Western Gastronomy: Commons,

Heritages and Markets

Christian Barrère, Laboratory Regards, University of Reims, France.

1 Introduction: towards an economic analysis of gastronomy

Anthropologists, sociologists, historians, geographers and other social scientists are interested
in the scientific analysis of the evolution and workings of food, cuisine and gastronomy.
Strangely, however, economists are lagging behind, particularly in the analysis of gastronomy
– although of course food and all its developments do have an economic dimension. Cuisine
and gastronomy consume scarce resources whose production and transport comes at a price.
Inputs are transformed in productive processes that use labour and equipment. It may be true
that these activities remain ungoverned by market norms, routines or logic, yet they still
consume resources, produce amenities, and belong to the economic fields of production and
consumption. In some cases, their economic dimension remains very important - as in the
case of gastronomy, which constitutes the core of this chapter. Some gastronomic
establishments make a lot of money; famous chefs export their restaurants all over the world
(Joël Robuchon owns 13 restaurants with a total of 25 Michelin stars; Paul Bocuse, a 3-star
chef since 1965, has 17; Gordon Ramsay has 11) and build profitable groups (under the
Ducasse group name, Alain Ducasse has 30 restaurants throughout the world, and a total of 18
Michelin-Red Guide stars). Specialists in tourism are shedding light on the growing role of
gastronomy in the touristic appeal of certain places, and specialists in gastronomy note the
shifting of restaurants towards touristic areas.
A reasonable hypothesis is that this lack of interest in the economic analysis of cuisine
and gastronomy derives from the limits of the mainstream model of the rational individual. Its
first limitation is the utilitarian foundation of the behaviours postulated by a standard analysis
of demand functions while, in the gastronomic field, goods are consumed for the sake of
pleasure rather for utilitarian purposes, thus becoming ‘hedonic goods’ (Hirschman and
Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Addis and Holbrook, 2001). Tastes and
preferences then move beyond strict rationality since they result from emotional behaviour,
which needs to consider rationality and emotions together, unlike the mainstream hypothesis1.
The second limitation derives from the model’s implicitly institutional framework (which
considers individual and market dimensions alone) even though gastronomy is characterised
by two pairs of opposite dimensions.
The first of these is the connection between the individual and collective dimensions.
The study of cuisine and gastronomy cannot be limited to market equilibrium between
individual demand and supply; social context must also be taken into account. Cuisine has
long since been organised mainly by collective and no-profit institutions as family and
community, and often still is. Even though individual talents, behaviours and strategies play a
role, study of these factors remains absolutely necessary in order to consider the relation
between the collective and individual dimensions of cuisine and gastronomy - and to examine

1
Elster shown that the economic theory has to consider emotions: “Emotional experiences are important sources
of human satisfaction, we would expect economists to have thought about them a great deal…Economists, as we
know, have done nothing of the kind… To put it crudely, economists have totally neglected the most important
aspect of their subject matter” (Elster, 1996: 1386).

1
how market and no-market processes cohabit or mix into hybrid modes of organisation – none
of which is exactly the cup of tea of standard economic analysis. Gastronomy cannot be
analysed by strict implementation of the standard microeconomic model, which postulates a
purely rational person, related to other individuals by market relations alone. The inputs and
outputs of gastronomy cannot be considered as exclusively economic resources, able to be
owned by individuals through market property rights. Besides markets and private properties,
commons, heritages and hybrid forms of property and use characterise the workings of the
gastronomic field.
A second connection links the role of the past (mainly via its legacy) with that of the
present (mainly via innovation and creativity). Because social norms and routines are
embedded within a historical context (Italian gastronomy being fundamentally different from
American gastronomy), the historical point of view is necessary to understanding the current
problems and evolution of gastronomy, and by including this historic perspective, we step
right away from the formalist approach of mainstream economics. Gastronomy should thus be
studied from the perspective of commons and heritages analysis, because this new framework
allows consideration of social, collective and past dimensions.
In this chapter we restrict ourselves to consideration of the institutional organisation of
western gastronomy from the point of view of economic theory. Gastronomy is only one part
of cuisine and foodways, yet it allows an accurate observation of its working,

We try to understand this hybrid organisation (which includes private property rights,
commons and heritages) and its evolution. We show that market dynamics drive the
development of the leading edge of gastronomy, and that heritages are what frame this
development, co-determining its path. In the recent period, the extension and intensification
of competition has led to hyper-sophistication of cooking and over-investment, undermining
the economic and social sustainability of the leading western model. The issue then becomes
the possibility of reviving western gastronomy by exploring its roots afresh and renewing the
relationship between elitist gastronomy (currently top artistic and scientific gastronomy) and
popular gastronomy - and by opening it up to other heritages.
The next point is dedicated to a consideration of the supremacy of collective
organisation and the role of the past in the foundation of gastronomy. The third point studies
the organisational characteristics of the leading western gastronomic model. In the fourth
section we consider the effects of the development of market relations on its organisation and
evolution, leading up to its present difficulties. The fifth and final section presents concluding
remarks on the limitations of the present leading model of gastronomy, and explores the
possibility of a popular gastronomy based on commons, including heritages.

2 The Bases of Western Gastronomy: Commons and Heritages

The development path of western gastronomy is nurtured by commons and heritages (and the
same is probably true of most gastronomies, but our knowledge is limited to the western
situation, and we must avoid eurocentrism).

