“Interculinary” Dialogue: The Kitchen as an “Unconditional Space” For Intercultural Dialogue and Political Awareness

!! ! ! ! MASTER’S DEGREE FINAL DISSERTATION “Interculinary” Dialogue: The Kitchen as an “Unconditional Space” For Intercultural Dialogue and Political Awareness Presented by: Caroline Rose Remer Supervisor: Dr. Annemie Vermaelen Tutor: Dr. Irene Comins Mingol Castellón, October 2015 Abstract There are two things that are basic, inherent parts of human daily life, that are both commonly misunderstood—food and conflict. Food, one of the most important parts of human life is oftentimes seen as mundane and unimportant. And conflict is seen as something negative that must be avoided at all costs. Combining three disciplines in this master’s dissertation, I have come to the conclusion that we should see these common perceptions in a different way. Conflict allows for the opportunity for change, transformation and growth, and an understanding of the importance of food to human identity makes way for the possibility to combine this room for change and the expression of identity through cuisine. In that way, I believe that using the exchange of cuisine from different cultures to create intercultural awareness can foster intercultural dialogue. Keywords “Interculinary” Dialogue Intercultural Dialogue Political Awareness “Unconditional Spaces” Culinary Identities ! ! Table of Contents Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. i! Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1! Starting With My Own Story ........................................................................................... 1! Us Versus Them .......................................................................................................... 4! Not in My Name ......................................................................................................... 7! Contextualizing Research ............................................................................................... 7! Common Spaces .......................................................................................................... 8! Coming Full Circle ................................................................................................... 10! Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 11! Methodologies ............................................................................................................... 11! Situating Myself Within the Research ........................................................................... 12! Reviewing the Literature ............................................................................................... 16! The Origins of Many Peaces ..................................................................................... 17! A Transrational Approach ......................................................................................... 18! Dialogue .................................................................................................................... 19! Political Dualisms ..................................................................................................... 21! Mutual Recognition .................................................................................................. 22! Moral Imagination .................................................................................................... 23! Imperfect Peace ......................................................................................................... 24! Identity ...................................................................................................................... 25! Food Studies ............................................................................................................. 26! Structuring the Process ................................................................................................. 27! Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 31! Chapter 1: Three Disciplines in Dialogue ..................................................................... 33! Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 33! Peace Studies from a Food Studies Perspective ........................................................... 33! An Epistemological Turn to Positive Peace .............................................................. 33! Processes of Consciousness-Raising ............................................................................ 33! A Shift from Resolution to Transformation ................................................................. 36! Unconditional Spaces and the Question of Power .................................................... 37! Food Discourse and Foucault’s Concept of Power Networks ...................................... 45! Power, Knowledge, and Food Choice .......................................................................... 53! Intercultural Dialogue ............................................................................................... 58! Intersubjectivity ............................................................................................................ 61! Political Dualisms and Binary Discourse/ Empathy and Rehumanization ............... 62! “New Mestizaje” .......................................................................................................... 62! Binary Discourse .......................................................................................................... 62! Dehumanization and Re-Humanization ....................................................................... 66! The Politics of Recognition ...................................................................................... 69! Moral Imagination .................................................................................................... 73! Imperfect Peaces ....................................................................................................... 75! Food Studies from a Peace Studies Perspective ........................................................... 77! Many Foods and Many Peaces ................................................................................. 77! The Anthropological Nature of Food ........................................................................ 79! A Long Term Relationship with Food .......................................................................... 79! The Food-Human Connection ...................................................................................... 81! The Missing Link: Food, Peace, and Identity ............................................................... 84! The Power of Identity ............................................................................................... 84! Hybrid Identities ....................................................................................................... 87! Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 89! Chapter 2: Food Studies and Cultural Identity ........................................................... 93! Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 93! Food as an Identity-Shaping Element ........................................................................... 94! Culinary Symbolism ................................................................................................. 94! The Omnivore’s Paradox .......................................................................................... 95! Good to Eat, Good to Think ...................................................................................... 97! Culinary Hybridity .................................................................................................... 99! Incorporation and Food Identity ............................................................................. 101! Food and Identity: Food Studies, Cultural and Personal Identity ............................. 103! The Creative Act of Eating ..................................................................................... 103! Anthropology and Evolutionary Biology .................................................................... 105! The Costs of Digestion............................................................................................ 109! Effects of The Food System on The Planet and The People ....................................... 111! Seeds of Crime ........................................................................................................ 111! Food Production and Climate Change .................................................................... 112! Alimentary Identities and the Ethics of Eating ........................................................... 119! Sexual Identities and “Immoral” Food Choice ....................................................... 122! Food Choice and Alimentary Self-Transformation ................................................ 125! Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 126! Chapter 3: Interculinary Case Studies ....................................................................... 129! Introduction ................................................................................................................... 129! Cases of Imperfect Peaces .......................................................................................... 129! Conflict Kitchen .......................................................................................................... 134! A Shift in United States Foreign Policy .................................................................. 135! A Taste of Humanity ............................................................................................... 138! Transforming Polarized U.S. Political Discourse ................................................... 141! Unveiling Silenced Voices and Bridging Intercultural Connections ...................... 145! Enemy Kitchen ............................................................................................................ 153! “Weapons of Mass Destruction?” ........................................................................... 154! Food Invites Conversation ...................................................................................... 161! Re-Humanizing North Korea ...................................................................................... 168! Changing the Narrative ........................................................................................... 170! Wrapping It Up ........................................................................................................... 176! Recipes for Peace .................................................................................................... 177! Plate Culture ............................................................................................................ 180! Cooking Outside the Box ........................................................................................ 182! Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 183! Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 185! Synthesis and Findings ............................................................................................... 188! Theoretical Implications ............................................................................................. 192! Policy Implications ..................................................................................................... 193! Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................................... 195! Limitations .................................................................................................................. 196! Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 199! i Acknowledgments ! These last two years have changed me in ways I never thought possible. I want to begin these acknowledgments by first thanking all of those people that pushed me to continue with this dissertation when I thought of giving up. I have to admit that it has not been an easy journey for me, but I am proud and happy to say that it has been eye opening and life changing. Thank you to my family for putting up with me throughout this challenging process. Thank you to my mom for helping me through and for fielding my questions, complaints, and long list of requests. I am so lucky to have a librarian as a mom. I would not have had access to the wonderful authors and resources I researched without her library know how. Thank you to my older sister, Amy, for allowing me to use her database, with which I also found many amazing sources. Thank you to my younger sister, Sophie, who has been there to cheer me on and inspire me as a chef and fellow international studies alumnus. Thank you to my dad for pushing me to continue when I hit walls. Thank you to my brother for rooting for me. Thank you to my best friends, Hannah and Sammy, for supporting me and continuing to be there for me when I felt I couldn’t keep going. I want to include a special thank you to my amazing and dedicated supervisor, Annemie Vermaelen. Thank you for sticking with me through the doubts, ups and downs, constant changes of opinion. Thank you for the coffee dates and for your constant and steady guidance. I would not have been able to do this without your incredible support. Thank you to my wonderful and kind advisor, Irene Comins Mingol. Thank you for answering my constant questions and for your patience and understanding. Thank you for your guidance and wisdom. Gracias a la Catedra UNESCO de Filosofía para la Paz y al Máster Internacional de Paz, Conflictos y Desarrollo de la Universitat Jaume I de Castellón de la Plana, España. Al conocer Vicent Martínez Guzmán, me contó una historia que me hizo preguntar “¿Qué hace una chica como yo en un sitio como este?” A lo largo de estos dos años, me pregunté esa pregunta muchas veces, pero ahora, gracias a esta experiencia, puedo responder a esa pregunta. Agradezco muchísimo esta experiencia que sin vuestro programa no hubiese sido posible. Gracias a tod@s l@s profesor@s que me han guiado y que han compartido su experiencias y por hacer que aprendiera todo lo que me ha llevado a dónde estoy ahora. He aprendido más sobre la vida en estos dos años que en toda mi vida, y os agradezco mucho por esa oportunidad. Finally, but not less important, thank you to my fellow classmates and friends of the Peace Master. All of you have enriched this experience more than anything, and I carry a piece of all you “peaces” with me. Now we are all small pieces of “peaces” spread across the globe, but we are a family, and without each and every one of you, these two years would not have been complete. Thank you all for your love, compassion, understanding, the intercultural dinners, the games of capture the flag, the intercultural marches, and for millions of valuable lessons you’ve taught me. I love you all. “What’s That Smell in the Kitchen?” (Marge Piercy, 1936) ! 1 Introduction Los científicos dicen que estamos hechos de átomos, pero a mí un pajarito me contó que estamos hechos de historias. (Eduardo Galeano in Mirrors 2008) Starting With My Own Story My first word as a baby was “hot” because my mother used to sit me on the counter while she cooked so as precaution she would point to the stove and repeat it so I wouldn’t burn myself. The kitchen, which I like to call a laboratory for culinary expression has been one of my places of passion since I sat in my high chair licking brownie batter from the mixing bowl. My favorite memories from childhood take place in the kitchen experimenting with different creations with my mother, my sisters and my grandmother. This emotional attachment that surrounds the kitchen has been something that has stuck with me—when I almost quit my undergraduate career in international relations at the University of San Francisco to study at Le Cordon Bleu1, when teaching English in the North of Spain my one escape from hours of teaching (something I have never been very passionate about) was to bake and blog about it, when after these two years of peace studies fervently researching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what really calls my name is the kitchen. Since I was a child I have seen a clear link between the expression of identity and cuisine. I grew up learning about my ancestors through the food that my grandparents taught me to cook—lefse, a crepe-like bread made from potato puree from my mother’s !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 “Le Cordon Bleu is a world renowned network of educational institutions dedicated to providing the highest level of culinary and hospitality instruction through world class programs” (Cordonbleu.edu, 2015). ! 2 Norwegian side, egg noodles with cabbage and onion from my father’s Hungarian part, matzo with cream cheese from my Jewish part. Like many European descendants in the United States, my heritage is a mixture of tiny pieces of so many places, languages, cultures, histories, and foods. And so the list goes on. My childhood was filled with so many rich cultures just because of the area in which I grew up. San Francisco, California is one of the country’s most diverse cities—a place where you can eat out for every meal of the year and still have thousands of diverse cuisines from which to choose. I have to admit it was wonderful to grow up in a community where diversity is so much appreciated when it comes to cuisine. This exposure allowed me to view cooking as an expression of art, of identity, of culture, and so when travelling outside of my context it was surprising to see food in any other way. Food is what has always connected me to people on a community, or individual level. I must uphold that cultures tell their stories through the food they cook, and share with the world. My father was married after my mother to a Brazilian woman and after to a Japanese woman, and naturally it was a little bit difficult for me to get along with them right away. For me, the kitchen was always a safe, sacred place that allowed me to open up to new ways, new expressions of identity. Any personal conflicts I might have had with them, I was able to transform through a common interest in diverse cuisines and by cooking together. Now I would like to see how this laboratory of human expression, called the kitchen, could become an area to create peace, whether it is interpersonal, holistic, etc. Along with this vision of the kitchen as a space to create peace, I must include as part of my perspective the underlying aspects that attribute to my identity. Being Jewish has always been a mysterious part of my identity, but still important. Apart from ! 9 To clarify, I am very much interested in the abuse of power of different agricultural producers and that impact on the environment, living beings and different cultures. How can we make clear the need to deconstruct the modern, dominant discourse that does not take into account the effects of an unsustainable food system on the environment? The aforementioned intercultural seminar made me question my carbon footprint and understand how it affects all the creatures of the world. Since then, that doubt has grown and made me think of how to promote a sustainable food system and in turn, a peaceful dialogue between the environment and other voices. I believe that by creating a dialogue between different cultures by sharing food, we can also communicate with and recuperate forgotten knowledge that will allow us to better see the link between producer and consumer and in that way minimize the space between human beings and the environment—making obvious that one without the other does not make sense. I believe that the way in which we consume creates a distance between us, as humans, and the production of food, and in turn what is behind what we buy in the supermarket—the work involved, the impact on the planet, the people who produce it. If we could find a way to better communicate and to have a higher level of recognition of who are the producers and where our food come from, we would have a more complete experience and awareness of our place in the world. This goes not only for other cultures and individuals, but also for the voice of the environment not solely as something we have the obligation to protect, but another being that has its own voice and inherent rights. The idea of leaving out the environment as one major actor in the food system does not make sense to me, but due to limitations of time I will not go into depth in this particular study about the environment, but will allow space for it to be an area for ! 