LTHForum.com

At the risk of pulling you all away from a fascinating discussion of the White Castle menu, may I suggest this article from The Guardian, on what it means for food to be "authentic," as food for thought. In case you're wondering, a search of LTH does not yield any prior thread whose title suggests a focus on what it means for a food to be "authentic." There have been, however, several threads in which "authentic" appeared in the thread title, and several others in which some discussion occurred about what constitutes authenticity in cuisine, and what were its merits.

For starters, I'm wondering what you (who are interested) think about this: can authenticity be assessed objectively, or is "authentic" in the eye of the beholder? And here's another question: when it comes to food, is what's authentic objectively better than what's not? Is a preoccupation with authenticity in food just a form of snobbery? (I ask because, I must say, it seems a favorite trick of the professional in this biz to demonstrate a knowlege of a certain cuisine greater than that of the average Joe's by dissing someone's food offering as "not authentic.") Is placing value on the authentic rather than the adapted contrary to the natural way in which food trends and flavors move around the world and get shared among societies? As perhaps you can tell by my proposed conversation starters, right now I'm leaning toward some disdain for those who anoint themselves the identifiers of what foods are authentic. On the other hand, I can agree with the Guardian article's author that there's an "I know it when I see/taste it" element that tells us that, for example, Chinese tofu pizza is inauthentic. I'm curious about your opinions either way.

_________________
"I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

This is an interesting question for me.

An "authentic" dish doesn't make it "better" in any objective sense. But, as you know from the White Castle thread, I do not believe in any sort of objectivity when it comes to opinions about food. It's all subjective.

That said, I, personally, am interested in the "authentic" because it gives me an insight into the culture of the food I am exploring. I am curious about how foods are eaten in their places of origin, so authenticity, in that sense, is an important element to my enjoyment. Food, for me, is a way to explore other cultures. But a food being "authentic" does not in any way, shape, or form, mean it's objectively "better" than an "inauthentic" interpretation.

For centuries, nomadic cultures have adapted their recipes to local ingredients and tastes. Is anything truly "authentic" anymore? Is it a question of being inauthentic, or simply the evolution of culinary art, either out of necessity or taste? Look at the ubiquitous Jalapeno pepper that has found its way into all sorts of Asian and African dishes. Does that make those dishes any less "authentic" ?

"Authentic" for me is meant in the sense that this is the way the food is eaten in the place usually associated with it. Ideally, you wouldn't have to make any substitutions, but, at some point, due to a paucity of ingredients, you're going to have to substitute something out or omit it entirely. Sometimes, this makes a big difference. Sichuan food without Sichuan peppercorns tastes good, but is missing a key component of ma la ("numb and spicy"), an important concept in Sichuan cuisine. (Of course, not all Sichuan cuisine.) The lack of the peppercorn does make it somewhat less "authentic." Does it really matter? Up to you. If you get the definition of "authentic" strict enough, it will be almost impossible to have an "authentic" dish outside the area where it is normally eaten.

First, Katie: thank you. I think this is a very significant topic and I'm glad to take part in (probably mostly by reading) a thread on the subject.



I am inclined to agree although a thought occurs. Using your example of Sichuan cuisine, what do we make of the "authenticity" of peanuts in Sichuan cuisine. It's a New World food that has "only" been used there for about four hundred years. Presumably time validates culinary practice. Which of course begs the impossible question of when authenticity sets in.

_________________
Gypsy Boy

“How can a nation be called great if its bread tastes like kleenex?” (Julia Child)

It's no problem with me. Like I said, I am interested in how the food is eaten in the place it is usually associated with. I am not looking for some sort of proto-cuisine when I'm in search of the "authentic," just how things are eaten there now or have been eaten there in the past.

Addendum.

I was doing some reading over the weekend and found this lovely sentence by Chichi Wang on the Serious Eats website. Much as I value authenticity, I think she's bang on:

"Sichuanese "ya cai" pickles—leaves of mustard greens that have been sun-dried, rubbed with salt, then mixed with various aromatics and sealed in jars to mature for months—are the ones traditionally used for the dish, but I've never been a stickler for authenticity at the cost of gustatory pleasure."

(My italics)

_________________
Gypsy Boy

“How can a nation be called great if its bread tastes like kleenex?” (Julia Child)

Then the question has to be: if a dish was made one way fifty years ago and now, due to [fill in the blank, ranging from depletion of resources, greater availability of other things, external influence, or "simple" evolution of cuisine], it is now made another way, which is 'authentic'? It seems to me that both must be, differences notwithstanding.

_________________
Gypsy Boy

“How can a nation be called great if its bread tastes like kleenex?” (Julia Child)

I would call them both "authentic" myself. I mean, look at something like Hungarian cuisine. If you were transported to Budapest in 1801, you probably wouldn't recognize much of the cuisine at all, as paprika was only introduced in the 18th century, and didn't really take off until the 1800s. Now, one can't imagine Hungarian food without paprika. I'd really be curious to find old cookbooks from Hungary pre-paprika, because it sounds like the cuisine back then was much more diverse in terms of herbs and spices used.

Fascinating. I hadn't realized that paprika was such a relatively recent addition to Hungarian cuisine. You're right: it's hard to imagine Hungarian food without it now. One has to believe that such pre-paprika "cookbooks" or manuals exist; it would indeed be intriguing to see how the cuisine has evolved over time, especially what was displaced. Here, I think, is where it gets really interesting. I have to believe that the long Ottoman occupation and the subsequent governance from Vienna had a role in the ethnic makeup of the country and that, in turn, heavily influenced the cuisine.