1) The collective dimension of cuisine and the role of commons

Because food is strongly embedded into a given culture, western gastronomies result from
collective and age-old constructions. The collective dimension includes two main
characteristics. On the one hand, cuisine and gastronomy are collective processes, since they
are socially organised (i.e. organised by a community). In view of this, a given cuisine
expresses the specificity and identity of a given community, including its composition and
structure. On the other hand, cuisine and gastronomy are socially structured and differentiated

2
because they define the different uses of food (according to social conditions, status, age and
gender) that draw together different situations and different group (or social) positions: food
intended for the Gods cannot be the same as food for the people, food for dominant groups is
not the same as food for ordinary people, food for feasts and religious ceremonies is not the
same as everyday food. Food, culinary and gastronomic systems constitute sets that serve to
organise difference - structured sets.
Nutritional value could, at a stretch, be said to refer only to the individual, but the
same could not be said of food – upon which all of this confers a semiotic dimension that is
fundamentally dependant on social values and norms. People eat in every society, thus
developing cultural use of any potential foodstuff: not every good is good to eat, even if it has
nutritional characteristics, it has to be good to be thought of; plus, cultural norms such as the
distinction between le cru (the raw), le cuit (the cooked) and le pourri (the putrefied) serve to
classify foodstuffs and the different ways they are used (Levi-Strauss, 1964). This semiotic
principle remains determinant. For instance, Fischler (1993) argues that the present distinction
between edible and inedible varies from country to country and from one culinary culture to
another: in 42 cultures dog meat is commonly eaten; in many countries rat meat is much
appreciated; ants are cooked in Colombia, as are bees, wasps and cockroaches in China.
In the western world during the Middle Ages, food was thought of within the
paradigm of the Great Chain of Being. The universe was considered on the basis of a
hierarchical principle from earth to sky, from material to spiritual beings, from sin to
perfection, from the Devil to God. At the top, God, then angels, saints, kings, princes, nobles,
commoners, animals, plants, minerals. The same principle governed the hierarchy of food: at
the bottom, bulbs (garlic or onion) and roots (carrots, beets, or turnips), which were under the
ground; then vegetables whose leaves start from the root (salads, spinach); followed by
vegetables whose leaves start from the stem (peas, cabbage); then foodstuff located in the air
(cereal); then fruit coming from trees (pears have a strong value but strawberries, which are
on the ground, were looked down on); the birds, higher still, and so on. This ‘natural’ order
implied parallels between foods and eaters. Upper beings had to eat upper food while lower
beings ate lower food; for instance, peasants ate leek and onion but never peacock or swan –
while the reverse was true of aristocrats. Note that the present cuisine continues to name
certain foodstuffs ‘noble’ (caviar, lobster, etc.) and certain wines (such as the Bordeaux
Grands Crus Classés) Grands Vins – precisely to distinguish them from standard goods.
Moreover, certain social norms (mainly religious) have influenced the semiotic quality
of goods. Fish had high value because of its connection to Christ (a symbol of the first
Christians was the Greek word ἰχθύς for fish - an acronym of "Jesus Christ, Son of God,
Saviour"); and the same is true of cherries (a symbol of the holy blood) and pomegranates
(each pip a symbol of a drop of Christ’s blood). Apples, however, were bad food because of
their role in Original Sin; and fox was not eaten, while a lot of other animals were (rabbit,
hare, deer, boar, etc.) because the fox was the symbol of the Devil. The semiotic dimension of
food goods took on such importance because people thought God was speaking to them
through these signs based on resemblance and similitude (Foucault, 1966). Religious norms -
for instance the distinction between feast and fast days - are part and parcel of this complex
set of cultural and social meanings.
In the same way, the distinction between luxury and ordinary food, and between
standard and gastronomic cuisine, depends on food goods’ semiotic value. Major changes are
discernible over many years. In the 19th century, the captains of fishing boats on the Gironde
and Adour rivers in south-west France used to give their employees the catch of wild
sturgeon, as non-noble, unsaleable fish; employees would eat the fish, but only after feeding
the eggs to their pigs. Today these eggs constitute the caviar of Aquitaine - which is as
expensive as the Iranian product.

3
 Recent evolutions in west European attitudes towards horse meat reflect this cultural
and semiotic dimension of food: whereas, 50 years ago, eating horse meat was normal (and
often recommended for medical reasons), today most people consider this meat inedible,
because horses are too close to human beings to be transformed into food. As soon as
economists accept consideration of this semiotic dimension, they must also consider the social
dimension of food, which prevents them from starting the analysis with the study of the
purely individual functions of demand that are founded purely on individual tastes. Taste and
food attitudes result in the individual’s integration to a given community, in a given place and
at a given time.

2) The role of the past and the building of heritages

As a community passes through time, it keeps certain cultural rules around the organisation of
eating, which leads to the constitution of heritages (Di Giovine and Brulotte, 2014; Barrère,
Bonnard, Chossat, 2014). Culinary heritages are social constructs that pass through time and
express the identity of a community (making it specific and different from any other). This
entails ongoing consideration of: the temporal dimension of food practices; the consequences
of past on present; the inertia of behaviours - and even of tastes. Heritages frame the present
context, and their influence is particularly strong in the fields of cuisine and gastronomy
because culinary systems define types of foodstuffs, preparation, use, presentation and dining
manners, and so include more or less coherent sets of principles, attitudes and rules. Since
they are embedded within a given culture, culinary systems are different - and heritages
reproduce these specificities. For instance, Poulain (2002) analysed the specificity of the
French food model, based on a series of three structured meals. Fischler and Masson (2008)
and Rozin, Remick and Fischler (2011) studied fundamental differences in attitudes towards
food held in different countries - mainly between French and American adults. They
connected these to cultural trends: "compared to the French, Americans emphasise quantity
rather than quality in making choices, Americans have a higher preference for variety, and
Americans usually prefer comfort things (that make life easier) over joys (unique things that
make life interesting)" (Rozin, Remick and Fischler, 2011, p.1).
Heritages play a particularly powerful role in the development of gastronomy.
Gastronomy develops in certain conditions, when pleasure is recognised. It then acquires
autonomy from nutrition, with the search of pleasure prevailing over the nutritional aim;
cuisine thus leaves the register of necessity for the register of pleasure. For some people
(Gods or chiefs, for instance) and/or in some conditions (feasts and ceremonies, for instance)
eating mainly derives not from pure necessity - but also from pleasure and honour. Popular
and elitist gastronomies appear. Popular gastronomies are generally based on local resources
and use local recipes that circulate within the community, constituting commons. As such,
these are mainly conservative, so that the innovation rate is very low. Yet they are able to
evolve, particularly when they encounter new knowledge, new recipes and new resources.
The emblematic dish of French south-western cuisine - cassoulet, which is based on haricot
beans, used to be made using broad beans and chickpeas until the 17th century, when these
were supplanted by the haricot bean, following its arrival in Europe from Mexico. The public
component of gastronomic production was dominant; no individual contribution could be
credited (who invented bouillabaisse or pizza?). Indeed, early recipe books were collections
of traditional recipes (generally no specific author of recipes could be identified, and such
books were often published anonymously) and made no claim to innovation.
Most heritages are governed by a concern for conservation, but the distinctive aspect
of aristocratic gastronomic heritage is that, being constructed around creativity, it is driven to
constantly call into question what has gone before.