10 further research in the future. If, with this investigation, my intention is to illustrate how “unconditional spaces”—in this case, the kitchen—can generate dialogue, I consider that it is very important to take into account the voice of the environment since our way of consuming is to dialogue with it (Allestorfer, 2013). Coming Full Circle In this transcendental, political experience, when we passed in our bus by East Jerusalem, we gazed through the tinted windows at the Jewish settlements on the other side of the wall dividing Israel and the West Bank. All the Jewish homes were brand new, with enormous, glistening swimming pools and crisp, green lawns, while on the other side of the fence the land was dry and parched and the buildings seemed as though they would crash and fall like a house of cards with one gust of wind. The Israeli tour guide uttered with a proud expression on his face: “this is how we upkeep the land, and they (the Palestinians) leave it in ruins”. Apart from the fact that I am well aware of the political reasons behind the inequality of natural resources in this case, I was reminded again of this familiar and shocking binary discourse of always dividing us versus them— they who abuse the Holy Land and we who have rescued it from them. It makes me think again how one could put in dialogue not just different cultures, but also the land that is shared between them. It is because of this that with the kitchen as an “unconditional space6,” I would like to see how a dialogue can be created between different cultures so !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6 When I refer to the idea of “unconditional spaces,” it comes from a master’s thesis of a student of the World Peace Academy in Basel, Switzerland. Her definition of “unconditional spaces” something that “offer[s] appreciating, non-judgmental and healing fields, where opposing parties are invited to lay down their arms for a moment in order to open up for peaceful realities” (Allerstorfer, 2013: 9). ! ! 11 that they can see the common areas, land, ground, and always keep in touch with the silenced voices—including that of the environment (Shiva, 2000). Research Questions ! With the intention of demonstrating that the kitchen as an unconditional space can be a space to create intercultural dialogue, my research questions will be two-fold: 1. How can intercultural dialogue be exhibited in cuisine? 2. How can the kitchen be used as an unconditional space for mutual recognition within multicultural societies? Methodologies The methodologies that have influenced me in this research process have been feminist (Ackerly and True, 2010). These theories, which support a commitment to always inquire about the inquired, force me to be aware at all times of my position within this research. I find it important to take into account this feminist ethic to be able to have the ability to critically analyze and be conscious of any possible biased or prejudice. Brook Ackerly and Jacqui True talk about four key elements that must always be present in political and social science investigation: “the power of knowledge; and more profoundly; of epistemology; boundaries, marginalization, silences, and intersections; relationships and their power differentials; and your own sociopolitical location (or ‘situatedness’)” (Ackerly and True, 2010: 22-23). Because this research will require my ability to locate my “situatedness” within the context of my study, I see fit to use these feminist methodologies to guide me (Ackerly and True, 2010). ! 12 As I will be intertwining three complex disciplines, I will be using food studies also as a methodological tool to understand identity. Annie Hauck-Lawson, author, nutritionist, and master composter, has defined the term “food voice” and has shown that food choices7 can convey characteristics of a person’s identity or emotion in a way that words alone cannot (Hauck-Lawson, 2006). Because my dissertation aims to prove the possibility of using cooking, and food, as a method to create dialogue (in this case intercultural, specifically), I will use my influence of main food studies authors such as Carole Counihan and Penny Van Esterik’s work on food-centered life histories, along with Hauck-Lawson’s “food voice” while researching specific cases in which dialogue has been created through the process of routine cooking, and the expression of identity through cuisine (Counihan and Van Esterik, 2007; Hauck-Lawson, 2006). I will touch more on different food studies research methods in the first chapter of this dissertation; the theoretical framework, and then continue to elaborate these theories in the second chapter when expanding upon the power of food to express identity and emotion, which I will then demonstrate in the third chapter with four main case studies of food projects that have fostered intercultural dialogue. Situating Myself Within the Research I grew up in a multicultural society, in which mixed ethnicities are the norm and pure races are basically non-existent. Within this type of society, there is a social ladder that defines us by our race, gender, economic class, sexual preference, religion, and political standing. So, I am a white, middle class, heterosexual United States citizen. I !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7 “Food voice” refers to the human being capability to decide and choose what to eat or not eat (Hauck-Lawson, 2006). ! 13 am aware of the privilege that goes along with this type of identity. I’d like to believe that in the “land of the free and the home of the brave,” where “all men are created equal” that these identity markers didn’t have such an influence or create such disparity, but just as I left this country and came back with a different standpoint, I am very much enlightened to the reality of living in a bi-party democracy such as the United States. As I mentioned in a previous section in this introduction, I am also a Jewish United States citizen opposed to the aid my country gives to the so-called Jewish state of Israel. I am aware of the social conditioning I have passed through, of the polarized view I have been subject to in the status-quo world of United States politics. But I am also aware that before race disconnected us, religion separated us, politics divided us and wealth classified us, we were all just humans, and that is why I hope something as basic as food, which connects us all, not just to each other, but to the environment and other species, could help us look past those dividers of identity. Identity, after all, is hybrid and ever changing; based almost entirely on the stories and relationships we build through experience, intercultural dialogue, etc. (Omar, 2008). Where do I fit in this research study? John Paul Lederach believes that relationships form the context in which violence happens and also generate the energy that enables people to transcend violence (Lederach, 2005). As people acknowledge their relational interdependency and recognize themselves as part of the pattern, they may be able to envision a wider set of relationships and take personal responsibility for their own choices and behavior. He also says that peace-builders in particular must be able to recognize their interconnectedness and mutuality (Lederach, 2005). In my experience, cycles of violence are often catalyzed by polarizations. Within conflict management, ! 14 there is often a tendency to react in paradoxical terms: you are either with us or against us. This is the type of world in which I grew up. September 11th and the reaction of the United States in starting a War on Terror8 are just a couple examples of the type of narrow-minded dichotomy my country thrives on (Clarke, 2004). If you were against the War on Terror, you were a terrorist. There’s always a victim and a perpetrator. That’s what I have been led to believe, and that’s why I would like to deconstruct paradoxical reasoning and move beyond this way of thinking. I hope that we can learn to see the beauty in complex, diverse societies such as the one in which I grew up—in this case through eating delicious food. Lederach also speaks about this paradoxical curiosity, which I will elaborate on further along in this dissertation (Lederach, 2005). It is part of the road to moving beyond multicultural coexistence. Yes, we learned to put up with each other, we learned to pass legislature that made us all equal under the law, but the recent social uprisings in Ferguson9, and in New York, among other places, have shown that law doesn’t necessarily translate to empathy, recognition, intercultural awareness and dialogue (Buchanan, 2014). There has to be more. We must move past simply tolerating one another. By respecting complexity, we can seek something beyond what is visible, and discover that opposed social energies can be held together (Muñoz, 2001). We must accept people at face value, but also go further—look beyond appearances and suspend judgment in order to discover untold new angles, opportunities, and unexpected potentialities. Francisco Muñoz and Beatriz Molina Rueda, from the University of Granada wrote about a “culture !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8 For more information on the War on Terror, see Clarke 2004, Against All Enemies. 9 For more information on Ferguson unrest, see Buchanan 2014, “What Happened in Ferguson?”. ! 15 of peace” in which conflict and complexity are essential and eminent pillars to human evolution (Muñoz and Molina Rueda, 2010). Efectivamente, la complejidad resultante de la transformación y evolución del universo, del planeta tierra, de la vida, deja un legado de elecciones en la gestión de la información o de la energía, de organización o formas de vida con las que cohabitan los humanos. (Muñoz and Molina Rueda, 2010: 47) The world is becoming smaller and smaller, and much more multicultural. It is normal that the complexity we live amongst creates certain disequilibrium. Human beings are dependent upon one another and upon the environment in which they live. As complex beings, in a composite world, we can have a higher understanding and fuller interpretation of conflictive behavior, and conflicts. Nuestra propia condición humana, con una amplia gama de capacidades y desarrollo de potencialidades, un número elevado de entidades humanas implicadas, unos recursos limitados y la dependencia de la complejidad, abastece a esta conflictividad. (Muñoz and Molina Rueda, 2010: 48) Because, as Lederach says, cycles of violence are often driven by polarities, Muñoz’s ideas about complexity and cultures of peace respond to these narrow-minded precursors to conflict (Lederach, 2005; Muñoz, 2001). If we react to conflict with only two possible answers (in order to solve said conflict), we risk the opportunity for prospective creative acts (Lederach, 2003). My view has come from the personal need to deconstruct the polarized country in which I grew up. And now, having returned after nearly six years outside that context, I have decided to dedicate this research to finding a space in which complexity can thrive. I see food as a way to bridge those barriers between paradoxical standpoints and revive the idea that humanity comes before wealth, politics, religion, etc. ! 16 I hope I can show areas that exhibit cultures of peace, and room for complexity and moral imagination (Lederach, 2005). Reviewing the Literature As my goal is to interweave three important disciplines, here I would like to mention the various areas of research that have been implemented in those fields and how I feel it would become useful to my dissertation. As I will include a theoretical framework chapter (the first chapter), I will just briefly touch on the literature that I will be using in that framework. I break up the theory by three disciplines that I find all can be interweaved to be able to create a theoretical interpretation of peace studies using the food studies lenses. To create a bridge between the two disciplines, which are both already trans-disciplinary as is, I talk about identity and how food can be an expression of identity and the symbolic nature it projects. I outline the theoretical framework chapter, titled “Three Disciplines in Dialogue” by first explaining my interpretation of peace studies by contextualizing it historically and theoretically. I also do this with food studies, which is relatively new field of research. Identity studies serves to be a steppingstone from understanding the human-food experience by way of peace theory. I argue that because food has such a symbolic nature and because it has the power to express identity, as well as create a humanizing factor within a multicultural, polarized society such as the United States, it can be used a peace tool to foster intercultural dialogue and mutual recognition through political awareness. Each discipline has various authors that I identify with and which I will mention briefly here. ! 17 The Origins of Many Peaces As part of my literature review, I will include the contextualization of peace studies as it fits into my theoretical framework. For this part I will be using author’s Vicent Martínez Guzmán, Irene Comins Mingol, Sonia París Albert to explain the evolution of peace studies philosophically. Historically, peace studies, or peace research is a relatively new field, just like food studies. It began to take shape in the middle of the 20th century as a result of the reactions to the First and Second World Wars (Galtung, 1969). These wars produced a strong emotional and intellectual impact in academic groups in diverging natures. These reactions all had one thing in common: they agreed that there needed to be strong action taken to prevent the further occurrence of such barbaric events. This phenomenon pushed forward a peace research agenda that studied peace from looking first at violence—a so-called negative peace (Galtung, 1969). Topics such as war, development, poverty, social justice, gender, environment, education, democracy, international relations and human rights all began to become incorporated into peace research, and to this day are still firm pillars of peace studies (Galtung, 1969). These areas of research have grown since World War Two (Galtung, 1969). I will be talking about this chronological evolution of peace research in my first chapter and expanding upon it using Vicent Martínez Guzmán, Irene Comins Mingol and Sonia París Albert’s “La nueva agenda de la filosofía para el siglo XXI: los estudios para la paz” (Martínez Guzmán et al., 2009). Within this part I also will be referring to Martínez Guzmán’s “epistemological turn” to explain the ideas leading up to positive peace, moral imagination and (intercultural) dialogue (Martínez Guzmán et al., 2009). Martínez Guzmán’s “epistemological turn”, which surpasses the rationality of having always one ! 18 right answer, and in the case of peace studies, one definition of peace, allows us to incorporate interdisciplinary and intercultural focuses that comprehend that there cannot be simply one culture or discipline that defines peace (Martínez Guzmán et al., 2009). From this we can realize that peace exists in infinite forms and that with the intermixing of these different forms of peaces (in plural but also in reciprocity), we can accept complexity and see conflict as something positive and transformable instead of negative and erasable (Martínez Guzmán et al., 2009). A Transrational Approach Within peace studies, the transrational interpretations of peace by Wolfgang Dietrich resonate with me because they go beyond the limits of postmodernism in that they accept the complexity of energetic fields (Dietrich, 2012). In Dietrich’s explanation of transrational and transpersonal peace theory, he speaks of Indian political author, Sri Aurobindo, who tells of living in unity with all and accepting all things in order to transform them (Dietrich, 2012). In order to do so, he says, one would have to overcome one’s egoistic instincts so that through transcendence one could recognize the familiarity in the actions of others and understand them from within (Dietrich, 2012). “Compassion would derive from therefrom, because she/he recognized a part of herself/himself in others” (Dietrich, 2012: 214). I believe that through accepting that there is a connection between all beings, that we all are part of one another, we will be much more able to show compassion and empathy, and accept complexity and conflict as positive parts of our society. Transrational peaces understand “the connectivity and mutual interdependence of all phenomena out of which an ethics of peaces arises and on the other, the dynamic ! 25 Identity Along with Peace Studies and Food Studies I will be discussing Identity Studies to create a missing link to those disciplines. For that section I will be using Charles Taylor’s Sources of the Self: the Making of Modern Identity to talk about modern subjectivity and the definition of modern identity by describing its genesis (Taylor, 1989; Taylor et al., 1994). I will also refer to Sidi Omar’s texts about hybrid identities, which will help me to address the notion of identity being ever changing and malleable; based upon experiences (Omar, 2008). Along with those ideas I will also talk about Amin Maalouf’s assassin identities with regards to the violence perpetuated in the name of identity (Maalouf, 2001). Identity, for Maalouf, is the crucible out of which we come— our race, gender, religion, background, tribal affiliations—all go into our identity (Maalouf, 2001; Maalouf et al., 2008). This is constructed, but it also attributes to the reality of violent societies. Massive crimes and heated passions have been committed in the name of identity. Maalouf helps to nurture the idea that the future of society depends on accepting all identities, while at the same time recognizing individualism (Maalouf, 2001). I will also be referring to Manuel Castells’ The Power of Identity to respond to my doubts about political dualisms and binary discourse (Castells, 1997). Castells talks about the importance of cultural, religious and national identity as sources of meaning for people, and the implications for social movement, which sheds light on the dynamics of global and local change (Castells, 1997). This will help to provide insight into the importance of each level of society at defining one’s identity and how this can be transformed into a more peaceful, less essentialist reality. ! 26 Food Studies When I reach the Food Studies section in the first chapter, I will mainly be talking about the anthropological nature of food and the food-human connection. As part of this literature review I will mention the main authors I find important to my dissertation in Food Studies. As I am mostly analyzing food studies from an anthropological standpoint, to prove that human identity can be partly identified by examining the symbolic nature of food, I will refer to authors such as Gillian Crowther, whose book Eating Culture: An Anthropological Guide to Food refers to the human appetite for food and anthropology. This piece of literature provides an overview of the important role that anthropology has played in the understanding of food (Crowther, 2013). Through her works I have gained a comprehensive understanding of the ever-changing human relationship with food. I will also be referring to Jeff Miller and Jonathan Deutsch’s Food Studies: An Introduction to Research Methods as a way to guide myself through the field of Food Studies methodologically (Miller and Deutsch, 2010). Like any discipline, Food Studies has a myriad of methodological questions and templates, and this handbook has helped me to see which work for combining Food Studies and Peace Studies. Along with looking at Food Studies from a methodological standpoint, I will also dissect it from a landscape of social meals. Alice P. Julier’s book Eating Together: Food, Friendship and Inequality offers a glimpse into the ways in which Americans eat together and the meaning behind this social stratosphere (Julier, 2013). Her observations serve as a way to look at food as playing a central role in the social life of U.S. Americans (Julier, 2013). I have also found interesting information in the compilation of essays from the New York Times’ Eat, Memory, which was edited by Amanda Hesser (2009). This collection talks ! 