distribution
networks, controlled by big conglomerates and agro-businesses and
increasingly experienced as abstract, dehumanizing, and socially un-
just. The consequence is, for instance, the success of value-based labels
such as “local,” “traditional,” “organic,” and “artisanal,” which at any
rate, to be fully effective, need to be paired with actual human connec-
tions and relationships among the actors involved—in other words,
the emotional experience of community.
At times, the members of these alternative food networks, often
well-meaning in their effort to establish or reconstruct better stan-
dards of life, seem oblivious to the uncomfortable reality that their
shopping and consumption practices tend to exclude those who do
not have the financial or cultural means to take advantage of them,
including working-class and minority consumers, as well as the mi-
grants involved in the production of the goods they acquire (Binkley
2008; Zukin 2008). In fact, migrants grow vegetables and pick fruit,
slaughter animals in inhumane conditions, cook and wash dishes in
the back of innumerable restaurants. In many cities, they sell coffee
and snacks at street corners and deliver meals riding their bicycles at
breakneck speed. They make the entire food system function, but they
remain invisible, exploited, and unable to contribute anything from
their own culinary knowledge. A growing awareness of these issues
among food activists is now originating practices that are meant to
avoid elitism and promote justice also in terms of food sovereignty
(Alkon 2008; Block et al. 2008; Windfuhr and Jonsén 2005).
Despite their tactical approach, food-related communities, both
those established among immigrants and the alternative food networks
originating from a social awareness about food systems and quality of
life, all coalesce around the same desire to defend an often imagined
past that is perceived as threatened with extinction, and to claim roots
that are constantly antagonized or negated by the surrounding envi-
ronment. These communities seem to operate in ways that, despite
their embeddedness in specific places, move beyond them to feature
what Arjun Appadurai defines as “locality” that is,
432 social research
sional encounters with other migrants, rare trips to the mother coun-
try, or even the perusal of an ingredient’s origin on product packag-
ing and restaurant menus. In these cases, familiar food practices and
dishes can counteract the sense of distance from one’s community.
EMBEDDING NETWORKS
Faced with increasingly tenuous links among individuals and groups
that nevertheless consider themselves as belonging to a community, it is
understandable that the attention of many theorists has turned towards
connectivity and networks. For instance, Hervé Le Bras (1997) used
the expression “urban filaments” to describe those areas that connect
metropolitan centers to each other, which host most of the economic
and productive activities and large segments of the population. These
filaments often shape the f lows and activities of migrants, determining
their choices and sense of connectedness. Marc Augé spoke of a “triple
decentering,” which defines what he labeled “supermodernity”: big
cities measure their relevance “by the quality and scale of the highway
and rail networks linking them with the airports” (2008, vii); in private
homes, televisions and computers replace the hearth; and the individual
“can thus live rather oddly in an intellectual, musical, or visual environ-
ment that is wholly independent of his immediate physical surround-
ings” (viii). This decentering corresponds to the spread of what Augé
calls “empirical nonplaces,” spaces of circulation, consumption, and
communication that differ from “anthropological places,” where social
bonds and collective history are deeply inscribed. When moving to new
places, migrants find themselves constantly negotiating between the
fascination with these nonplaces that represent modernity and where
consumer culture fully expresses itself, and the desire to establish safe
places where their cultural identity and their otherness is appreciated
and reproduced.
Swiss sociologist Rudolph Stichweh highlighted the capacity of
networks to connect heterogeneous elements and to make physical
space irrelevant:
These networks in fact constitute “small worlds” that may exist inde-
pendently from any sense of scale or distance (Stichweh 2004, 15).
Immaterial networks attract attention as true expressions of
globalization and as interpretive instruments to understand contem-
porary social developments. However, as Augé himself admits, “an aes-
thetic of distance tends to make us overlook all the effects of rupture”
(2008, xvi). That is to say, a point of view that abstracts from actual
places and from the living bodies that inhabit them may not be able to
get the whole picture. In Augé’s words, “walls, partitions, barriers are
appearing on the local scale and in the most everyday management of
the space” (xiii) since the “clamor of particularisms rises; clamor from
those who want to stay at home in peace, clamor from those who want
to find a mother country” (28).
Communities, and in particular communities somehow emerged
around individuals that find themselves eating in specific places, can
offer a strong resistance to supermodernity. They cannot be considered
only leftovers from the past or discounted as dysfunctional clusters
that hinder evolution. Ethnographer Anna Tsing (2004) has explored
friction as a metaphor for physical and often messy encounters as the
constitutive dynamics of contemporary global connections. When
thinking about communities exclusively in terms of networks, we can-
not forget that their members are actually embodied and experience
life not only in spirit but also in the flesh (Valentine 2002). What could
be better than food-centered practices to remind us of this simple fact?