4
 3) Heritages, commons and markets
Culinary cultures gather shared resources (recipes, ways of using natural resources and so on)
and these resources constitute commons. Oström’s (1990) study mainly concerned natural
resource commons — but this framework has also been used for cultural commons (Hess and
Oström, 2003). In this case, since the use of cultural resources is generally free of rivalry, the
problem is still more complex — because the efficiency question is about producing and
developing natural resources rather than avoiding waste and overuse (Madison, Frischmann
and Strandburg, 2010). But the notion of commons must be rigorously defined.
Oström (1990, 2006) distinguished Common-Pool Resources and Open Access
Resources, showing that their use could be managed by many different institutional rules.
Nevertheless, she fluctuated between a social and a technical definition of commons. On the
one hand she noted that commons were highly contextual, insisting that the context of their
institutional framework must be used in specifying different cases of commons - the devil is
in the detail, as she often said. On the other hand, she tried to link her analysis to mainstream
analysis by defining commons as a general category capable of being absorbed by the
traditional theory of public goods. Commons become a fourth category in the classification of
economic goods (or resources) according to their subtractability and exclusivity: private
goods (strong subtractability and easy exclusion), club goods (low subtractability and easy
exclusion), public goods (low subtractability and costly exclusion), and commons (strong
subtractability and costly exclusion) 2 . Commons, then, are resources held in common
according to technical characteristics - while other resources are held by clubs, by the state
and by private ownership. The relation between type of property and technical characteristics
(exclusivity and subtractability) derives from the constraint of minimising transaction costs;
for Oström, communities were often better managers of transaction costs than either market or
state.
As previously seen, in societies where market relations are either absent or
insignificant, culinary and gastronomic commons cannot be explained by a process of
reduction of transaction costs. Some commons analyses by the Oström team demonstrated -
contrary to the technical point of view - that their types of management derived from (often
rivalling) strategic choices and projects, themselves often not deriving from technical and
indisputable requirements. Moreover, culinary and gastronomic commons include resources
(recipes, knacks, suggestions of foodstuffs or meals, and so on), as well as the rules,
constraints, and taboos that organise food activity; these are a special kind of commons and
arise out of a social and cultural building of local communities and societies according to the
semiotic value of food, which connects the commons to the group’s identity in relation to other
groups, and expresses its specificity through collective idiosyncrasy (Di Giovine and Brulotte,
2014).
As the main elements of the culinary and gastronomic commons pass through time, by
a process of social and cultural transmission, and since they include structures (rules of
composition) and are connected to places, these commons constitute heritages that are defined
as sets “connected to a titular (individual or group) and expressing [their] specificity, …set[s]
historically instituted of assets built and transmitted by the past, material and immaterial
assets and institutions” (Barrère 2004: 116). The concept of heritage underlines the historical
and social dimension of culinary and gastronomic commons that determines their main
characteristics. These sets can be local, regional or national heritages, and are more or less
rigidly structured. The spatial dimension of heritage derives from the connection between

2
The framework of commons was built to consider commons of natural resources but can include
cultural commons (Hess and Ostrom, 2003; Bertacchini et alii., 2012). In this case, as for gastronomy, the
efficiency criterion has to go beyond avoiding exhaustion or waste and towards their reproduction and extension
(Madison, Frischmann and Strandburg, 2010).

5
heritage and communities. While a world set of shared gastronomic resources does exist, a
large part of these are strongly linked to local cultures and communities and belong to specific
heritages, to regional or local ways of cooking, largely dictating how dishes are made, how
flavours are blended, how textures are combined, and so on. The world set of gastronomic
commons collects shared resources worldwide: recipes, knowledge, know-how, and
organisation of meals, manners, and so on. This large commons includes different subsets that
are more or less specific - and thus, more or less compatible. For instance, for a long time,
western gastronomy borrowed spices and other condiments (though not indiscriminately)
from Asian gastronomies.

3 The Core of Western Heritage: the Western Gastronomic Model

To understand the evolution of western gastronomy we have to consider its roots: both
popular and elitist gastronomy. Popular gastronomy has been conservative, whereas elitist
gastronomy has led the way, organising the gastronomic system around a coherent model (the
aristocratic gastronomic model) and transferring it over time, as a heritage. When market
relations took control of gastronomy, they were obliged to conform to the logic of this model.

1) The development of an aristocratic gastronomic model

Historians have shown that the upper classes of ancient societies - and sometimes the lower
classes too - were familiar with gastronomy. In the Middle Ages, the development of
gastronomy was limited by a religious ideology that broke with the cult of pleasure that
existed in Greek and Roman civilisations (think of the role of Epicureanism): people were on
earth to merit salvation while awaiting Judgement Day rather than for enjoyment; the Devil,
omnipresent, lurked behind every pleasure - as can be seen in the religious frescos that
painted ‘gluttony’ as a deadly sin. Yet the continuous repetition of this propaganda shows that
the desire for culinary pleasure was ever-present, and that popular gastronomies persisted.
Using regional resources (truffles, fish or mushrooms, for instance), locally selected and
prepared (goose or duck confit, smoked or marinated fish), these popular gastronomies
defined regional recipes, mainly for special occasions (Easter, Christmas or the end of harvest
- see the peasant feasts painted by Brueghel). The main regional cuisines (including
exceptional dishes dedicated to specific occasions and belonging to gastronomy as they are
pleasure-focused) developed in the south of Europe and continue to be distinctive: Sicilian
cuisine, Tuscany cuisine, the cuisine of south-western France, Catalan cuisine, and so on.
Popular gastronomy has built heritages on which community members are able to draw, as
local commons. It remains the case, however, that gastronomy mainly developed for the
aristocracy.
This culinary model was embedded in the aristocratic paradigm of taste and luxury.
The study of the evolution of fashion (Spencer, 1854; Veblen, 1899; Simmel, 1904;
Lipovetsky, 1987; Barrère et Santagata, 2005) and of gastronomy (Parkhurst-Ferguson, 2004)
shows that the social status of demands for taste goods is governed by the paradigms of taste
and luxury. These paradigms organise all questions and answers concerning a given society,
at a given point, aimed at defining the status of taste, and, within it, the status of luxury goods:
What is good taste and bad taste? Who defines taste? Which goods belong to the luxury
domain? When and how should luxury goods be used? What is ordinary and extraordinary? Is
luxury important or marginal? A taste and luxury paradigm is embedded in a paradigm of
society, that is, the framework according to which society, at a given historical time,
represents itself - or at least according to which the dominating consensus represents it: with