27 about the different memories people experience with food; that food has the power to evoke inspiring recollections (Hesser, 2009). Along with those memories I will also be using Barbara G. Shortridge and James R. Shortridge’s textbook The Taste of American Place: a Reader on Regional and Ethnic Foods, which traces the intertwined roles of food, ethnicity and regionalism in the construction of American identity (Shortridge and Shortridge, 1999). For these authors, food plays a central role in human live and with that notion they analyze a range of disciplines including sociology, anthropology, history, folklore, geography and nutrition (Shortridge and Shortridge, 1999). This provides an example of using food as a window into a multicultural society such as The United States. I will also be looking at food from a political lens, which is why I’ve chosen James L. Watson and Melissa L. Caldwell’s reader The Cultural Politics of Food and Eating to touch on the ethnographic perspective on the ways in which people use food to make sense of life in an increasingly interconnected world (Watson and Caldwell, 2005). This book, which includes studies from eleven countries across five continents, helps to explain food as a vehicle for addressing broad themes in social anthropology such as globalization, capitalism, market economies and consumption practices (Watson and Caldwell, 2005). Structuring the Process My intention with this dissertation will be to show how cuisine, as an inherent aspect of identity, and as a basic and important part of every day life—can be a way to foster intercultural dialogue and awareness. By using the kitchen as an unconditional space for mutual recognition and expression of identity, areas of peace can be fomented in multicultural societies. I will be using various case studies to demonstrate the ability ! 28 of cuisine to cultivate intercultural dialogue, most of which will be projects and specific restaurants that I find exhibit such qualities. Within this dissertation, I will be talking about three major disciplines—peace studies, identity studies, and food studies, and will conduct a large part of my research within those fields, at all times explaining how they interact with one another. I will be analyzing these three disciplines using the idea of “unconditional spaces” from the Allestorfer’s Masters dissertation (Allestorfer, 2013). This term, which she uses to talk about spaces that “offer appreciating, non-judgmental and healing fields, where opposing parties are invited to lay down their arms for a moment in order to open up for peaceful realities,” will be a guiding concept throughout my research, as I try to find examples of “unconditional spaces” that can provide healing spaces for peace building (Allerstorfer, 2013: 3). I will be referring in my dissertation to the culinary field as an area of “unconditional spaces” in that they allow for people to move past differences on a level that is inherently human to everyone (Allestorfer, 2013). Everyone stops what they are doing various times throughout the day to enjoy food—and in that area of enjoyment I believe there is a certain “unconditional space” that allows people to open up to the differences that lead to conflict, and create intercultural dialogue while breaking bread (Allestorfer, 2013). The three disciplines I am going to dissect are transrational in and of themselves, especially when combined. Interweaving peace studies, food studies and identity, my methodology uses transrational lenses to be able to understand both rational ideas as well as energetic, holistic perspectives. Within the food studies and cultural identity section of this thesis I will talk about different approaches to food studies, both within physical ! 29 sciences (biological) and social sciences (cultural). I will use Wolfgang Deitrich’s transrational theories to able to interpret food studies from both scientific and cultural lenses (Dietrich, 2012). Within this section I will explain terms I have coined interculinary dialogue as well as culinary intersubjectivity, which refer to the combination of food studies with intercultural dialogue, as well as food studies with identity studies. The first chapter of this dissertation serves as the theoretical backbone of the research. I discuss theories from the three different disciplines that I illustrated above, and interweave those theories as a way to provide a theoretical understanding of my claims. I claim that through an understanding of identity expression through food, areas of peace can be created in culinary settings. This statement, which I carry throughout the dissertation, is held up by various peace research concepts, identity studies, and food studies research. My research in this case is primarily theoretical, using authors from each field, which I explained in the previous section, to back up my claims. The second chapter is one that delves deeper into the intermingling of identity theories and food studies—in this case on both a cultural and individual level. This chapter, which is also a theoretical backing, helps to bring up elements of identity that can be expressed or understood through a food studies lens—anthropologically, culturally, and even biologically. This chapter, which uses both scientific research and sociological theory, is a transrational chapter that aims to mix science and humanities in a way that allows the reader to understand the importance of incorporating a complex set of viewpoints into peace research (Dietrich, 2011; Dietrich et al., 1997, 2012). This study, which involves a physical science outlook on the human body and behavior, also tries to ! 30 lend a hand to understanding human behavior based on food. This chapter leads into the third chapter, which uses various case studies to uphold the main claims, and points out elements of peace, identity, and food studies in each case. To gain personal perspectives on each case study, I mainly looked for interviews and news articles that explained each study from as close as possible. The first section of the second chapter, which refers to food studies and cultural identity, talks about food as an identity-shaping element. I cite author Claude Fischler, French social scientist, in this section, to refer to the importance of food as something symbolic and identity shaping (Fischler, 1988). From this point on I will keep interweaving food studies with cultural identity, which will lead into the next chapter about my case study, Conflict Kitchen, which serves as an interculinary project being brought to the table. From this case study I plan to prove that food can and is being used as a medium for intercultural dialogue and in turn as a way to bridge cultural conflicts in multicultural societies such as my own. Within this dissertation I will use a main case study along with other smaller examples of how food can break down stereotypes and foster intercultural dialogue. My main example will be one of a project called Conflict Kitchen, which is a restaurant in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, that uses food as a way to break down barriers between the citizens of the United States and those of countries that the government has had or is currently in conflict (Conflictkitchen.org, 2015). This restaurant cooks and serves food from countries with which the United States is in conflict in order to introduce United States citizens to those areas in a way that the media does not. In the United States, if people hear about Palestine, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, etc. it is most often from a biased ! 31 news source that glorifies the United States for calling that country its enemy and shuns that country for being different or for simply being the enemy. A project such as Conflict Kitchen, as well as other projects I will discuss in this dissertation, give people the opportunity to be part of discussions about and with people from the area of conflict, and to then be able to understand peoples from those areas of conflict in a different way than mainstream media would tell them (Conflictkitchen.org, 2015). In my conclusion to this dissertation I will be discussing possible further research in the area of food studies and peace studies, because throughout my already conducted research I have found that this topic can be very broad and has much potential in the fields of peace, conflict, and development. Food touches every aspect of our lives in one way or another, and although I will not be able to discuss every facet, I would like to mention that I am aware of many limitations to this research that due to time and length I will not be able to touch upon, examples including gender roles in food studies, environmental perspectives, food insecurity, hunger, to mention a few. Conclusion To conclude this introduction to my master’s dissertation, I refer back to the beginning and lead you into the start of my research with a clear understanding of my perspective and role within this topic. I grew up in a post-September 11th United States, in which political dualism and binary discourse were the only things I saw on television. If you weren’t with us, you were against us. There was always an enemy of the state, and nobody tried to understand the other side of a United States conflict. So, now my goal with this research is to show that there is a space within multicultural societies for those binary discourses to be deconstructed, and that place is in ! 32 the kitchen—Conflict Kitchen to be exact (Conflictkitchen.org, 2015). Aware of my limitations, I would like to mention here that I hope to continue with this research by either continuing on to do a PhD in Food Studies, or by creating my own culinary project here in California. Areas of interest in this field that could be elaborated include gender perspectives, food insecurity, environmental perspectives, as well as nutrition and public health, among many others. I have learned from my research that, just like peace research, Food Studies can be approached from hundreds of different perspectives and disciplines, and although I will not be able to expand on them all, I simply wish to mention that there is so much more that can be done in these fields, and I hope to be able to continue my research after this dissertation. ! 33 Chapter 1: Three Disciplines in Dialogue It seems to me that the key to changing this thing is getting a small set of the right people involved at the right places. What’s missing is not the critical mass. The missing ingredient is the critical yeast. (John Paul Lederach in The Moral Imagination 2005) Introduction As previously mentioned in the introduction to this dissertation, this is an interdisciplinary study following various interpretations in three fields: 1) Peace Studies, 2) Identity Studies, and 3) Food Studies or Foodways. Since throughout this process I have taken into account those three different areas, I find it relevant to now explain my interpretation of each of them and how I see them interacting with one another in a way that cultivates intercultural dialogue between peoples of different backgrounds. Within each field of study I will explain more profoundly the various aspects that I perceive as interchanging elements. Before delving into the diverging interpretations of these fields of study, I would like to situate myself within these three areas of research, which I will do in the following section of this chapter when I talk about peace studies and my interpretation of it through food studies lenses. Peace Studies from a Food Studies Perspective An Epistemological Turn to Positive Peace Processes of Consciousness-Raising As an aspiring peace worker, I’d like to think that it is my duty to create and reproduce processes of consciousness-raising, as proposed by Paulo Freire, that can open our eyes to the different types of domination, to create new forms of cultures of peace, to ! 34 enhance different ways of making peace (Freire, 1996). My introduction to peace studies began before I started this masters program, in the context of my undergraduate degree in International Studies in which we studied authors such as Samuel P. Huntington11 (Huntington, 1996; North, 2014). In this beginning, we touched briefly on the importance of diplomacy, but in that way, peace always meant peace between nations, which of course ignores major levels of violence that occur not just at the state level. My comprehension of peace studies shifted when I began this masters program, and was introduced to Vicent Martínez Gúzman’s epistemological turn, moving my attention to a new definition of peace as multiple and imperfect, and with a vast possibility to manifest in many forms (Martínez Gúzman, 2001). When peace studies began as a result of the barbaric consequences of World War Two, peace meant merely the absence of war—a so-called negative peace. With the creation of this new paradigm for peace studies, peace as the absence of war transformed into not just a utopian ideal, but something plausible and real, yet imperfect (Martínez Gúzman, 2009). When the Journal of Peace Research was created in 1964, Johan Galtung’s editorial piece, which founded the journal, was aimed at clarifying the philosophy of peace research, according to the Peace Research Institute, Oslo, which published the journal (Galtung, 1969). The history behind the division of positive and negative peace dates back to the 1950’s when peace research was too much centered on direct violence. The Oslo Peace Research Institute and the Journal of Peace Research introduced an academic source of new perspectives of peace theory (Galtung, 1969). When in the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” describes the idea that claims that idealogical and cultural identity would be the main sources of conflict in the post-Cold War era (Huntington, 1996). It has served to be controversial in current-day affairs because it argued that Islam was a monolithic force, which was hostile toward the West because of wounded pride and feelings of inadequacy (North, 2014). For more information see Huntington 1996 and North 2014. ! 41 Holocaust caused millions of deaths (Arendt, 1978). This fact made it impossible for him to even understand that he was going to die as well, and what that meant. Arendt concluded about Eichmann’s personality: Despite all the efforts of the prosecution, everybody could see that this man was not a “monster,” but it was difficult indeed not to suspect that he was a clown. And since this suspicion would have been fatal to the entire enterprise [his trial], and was also rather hard to sustain in view of the sufferings he and his like had caused to millions of people, his worst clowneries were hardly noticed and almost never reported. (Arendt, 1963: 55) During the trial, Eichmann showed neither guilt nor fear of his impending execution, which Arendt said owes to his “banality of evil”—a clichéd defense rather than thinking for himself (Arendt, 1963). She claims that his inability to think was the reason he was unable to act in opposition to his duty, or the law of the Nazi regime (Arendt, 1963). She argued, that although he was responsible for his actions, and that he was an anti-Semite, these characteristics were secondary to his stupidity and “thoughtlessness” (Arendt, 1963). This is what allowed for millions of Jews to die in the Holocaust—the inability to think of a few men, who unfortunately had the power to do an incredible amount of harm. Perhaps the most menacing part about this, is that this innocuous constriction of empathy and ease for labeling the other one the enemy, which leads to the inability to find oneself within the other, is what makes committing large scale, murderous acts possible. When we blame others for our suffering, this allows us to “externalize our fears, vent our outrage, and punish our enemies, or coerce them into doing what we want against their wishes” (Cloke, 2005). This happens when we separate ourselves from the other. It emphasizes our differences, and extends fear and hatred. At a more subtle level, identifying others as evil is simply a justification and catalyst for our own pernicious actions. By defining "them" as bad, we implicitly ! 42 define ourselves as good and give ourselves permission to act against them in ways that would appear evil to outside observers who were not aware of their prior evil acts. In this way, their evil mirrors our diminished capacity for empathy and compassion, and telegraphs our plans for their eventual punishment. The worse we plan to do to them, the worse we need them to appear, so as to avoid the impression that we are the aggressor. The ultimate purpose of every accusation of evil is thus to create the self-permission, win the approval of outsiders, and establish the moral logic required to justify committing evil oneself. (Cloke, 2005) It is therefore easy to understand that contentions of evil can be directly linked with an uneven distribution of power. Allestorfer’s concept regarding “unconditional spaces” is one that I aim to use as a possible answer to the existing power dynamics (Allestorfer, 2013). The area she speaks of is one that is “‘in between’ and ‘beyond’,” which provides a space for neither each party of the conflict, nor the mediator (Allestorfer, 2013: 6). This type of space, which is free of ownership and serves the whole, points toward a morally imagined, unknown sphere, that can exist in spite of the occurring conflict, or uneven distribution of power (Allestorfer, 2013; Lederach, 2005). Human interactions, which irrefutably function in power dynamics, are the actions that determine new realities, and so it is important to underline the roles of social, economic and political relationships, as they all inflect power plays (Allestorfer, 2013). What happens when power relationships strictly dictate moral stances based on power? Does this effect levels and amounts of violence? As German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, the interpretations of good and evil came from social relationships of domination and dependency between unequal economic classes: [T]he judgment good does not originate with those to whom the good has been done. Rather, it was the “good” themselves, that is to say the noble, mighty, highly placed, and high-minded who decreed themselves and their actions to be good, i.e., belonging to the highest rank, in contradistinction to all that was base, ! 43 low-minded and plebian.... [Thus, the] origin of the opposites good and bad is to be found in the pathos of nobility and distance, representing the dominant temper of a higher, ruling class in relation to a lower, dependent one. (Nietzsche, 1956: 160) This goes to show that moral stances and value positions (between good and evil) are the products of power relationships. Morality, which is a human construction, is highly influenced by the central organizer of human interaction: power (Begley, 1999). As Nietzsche wrote, the perceptions of good and evil originated from social relationships of oppressor-oppressed dynamics and dependency between unequal economic classes. Contemporarily speaking, this use of power is something that those with more power justify by predisposing an intention to use that power for good. The world is extremely disparate in terms of resources, and the few that are in control of the majority of those resources justify this uneven distribution by indicating that they know how to do good with those resources. But without empathy, compassion, and power sharing, this will inevitably evolve into a belief that whatever benefits us must benefit them also. This will lead us to regard their criticism of our self-interested benevolence as ill mannered and ungrateful, and their opposition to our power as support for evil. We will then interpret their desire for self-determination as rebellion and perhaps, as in Vietnam, seek to "kill them for their own good." (Cloke, 2005) Empathy plays a very important role in the allocation of resources and sharing of power (Allestorfer, 2013). Those in power and those with less power should practice “divine energy” which occurs when “unconditional spaces” are allowed to thrive (Allestorfer, 2013: 9). How can those in power justify this extreme use of morality over others? As a way of exerting power over others without feeling guilty, people are gradually more propelled to rip to shreds empathy and compassion to the point of no return—to a point at ! 