434 social research
Through food, communities highlight the physical aspects of social
ties and obligations and the relevance of bodies that feel, affect, and
are permeable to the outside (Mol 2002). Eating bodies are not there
just to be passively inscribed by cultural and social norms, as mal-
leable masses that cannot talk back; they show that nature and culture
are deeply entangled, existing in complex relations that are contingent
and mutable (Blackman 2008, 34). There is no presocial natural body,
fixed and static, always ready to be molded by fluid and ever-chang-
ing social dynamics, no authentic and pure physical self that can be
masked by various personas in social performances. These bodies are
always unfinished and in process (83). When considering ingestion, it
is actually easier to think in terms of enactment, of what these bodies
can do, of dynamic processes rather than static substances (105–106).
Rosi Braidotti uses the metaphor of “nomadic subjectivity,” referring
not only to ever-changing subject positions but also to bodies consid-
ered as porous, mixing and interconnecting, always morphing, in pro-
cess, transient, and mobile (2002, 70).
These reflections on the role of food in the emergence of mi-
grant communities echo Deleuze and Guattari’s reflections about the
rhizome, an excretion that “assumes very diverse forms, from ramified
surface extension in all directions to concretion into bulbs and tubers”
and that “includes the best and the worst: potato and couchgrass, or the
weed” (1987, 7). According to the French theorists, the rhizome as an
interpretive tool emphasizes connection and heterogeneity, revealing
the inherent multiplicity and apparent disorder of cultural formations.
Rhizomes expand across different surfaces, connecting diverse elements
into a temporary arrangement, teeming with inordinate life; similarly,
migrant communities originate and change not in abstract spaces, but
in actual places, where food practices allow languages, bodies, politics,
economics, sciences, and other fields of experience to connect in un-
predictable fashion. Rhizomes are always ready to expand or to shrivel,
depending on the situation and the elements that coalesce to initiate
them. In rhizomes, nothing is permanent and stable; for this reason,
nothing is univocal and essential; everything rather pulsates in continu-
ous movements of deterritorialization and reterritorialization.
436 social research
embodied experiences that at the personal, communal, collective, and
institutional levels constantly negotiate not only with such ideals such
as nation, identity, authenticity, and tradition, but with the pull of
more abstract networks that highlight connections while disregarding
the emotional impact of embeddedness in specific places. A full under-
standing of food-related practices, norms, and ideas among migrants
reveal their shifting and instable nature of their communities, but also
their existential relevance. A reflection on food, whose main function
is to be destroyed by ingestion, could help to anchor contemporary
theories of globalization in the physical, emotional, and imperfect di-
mension of the body, with its pains and its pleasures.
REFERENCES
Abarca, Meredith. 2004. “Authentic or Not, It’s Original.” Food and Foodways
12 (1): 1–25.
Alkon, Alison Hope. 2008. “From Value to Values: Sustainable
Consumption at Farmers Markets.” Agriculture and Human Values
25 (4): 487–498.
Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined Communities. London and New York:
Verso.
Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Augé, Marc. 2008. Non-places: An Introduction to Supermodernity. London and
New York: Verso.
Bendix, Regina. 1997. In Search of Authenticity: The Formation of Folklore Studies.
Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Benjamin, Walter. 2002. The Arcades Project. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Binkley, Sam. 2008. “Liquid Consumption. Anti-consumerism and the
Fetishized De-fetishization of Commodities.” Cultural Studies 22 (5):
599–623.
Blackman, Lisa. 2008. The Body. Oxford: Berg.
Block, Daniel. 2008. “Engagement for Transformation: Value Webs for
Local Food System Development.” Agriculture and Human Values 25
(3): 379–388.
438 social research
de la Reyniere, Greymaud. 1978. Itineraire nutritif ou Promenade d’un gour-
mand dans divers quartiers de Paris. Paris: Unions Generale d’Editions.
Rozin, Paul. 1988. “Cultural Approaches to Human Food Preferences.” In
Nutritional Modulation of Neural Function, edited by John E. Morley, M.
Barry Sterman, and John H. Walsh, 137–153. New York: Academic
Press.
Sewell, William H., Jr. 1999. “The Concept(s) of Culture.” In Beyond the
Cultural Turn, edited by Victoria Bonnell and Lynn Hunt, 35–61.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Sinclair, Upton. (1906) 1985. The Jungle. New York: Penguin.
Stichweh, Rudolf. 2003. “Structure Formation in World Society: The
Eigenstructures of World Society and the Regional Cultures of the
World.” Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Eastern
Sociological Society, Philadelphia, February 27–March 2.
———. 2004. On the Genesis of World Society: Innovations and Mechanisms.
Working Paper, Institut fur Weltgesellschaft.
Tsing, Anna. 2004. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Valentine, Gill. 2002. “In-corporations: Food, Bodies and Organizations.”
Body and Society 8 (2): 1–20.
Windfuhr, Michael, and Jennie Jonsén. 2005. Food Sovereignty: Towards
Democracy in Localized Food Systems. Rugby, UK: ITDG Publishing.
Zola, Emile. 1874. Le ventre de Paris. Paris: Charpentier.
Zukin, Sharon. 2008. “Consuming Authenticity—From Outposts of
Difference to Means of Exclusion.” Cultural Studies 22 (5): 724–748.