6
regard to the positions of the different groups, their rights and powers, their relationships, the
relationship between individuals and society, etc.
The aristocratic paradigm of society conceived society as a set of two closed subsets,
aristocracy and people, radically distinct - the first having blue blood while the second had
only red. The corresponding paradigm of aristocratic luxury revolved around the idea that
good taste was specific to aristocracy - and thus that luxury goods should be reserved for it.
The vulgar people were incapable of appreciating luxury goods for which a taste had to be
acquired: “it would be as to throw pearls before swine”.
The vocabulary of aristocratic luxury expressed this relationship: Haute Couture,
Grande Cuisine or Haute Cuisine, Grands Vins (in the treatise of Carême two-thirds of the
dishes have names referencing the nobility - Lièvre à la Royale, for example). The aristocratic
product is exceptional in comparison to the everyday product, extraordinary in comparison to
the ordinary one - it is a ‘higher’ good marking the absolute superiority of aristocracy. This
distinction is primarily marked by the expensive nature of the product, the luxury and scarcity
of the raw materials (in the case of clothing: velvet, satins, gibes, embroidery, fur, etc.; in the
case of food: fine wines, ‘noble’ game - wild boar or stag but not rabbit). Even on
extraordinary occasions, popular consumption was different from aristocratic consumption:
aristocratic celebrations were not the same as village ones, and balls and dances were
different too - the popular banquet painted by Breughel is very different from the paintings of
court banquets.
The growing power of local and national Princes and Kings, and their enrichment,
within the context of the European Court culture (Elias, 1973) led to the constitution of
different aristocratic cuisines and gastronomies. During the 16th and 17th centuries French
gastronomy took the lead, for several reasons: the country had the biggest population in
Europe; it benefited from good natural conditions (a temperate climate and soil diversity that
allowed it to produce a broad variety of foodstuffs) - and the absolutist power of the King
meant that elites and wealth were concentrated at Versailles (whereas the regional Italian
courts remained smaller). Moreover, the English and Spanish courts, which could have been
rivals, were constrained by the development of different types of puritanism. The society of
Louis XIV’s Grand Siècle thus played an exceptional role in building, normalising and
exporting the classical model of aristocratic gastronomy, which constituted the foundation of
western gastronomic heritage.

2) The legacy of the model

In the Middle Ages, the aristocratic banquet was characterised by surfeit: an abundance of
dishes, scarce and expansive foodstuffs, waste - and aristocratic cuisine was quite
conservative. Yet French Court society dramatically changed things. Rare and costly
foodstuffs, coupled with perfect execution, were not enough. The rivalry between courts to
seem most magnificent led to continuous outbidding in terms of originality, novelty and
creativity. By making cuisine a social issue that was as crucial to the court as fashion
(Beaugé, 2010: 5), Louis XIV reinforced this movement. To dazzle the Grands, the Grand
Cuisinier resorted to creativity: new recipes, new presentations, and new sauces. No longer an
artisan, he became an artist, so that cooking was no longer a material activity but rather a
formalised, aestheticized and thus intellectualised pursuit. The chef became the core of
aristocratic gastronomy and an object of envy among monarchs and nobles, who competed
among themselves to attract the best.
The aristocratic gastronomy model imposes a costly and sophisticated cuisine with a
very long supply chain, gathering scarce, high-quality ‘noble’ foodstuffs (lobster, foie gras,
sweetbreads, caviar, oysters, asparagus, turbot, etc.), throughout France at the time –

7
nowadays, throughout the world. Their transformation is effected by a highly-qualified
labour, in the context of lengthy preparations. As such, aristocratic cuisine is clearly very
different from popular cuisine. The cuisinier (chef) is defined in contrast to the cuisinière
(housewife) in exactly the same way as the grand couturier is defined in opposition to the
couturière (seamstress). This aristocratic gastronomic social model does make room for
individuals (mainly chefs) yet at the same time it defines both their function and the pattern of
their work. Aristocratic heritage extends this framing through time. Instead of stressing the
product, elitist cuisine is aestheticized, prioritising the presentation of the dish.
There are two main reasons for the export of the French model which thus became the
core of European aristocratic gastronomy:
- Its domination was connected to the domination of French culture during the siècle de
Louis XIV, constituting a French cultural patrimony and securing the reputation of French bon
goût (good taste).
- The journey made by the gastronomy and foodways through countries within top
aristocracy constituted a specific little world; many kings were supposed to have common
ancestors, and kings often married foreign princesses. This little world could then borrow
culinary and gastronomic innovations from the foreign courts. Certain sets of circumstances
even saw the development of ‘gastronomic fashions’.