44 which they can no longer see anything similar in their opponents. It is by undergoing this process of dehumanization that people feel able to brandish power thoughtlessly and act however they need to in order to keep that level of power. “It is at this point that simple, natural, innocent, self-interest begins its descent into evil. At every step, it is aided by anger, fear, jealousy, pain, guilt, grief, and shame and the suppression of empathy and compassion” (Cloke, 2005). These acts happen on many different levels, but all are used to justify the exploitation of others. Those in dominant positions of power fabricate excuses or false accusations of evil in order to vindicate the suppression of empathy and the selfish use of power, which forgoes ethical or moral principles. This type of progression is what leads nation states into acts of war and genocide, which give permission for individuals to act in violence and go against tendencies of appeasement in interpersonal conflicts. It is because of this that we must rethink these justifications of violence and power. There should never be an excuse to erase empathy or compassion— but too often there are occurrences of this, in national conflicts, but also personal ones (Begley, 1999). This is where the idea of “unconditional spaces” comes in handy (Allestorfer, 2013). This concept, which claims that “empathy implies emptying the mind and listening with our whole being,” points out the crucial link between empathy and non-judgmental attitudes (Allestorfer, 2013: 9). Without empathy, it becomes impossible to “shed all preconceived ideas and judgments” (Koppensteiner in Allestorfer, 2013: 9). Power dynamics and already existent notions of power roles are key in creating an area where empathy can override judgment and prejudice. ! 45 Food Discourse and Foucault’s Concept of Power Networks Another way to address the issue of power is by looking at discourse. Foucault wrote that neither an individual nor a group beholds power. In other words, it is not something one can necessarily “have” (Vester, 2007). Power, instead, is interpreted as a network of discourses with not a single center (Vester, 2007). His concept sees individuals as being subjected to discourses, which includes instances of privilege— something that needs to be taken into account when considering the phenomenon of “unconditional spaces” (Allestorfer, 2013). Bordo as well as Probyn have been pioneers in introducing Foucault’s power concept to food studies, by rearticulating the subject as gendered and racialized (Vester, 2007). Since food studies is a relatively new field, its discourses and practices pertaining to the formation of subjectivity and the capacity for conflict within food studies have not been completely examined (Vester, 2007). Generally speaking, Foucault’s concept considers scholarly discourses to be the main reason in producing a particular type of modern power—one that uses truth and knowledge to govern its subjects (Vester, 2007). The use of power in modern democracies fills society with gaps, missing elements, and violence (Allestorfer, 2013). “Unconditional spaces” inspire a strengthening of the understanding required in complex societies and push toward a holistic, energetic comprehension of each person’s role within that society (Allestorfer, 2013). If each member is respected and considered equal, curiosity and playfulness allow for an empathetic relationship to form, and for unequal power dynamics to be deconstructed (Allestorfer, 2013). ! 46 Discourses, bodies of knowledge that are organized around the concept of universal truth, serve the legitimization of power relations in an increasingly secular age, when the divine is no longer deemed satisfactory as a mode to explain the world. (Vester, 2007: 8) Governments implement this specific form of modern power as a way to discipline its subjects by giving them the power to control one another. This method, which is put into effect through discourse and the legitimization of disciplinary mechanisms that reduce the need for force, results in a larger control over individual subjects by reassigning the task of control to the individuals (Vester, 2007). Examples of this control mechanism are: the school, the army, the factory, the police force, the prison, etc. All of these are ways in which individual subjects can control one another—this is the network of modern-day power dynamics. Food discourses, which condition the way in which we relate to food, introduce us to a wealth of knowledge based on the concept of truth (Vester, 2007). In that sense, these discourses are what provide us with sustenance, meaning, order, and value in our lives (Mintz, 1996). Food and the practices involving food (including consumption, preparation, nutrition, production, etc.), play important roles in the construction of our identities as well as religious practices, and socialization (Mansfield, 2001). Just like the scholarly discourses Foucault analyzes, food discourses govern food practices and human behavior by playing authoritative, normalizing and disciplining roles in society (Vester, 2007). An interesting example of the importance of understanding food discourse is the development of the concept of a recipe. The word “recipe”, which comes from the Latin recipere, which means receive, is a term that up until the mid-nineteenth century was called “receipt” (Vester, 2007). What makes a recipe, a recipe? The concept does not become a recipe until it is ! 47 taken from someone, followed and used. The reader of the recipe is imperatively addressed so that they follow the rules of said recipe. In this case, “sometimes the authority of the author is implicitly questioned: since recipes are derived from oral tradition, they imply a concept of authorship distinct from written tradition” (Vester, 2007: 9). The construction of identity can be personified within a recipe due to the specific type of authorship involved; some recipes are named after their creators. Recipes have the power to keep traditions alive, overcome gaps of time, space, and differences between groups “…taking part in the invention of traditions that can help establish the story of the nation, the boundaries of the masculine community, the sisterhood of nonhegemonic sexualities” (Vester, 2007: 9). It is for this reason that food discourses are relevant markers of power relations, locations of dominance and resistance, and the setting up and operation of identities in routine life (Vester, 2007). When we consider culinary discourses to be areas that produce power-knowledge dynamics, while at the same time purveyors of expertise to marginalized groups, it is possible to modify Foucault’s concept of power relations (Vester, 2007). However, Foucault’s theories provide an estimation of nationality, sexuality, and masculinity as disputed fields of knowledge and power for the very reason that they are ever-changing, and not just created through political, medical or scientific discourses, but from the bottom-up and in daily life. It is Foucault’s concept regarding disputed, “lowranking” knowledges, that sheds some light on the importance of understanding the networks of power (Vester, 2007). …I believe that by subjugated knowledges one should understand something else, something which in a sense is altogether different, namely, a whole set of knowledges that have been disqualified as inadequate to their task or ! 48 insufficiently elaborated: naïve knowledges, located low down on the hierarchy, beneath the required level of cognition or scientificity. I also believe that it is through the re-emergence of these low-ranking knowledges, these unqualified, even directly disqualified knowledges (such as that of a psychiatric patient, of the ill person, of the nurse, of the doctor—parallel and marginal as they are to the knowledge of medicine—that of the delinquent etc.), and which involved what I would call popular knowledge (le savoir des gens) though it far from being a general commonsense knowledge, but is on the contrary a particular, local, regional knowledge, a differential knowledge incapable of unanimity and which owes its force only to the harshness with which it is opposed by everything surrounding it—that is through the re-appearance of this knowledge, of these local popular knowledges, these disqualified knowledges, that criticism performs its work. (Foucault et al., 1984: 82) Foucault’s understanding of knowledge and power offer interesting insights into food discourses in that they can be considered those types of discourses that come from below and in the everyday. As Foucault says, criticism performs properly when discovering the essential force in the relationship between forgotten (or disqualified) knowledges of scholarship and the knowledges that are not recognized by the hierarchy of knowledges and sciences (Foucault et al., 1984). Norbert Elias explored the way that instructions involving food and consumption contribute to social impact (Vester, 2007). His concept made way for an understanding of the representations of food as discourses. He was able to show how table manners condition a particular social order, whether on a smaller scale like when “civilizing” a member of court, or a larger scale like constituting the dispersal of political power contained by the nation-state (Elias, 1978). By analyzing courtly etiquette guides, Elias exposes the political agendas hidden beneath the surface of advice literature and how they impact subjects and society (Vester, 2007). The notion of a courtly culture paved the way for the realization of stricter table manners, seeing as self-discipline became an ! 49 indicator of social merit and a mark of dedication to the royal family and the centralized nation-state (Vester, 2007). Refined manners signified the individual’s closeness to the center of power, the royal court. Constantly changing rules of etiquette demanded continuous selfimprovement and distinguished those in the know from recent arrivals or occasional visitors. (Vester, 2007: 34) Elias draws on an enhancing individualization and realization of hierarchy in the course of action of cultivating disciplinary apparatuses. This example illustrates the utility in analyzing even the most unimagined spaces to understand where power relations are conveyed and assimilated (Vester, 2007). It is in these unimagined spaces, that exist within violent societies as well, where moral imagination provides a stepping-stone to imagining a peaceful reality (Lederach, 2005). If the moral imagination lies within us as a dormant seed of potential, and this seed holds the key of breaking cycles of destructive conflict, then our challenge is how to evoke the growth of this kind of imagination as an integral part of developing innovative professionals. (Lederach, 2005: 175) One thing to consider, which is true in the case of Foucault as well—Elias does not take into account gender or race in his inquiry, which is where food studies can lend a hand. By examining food advice in the context of a democratic society, we can understand how it becomes a “biopolitical”14 tool that results in various, controversial agendas (Foucault et al., 2008). When the pilgrims of Britain fled to the Americas in search of freedom from religious persecution, they shifted from being subjects of the British Empire to becoming independent citizens of a new republic, “food discourses were a key way that the cross-cutting debates in the public sphere became intangibly linked to private !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14 The Foucauldian term “biopolitics” refers to the regulation of populations through government policy as well as more “intangible, yet deeply powerful, development of cultural practices and media representations in everyday life” (Vester, 2007: 10). For more information see Foucault and Senellart 2008 “The Birth of Biopolitics”. ! 50 everyday practices, which allowed limited participation” to marginalized groups such as women, African Americans, and then immigrants who came later to help the construction of the new nation (Vester, 2007). The same way that Elias unveils political power in the form of courtly table manners, there have also been political conflicts in the elaboration of a republican cuisine “pitting New England’s claim to hegemonic representation of the national culture against counter-narratives from the South; a democratic agrarian ideal concealing the defense of white middle-class privilege…” (Vester, 2007: 11). There were also elements including imperial expansion in the election of recipes and ingredients going in the opposite direction of isolationism that made up the acceptable “American” foods (Vester, 2007). Nevertheless, self-discipline and control of biological functions have always been essential to social responsibility and the construction of a prosperous nation (Vester, 2007). Another critical understanding of the significance of food in social order (power dynamics) has been explained by sociologist, anthropologist and philosopher Pierre Bourdieu, whose work often emphasized the corporeal nature of social life and stressed the role of practice and embodiment in social dynamics (Bourdieu, 1999). His idea that social space is not solely determined by economic elements but also by “cultural capital” helps to identify with the type of symbolic capital that can become relevant in terms of knowledge (Vester, 2007). According to Bourdieu, cultural capital creates an unequal distribution that comes across as a so-called “habitus,” which can be seen in values, beliefs, lifestyles that are held by social groups and established within individuals (Bordieu, 1999). Cultural capital manifests in the form of social and economic gain. Bourdieu’s theories on social spheres provide an understanding of the individual ! 57 intrinsically becomes attached to the body, to the nervous system, temperament, digestive apparatus, faulty respiration, improper diets, and so on (Taylor, 2010). Arguing against a physiological standpoint, Foucault asserts that “the body is molded by a great many distinct regimes; it is broken down by the rhythms of work, rest, and holiday; it is poisoned by food or values, through eating habits or moral laws; it constructs resistance” (Foucault, 1971: 87). In this line of thought, Foucault makes a case that genealogy shapes practices of diet (Taylor, 2010). In a 1983 interview, Foucault goes on to compare and contrast the ancient Greek concern for dietetics and the modern obsession with sex, to controlling diet (Taylor, 2010). [The Greeks] were not much interested in sex. [Sex] was not a great issue. Compare, for instance, what they say about the place of food and diet. I think it is very, very interesting to see the move, the very slow move, from the privileging of food, which was overwhelming in Greece, to interest in sex. Food was still much more important during the early Christian days than sex. For instance, in the rules for monks, the problem was food, food, food. Then you can see a very slow shift during the Middle Ages when they were in a kind of equilibrium and after the seventeenth century it was sex. (Foucault, 1983: 229) Along with diet, these self-controlling techniques include such natural energies as meditation, sexual pleasure, practices of self-expression (writing, painting, art, etc.). Foucault’s attention toward the example of diet control in ancient Greece was formed mostly because it illustrated the exigency of our own attentiveness to sex as a means of self-discovery (Foucault, 1983). This comparison demonstrates the interest in natural energies as a locus for selfdiscovery (Foucault, 1983). It is significant to Foucault that food was once the focus of a complex set of restrictions and inspired a greater discursive interest than did sexual activity since he thinks that this is in marked contrast to the modern West, in which sex rather than food became the privileged site of moral restriction, scientific inquiry and individuating reflexivity. (Taylor, 2010: 72) ! 58 Foucault speaks of “techniques of the self”16 to create an understanding of the ethical relation to the self and an aesthetics of one’s own life (Taylor, 2010). One’s relationship with others is considered the field of power, whereas ethics can be seen as an area of how we relate to and transform ourselves (Taylor, 2010). Foucault claims: “to approach one’s own life ethically through techniques of the self is…to see one’s existence as an aesthetic project or work of art” (Taylor, 2010: 73). Foucault suggests that—because most of us no longer rely on ethics that are instituted in religion, nor do we aspire a legal system to intercede in our moral, private lives—modern-day liberation movements adopt the Greek model of ethics, in order to establish their politics in a self-transformative system (Taylor, 2010). Intercultural Dialogue ! Intercultural dialogue, defined by UNESCO as the “equitable exchange and dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based on mutual understanding and respect and the equal dignity of all cultures is the essential prerequisite for constructing social cohesion, reconciliation among peoples and peace among nations”, requires common, “unconditional spaces” for the purpose of meaningful exchange (Unesco.org, 2015). Martínez Gúzman defines dialogue as the act of communicating two or more people and asking for reasoning behind what they do, say or do not say (Martínez Gúzman, 2004). The word dialogue comes from the Greek diálogos, which comes from the word dialégomai, which means to speak, say or converse. It is a compound word !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 16 Foucault wrote of “techniques of the self”, or “the arts of existence” to describe “those reflective and voluntary practices by which men not only set themselves rules of conduct, but seek to transform themselves, to change themselves in their singular being, and to make of their life into an oeuvre that carries certain aesthetic values and meets certain stylistic criteria” (Foucault, 1985: 10). For more information see Foucault 1985, “The Use of Pleasure”. ! 59 that’s prefix dia means “through” and logos means word, reason, discourse (Martínez Gúzman, 2004). Therefore “dialogue” is something that two or more people do with words, using the reasons that we give one another, from the speech that we include, and with the silences we communicate (Martínez Gúzman, 2004). Acción de comunicarse dos o más personas pidiéndose o dándose razones de por qué se hacen, dicen o callan, lo que se hacen, dicen o callan. Etimológicamente procede del griego diálogos que, a su vez, viene del verbo dialégomai que significa hablar, decir, conversar. Es una palabra compuesta de la preposición dia como prefijo que significa “a través de” y de logos que significa, palabra, razón, discurso [...] Así “diálogo” es algo que nos hacemos dos o más personas, a través de las palabras, de las razones que nos damos, de los discursos e, incluimos, de los silencios comunicativos. (Martínez Guzmán, 2004: 302) Dialogue, as such, defines the type of human relations we form. If we take another look at Martínez Gúzman’s “epistemological turn”, which gives us a shift in the way we understand the sciences and the knowledge we have as human beings, we would not necessarily be doing so from an objective standpoint void of values (Martínez Guzmán, 2004). We must be dedicated to treating dialogue as a tool to peacefully transform the suffering of oppressed human beings. We must do so with an interpersonal perspective, aware of the structures in which we are subjected. Dialogue should be used as a characteristic of human relations by which we recognize one another as human beings each with a voice that is capable and competent. Since dialogue, which is the basic source of communication, is what humans rely on for interacting meaningfully, it is interesting to take into account the mode in which communication occurs. Allestorfer refers to Marshall B. Rosenberg’s “non-violent communication” in her dissertation, as a pillar of “unconditional spaces” (Allestorfer, 2013). This type of communication, which Allestorfer sheds light on in her work as a way of proposing “unconditional spaces” with modes of communication that are both ! 60 inclusive of empathy and non-judgmental attitudes, “represents an unconditional affirmation of life – an approach that lies at the bottom of the creation of ‘unconditional spaces’” (Allestorfer, 2013: 10). Non-violent communication, which “seeks for transcendence of moral duties” by way of human relation, should be considered a cornerstone for intercultural dialogue, as it allows for “unconditional acceptance and celebration of life” (Allestorfer, 2013: 9-10). Non-violent communication is a tactic, and philosophy, that should be incorporated when considering intercultural dialogue, as it attributes to the fostering of empathy and mutual recognition required for unconditional, intercultural interactions (Rosenberg, 2003). Intercultural dialogue, which represents the key peace-building tool in this dissertation, is present in every aspect of this research. In peace studies, intercultural dialogue represents a necessary mode of communication between peoples of different backgrounds on the grounds that we are all human beings, and should respect and love one another. In identity studies, intercultural dialogue represents an answer to the various divisions that set us apart as individuals, but provides a way for us to interact without judgment or discrimination by way of empathy and mutual recognition. Within food studies, intercultural dialogue lends a hand to promoting artistic expression through culinary practice and food culture, which pushes forth an agenda for intercultural interaction based on sharing food. Dialogue, which was previously defined in this section, provides a path for creating cultures of peace that strive on the expression of identity in many forms—in this particular case, through food—and respects and recognizes each differing culture, identity, and mixture of such. ! 