Normally I don’t post angry screeds as blog posts, but I was so pissed off by this article by Frank Bruni that I had to post a response, in hopes that someone might read what I have to say. Bruni certainly won’t, and neither will NYT readers, but I guess I’ll put this out there anyway.
In the article, Bruni asserts that ‘culinary bad boy’ Anthony Bourdain has no place insulting Paula Deen, the Food Network’s queen of Southern cooking when he says, “[Paula Deen is] telling an already obese nation that it’s O.K. to eat food that is killing us.” Deen’s response? “Not everybody can afford to pay $58 for prime rib or $650 for a bottle of wine. My friends and I cook for regular families who worry about feeding their kids and paying the bills.”
Bruni claims, upon witnessing this interchange, that Deen is "...1oo percent justified in assailing the culinary aristocracy, to which even a self-styled bad boy like Bourdain belongs, for an often selective, judgemental and unforgiving worldview."
Ok, so Anthony Bourdain can be mean. He says nasty things about people he doesn’t like, and that’s one of the reasons we love him—he’s like a foodie Bill Maher. Both Maher and Bourdain can be extreme at times, and the tone they take is, in my view, interpretable as a necessary response to an existing system that is drastically out of balance. Still, mean or not, I have a hard time believing that Bourdain, a self-made man who climbed to the top from the depths of drug addiction and repeated career suicide, could ever develop a 'selective, judgmental and unforgiving worldview,' and I also have a hard time disputing the validity of Bourdain’s claim. Also, Deen’s response sure makes me wince.
Still, Bruni disputes where I would not: “To give [Bourdain] his due: we are too fat and must address that. But getting Deen to unplug the waffle iron doesn’t strike to the core of the problem any more than posting fast-food calorie counts or taxing soft drinks do. A great deal of American obesity is attributable to the dearth of healthy food that’s affordable and convenient in low- and even middle-income neighborhoods, and changing that requires a magnitude of public intervention and private munificence that are unlikely in such pinched times.”
Oh, is that so? Ah yes, he’s familiar with the green buzzword of the aughts: “Food Deserts!” It’s all about the food deserts, yes.
Wait...no. And it’s embarrassing that someone writing on any topic related to food would dismiss America’s obesity problem so off-handedly, especially considering that our heaviness as a country cuts right to the core of some of America’s fundamental food system issues. Yes, food deserts are an important concern, but Bruni completely ignores the thought that the culinary enculturation of minority groups and those sections of the American population with higher incidences of obesity might influence the foods they choose to buy and consume—exactly the kind of enculturation Paula Deen participates in by glorifying high-calorie, decadent cooking on a nationally syndicated TV show (I’m not even going to say anything about Down Home with the Neelys). Food preferences are determined by a whole host of factors: family tradition, cultural heritage, availability of grocery stores, education, income level, availability of free time. Does Bruni think that, come a future time of economic bounty, we might drop a few grocery stores with verdant produce sections into low-income neighborhoods and see a reduction in American obesity?
Bourdain’s point is completely valid, and while the characterization of modern foodie/celebrity chef culture as snobby, highbrow and full of ‘class-inflected hypocrisy’ may have an element of truth, such an idea utterly invalidates another positive result derived from America’s sudden interest in fine food and chefs as artists: the increase in awareness of what’s great, good, healthy and ethical to eat. The new food movement isn’t about eating hundred dollar steaks, it’s about understanding why you might pay a hundred dollars to eat steak in the first place.
Here’s another snotty quote from Bruni: “When Deen fries a chicken, many of us balk. When the Manhattan chefs David Chang or Andrew Carmellini do, we grovel for reservations and swoon over the homey exhilaration of it all. Her strips of bacon, skirting pancakes, represent heedless gluttony. Chang’s dominoes of pork belly, swaddled in an Asian bun, signify high art."
True, and very ha-ha, but again, he completely ignores context here. Chang and Carmellini don’t expect you to make their kind of food at home: as I said above, it’s art, and it’s the kind of sensory experience we’re meant to have only very, very occasionally, because it’s expensive and, of course, bad for our health. Deen, on the other hand, is broadcast into the living rooms of millions, and she is presented as a source for home cooks, people who are actually in the business of providing daily meals for their families and themselves. She said it herself: “My friends and I cook for regular families who worry about feeding their kids and paying the bills.” Besides, Bourdain wasn’t saying David Chang or anyone else is superior to Deen in the first place. He merely questions the decision-making that might lead anyone, whether Food Network executive or casual viewer, to mistake Paula Deen’s show as a source of useful culinary information. Bruni seems to think Bourdain is ‘looking down’ on people who don’t have the resources to make healthy food choices or run around eating fancy tasting menus at famous restaurants; I never heard that in Bourdain’s quote on Paula Deen, and from what I know of him, I doubt if he sees himself as being above anyone with a passion for great food. In fact, most of his show, 'No Reservations,' is about eating street food, family meals, and the true cuisine of countries around the world. I haven't seen every show, but in the episodes I have seen, I certainly haven't witnessed him enter a James Beard award-winning restaurant or a trendy conceptual joint like Alinea.
I could go on. But let me say this. Taking Paula Deen off the Food Network is not going to transform America’s food system, or its obesity problem...but neither is squashing loudmouths who aggressively question the status quo. Writing off any movement or change in zeitgeist as ‘elitism’ marginalizes those who have worked lifetimes to bring about change. Elitism is inevitable once any movement or group becomes institutionalized, but that doesn’t mean there is no genuine sentiment at that group’s core. Look, foodie culture annoys me too, and the heyday of evangelical locavorism and Iron Chef fanaticism is already tired, but America has come a long way in its evolution as a food-loving country, (have you seen cookbooks from the sixties?) and an increasing awareness of food as art, human rights issue and ethical choice can only be a good thing. And a show that teaches and encourages people to cook and consume fried chicken and massive desserts...how can that be a good thing?