3) The development of market relations and evolution towards an elitist

gastronomy
Popular cuisine and gastronomy were mainly developed in the domestic area - and outside of
markets. Yet both arenas have gradually developed both commons (sets of open access
resources arising out of collective creation) and heritages (structured sets of principles, rules
and institutions). In the western world, the development of market relations in the
gastronomic field came about with the emergence of the bourgeoisie as the dominant class -
which was when things began to change. Commons and heritages remained influential,
however, framing the forms taken by market relations. Aristocratic cuisine was replaced by
the elitist version that was served up at the great restaurants.
With the French Revolution, aristocratic chefs took leave of their old employers,
opening restaurants for the newly dominant class - the urban bourgeoisie (Paris went from
having 50 restaurants in 1789 to having 3,000 by 1815). The aristocratic way of life was
founded on splendour: aristocrats held feasts and balls, played music, went hunting, entered
tournaments and so on - that is, they had a very specific way of life - absolutely different from
that of the bourgeoisie and the rest of the people. They also consumed luxury (extraordinary)
goods (fine wines, large wild game, sophisticated food, rich clothes) and this consumption
was embedded in their dazzling lifestyle [Margairaz, 1999]. They belonged to a 'society of
being' while the bourgeoisie belonged to a 'society of having'. The bourgeois had money and
could buy goods — even expensive ones — yet could not compete with aristocracy in the
register of being (think of Molière’s Bourgeois Gentilhomme, who attempts to mimic the
aristocrats but — lacking the corresponding cultural capital, succeeds only in being
ridiculous). The increasing economic power of the bourgeoisie allowed them to access luxury
goods and (making use of the development of commoditization) to substitute the logic of
having for the logic of being. Thus they replaced splendour with luxury - and in so doing,
encouraged the expansion of the luxury sector in general and gastronomy in particular.
Interpenetration between bourgeoisie and old aristocracy led to the constitution of a social
elite separated from ‘vulgar’ people by its wealth, power and education. Old aristocracy and
the high bourgeoisie flocked to new and ostentatious leisure venues [Veblen, 1899]: seaside
holidays, horse races, concerts, art galleries, dancing - and gastronomic restaurants. The

8
middle bourgeoisie wanted to stand out from ordinary people and live more comfortably,
periodically frequenting gastronomic restaurants. Other restaurants sought to capture this
clientele - and since the members of this bourgeoisie were often working, they offered a
euphemized version of the aristocratic (and now elitist) cuisine.
Competition and the search for profitability led to both rationalisation and
standardisation of the old aristocratic gastronomy. Aristocratic behaviour was characterised
by a distance from economic calculus and economic rationality. The development of market
logic implied an adaptation of aristocratic heritage, allowing costs and benefits to be taken
into consideration and building the cuisine’s rationality - to the detriment of the extravagant
sophistication of aristocratic cuisine. Creativity and novelty remained dominant - but
sophistication diminished. According to Parkhurst-Ferguson, Carême (1783-1833) achieved
“the reconfiguration of the aristocratic cuisine of the Ancien Régime into the elite and
assertively national cuisine of the nineteenth century” (Parkhurst-Ferguson, 2004: 10); he
reinvented cuisine by creating a coherent system of sauces, soups, pastries, cooked
vegetables, etc. He broke with the extravagance of court cuisine (henceforth too costly) yet
continued to draw inspiration from the old heritage of the aristocratic cuisine. In addition, he
developed the intellectualisation and scientification of cuisine. Instead of using traditional
recipes, preparation methods and routines, cooks sought to understand the ‘laws’ of cuisine,
the processes of transformation of inputs, and the mechanisms of taste.
Technological innovations were encouraged; cooking was defined as a professional
activity demanding specific and lengthy training, applying professional norms and routines
within the context of a rigid organisation (the brigade with its divisions, the sauciers, the
légumiers, the bakers, and so on). Plus, the type of organisation used by the elitist gastronomy
offered on the market, and professionally executed, gradually took it further from popular
gastronomy, which was mainly organised within the domestic arena.
A further aspect of the standardisation process was the selection made from within
other commons, coming from popular and regional cuisines. The powerful process of building
a national identity and developing central power against local powers leads to the definition of
a national cuisine - including some 'reconfigured' regional dishes and recipes, though others
were excluded as vulgar. Bourgeois cuisine was thus able to become a rationalised and
euphemized form of aristocratic cuisine, and to include certain elements of popular
gastronomy. A kind of continuum, in contrast to the old strong separation between aristocracy
and common people, developed from elitist gastronomy via bourgeois gastronomy to popular
gastronomy. It was a top-down continuum.
The Grand Restaurant, as the epitome of elitist gastronomy, constituted the ideal-type.
Its recipes showed off sophistication, creativity, and the fact that time had been lavished on
the food preparation. Every element was luxurious, including the crockery, glassware, and
tablecloths; the staff was large and competent. The restaurant presented a profusion of dishes
(mignardises, amuse-bouches, trous normands, etc.), offering very wide choice as well as
many complementary extras (famous wines, cigars and alcohols) – and doing so in a
sumptuous setting. Costs and prices were high - extremely high.
Two new factors further drove the organisation of western gastronomy along the lines
of the new elitist model – the latest incarnation of the aristocratic model. The fact that French
identity was not defined as a national typicality meant that the nation’s supremacy was all the
more successful. The French Enlightenment ushered in a new universalism based on reason.
What was good to eat for French people would also be good for other people. French 'culinary
imperialism' held, then, that the French knew what ‘good cuisine’ was, and thus could and
should pass it on to the rest of the world. Secondly, since Carême’s cuisine was no longer
empirical knowledge, now being defined rather as a scientific discipline based on technical
and professional learning, a coherent system of principles and applicative techniques:

9
“Carême’s French cuisine is not tied to or rooted in a particular place” (Parkhurst-Ferguson,
2004: 71).

4 The development path of gastronomy: framed by both heritages and

market
With the constitution of the elitist model, the nature of western gastronomy becomes hybrid -
issuing from both aristocratic heritage and from the market. Its development path relies on
both logics – that based on the search for profitability, and that based on creativity and
sophistication. Today, with the extension and intensification of competition, this hybrid
organisation is stretched to the limit, and finds itself questioning its own economic and social
sustainability.