61 Intersubjectivity By recognizing that identity cannot be constructed in an isolated fashion, we can realize that human beings need one another to define themselves. The very function of love, which is the maximum expression of intersubjectivity would be to see each other as part of one another. In other words, we can define ourselves as individuals based on others. Within multicultural societies, diversity is a natural component, but it is also conflictive. That which is different commonly instills us with fear. In the case of experiencing fear due to diversity, this occurrence leads to the intent to prevent an invasion of the unknown. This fear makes it easy to arrive to dehumanization and a swift shift to violence or even nullification of “the other”. This arrival to the destruction of the intersubjective by way of essentialist identification is what leads to assassin identities, which I will arrive to in the identity section of this chapter (Maalouf, 1999). La extrañeza, en lugar de asumir la fragilidad y la vulnerabilidad, canalize el miedo ejerciendo la violencia, rompiendo la intersubjetividad originaria, y considerando al otro u otra como alius, ajeno, distante y a dominar y vencer. (París Albert et al., 2004: 87) These human capacities for fear, vulnerability, and violence, go hand in hand with characteristics of governability, justice, affection, and care for one another. If we find another way to react to the fear instilled by diversity, by recognizing that we are fragile, we can arrive to the recognition of intersubjectivity and interculturality. If we accept and realize the nature of human beings to clash and be conflictive, we can react instead of with violence, with the cultivation of relationships that move beyond the fear of diversity. “…los conflictos se pueden transformar por medios pacíficos y la diversidad cultural se puede transformar en diálogo intercultural” (París Albert et al., 2004: 89). When ! 62 different cultures can interact with one another by way of dialogue, empathy and mutual recognition, interculturality can flourish. Political Dualisms and Binary Discourse/ Empathy and Rehumanization “New Mestizaje” In a 1995 interview Elle Hernández conducted with Gloria Anzaldúa, scholar of Chicana cultural theory, feminist theory, and queer theory, she was asked how “new mestizaje” cultural identity has been affected by borders (Anzaldúa et al., 1996). This is how she replied: “To live in the “borderlands” is very exciting; it is living in the midst of culture in the making. It is a very creative space to be in one where innovative art and theory on the cutting edge is being constructed” (Anzaldúa et al., 1996: 5). Art, theory, change all seem to come from creativity, from a clash of cultures, which is why Anzaldúa’s experiences growing up on the borders between the United States and Mexico have allowed her to revolutionize the realization that now is the time for peoples of diverse cultures to come together. The world has been scrupulously divided into nations with strict lines and borders, but at the same time this world continues to become more mixed. This very thought puts into question the efficacy of national identities. Binary Discourse ! Within multicultural societies, which are built on immigration, political dualisms and binary discourse become blurry, impossible notions to fathom. The United States cultural production, though it attempts to redefine the growing consequences of globalization, cannot refuse the role that borders play in problematizing all concepts of identity. When we witness the rise in nationalistic discourse, like extreme anti- ! 63 immigration policy in the case of California and Proposition 18717, we can see still that the binary discourse of multicultural societies is prevalent. With that example we can see that the metaphoric (and physical) “crossing over” that Anzaldúa refers to in her book Borderlands we see that border discourse, which discusses the effects of borders on peoples of mixed cultural identities, needs to be come a viable political discourse (Anzaldúa, 1987). Like most peoples in a multicultural society, it is normal to go through, like Anzaldúa’s definition of la mestiza, a struggle for identity (Anzaldúa, 1987). A so-called inner war with two or more cultures is not unheard of in societies that are defined by a mixture of cultures. This battle of identities is both beautiful, and conflictive. This means a perception of a version of reality that the dominant culture projects. But because this type of society is a mixture of many different cultures, and it is common to belong to more than one, it is also not unheard of to receive multiple, often opposing messages from those cultures which of which we pertain. While this type of dynamic is exquisite in its richness and complexity, it is also the creator of incompatible frames of reference, which lead to cultural collisions (Freedman, 2007). A common human reaction to a clash of mixed messages from the various identities which one could belong to, is an act of defense. It is not enough to stand on the opposite riverbank, shouting questions, challenging patriarchal, white conventions. A counter stance locks one into a duel of oppressor and oppressed; locked in mortal combat, like the cop and the criminal, both are reduced to a common denominator of violence. The counter stance refutes the dominant culture's views and beliefs, and, for this, it is proudly defiant...But it is not a way of life. At some point on our way to a new !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17 California Proposition 187 (also known as Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit undocumented immigrants from using health care, public education, and other services of the State of California (Migration.ucdavis.edu). ! 64 consciousness, we will have to leave the opposite bank, the split between the two mortal combatants somehow healed so that we are on both shores at once and, at once, see through serpent and eagle eyes...The possibilities are numerous once we decide to act and not react. (Freedman, 2007: 387) This means that identity cannot follow the laws of national borders and strict immigration policy. The normal reaction would be to rely on rigidity, to choose one all encompassing identity and commit to that. But this excludes, even though it is all encompassing, because national identities are not inclusive—they are binary and dualistic. In the United States if you are not white, your identity is hyphenated with something else in order for people to understand where you came from. But this notion doesn’t make any sense. Every white person who lives in the United States is not native to that land. Why aren’t white U.S. Americans labeled Irish-American, EnglishAmerican, German-American, etc. and still Mexican-American, Asian-American, and African-Americans are labeled by there “original” homeland? With the discovery that it makes no sense to hold concepts ideas, or identities in rigid boundaries, only by remaining flexible can people overcome the political dualisms that dictate identity. It is necessary to transfer rational thinking to divergent thinking in order to move away from set patterns and goals, “and toward a more whole perspective, one that includes rather than excludes” (Freedman, 2007: 388). It has been my experience that to reduce the world to an oppressor-oppressed dynamic is a minute way of creating paradoxical assumptions about the society in which we live. However, because I have grown up in a multicultural democracy, one in which freedom and equality are supposedly upheld values, and at the same time economic disparity and racial discrimination still run rampant, I believe that people need to be given the chance and build the capacity for a certain consciousness. As Freire says, ! 65 “humans create their consciousness of struggle by transforming reality and liberating themselves from oppression that has been inserted by traditional pedagogy” (Freire, 1996: 15). Those who think and reflect go about creating themselves from the inside out. Freire has invoked that individuals must learn to fight for the end of oppression and for the constructive criticism of the status quo. Men rarely admit their fear of freedom openly, however, tending to camouflage it—sometimes unconsciously—by presenting themselves as defenders of freedom. They give their doubts and misgivings an air of profound sobriety, as befitting custodians of freedom. But they confuse freedom with the maintenance of the status quo; so that if conscientization threatens to place that status quo in question, it thereby seems to constitute a threat to freedom itself. (Freire, 1996: 16) Within democracies such as the United States, the oppressor-oppressed dynamic is somewhat masked by ideals of freedom and equality, demonstrated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. However, this is not always the case in real life. There are still the rich and the poor, the black and the white, and so much in between. But most importantly, too many people are still not conscious of this reality, of the reality in which they live and take part. Within my own country, there are whole states that would prefer to let hundreds of thousands of their own people die than to adopt a healthcare plan that would save them because it was put on the agenda by a black president (Tea Party, 2015). Is this an example of that fight for freedom? Or is this racism? I would call it ignorance. Lack of consciousness. Racism. I believe that this lack of awareness comes from a history of dehumanization, which needs to change, hopefully in creating “unconditional spaces” of intercultural dialogue. “Concern for humanization leads at once to the recognition of dehumanization, not only as an ontological possibility but as an historical reality. And as man perceives the extent of dehumanization, he asks himself if ! 66 humanization is a viable possibility. Within history, in concrete, objective contexts, both humanization and dehumanization are possibilities for man as an uncompleted being conscious of his incompleteness” (Freire, 1996: 20). Freire, a believer in the individual forming him or her self rather than being formed, proposes that educational topics or opportunities should be taken from the daily experiences of the individual (Freire, 1996). Dehumanization and Re-Humanization Dehumanization, which distorts the possibility of becoming more fully human, afflicts both those who have stolen and are being stolen their humanity. In the case of multicultural societies, this dehumanization happens often. Most work on social reconstruction focuses on the rule of law, state building, community development, and conflict resolution, with little literature beyond that dealing with forgiveness, psychosocial treatment, and community development on the critical dimension of what must happen between people to lead to genuine rehumanization. (Halpern and Weinstein, 2004: 6) This raises the question of what is involved in re-humanizing the other? In order to address this question we must first look at dehumanization, a process that takes shape in subsumed social identity theory. The need to belong is usually the reason to reject those who are different in order to feel a sense of belonging. In multicultural societies, where so many different cultures and mixes of identities live side by side, and inhabit a land entrenched in a history of slavery and dehumanization, but also in inclusion and liberty, freedom, etc. it becomes difficult to forget the past, to re-humanize. It is because of this history and the range of diversity that we so easily jump to the victim-perpetrator dynamic, more often in times of crisis like terrorist attacks or economic repression. If polarization and escalation occur, ! 73 Could, perhaps, the lack of recognition within modern societies be the missing element necessary to surpass multiculturalism and move toward interculturalism and super-diversity20? The struggle that people go through to become recognized in multicultural societies is vast, historical and rough (Taylor, 1994). “The breeding ground for these collective forms of resistance is prepared by subcultural semantics in which a shared language is found for feelings of having been unjustly treated, a language that points—however indirectly—to the possibilities for expanding relationships of recognition” (Honneth, 1996: 170). The events that have lead up to the politics of recognition have yielded much needed discourse regarding the formation of authentic, individual identity and the respect for difference. This, however, needs to be translated from a potential normative and social theory to a practical succession. I hope to see the ability in projects such as the ones I will dissect in Chapter 3 to create spaces for mutual recognition, which will leave room for respect of distinct identities. Moral Imagination ! After having twisted through a lot of different peace theories and ideas, at what I would like to arrive is a certain imaginative culture of peace21 (Lederach, 2003, 2005). We know as human beings that we have the capacity for violence, but we also have a strong one for the creation of peace. Lederach speaks of something similar to the concept of “unconditional spaces,” or at least the version I would like to refer to in this dissertation (Allestorfer, 2013). He defines the “moral imagination” as the capacity to recognize turning points and possibilities in order to venture down unknown paths and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 20 Please see Arnaut 2013 “Super-diversity: elements of an emerging perspective” (Arnaut, 2013). 21 Please see Muñoz 2001. ! 74 create what does not exist (Lederach, 2005). Lederach argues that there exist four central requirements for sustainable peace: “the capacity to imagine ourselves in a web of relationships that include our enemies; the ability to sustain a paradoxical curiosity that embraces complexity without reliance on dualistic polarity; the fundamental belief in the pursuit of the creative act; and the acceptance of the inherent risk of stepping into the mystery of the unknown that lies beyond the far too familiar landscape of violence” (Lederach, 2005: 5). Peace processes commence when we enter in dialogue and imagine the possibility for change. This is why the moral imagination opens the door for the capacity of the mind to conceive and create, that which does not yet exist. Because this dissertation is about food, and the power of food, I cannot resist the urge to include Lederach’s famous “critical yeast” metaphor (Lederach, 2005). Yeast, which is the ingredient used to make bread rise, has the power to create growth, but not without first being mixed with a small amount of water. According to Lederach, five principles can be learned from baking bread. Firstly, the main ingredient in making bread is usually the flour, and the smallest ingredient is the yeast (Lederach, 2005). With this part of the process Lederach makes the analogy that a small number of strategically connected people have a greater potential for fostering social growth than a large number of people who think similarly (Lederach, 2005). When social change doesn’t work, we must turn primarily to the nature of who was engaged and what gaps might exist in the relationships of different groups of people. Secondly, he uses yeast as a personification of a smaller group of people that must first be given the opportunity to undergo its own process before being dumped into the larger mass. Like when making bread, if the yeast is mixed directly in with the flour before being mixed with water, it dies and the bread ! 75 can no longer grow. Thirdly, when you mix yeast in water, normally a small amount of sugar is added before you leave the mixture in a warm place where it can grow larger and more resistant. This step mirrors the need for social change to pay close attention to the way in which people in their environment mix in relational spaces that provide a warm, although at first separated, and safe space to integrate what normally is not brought together. If sweetness is added to this process, the space allows for the growth of those who were placed together. Fourthly, the yeast must be scrupulously mixed into the larger mass. Authentic growth occurs when it finds a way to continue to rise even though there are factors that are making it difficult to do so. Fifthly, the oven must be preheated so that while one group of things is set in motion in one dimension, the relative and necessary platform for change is also ready for that conduct (Lederach, 2005). Lederach’s “critical yeast” analogy serves to illustrate that constructive social change involves a new, creative image of strategy (Lederach, 2005). In creating cultures of peace, it is pertinent to consider what creates life and what allows that life to thrive. In order to build peace strategically, we must create a type of social cohesion relying on the ingredients that already exist and have the potential to make sustainable, unconditional spaces for change (Lederach, 2005). “The place where the critical mass and the critical yeast meet in reference to social change is not in the number of people involved but rather in creating the quality of the platform that makes exponential growth strong and possible, and then in finding ways to sustain that platform” (Lederach, 2005: 110). Imperfect Peaces Cultures of peace are complex and conflictive. It is the way in which we choose to react to those potentially violent human behaviors that changes the dimension of ! 76 conflict or complexity. According to Muñoz, peace is a primal reality since the beginning of human evolution, as part of history and biology (Muñoz, 2001). Peace allows us to identify ourselves as human, and is intrinsically recognized as the invention of human beings, which is later on projected on other species, the environment, and the cosmos. Muñoz believes that, contrary to common rationale, peace is that which makes us fear, run away from, define and identify violence (Muñoz, 2001). This is where his idea of “imperfect peace” comes from. Peace has a reputation for bringing up ideas of utopia, perfection, and tranquility… Never has the word “imperfect” seemed to go alongside the word “peace” (Muñoz, 2001). However, Muñoz’s definition is far from imperfect. He sees peace as an unfinished business. Anything that is finished, perfect, with the goal reached, all notions far from the condition of humanity, move us to feel immersed in doubt when we are affronted by complexity and conflict (Muñoz, 2001). This shift in paradigm of seeing peace as something real, but imperfect, unfinished, human by nature, allows us to think and act realistically. With this perspective we can try to see the causes behind conflict, put into action the proposals of imperfect peace and we make explicit the consequences of conflict and we try to put into communication the frameworks of complexity, globalization and the future. Just as Galtung asserted that we have an enormous potential for the construction of peace, imperfect peace is an idea I would like to adopt in this dissertation to describe diverse experiences and cases of peace within a conflictive, multicultural society (Galtung, 1985). In the third chapter of this dissertation I refer to various “interculinary” cases of “imperfect peace” that exhibit spaces of peace created within the multicultural country in which I grew up, one that although it is democratic and upholds ideals of freedom and ! 