_________________
Gypsy Boy

“How can a nation be called great if its bread tastes like kleenex?” (Julia Child)

Hwa Jyau (excuse the Yale Romanization) is an essential ingredient in SzeChwan cooking. It is almost synonymous with the cuisne. Is a Yu Syang dish the same with anise substituted? I would have to say no. But is it authentic with Mexican dried Chiles instead of dried Chinese peppers? I think so. Curry is a good example. As the British East Indies Company transported their private Indian Army throughout Asia, local variations of the dish spread. Is Thai or Philipino curry less authentic? They are certainly different from their anscestors, but have become identified as native cusine. How about pasta? Are noodles which originated in China inauthentic when served elsewhere? Nobody would say that pasta is not an authentic Italian dish, although it did not exist before Marco Polo imported noodles from China and Tomatoes were brought from Peru. Is there a time limit involved?

In the early days of this community, pre-LTH, the authenticity debate was constant. After a while, both the pedantic fetishists of authenticity and the idiots who dismissed any and all cultural awareness as affectation faded, leaving a relatively moderate, unspoken prevailing middle ground. To me, there's an element of time to "authenticity," but only as one factor in local cultural acceptance and understanding of an identifiable food idea. Maybe memetics can be applied to food as, apparently, is being done with traditional music. I think one can understand an "authentic" bowl of chowder as much as one can identify an "authentic" sea shanty, a Cuban sandwich as much as a mambo.

No. My opinion is as stated above. If that's how they eat it now, it's authentic. If that's how they ate it in the past, that's also authentic. I consider Spam musibi an authentic part of Hawaiian cuisine even though it's obviously a recent addition. Same with budae jjigae (a Korean stew made with Spam, hot dogs, or other processed meats or surplus.) A lot of Hungarian food is now made with sunflower oil instead of lard. I still consider that authentic, if not historical.

To me authentic food means food prepared in a way that is faithful to the place it originates. Such as not putting catsup on a Chicago hot dog...that would not be "authentic". (but if that is what you like, who really cares). It can also mean non packaged or processed in some cases also, such as "real food". "Real" cheese is authentic but Cheeze wiz or velveeta might not be considered "authentic cheese" by some....its an imposter. Remember food does not know where it is....if its good (subjective), then its good whether it comes from your kitchen, a fast food restaurant, a GNR place, a chain, a top Chicago eatery, whatever. I think sometimes people see things through these lenses to declare whether food is bad or good regardless of taste. I think there are people who would never concede anything they ate at a chain restaurant is any good at all. I've tasted a lot of bad food that people have made in their own kitchens with good ingredients because they did not know how to cook.

_________________
Toria

"I like this place and willingly could waste my time in it" - As You Like It,
W. Shakespeare

In my own post history, I note a LTH-colored change in the use of "authentic" and "authenticity," to the point where I only usually now use them in a metasense.

To complicate things further, is Mickey D's authentic American food? Or to be totally recursive, how about White Castle? Where do "contemporary" restaurants fall on the scale? Is Alinea authentic? It is certainly faithful to its style, or is a restaurant Like Perennial, where they source local ingredients more authentic? Is North Pond an authentic upscale Midwestern restaurant? How about a place like American Depot which uses authentic recipes, but is itself a concious copy of a restaurant genre? Seems like considering authenticity raises more questions than it answers. It is much easier to define what is not authentic. For instance, Taco Bell and Olive Garden are definitely not authentic (or are they?).

Not to go off on a tangent, but as a grammar geek, I see a parallel to the prescriptivist/descriptivist dichotomy in your characterization of the opposing views on cuisine authenticity, which is a helpful insight.

_________________
"I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

I must confess I don't understand what you mean. Would you be willing to elaborate?

_________________
"I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

This is a good place to argue that 'authentic' is a "substantive-hungry" adjective. -- Authentic whats?

_________________
pizza fun

Here’s the problem I have with “authentic”; when people talk about an authentic dish they usually have a particular example in mind. Someone will say the restaurant A version of a dish is more authentic then restaurant B. The problem is that even in the native country these dishes tend to have a pretty wide variation. It would not surprise me at all if the people from the area of the dishes origin don’t even agree on what’s “authentic”.

Let's look at meatloaf; my mother used only ground beef, eggs, breadcrumbs, and seasoning. It was always glazed with a mixture of ketchup, brown sugar and ground clove. I had a girlfriend whose mother made a killer meatloaf; hers had ground beef, pork and veal. She always covered it with ketchup but also served it with mushroom gravy. Some are wrapped in bacon and covered with bbq sauce. To me they’re all meatloaf and one is no more authentic than the other.

As usual – just my 2¢

_________________
The cake is a lie

Where do you draw a circle around authentic anyway?
Few here would argue about, say, Lao Sze Chuan's authentic-ness... but something like "Mayonnaise Shrimp" is a modern Hong Kong, not a traditional Sichuan, dish. It may be authentic modern Hong Kong, but it's not authentic Chengdu.

_________________
What is patriotism, but the love of good things we ate in our childhood?
-- Lin Yutang

Only that LTH has gradually stopped me from using the word organically (in contexts beyond food, as well). However, my non-ironic use of "toothsome" is up 5000%.

"Toothsome" is the new "unctuous".