1) The development path of gastronomy: governed by elitist-heritage and market

In the western world, the expansion of the profit logic led to gastronomy becoming
increasingly commoditized. This process gathered pace during the second half of the 20th
century, when the culture and entertainment fields had to give way to market and capital. The
Frankfurt School (Benjamin, 1936) interprets the fundamental changes brought about in the
cultural field (and that were later to affect the fields of cuisine and gastronomy) as the birth of
a mass culture adapted to suit a mass society. Technological developments allowed the mass
production, mass distribution and mass consumption of cultural, artistic and craft goods in
societies in which the middle and upper classes were experiencing rising living standards.
Consumer surveys show that, in all the developed countries, demands inspired by desires or
pleasures became increasingly significant in family spending, either superseding or adding to
those strictly related to basic and material needs, and opening new opportunities for capitalist
investment. In terms of food, think of the industrial cuisine developed by the agrifood groups
and by the food chains. Yet the fact that gastronomy has been commoditized does not mean
that everyone has the same relation to the gastronomic market. Segmentation goes hand in
hand with massification.
Within the gastronomic market, a pseudo-gastronomy (low quality, based on industrial
cuisine) emerges. With the development of new technologies (vacuum cooking, deep-
freezing, and other mass-production technologies) allowing the standardisation and
industrialisation of cooking, industrial cuisine was able to supply gastronomic or pseudo-
gastronomic services, mimicking elitist cuisine. Households represent an initial outlet but
from this point on - and increasingly - many restaurants served both home-made dishes and
industrial dishes purchased from new food companies. These firms were able to provide them
with standardised quality for sophisticated dishes. The great chefs’ recipes were copied, and
dishes that looked very much like the gastronomic ones became available; though not
comparable with those of the famous restaurants, their prices were far lower.
This fresh competition demands a response from elitist gastronomy. Top elitist
gastronomy overreacts to this competition by stepping up its innovation, creativity and (above
all) sophistication that industrial cuisine is unable to supply. The leading actor is the Grand
Restaurant (the Michelin-Red Guide “starred” restaurant) which reproduces the remaining
features of the old aristocratic model: a famous chef, extraordinary products (truffles, caviar,
lobster, etc.), sophisticated dishes, sumptuous setting, service and expansive cooking. The
competition between restaurants implies a race for Michelin stars: when Alain Ducasse was
hired as chef at the Louis XV in Monte-Carlo, his contract stipulated that he had precisely one
year to obtain the coveted third Michelin star; had he failed to do so, he would have been
dismissed! Strong investment is necessary to this, particularly in terms of setting. The
gastronomic market, then, is segmented. The gastronomic restaurant set has a pyramidal form,

10
implying a top-down process: from the famous, top restaurants with three stars to standard
restaurants, via a range of segments defined by decreasing prices and correspondingly
decreasing “quality”.
Experts and guides (mainly the Michelin-Red Guide) justify this model, defining
membership of each segment. They also contribute to the development of this model and the
corresponding segmentation in up-and-coming ‘culinary’ countries and cities (Spain, Italy,
Japan, London, New York, etc.), where gastronomic consumption is on the rise.
If French elitist restaurants are opening up throughout the world (Bocuse, Ducasse and
Robuchon have opened a lot of restaurants), native chefs have used applied the same
principles (in line with the interesting idea from Parkhurst-Ferguson that the French cuisine is
one of principles and techniques rather than of products) to develop new elitist cuisines.
Moreover, as in the leader-follower models, followers have had to over-invest in
innovation in order to challenge the innovative leader. They in turn have tended to develop an
increasingly creative and sophisticated cuisine.
An ionic example of this is the new Spanish creative cuisine, representing a strongly
strong challenge to French cuisine. Ferran Adrià (followed by numerous Spanish chefs)
embarked upon a creative bidding race, applying new technologies (based on liquid nitrogen
and centrifugation), inventing new textures, developing molecular cooking as a new semiotic
cooking style featuring dishes presented as ‘paintings’. Adrià’s claim to be an artist was
legitimated in 2007, when he was invited to the Documenta of Kassel.

2) A market crisis driven by the joint elitist-heritage market forces: is gastronomy

economically sustainable?
Steeply-rising costs are one result of this race to sophistication, particularly in view of a
Baumol effect (Baumol and Bowen, 1966): production costs are ever higher, and productivity
gains (for cuisine and restaurant staff, for instance) nigh-on impossible to achieve. Moreover,
investing in setting increases expense, weighing heavily on profitability. Prices increase; and
those that rise most during the period belong to the most gastronomic services: ‘à la carte’
rather than ‘prix fixe’ menus, and high-end prices rather than low-end.
From the year 2000, this growth movement accelerated (cf. Barrère, Bonnard, Chossat,
2014 for Parisian gastronomy), disrupting the development of elitist gastronomy. On the one
hand, as already noted, some very expensive establishments, serving a highly-sophisticated
cuisine, have made a great deal of money, exporting their restaurants worldwide. Benefiting
from a superstar effect, their reputation is such that they are able to offer sophisticated cuisine
at very high (and continuously rising) prices. For example, in Paris, dinner for two at a two-
or three- starred restaurant costs in excess of a thousand euros (more than US $1,100). These
establishments concentrate on places in which they can reach a very wealthy clientele - and
rich tourists in particular. A growing number of these are connected to luxury hospitality
financial groups and are used by them to attract the most affluent customers - with their low
profitability (sometimes non-profitability) being compensated by the earnings of luxury
hospitality. On the contrary, other top restaurants that are unable to reach this clientele (often
due to location) are experiencing serious financial difficulties. Gastronomic restaurants, then,
can only survive when their customers are numerous and rich. Pierre Gagnaire, who had a
three-starred restaurant in a mid-range city (Saint-Etienne), was not able to earn enough to
cover his costs, so he went bankrupt, closing the restaurant, and had to go to Paris.
The necessity of achieving superstar status in order to survive exacerbates the
difficulty of assuring the succession of great chefs. In the elitist régime, a grand chef’s chief
asset is his reputation capital, which is inextricably connected to his talent, his personal
investment in the activity, his person and, thus, his name. Once he has gone, what can
possibly guarantee that the quality and creativity of the cooking will be maintained? His

11
succession is very uncertain. When a son or a daughter steps into his shoes, consumers may
suppose some level of continuity. An alternative is, as in haute couture, transformation of the
griffe (the creator’s own name) into the trademark (as a guarantee of quality): everyone
knows, of course, that Alain Ducasse is not able to be simultaneously present at all eighteen
of his starred restaurants (indeed, he now states that he no longer cooks) and the same is true
of Gordon Ramsay, with his New York and Los Angeles establishments - but it is accepted
that they leave their restaurants in the capable hands of top-notch chefs (just as consumers
know that Christian Dior, who died in 1957, no longer creates dresses). Yet in gastronomy, as
elsewhere, establishing a trademark implies heavy investment, limiting this possibility to the
lucky few.
Observation of the situation in those countries in which the marketization of
gastronomy is most mature (such as the USA) reveals that a growing proportion of the profits
earned by top gastronomy are made outside the restaurant activity - through TV channels
dedicated to gastronomy and cuisine, for instance.