77 liberty, is also a melting pot of conflictive, mixed cultures that need spaces of peace in order to dialogue and enter into empathy and mutual recognition. Food Studies from a Peace Studies Perspective Many Foods and Many Peaces And now I would like to transition from my key influencers in the evolution of peace epistemology to my big question: what does peace studies have to do with food studies? Above we proved that over time, it has been difficult to see positive peace as something concrete and feasible, but although we cannot touch it, we know it exists. Just as Martínez Gúzman has aspired that with the recognition of the epistemological turn there will be the acceptance and the further creation of cultures of many types of peaces, Galtung’s positive peace can be seen in many different shapes and sizes, in this case in the form of an “unconditional space” such as the kitchen (Galtung, 1996; Martínez Guzmán, 2001; Allestorfer, 2013). As I will be going further into depth about the ability of food to express identity in the next chapter, here I will mainly be trying to show the relation between food studies and peace studies, and how food can in turn be used as a dimension for peace-building. Before going any further, I would like to reiterate that I will be discussing the missing link to my interweaving of three important disciplines, that of identity, but first here I would like to introduce food studies, oftentimes called foodways, and show how I see its importance in the interdisciplinary field of peace studies. I see peace studies as relevant in every facet of life, whether in the transformation of geopolitical conflicts or in the relationship a mother has with her children—peace philosophies can and should be applicable to the various dimensions of our lives. Food Studies is the same. ! 78 Gastronomica, The Journal of Food and Culture, a journal incepted in 2001 and now one of the current go-tos for debate and critical inquiry about food, posted in its inaugural issue the importance to “renew [the] connection between sensual and intellectual nourishment by bringing together many diverse voices in the broadest possible discourse on the uses, abuses, and meanings of food” (Goldstein, 2001). Just as peace studies can touch every level of human life, food studies also embraces the ability to foster an understanding of human behavior based on its interdisciplinary nature. The global food supply, which could be considered the most urgent issue of the twenty-first century, is just one example of the type of explanation that food studies can offer about the impacts of food on humanity, the planet, etc. Just as peace studies offers a complex understanding of human relations; food studies offers a similar, multidisciplinary comprehension of the importance in food-human relations. Food studies, or foodways, is a newly emerging field and has only in the past decade begun to gain academic recognition, which is one of the key aspects of my interest in linking it to peace studies. Just as we study peace in multiples—“peaces” instead of peace as an ultimate, utopian dimension—food studies relies on the principle that there is no one “right” way to think about food. Melissa Caldwell, Editor of Gastronomica claims, “…much of the inherent pleasure associated with food comes from our curiosity in exploring the many different ways that people throughout the world think about, use, and value food” (Caldwell, 2015). This curiosity that she mentions is one of the human behaviors exhibited in intercultural dialogue as well, which is why I find curiosity a key component to understanding the complexity of human nature. Peace ! 79 studies offers us the ability to see conflict as an opportunity for change, whereas food studies offers us the ability to understand human behavior based on what we eat. Food is important, interesting, exciting, and delicious. It entices and opens doors for cross-cultural communication. Conflict Kitchen, one of the case studies I will explain in the third chapter, uses food to create cross-cultural communication and political awareness (Conflictkitchen.org, 2015). Robert Sayre, culinary director of Conflict Kitchen, says that in his experience working for Conflict Kitchen, “food is one of the few ways that people feel comfortable approaching another culture” (Pittsburgh.cbslocal.com, 2015). It is human nature to interact with new cultures by curiosity of food. That is the “unconditional space”, which I demonstrate can foster intercultural dialogue (Allestorfer, 2013). We all have to eat. In that, humans are all the same, and all share the same curiosity. If we can replace the common fear that humans experience by the unknown or the different with curiosity (the type of curiosity experienced when trying new food), then we can make space for mutual recognition and intercultural dialogue. The Anthropological Nature of Food A Long Term Relationship with Food Food studies “aims to provide a guide to the world’s rich diversity of eating culture, to help explore the similarities, understand the differences, and draw some general conclusions about our relationship with food” (Crowther, 2013: xvii). The necessity to reflect upon the significance of every day events becomes relevant in food studies because of the role it plays in making up real substance of the social fabric. Everyday realities, the so-called ordinary things in life are indeed important and worthy of study, which is why food has entered into the discipline of social anthropology as a ! 80 way to make the imponderable, ponderable. “The activities surrounding food acquisition, preparation, and consumption lend themselves to cross-cultural comparison, allowing us to conjure into existence others’ lives through a shared everyday experience of eating” (Crowther, 2013: xix). An early, important anthropologist called Bronislaw Malinowski, revealed the relevance of food to anthropological studies in his research with Trobriand Islanders in the 1920’s (Crowther, 2013). In realizing the prominence of taking into account the everyday realities of human life, of course food became significant. The ordinary things of life are necessary and worthy of study, which is why food has become a valuable marker of human behavior. In Malinowski’s study, he found that “to grasp the native’s point of view, his relation to life, to realize his own vision of his world” (Crowther, 2013: xix) we remain open to shedding some light on our own. In other words, the understanding gained by looking at the relevance of everyday life of peoples of other cultures helps us to more fully understand our own cultures because they point out basic human similarities and confront cultural differences. Along with the rise of postmodernism, many disciplines have gravitated towards an astoundingly creative period of research that is challenging old assumptions, sparking new questions and opening new methods of understanding social anthropology. Food studies has been an outcome of that revelation. As an example, let’s look at a classic British dessert, and see what questions could be asked from an anthropological standpoint to gain a fuller understanding of British culture. The trifle, characterized by many layers of sponge cake, soaked in alcohol, and then covered with fruit, whipped cream and toasted nuts, can be examined and analyzed from various anthropological perspectives. While this traditional English dessert may be interpreted from scientific, social, dietary, ! 81 political, etc. points of view, my point here is that the role of anthropological theory in the understanding of food allows us to move forward into the comprehension of the important role food plays in human life (Crowther, 2013). Food, which has a tendency to personify a taken-for-granted quality, has demonstrated to anthropologists its power to provide us with meaning and understanding of ourselves and of others. “The understanding of food often oscillates between the stomach and brain approaches—the ‘good to eat’ and ‘good to think’—which actually do capture our basic choice of whether to eat or speak—since we can easily choke” (Crowther, 2013: xxx). While this dichotomy is problematic, it does not take into account the space that food occupies in our minds, while it also plays the important role of filling our stomachs. Humans have been shaped by their relationship to food both physically and socially in a way that has allowed us to assign meaning and value to food. The Food-Human Connection ! When using an evolutionary biology lens, it would be considered that “cooking can be regarded as a central cultural activity and part of our adaptive strategy, and it has been argued that it significantly shaped our psychological and social evolution” (Crowther, 2013: 7). Richard Wrangham, British primatologist has ascertained that humans, or as he defines us, “cookivores”, “do not eat cooked food because we have the right kind of teeth or guts; rather, we have small teeth and short guts as a result of adapting to a cooked diet” (Wrangham, 2009: 89). If we look at the food-human connection from this perspective, it has been the discovery of fire and the evolution of cooking that has allowed modern-day humans to evolve to their current state, adding more calories to their diet to support the growth of larger brain and other characteristics ! 82 that define them as human apart from other species (Wrangham, 2009). In the next chapter I will be talking more about this biological evolution and the effects of cooking on human identity, as well as the omnivore’s dilemma, which implies a characteristic of human beings that leave them open to choose between a variety of both plant, and animal ingredients for their survival (Wrangham, 2009). Through the human desire to expand their alimentary life, there has been throughout history a growing evolution of the exchange of foods and knowledge of food production and preparation (Jones, 2005). This we can attribute to the globalization of foods, especially prevalent in the diversity of cuisine in multicultural societies. “Two complementary but contrasting ways in which people make contact with one another are thus expressed in the manner of sharing food and drink” (Jones, 2005: 225). The first way is through the creation of community, which brings together connections of friendship and ancestors, with the land. The food that a community shares connects them to one another and to the land. Secondly, a network is also necessary for members of a given community to meet and exchange different foods and ideas. This food network has continued to grow and include webs of various areas to expand the culinary make up of each community. Food, in this sense, has the ability to connect peoples of different communities through the exchange of goods and knowledge. The most common food found in many cultures is bread, which can also be recognized as a trace of European domination (Jones, 2005). The power of bread has taken many forms in many episodes of an originally east Mediterranean tradition that travelled with the Roman Empire, and then with Christianity across the world. The domination of bread wheat within our modern food chain as the major caloric source of our species has been driven by bread as an artefact, rich in meaning, as much as wheat as a source of nutrition, rich in calories. (Jones, 2005: 273) ! 89 what reduces our capacity to understand hybrid identities. But it’s hypocritical. We are all hybrid. We all define ourselves based on more than one component. And yes, those aspects that define us often do not coincide with one another, but the acceptance of complexity can override the exclusion and violence that follows. Omar, who refers to Maalouf’s ideas of assassin identities, also reaffirms a necessity to rethink the definition of identity. He asserts that by reconsidering culture, there becomes a need to readdress critically the concept of identity. As a way to problematize the hybrid nature of identity, he looks for new focal points to analyze traditional concepts of identity that will allow for a deeper understanding of ourselves and of the different ways in which we can relate to one another (Omar, 2008). I believe that by adopting this conceptualization of hybrid identities, I can better demonstrate the necessity to rethink the complexity of identity within multicultural societies, and to then be more able to empathize and engage in mutual recognition with others that may not be similar, or may even be from cultures of historical conflict with our own. Conclusion To conclude this first, theoretical chapter of my dissertation, I would like to reiterate the importance of the three disciplines I have explored and outlined. Each one is complex, and multidisciplinary, and for that reason I feel that they interweave in a way that allows for conflict, but also looks for a way to transform it into something positive. Within the world in which we live, we are conflictive, complex, multiple, hybrid, and yet we still tend to think in dualities, binary discourses. This is not only violent and marginalizing but also dangerous and detrimental to our own understanding of one another and stifling for any type of growth. ! 90 How do we go about changing or transforming this narrow-minded behavior that is so deeply rooted within us? My thoughts are that we must start with the basics. We must go back to what has made us human to begin with, and work from there. Without cooking, we would not have gained the evolutionary capacity we have. Our brains would still be minute and incapable of the intelligence that has pushed us toward the complex, global, interconnected world in which we live. If by reaching an understanding that this complexity is what allows us to grow, to thrive, and to feel empathy toward one another, then we must struggle to find unconditional spaces (that may already exist) that allow us to highlight and foster a deeper comprehension of one another. We all come from diverse, multifaceted backgrounds, so it is imperative that to live together in harmony, we not only tolerate, but also mutually recognize one another’s humanity. How can this be done? I have researched, theoretically, but also practically how we can use creative spaces, a moral imagination to implement peace building. In the next chapter, I talk more in depth about how food can be used as an identity-shaping element to help give a fuller understanding of how the way in which we eat, cook, consume, makes us all human. As Fisher says, “I think that when two people are able to weave that kind of invisible thread of understanding and sympathy between each other, that delicate web, they should not risk tearing it. It is too rare, and it lasts too short a time at best....” (Fisher, 1990). Our lives are intertwined in this world, and food helps to make an understanding of one another’s culture, if at least it is just a glimpse of familiarity. The projects that I will discuss in the third chapter of this dissertation will paint a picture of how food can bring people’s of historically conflicted backgrounds ! 91 together, and hopefully promote ongoing unconditional spaces of intercultural dialogue, empathy, and mutual recognition…perhaps this is my definition of peace. ! ! 92 ! 93 Chapter 2: Food Studies and Cultural Identity Food, together with air and water, is the stuff of life, and it is the basic foundation of culture and society. (Gillian Crowther in Eating Culture 2013) Introduction In the previous chapter, we saw an overview of a combination of peace theory, food studies, and identity theory. It was a bridge between the ideas of peace theory, which in this dissertation highlight intercultural dialogue, empathy, mutual recognition, power and knowledge, political dualisms, imperfect peace, unconditional spaces, and moral imagination, and those of a mostly anthropological and social view of food studies and of course, identity. In the last chapter, I discussed the power of identity, according to Manuel Castells, and the hybrid nature of identity, according to Sidi Omar and Amin Maalouf. All of these theories are ones which I believe lead us to understand the dimension of identity that can be expressed through food. To be more specific, this second chapter speaks in particular about food studies and cultural identity—from various literary standpoints. Food, which I ascertain as an identity-shaping element, unites us as a human species, but it also allows us to define ourselves by a cultural marker. The important thing to point out in this study is that, while each culture does have a self-defining cuisine, identity is still fluid, malleable and constantly transforming. I find it relevant to keep in mind throughout this chapter in particular the ability of food to self-define, but also to create dialogues between different cultures, which I will demonstrate in the next chapter with the case studies I chose as points of analysis. ! 94 I start out this chapter with a biological analysis of culinary symbolism, which describes the human connection to food as multidimensional and representative of human behavior. I then go on to explain food studies as a marker of cultural and personal identity, and continue in the following section with an anthropological standpoint on evolutionary biology—helping to understand the trend toward crash diets and nutrition frenzies. The following sections include a brief analysis of the effects of the food system on the planet and the people, as well as food, identity and the immigrant experience, and finally alimentary identities and the ethics of food. All of these topics lend a hand to the understanding of the anthropology of food studies and the importance of understanding human behavior through the human connection to food in many facets of life. Within this chapter I hope we will learn comprehend the different elements involved in food and identity, culinary symbolism and the combination of physical sciences and social sciences as a transrational approach to food studies. Food as an Identity-Shaping Element Culinary Symbolism Claude Fischler asserts that since the beginning of their existence, human beings have been one of the only species on this planet that relate to food as a form of nourishment but also as something symbolic, and identity-shaping (Fischler, 1988). In that regard, humans are conscious beings that are aware that what they consume is not just a biological necessity, but also as a cultural component that signifies something inherent to their identity (Fischler, 1988). Humans indeed are biological organisms, which are constructed by social forces. And so, Fischler proposes a very interesting question in the framework of food, identity and culture: “How do organisms and ! 95 representations, biological individuals and their culture, interact with each other and with their environment?” (Fischler, 1988) This fundamental question that looks into the construction of one’s identity based on what one eats taps also into the norms and representations that, due to their socially-constructed nature, become internalized into our taste buds, metabolisms, emotions, etc. It is irrefutable that the human connection to food is multi-dimensional in character since one could look at this relationship as something representative of human behavior, psychology, culture, individuality or collectivity. The Omnivore’s Paradox The fact that humans choose with care what they decide to eat each and every day, and this occupies an important pillar in their daily routine, and that they are one of the only species that has the liberty to survive on various types of nutrients—both animal and vegetable—requires them to incorporate a certain level of nutrient variety into their diet. This necessity for variety goes hand in hand with diversification, innovation, exploration and change but also requires a certain awareness of the dangers of unknown elements that could be detrimental to human health. This paradox, often referred to as “the omnivore’s paradox,” upholds the argument that the liberty (and necessity) to choose between many varieties of food to survive creates a world for humans that is both neophobic—creating a fear of the unknown, and neophilic—creating a need for change and variety (Fischler, 1988). Humans, due to their omnivorous character, are constantly in a state of indecision between dichotomies of: the recognizable versus the undiscovered, the dependable versus the irregular. The biological need to question new foods because they may be dangerous to one’s health creates a tension between the beauty of choice and the safety in indecision (Fischler, 1988). In other words, the human ! 96 diet is intrinsically a purveyor of cultural identity because, for fear of oversimplifying, “we are what we eat” (Fischler, 1988). This common proverb, simple as it may seem, beholds a lot of truth about humans and cultural identity. Because indeed we do become what we eat, food in and of itself must be considered the biological make up of our identity. Food, however, is not only biologically transferred to our identity, but also analogically—red meat signifies strength, turnips mean spinelessness (Fisher, 1990). And since what passes through our mouths and travels into our digestive system supposes a certain control over what we let enter our systems, it cannot be refuted that humans have a say in the formation of their identity through what they choose to eat. Among many examples, humans often choose to eat certain elements to control their health, metabolism, weight, or for political or religious reasons (Fischler, 1988). Oftentimes a basis of collective identity is based upon what we consider “pure” enough to incorporate into our diets. “Human beings mark their membership of a culture of a group by asserting the specificity of what they eat, or more precisely—but it amounts to the same thing—by defining the otherness, the difference of others” (Fischler, 1988: 5). Since the beginning of human existence on this planet, we have been divided into hunters, gatherers, then soon after by nationality, religion, culture by what we eat. And so, these human classifications then translate from those of practices, rules, representations and norms to and from the cuisine each group of humans eats, and identifies with. “Food makes the eater. It is therefore natural that the eater should try to make himself by eating” (Fischler, 1988: 6). The vital necessity to identify and classify food has a literal and figurative sense. If indeed we are what we eat, how are we supposed to ! 97 know what we are if we do not know what we eat? Following this line of thought, it can be asserted that there is a complex biological and psychological process in integrating nutritional matter into the self. From an ethological lens, the eater scrutinizes food that is proposed for incorporation from many angles, smells, tests of texture, etc. The term referred to earlier in this text as neophobia is an excellent example of this incorporative inspection (Fischler, 1988). For example, a young child’s tendency to accept only a limited range of familiar foods and refuse certain foods in general until the child is influenced by outside social factors such as in the education setting or by peers could be explained as a human reaction to unfamiliarity (Hughes, 1977). Unknown foods tend to trigger a “disgust” stimulae within us, allowing us to perceive a nauseating smell. Oftentimes, this “biological resistance,” can be understood also as a revulsion provoked by a cultural phenomenon. The cultural difficulty in identifying and classifying food can sometimes include the division of foods into “impure” or “taboo”. Various cultural conditions can stimulate “primitive” behaviors or psychobiological responses due to these cultural classifications. And so, the intertwined nature of psychological and biological groupings or exclusions of foods can be personified in many other facets of human cultures. Needless to say, the makeup of cuisines of varied cultures throughout the world are and have been subject to biological as well as psychological processes, all of which attribute to one’s identity (Julier, 2013). Good to Eat, Good to Think Consequently, humans undergo a complex cognitive process in selectively deciding what will become part of their diet, and their identity. “Food must not only be ! 98 good to eat, but also good to think” (Fischler, 1988: 7). In order to identify a food, one must recognize its place in the world and therefore through this comprehension, can understand the world. The culinary system typically provides criteria that can be used in the mental operations to classify and identify food. To delve deeper into this analysis of culinary systems, it seems pertinent to explore the definition of the word “cooking”. Fischler defines it as “transferring nutritional raw materials from the state of nature to the state of culture” (Fischler, 1988: 8). When something is cooked, in many ways, it can be interpreted as the taming of something wild. There is a particular art, or even magic involved in the process of creating a cuisine with wild, raw ingredients, provided to us by nature. This act of creating something palatable or something good enough to make you think about what went into its creation is what divides the world into what is food and what is not. This is also where food taboos come from, as well as the propriety and context of timetables. Many variables attribute to what and when we eat, some of which are age, sex, rank, status, and social role, among others (Julier, 2013). “A society’s cookery is a language into which it translates its structure, unless it reluctantly and no less unwittingly reveals there its contradictions” (Fischler, 1988: 9). Individuals and groups identify themselves with their tastes and distastes, in the shape of dividing lines laid down by a culture. Societies tend to divide between children and adult appropriate food, men and women’s food, etc. These dividers create lines between genres or artistic styles of eating, or cooking. The so-called culinary act—or cooking—is something that aims to resolve the aforementioned “omnivore’s paradox” (Pollan, 2006). Once food is cooked, it is marked with a stamp, and understood and can then be incorporated. Raw food, for example, can ! 105 identity we form through emotional connections, sense of belonging, ethnic pride, etc. (Almerico, 2014). Anthropology and Evolutionary Biology ! “I Cook, Therefore I Am” I would like to start this section by questioning the idea of cooking. Why, in comparison to all other living creatures, are humans the only ones that cook their food? As mentioned in the previous segment, the way in which we choose what we eat and incorporate into our diets has a lot to do with our identities (Fischler, 1988). And so, in the same way we deliberate what ends up on our plates, and what passes through our mouths into our digestive system, the way in which we cook—the very fact that we do indeed heat up our food—also shapes our identity (Julier, 2013). As Dr. Richard Wrangham states in his works on anthropology and evolutionary biology, “I cook, therefore I am” (Wrangham, 2013). Here, I would like to analyze the origin of humans— their identity in particular—from the perspective of diet, looking at cooking in particular. Charles Darwin, one of the founders of modern evolutionary biology, explored the notion of the effect of being able to control fire on human identity (Darwin, 1965). Before discovering how to make fire, humans were unable to cook their foods. It may seem obvious that in figuring out how to make and manage fire, humans soon after learned to cook (Wrangham, 2013). It is not so simple, however. There are many reasons why humans heat their food before they consume it. Some would say that cooking came out of evolution for nutritional benefits, others for symbolic reasons (Wrangham, 2013). I think it must be a combination of biology and psychology. Indeed, one of the main things that set humans apart from fellow mammals ! 106 is the fact that they cook their food. In that line of thought, taking into account the more recent dietary trends, one that comes to mind is the raw craze, which delimits people to eating all raw ingredients. The raw diet gives “your oven a rest on this diet… raw fruits, vegetables, and grains [and] the premise is that heating food destroys its nutrients and natural enzymes, which is bad because enzymes boost digestion and fight chronic disease. In short: When you cook it, you kill it” (Suzanne, 2012). Some raw food dieters believe that cooking makes food toxic. They claim that a raw food diet can clear up headaches and allergies, boost immunity and memory, and improve arthritis and diabetes (Suzanne, 2012) So even after 1.9 million years since humans first used fire to cook— people are recently beginning to question the effect of heat on their food (Suzanne, 2012). Another attempt to take control of their identity by deciding what and how the food they eat is being incorporated. Seems symbolic to me. Of course there are multitudes of studies about the drawbacks and benefits of raw versus cooked foods—the point I am trying to make here is that cooking or not cooking food (and having the choice and capacity to decide that method) is very much innate to human identity (Suzanne, 2012). The common conception that one will lose weight on a raw food diet brings me to my next point. In societies like the United States, where crash diets run rampant and the next super food is around every corner—we are increasingly walking on a longer path toward a complete disconnect with the food we eat. Most people don’t check the labels of the boxed, processed foods they buy nor do they know or care where their produce or meat comes from—as long as it is a reasonable price and resembles something edible, it fits the qualifications for incorporation (Fuhrman, 2014). This is the problem. This is what contributes to ever-increasing levels of diabetes, obesity, heart disease, etc. We no ! 107 longer connect with what we eat. And if we indeed are what we eat, the fact that we no longer know what we eat is in fact the reason that we don’t know who we are (Fuhrman, 2014). If we don’t know who we are, it becomes difficult to connect with one another and with our environment. There needs to be a smaller bridge between eater and producer. A way to make that gap smaller is to become more aware and more critical about what we eat, knowing whom and how it is produced and what effect it has on our health and the health of our planet. Humans are not the only species that suffer from weight control. Our pets, street rats, and even groundhogs are gaining weight because they feed off the processed trash we leave in the dumpsters—both cooked and processed (Wrangham, 2013). Returning to the very idea of cooking—we must recognize the simple fact that cooking food increases one’s body weight, which is why people revert to not heating up their food so they can try to lose weight, even if that may or may not be healthier. Starch, for example, is very difficult to digest if it is not “gelatinized” (opened up with enzymes to digestive enzymes). If it is eaten raw, the caloric intake is lower because one’s body cannot digest it properly. Other nutrients are difficult to digest when eaten raw, including protein, which until becoming cooked is almost inaccessible to digestion. When raw proteins are introduced into the body, they go through a bacterial fermentation within the large intestine, called ileal digestibility (Wrangham, 2013). When these proteins are digested in that way, they are of essentially no benefit to us. Cooking, however, opens up proteins to amino acids so they are more easily digested. Dr. Wrangham discusses in his works the idea of “soft food,” which refers to foods that, although the calories remain the same when heated, are softened and therefore take less energy for digestion (Wrangham, ! 108 2013). The metabolic rate heightens when we eat, so when we eat hard versus soft foods, we absorb far less calories because we burn calories during the digestion process when we eat harder foods. Therefore, in the same line of thought, processed foods take less energy to digest, meaning that the society in which we live—which thrives on an evergrowing market of processed foods—the people are suffering from metabolic disorders all over the place, unbeknownst that the reasons are because they are consuming more calories in processed food than if they were to consume non-processed food with the same calorie level because although the number is the same, the energy it takes to process is different (Fuhrman, 2014). The notion of cooking for humans is simply a permanent search for energy, for survival and ultimately for procreation. Cooking increases the amount of energy we receive from foods because it becomes a soft food, which takes less burnt calories to digest. When we lose sight of the reasons behind why we cook, or why we eat certain foods raw and others not, we develop trends such as urban raw food diets, which have been proven to cause sterility and obstruction of the menstrual cycle. Humans have adapted to eating certain foods cooked (Wrangham, 2013). They have a very small gut in relation to their body mass, small chewing teeth adapted for soft foods, so they are biologically adapted to cooked food. Homo erectus is very different in those regards to the previous Australopithecus, which had larger teeth and a bigger gut. Since this evolutionary shift, 1.9 million years ago, humans have been cooking food—so to suddenly revert back to a raw food diet does not make sense for humans biologically (Wrangham, 2013). ! 109 The Costs of Digestion Why does cooking really matter? Well, among many reasons, the simplest answer is that it gives humans better access to the caloric values of food. The Atwater convention, which assesses the caloric value of foods, ignores the effect of processing foods. The costs of digestion are obviously higher when food is not processed, but the “official calorie counters” do not put that on the label. Food processing is not included in those statistics (Wrangham, 2013). Needless to say, highly processed foods are easier to digest because fewer calories are needed to digest them. Today, due to technological advances, humans tend to use much less energy in there daily lives, so although cooking food was meant to allow humans to digest foods easily and not “waste” energy in digestion, times have changed, and humans need to be aware of the fact that the caloric activity it takes to digest processed foods is not the same as when digesting “real” food. The nutrient intake is also different for that reason. Cooking also enables human babies to wean and adapt to solid foods more easily, making family sizes increase. Softer foods take less time to chew, which allowed in human evolution, people to spend more time producing food and hunting (Fuhrman, 2014). Our brain size is dependent upon more than 1/5 of the food we eat since it is used as glucose for the brain. And so, smaller guts equal bigger brains. Since we use less energy to maintain the gut, our brain sizes have progressively increased. Virginia Woolf said that without cooking we would still be apes (Woolf, 1915). We are indeed apes that learned to cook, which in turn allowed us to digest more easily, produce more food, spend more time hunting and less chewing, and gave us bigger brains to then produce technology that allows us to no longer garden, hunt, gather, etc. Cooking ! 110 gave us the capacity to create the society in which we live now, but it also lead to a growing gap between the connection of humans and food. Some might say, what about the places where it’s always been too cold to cook, or the cultures such as the Inuit that are known for their raw consumption, and their 99% mammal or fish diets (Wrangham, 2013). These are oftentimes misconceptions that turn into rumors. The reputation that the Inuit have for eating only raw food is false. In fact, the men hunt all day long, and during that time, the women prepare the large evening meal, which takes hours to cook due to the cold. They do eat raw food during the day, but the women spend all afternoon burning animal fat to cook for the evening meal, which is where they get most of their nutrition (Wrangham, 2013). Life, if one ponders, is a search for energy. Cooking has had major evolutionary advantages, but like all technological advances (we can call cooking a technological advance of some kind), there are also dangers. The fact that it allowed us to grow our brains to a size that allows us to create systems that produce food for us in massive quantities is also detrimental (Fuhrman, 2014). The discrepancy between the massive amounts of food produced and consumed in countries like the United States, whose number one cause of death is heart disease and almost 70% of all adults are considered overweight or obese, and the 21,000 people that die every year of hunger-related causes just doesn’t make sense (Wrangham, 2013). The gap between consumer and producer needs to shrink, so that people can become more in tune with the reality of what they eat, how it effect their health, and how its origin effects so many people in the world and the planet (Wrangham, 2013). ! 111 Effects of The Food System on The Planet and The People Seeds of Crime Commonly when we talk about “growth” in this day and age, we are referring to capital. The Gross Domestic Product, which measures the monetary value of all finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders in a specific time period, fails to include the fact that this so-called “growth” means stealing from nature and people. This “growth” robs forests of biodiversity and their capacity to conserve oil and water (Shiva, 2000). The corporate myth, which states that industrial agriculture is necessary to grow more food and reduce hunger, evades the fact that “…in agriculture as much as forestry, the growth illusion hides theft from nature and the poor, masking the creation of scarcity as growth” (Shiva, 2000: 1). This alludes to the disparity of severe hunger and eating disorders. How can it be possible that thousands are dying every day from hunger in underdeveloped nations, while in the richer countries obesity runs rampant? Covered up time and time again by so-called “natural disasters,” the hunger “crisis” is not exactly a natural phenomenon free of human meddling (Shiva, 2000). Corporations that have made governments their puppets and that have created instruments and institutions like the WTO for their own protection are now being held accountable to ordinary people. (Shiva, 2000: 2) Seed patent laws are being forced upon countries under the rules of the World Trade Organization, which has made the conservation and saving of seeds a crime. Food that has been free from genetic engineering is not exactly a luxury for rich consumers. The women’s movement and farmer’s movement’s resisted the imports of subsidized soybean oil to ensure that their livelihoods and their traditional food cultures were not destroyed. In doing so, they demonstrated that food free from genetic engineering is not a luxury for rich consumers. It’s a basic element of the right to safe, accessible, and culturally appropriate food. (Shiva, 2000: 3) ! 112 Since agriculture, everywhere, but specifically in the United States plays such a prominent role in the global food market, I think it is important to understand why and how this contributes to the larger picture of food ethics and how the climate, and our home for future generations is at risk of no longer being able to provide food or a healthy environment because of human actions. Food security is at risk because of the way in which we produce and consume food (Shiva, 2000). Food Production and Climate Change According the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), climate change adds further pressure to food security because “food production is critically dependent on local temperature and precipitation conditions” so any changes demand that farmers adapt their practices to climate change (ifpri.org, 2015). Their analysis suggests that until 2050, the challenges from climate change are “manageable,” in the sense that possible investments in land and water productivity enhancements may partly, or even substantially, mitigate the negative effects from climate change (ifpri.org, 2015). But the challenges of dealing with the effects between 2050 and 2080 are likely to be much greater, and possibly unmanageable (Klein, 2007). Starting the process of slowing emissions growth today is critical to avoiding a calamitous post-2050 future (Klein, 2007). A common, and alarming opinion about climate change is that it affects the agriculture industry, and not the other way around. To the contrary, the general trend towards more intensive and industrialized agriculture has a profound impact on the environment, including emissions to air and water, quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater, soil erosion, pollution due to large-scale use of pesticides, and loss of ! 