3) A social crisis driven by the joint market-elitist heritage: is gastronomy socially

sustainable?
These days, cultural economics is no longer restricted to the traditional efficiency criterion
(defined as efficiency of allocation of scarce resources). Increasingly, it also considers the
social consequences of economic workings, and quality of life in particular (Santagata, 2010).
Cultural heritages and commons play a powerful role in economic and social life even though,
as a rule, they remain informal, devoid of public protection or explicit management. These are
the main institutions connecting history, territory and society - and defining the cultural
context of social life (Barrère, 2016).
Institutional sociologists such as T.H. Marshall (1950) in Great Britain and the
Solidarisme group in France (Bouglé, 1907; Bourgeois, 1902) were the first to study the
relationship between social heritage and social life. Marshall analysed the socialisation
process by focusing on citizenship. For him, citizenship includes a social component in
addition to its civil component (rights necessary to individual freedom) and political
component (right to participate in the exercise of political power). This social component
covers “the whole range from the rights to a modicum of economic welfare and security to the
right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilised being according
to the standards prevailing in the society” (op. cit., p. 149). The Solidarists argue that every
individual is born into a society that allows them to benefit from a social and cultural heritage:
language, education, institutions and many other aspects, that allow each personality to
develop. People benefit from this social and cultural heritage and, in return, they participate in
its preservation, evolution and enlargement. The formal and informal components of this
social heritage form the basis of the individual’s social life while simultaneously building
social cohesion. Moreover, current patrimonial inflation reveals that both individuals and
communities are increasingly seeking out their roots, and links to the past. Culinary and
gastronomic heritages are part and parcel of social heritages and also contribute to the quality
of social life.
Individual access to these heritages is therefore a crucial issue in improving the
welfare of all - but the present evolution of gastronomy is having a negative impact on this
welfare. In the western world, market gastronomy is becoming the privilege of the happy few,
while gastronomic concerns expand. Demand for gastronomic services is now growing fast,
and gastronomy has become a topic for the masses. Famous chefs make magazine headlines;
TV programmes show luxury restaurants, and provide chefs’ recipes; channels are sometimes
exclusively devoted to gastronomy. A rising number of recipe books and gastronomic guides
are available on the publishing market. These gastronomic information channels are now

12
aimed squarely at millions of potential consumers rather than remaining exclusively for the
elite, stimulating debate as well as mass demand for gastronomic information. This huge and
growing interest in gastronomy reflects a popular concern that derives from a mass people-
gastronomy relationship. A growing section of the population, even within the bourgeoisie, is
now beyond market elitist gastronomy and condemned to the pseudo-gastronomy supplied by
industrial cuisine groups. Ever higher prices erect an initial barrier. The concentrated
localisation of gastronomic restaurants is another. Furthermore, the growing gap between
professional and amateur cuisines - resulting from increasing sophistication and the race to
new technologies - cuts the ties that used to bind elitist, bourgeois and popular gastronomies.
Top gastronomy does not yet nourish the gastronomic commons that have been opened up to
all through mediation of the euphemization of bourgeois cuisine. It bears no more relation to
domestic cuisine than does a Formula One vehicle to a hatchback. As a result, more and more
people turn away from the present elitist gastronomy.
Beyond the western world, the west-dominant culture tends to impose this same model
of gastronomy - even in countries that have mainly developed popular gastronomies; this
leads to gastronomy being separate from the normal lifestyle. Is it then possible to imagine a
new development path for gastronomy, breaking with joint market-elitist gastronomy and
renewing by using the shared bases of gastronomy and cuisine? Are culinary and gastronomic
commons capable of re-forging a pluralist gastronomy that will allow its democratization?

5 Concluding remarks: Towards Gastronomic Pluralism: from Gastronomy

based on Aristocratic Commons to Gastronomy for All?
As seen, the development path of western gastronomy has been driven by a specific heritage
which, though modified over the centuries, was founded on the separation of popular
gastronomy from elite gastronomy. Upper gastronomy was considered legitimate, and
honoured certain specific values emanating from the aristocratic Société de Cour:
sophistication of recipes, scarcity and high value of foodstuffs, richness of setting, etc.
The aristocrat or member of the social elite was someone who (for reasons of
distinction, taste or education) was able to overvalue certain extraordinary consumption and -
at a time when the upper gastronomic field was governed by the market - to pay a high price
for qualitative difference. Such a person might, for example, choose an haute couture dress
over prestigious ready-to-wear, or elect to eat caviar and lobster. Some traditional consumers
maintain such tastes, and some consumers (often including the nouveau riche) aspire to
acquire such tastes, but an increasing number of consumers have different values, tastes and
opinions. Many of these people are in search of less sophistication (which is called into
question by the craze for nature and natural products) coupled with heightened creativity or
originality; less comfort, but good service in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. Ecological
values stand in opposition to waste and are having an influence on cooking - as shown by the
Slow Food, Kilometro Zero and locavore movements. This evolution of values and social
norms is pushing the system to move away from a democratization in form only (free access
to elitist cooking) and towards a democratization that changes gastronomic content, rejecting
aristocratic and elitist values.
Some gastronomic actors are adapting their offer to this shift in values. The elitist
restaurant is no longer the only dominant model; a sort of gastronomic pluralism is
developing. A new category of restaurants emerges: extraordinary ways of cooking are no
longer the sole symbol of luxury and taste. Creativity mixed with ordinary foodstuffs and
setting attracts a wider, less wealthy audience in search of new codes - such as pure and
healthy products, less sophisticated settings and so on. This “low cost gastronomy” (in the
words of famous French chef Alain Senderens) is actively involved in the democratization

13
and mass consumption of gastronomy. The Michelin-Red Guide is also evolving, and has
created new awards: Bib for the French Red Guide, and “Small Plates”, selecting
establishments chosen for the originality of their menus, mood and service, in New York. The
emergence of this category reflects the growing popularity of restaurants providing
gastronomic quality at reasonable prices, and tends to illustrate the “massification” of the
gastronomic field. The same is true of Tokyo. Since 2011, Tokyo Michelin Guide has a new
pictogram indicating a starred restaurant offering a menu priced under 5,000 yen for lunch
and/or dinner. According to Michelin: “Value for money is one of five criteria [used] to select
star restaurants, and the new pictogram serves readers [by helping them] to find local eateries
at affordable prices”.
Moreover, western gastronomy is no longer the sole model of gastronomy, since
globalization is leading to the rediscovery of many different gastronomies, from Asia and
Latin America to the Arab world and Africa. The Old French model of gastronomy, based on
the leading role of the Grand Restaurant can therefore no longer lay claim to the organisation
of world gastronomy - and the rivalry between old and emerging cuisines is bound to also
affect the institutional form of consuming gastronomy. The globalization process mixes
cultures and heritages. Culinary heritages can be used beyond their areas of origin. Products,
sauces, spices and cooking methods are at everyone’s disposal, everywhere, and transport
costs are falling. Consumers are interested in experimentation; they are eager to encounter
new culinary heritages. Multiculturalism is growing, and world fusion cuisine is spreading,
drawing from culinary commons and heritages.
A gastronomic pluralism, based on unfettered access to culinary commons and
heritages, is able to knit a closer relationship between gastronomy and territory, leading to a
connection between gastronomic and local development, mainly for developing countries.
This does however imply recourse to strategy and public policy. Drawing on commons and
heritages alone is not enough for the development of a competitive gastronomy within the
global market. Some elements of the western model need to be kept, and developed: mainly
the idea that gastronomy must permanently create and move forward. A popular gastronomy,
based on local commons, has its place in the gastronomic field and can be mainly made by
amateurs. This can imply talent: some popular gastronomy dishes, even those drawn from
popular cuisine, were developed outside of the market in the domestic arena. Such dishes can
take a long time to cook and demand sophisticated preparation, and so relied on women’s
work being undervalued and held in low esteem. Nevertheless, commons and heritages can be
a basis for the development of new dishes through professional intervention that brings
creativity, technology and science into play. The individual talent of a grand chef plays a key
role in execution of the dishes as well as in the creation of new dishes and new ways of
cooking. Starred restaurants are obliged to maintain their role as innovators. Top gastronomy
(the two- and three- starred restaurant, for instance) has to develop new experiences,
techniques, ways of cooking and flavour combinations that demand professional competence
and talent. However, their results have to be useful to other areas of the gastronomic field, via
inclusion in the commons. This implies policy solutions designed to fight back against the
existing and growing divide between popular and bourgeois gastronomy, on the one hand and
elitist gastronomy on the other. Elitist gastronomy can function as a Formula One sector -
capable of sharing its production and building quality across the whole industry (the
gastronomic sector, in this case) and ruled either by the market, or by communities.

14
 References

Barrère, C. (2004), “Les dynamiques économiques du patrimoine”, in C. Barrère, D.

Barthélémy, M. Nieddu and F.- D. Vivien (eds), Réinventer le patrimoine, Paris:
L’Harmattan, pp. 109–20.
Barrère, C. (2016) Cultural heritages: from official to informal, City, Culture and Society,
June 2016, vol. 7/2, pp. 87-94.
Barrère, C. et W. Santagata (2005) La mode, une économie de la créativité et du patrimoine à
l'heure du marché, La Documentation française, Paris.
Barrère, C., Q. Bonnard and V. Chossat (2014), “Are we at a turning point in the evolution of
gastronomy? Paris: an exemplary case. Applied Economics, 2014, 46:12,
Benjamin W. (1936) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. http://
www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
Di Giovine M.A. and R.L. Brulotte eds.) (2014) Edible Identities: Food as Cultural Heritage,
Ashgate, Burlington, Vermont.
Elias, N. (1973), La Civilisation des moeurs, Paris: Calmann- Lévy, Édition Presses Pocket.
The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
Fischler C, Masson E. Manger (2008) Français, Européens et Américains face à
l’alimentation, Paris, Odile Jacob, 336 p.
Fischler, C. (1993) L’homnivore, Paris: O. Jacob.
Foucault, M. (1966) Les mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris,
Gallimard. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. English
translation, Pantheon Books, 1970.
Lévi- Strauss, C. (1964), Le Cru et le cuit, Paris: Plon.
Lovejoy A.O. (1936) The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press (1936)
Madison, M.J., B.M. Frischmann and K.J. Strandburg (2010), “Constructing cultural
commons in the cultural environment”, Cornell Law Review, 95: 657–710.
Margairaz D (1999) «La querelle du luxe au XVIIIe siècle», dans Le Luxe en France du
siècle des Lumières à nos jours, sous la dir. de J. Marseille, Paris, ADHE.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parkhurst- Ferguson, P. (2004), Accounting for Taste: The Triumph of French Cuisine,
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Poulain, J.- P. (2005), Sociologies de l’alimentation, les mangeurs et l’espace social
alimentaire, Paris: PUF, Quadrige.
Poulain, J.- P. and E. Neirinck (1995), Histoire de la cuisine et des cuisiniers, Paris: Éditions
LT Jacques Lanore.
Rozin P., Remick A.K. and Fischler C. (2011) Broad themes of difference between French
and Americans in attitudes to food and other life domains: personal versus communal
values, quantity versus quality, and comforts versus joys. Frontiers in Psychology, 26
July 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00177
Santagata, W. (2010), The Culture Factory: Creativity and the Production of Culture,
Springer.

15


16