113 biodiversity and habitats. In the near future, agriculture may also gain a significant role in the production of biofuels and renewable energy (Klein, 2007). The potential shift in the production from food to biomass production for biofuels and energy raises many open questions regarding the sustainability and cost-efficiency of the biofuel production. It isn’t enough to say that simply put, the agriculture industry has had severe impacts on the environment (Klein, 2007). Evidence shows that about 7,000 plant species have been cultivated and collected for human consumption since the idea of agriculture began more than 12,000 years ago (Pollan, 2006). Nonetheless, today, only about 15 plant species and 8 animal species supply 90% of the global demand for food (Pollan, 2006). A combination of a hastily increasing global human population and changing consumption patterns have caused for the evolution of agriculture from traditional to modern, intensive systems. Nearly one third of the world's land area is used for food production, making agriculture the largest single cause of habitat conversion on a global basis (Pollan, 2006). Food is a universal requirement, the production of which affects and is affected by the environment in which we all live. These stark facts imply that in addressing ethical aspects of food biotechnology it is the social dimension, which is of paramount importance. Some may consider such questions are political rather than ethical, but ‘Ethical issues transcend the different levels of human organization and, therefore, political systems embody ethical systems. (Gottwald et al., 2010) Since we can ascertain that climate change is in fact a man made disaster, industrial agricultural practices and their effects on climate change are both aspects of food production that should be taken into account (Gottwald et al., 2010). In my research I have come across various projects and techniques that have been implemented worldwide in the hopes of stifling the effects of climate change. In Malawi, for example, permaculture projects are being built to develop sustainable food systems. ! 114 Forests normalize water movement and safeguard topsoil (Jacke et al., 2011). If the forests are repaired, flooding can be prevented (Jacke et al., 2011). If the forests are designed following holistic permaculture guidelines, much more can be achieved including water harvesting, fuel wood, high-quality timber, indigenous forest restoration and very diverse food production (Jacke et al., 2011). In a country where nearly half the populations children are malnourished, and it is common to suffer from chronic hunger, any complete solution must take into consideration food sustainability (Toensmeier and Bates, 2013). The solution being put into effect in Malawi territory is one of forest gardening, which is an approach to food production based on the fact that forests are resilient and highly productive systems that have existed for thousands of years (Chirwa et al., 2013). Forests do not require pesticides or chemicals because they survive with a constant flow of production and recycling. Permaculture techniques have adopted the concept to create something called food forests, which are systems designed to simulate natural forests but with an objective to yield multipurpose plants and animals that directly benefit humans (Toensmeier and Bates, 2013). So what makes a food forest different from a farm? A natural forest, for example, is comprised of about seven different layers: the rhizosphere, ground covers, herbaceous layer, shrub layer, climbers, lower canopy and climax layer (Jacke et al., 2011). In a natural forest these layers are not of direct use to humans, but in a so-called food forest they would be. In a food forest, a similar concept would exist, but the layers would be comprised of fruit trees (Jacke et al., 2011). Imagine a dense forest of mango trees, acacias, citrus trees, coconut palms, guavas, moringas, towering tamarinds and mahoganies. Climbing up many of these trees are passion fruit, air potato, loofa and shushu. Pigeon pea, cassava, the purple flowering tephrosia, hibiscus, amaranth and the big yellow flowers of ! 121 suffering” (Taylor, 2010: 75). Manton also argues: “individuals who eat only organic natural food acquire the moral superiority already attributed to that category of food” (Manton, 1999: 8). Certain types of food habits can be symbolically identified with ethnicity, gender, class, race, which although they are conditioned categories, they are real societal markers. This indicates: “an ethical diet can also work as a political and aesthetic practice of counter-disciplinary self-constitution” (Taylor, 2010: 75). The choices we make surrounding food reflect not only our identities as “products of unchosen disciplinary practices that precede us” but also can actively and consciously transform us as human beings (Taylor, 2010). Specifically in the North American context, in which gastronomic identities, or “alimentary subjectivities”23 prosper in a way that is quite possibly incomparable in other contexts, food, which can be a “marker for gender, race, ethnicity, class and politics, is a significant expression of each of these sites of identification, and thus functions as an important means of self-constitution” (Taylor, 2010: 75). According to Probyn, “we need to pay attention to how food and eating have now become a central site of intensity for public and popular questions about who we are” (Probyn, 1999: 422). Probyn also argues: “bodies that eat connect us more explicitly with limits of class, gender and ethnicity than do the copulating bodies so prominently displayed in popular culture” (Probyn, 1999: 422). She suggests that gastronomy and eroticism have become intertwined (Taylor, 2010). Many authors have analyzed the correlations between eating meat and social constructions of heterosexuality (Taylor, 2010). Adams and other feminist scholars have come up with comprehensive examples of non-human !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 23 The term “alimentary subjectivities” refers to a construct of an ethical subjectivity connected to body’s fear and anxiety around food choice. For more information see Probyn 2000 “Carnal Appetites”. ! 122 animal bodies presented in ways that self-consciously transmit heterosexual pornographic representations of women (Adams, 2003). “Such images and the captions that go with them are to be found in mundane venue ranging from advertisements to food magazines to cookbooks” (Taylor, 2010: 76). Along with these representations, women have also been portrayed as pieces of meat; more specifically the example of “meat shots” in heterosexual pornography or the typical jokes talking about whether a man prefers legs or breasts (referring to chicken meat) (Taylor, 2010). The outcome of this discourse is that women and non-human animal bodies are often (subconsciously) apprehended as objects of heterosexual male consumption (Taylor, 2010). The contrary to this perception is that men who are vegetarians are commonly considered womanly, strange and homosexual (Taylor, 2010). This example demonstrates yet another manner in which food choices— in this case the choice of meat consumption or not—are intertwined with identityformation (Taylor, 2010). I’d like to point out here that although these identities tend to be bound up in stigmas and stereotypes—assuming that because a man is vegetarian he is homosexual, or that because a woman is a vegetarian she is automatically a feminist is dangerous and subjective. This example is merely one to demonstrate the symbolic nature of food choices, because although these stereotypes and stigmas are oftentimes false and are based off of certain discourses and conditionings, they are also valid because they come from historical and cultural instances. Sexual Identities and “Immoral” Food Choice Adams’ exploration of images of meat in conjunction to heterosexual pornography utilized by men (in the previous example), can also be paralleled to other studies of food representing somewhat pornographic agents for women (Taylor, 2010). ! 123 According to a study conducted by author and environmental activist Margaret Atwood, “one man’s cookbook is another woman’s soft porn” (Atwood, 1987: 1). She speaks of the content in certain cookbooks as “sort of like sex” (Atwood, 1987). British journalist and academic Rosalind Coward argues that gourmet parts of women’s magazines have been examples of “food porn”, which “seduce women in the same way that conventional pornography tempts men” (Coward, 1985: 76). Gina Mallet, journalist and restaurant critic, speaks of her experience with Elizabeth David’s24 Mediterranean cookbook in postwar London as one of sexual allure (Mallet, 2004). The fact that you couldn’t by olive oil easily, if at all, only made Elizabeth David’s book more alluring. It was…erotic, like Charles Ryder’s dinner in Paris in Brideshead Revisited25. Evelyn Waugh’s description of the food made the deprived eater lust for blinis26 dripping with globules of butter, sour and frothy sorrel soup, the sound of duck juices being pressed from the carcass… A Dionysian strain and an enticing sensuality runs through [David’s] book. (Mallet, 2004: 107). Probyn speaks about male chefs on cooking shows primarily in British and Australian culture, describing them as a type of porn star in many manifestations of “gastroporn” (Probyn, 1999: 424). Many television chefs have been portrayed as sex symbols in North American, British and Australian popular culture (Probyn, 1999). One example is Ricardo, a young media chef from Québec who appeared on a television talk show in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 24 Elizabeth David was a British cookery writer who, in the mid-20th century, powerfully impelled the regeneration of the art of home cookery with articles and books about European gastronomies and time-honored British cuisine. For more info please see David 2002, “A Book of Mediterranean Food”. 25 Brideshead Revisited, The Sacred & Profane Memories of Captain Charles Ryder is a novel written by English writer Evelyn Waugh. Waugh wrote that the novel “deals with what is theologically termed ‘the operation of Grace’, that is to say, the unmerited an unilateral act of love by which God continually calls souls to Himself” (Waugh, 2004). For more information see Waugh 1945, “Brideshead Revisited”. 26 A “blini” (plural form “blinis”) is a type of thin pancake, which typically lacks a leavening agent; they are comparable to French crepes and commonly made with buckwheat flour (Collinsdictionary.com, 2015). ! 124 which he instructed men to shave their pubic hair—apparently his kitchen skills gave him the qualifications to advise on sexual lifestyle (Taylor, 2010). “Ricardo’s website lauds his ‘quasi-visceral passion’ for cooking and temporarily featured a photo of a chef sitting on a counter, gripping a glass bowl between his thighs while breaking eggs with one hand” (Taylor, 2010: 77). Many famous male chefs also host their cooking shows from their family kitchens as a way of setting themselves up as paradigms of family values as well as gastroporn icons and sexual régime specialists (Taylor, 2010). Georg Iggers, one of the most important critical authors of historism, writes: “Food has become eroticized, politicized, fetishized, …invested with symbolism and moral power as never before seen in North American society” (Iggers, 2008: 83). Arguably, food has become as important as sex in expressing identity; and if this is indeed the case, the moral markers that are present in sexual symbolism, can also be seen in food choice. If it is remarkable how riddled with guilt our relationship with food has become, it is even more noteworthy how much our morality has become centered on food. At heart this new food guilt is a migration of both our eroticism and our moral focus from our groins to our guts. (Iggers, 2008: 82) Sexual desire and food choice are both modes in which we express identity, and as such, can be given similar moral associations (Taylor, 2010). Fat and unhealthy eating habits, for instance, have been known to connote immoral behavior warranting guilt (Taylor, 2010). Even vegan dessert cookbooks can be deemed sinful (Taylor, 2010). Even though unhealthy eating habits can produce guilt and shame, eating “sexy” foods such as chocolate, has been depicted as an “exquisite, transgressive and quasi-erotic pleasure, frequently described as orgasmic” (Taylor, 2010: 78). This goes to show the shift from ! 125 sexual self-definition—or strict moral assignation as a result of sexual preference— toward a heavily charged expression of identity through food choice (Taylor, 2010). Food Choice and Alimentary Self-Transformation Many authors and thinkers speak of the bound up, morally charged aspect of food choice—the lists of dos and don’ts: “don’t eat fat, don’t over-eat, don’t eat sugar, don’t eat carbs, don’t eat meat, eat local, eat health foods, eat seasonal, eat organic, eat in moderation…” (Taylor, 2010: 78). It is also worthy of note to recognize that, as Foucault found in his case study of ancient Greece, diet can also serve as a care of the self and selftransformative activity, and not singularly as penalizing and ethical (Taylor, 2010). Food choice can be considered morally binding when we feel the need to oversimplify alimentary norms, as the disobedience of these rules produces guilt (Taylor, 2010). Food choice only disciplines us when “we are inculcated with specific eating habits or are corporeally constituted to eat in certain ways that are highly difficult to get away from because they have become our habitual means of relating to our bodies, emotions, and selves” (Taylor, 2010: 78). The multifaceted ways in which food is interconnected with affect, and can along these lines be irrational and ostensibly uncontrollable, is exhibited in research on binge eating, bulimia, and anorexia (Bartky, 1990). Compulsively eating to make up for absence or deficiency of love, and to muddle through stress, is also a common trend (Bartky, 1990). As Valentin Louis Georges Eugène Marcel Proust27 connected the delicate, French madeleine cookie with a poignant unlocked memory, Gina Mallet !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 27 Proust, French novelist, critic and essayist, is known for his novel In Search of Lost Time, in which he describes how eating a madeleine cookie unlocks a poignant memory. For more information see Proust and Treharne 2003 “In Search of Lost Time”. ! 126 brilliantly depicts taste as recollection, writing sentimentally of the egg, dairy, and meatbased diet of her upbringing while bewailing the ways in which modern food science has instilled anxiety and reticence to this demonstrative fusion (Mallet, 2004). Dietary regimens, like sexual behaviors, are emotional, as well as crucial components of our unconscious bodily makeup. Nonetheless, food choice, like sexual habits, can also be a self-defined and self-transforming skill (Taylor, 2010). Conclusion Throughout this chapter, I have illustrated a myriad of ways in which food expressed identity. It has been relevant to demonstrate this claim as a way of comprehending the power food has to culturally, sexually, individually, biologically, anthropologically, evolutionarily, and so on; define us and the way in which we interact with one-another. By understanding the role food and food choice plays in human behavior and transformation, this will aid in the defense of the argument that areas in which food is used as a vehicle for cultural exchange, can promote mutual recognition and intercultural dialogue. To summarize, in this past chapter I have drawn on examples in which food has been seen as an identity-shaping element, both culturally and at an individual level. I have also touched on the importance of understanding food studies as a relatively new discipline, which aids in illuminating the significance of the human relation with food. I have also discussed this human relationship with food from an anthropological and biological standpoint as a way of better comprehending the current trends of fad diets and the prevalence of evolutionary biology in cooking as a basic term. I then went on to analyze the effects of the food system on the planet and the people of developing ! 127 countries with a case study on food forests in Malawi as well as excerpts from Indian, environmental activist Vandana Shiva’s works. Finally I completed the chapter with sections debriefing alimentary identities and the ethics of eating, and delving deeper, with food choice and alimentary self-transformation. We come to the conclusion that food, and food choice go hand in hand with notions of hybrid identities, in that cuisine is constantly mixing and transforming, and though food choice inevitably plays a role in defining us, it can also become a self-defining, self-transforming skill that helps us better understand ourselves and others. ! 128 ! 129 Chapter 3: Interculinary Case Studies ! Because of the media hype and woefully inadequate information, too many people nowadays are deathly afraid of their food, and what does fear of food do to the digestive system? I am sure that an unhappy or suspicious stomach, constricted and uneasy with worry, cannot digest properly. And if digestion is poor, the whole body politic suffers. (Julia Child in My Life in France 2006) Introduction Cases of Imperfect Peaces This third and final chapter is a key component in demonstrating the power food has in creating areas of unconditionality conducive to intercultural dialogue and mutual recognition. To begin, I refer to the following four case studies as cases of imperfect peaces because they exemplify areas of peace in conflictive societies (all conflictive in different measures and natures, as will be explained in detail in each section). My interpretation of peace as something imperfect, as described by Muñoz, “nos insta a que construyamos la paz día a día y que seamos capaces de reconocer, para luego cultivar, todos los momentos de paz imperfect que inundan la existencia cotidiana” (Muñoz et al., 2001: 321). In my opinion, the following case studies exhibit elements of peace building that already exist within everyday, contemporary life. As explained in the previous chapter, food encompasses properties of identity expression—whether on cultural or individual levels. Because of this expressive component, the following projects, which also familiarize us with culture through cuisine, provide areas of imperfect peace within ordinary life (Muñoz et al., 2001). The following two points can describe the characteristics that define the concept of imperfect peace. Firstly, it is the recognition of peaceful experiences in social realities and the realization of their enhancement as guides ! 130 and inspiration for peace building (Muñoz et al., 2001). Secondly, it is related to an understanding of peace as an unfinished process, which is constantly changing and growing (Muñoz et al., 2001). The notion of imperfect peace obliges us to recognize the many experiences of peace that already exist in social realities (Muñoz et al., 2001). After many years of investigating the causes of one war after another, counting casualties, and anticipating the next nuclear war, it can be said that peace research has been conducted through an understanding of violence, and not peace (Muñoz et al., 2001). Paradoxically, however, by way of putting so much importance on violence, peace had been somewhat abandoned conceptually and epistemologically (Muñoz et al., 2001). As a way of steering away from the hundreds of studies done and textbooks written about violence and war, notions of imperfect peace hope to shed light on and indicate ways in which we can create cultures of peace (Muñoz et al., 2001). In the introduction to this dissertation, I propose two fundamental questions. How can intercultural dialogue be exhibited in cuisine? How can the kitchen be used as an unconditional space for mutual recognition within multicultural societies? In the first chapter I outlined theoretically the concepts of peace theory, food studies theory, and identity theory that support an understanding of cuisine as an expressive component of identity, and that hold up the idea that spaces (restaurants, kitchens, places where food is shared) that provide us with the ability to exchange culture through cuisine are areas where peace can be cultivated. In the second chapter I went into more depth about food studies and the importance of visualizing food’s importance to identity (both individual and cultural) so that we could be equipped to appreciate the case studies I am about to present, as vehicles for mutual recognition and intercultural dialogue. ! 137 U.S. foreign policy shifted from one of isolationism, to expansionism, to one characterized by taking advantage of new opportunities (Herring, 2008). The Department of State also began the implementation of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, which after some development throughout the subsequent decade became a somewhat democratized team of Foreign Service agents, serving the foreign affairs interests of the U.S. (Herring, 2008). After years of development of the U.S. foreign policy—one categorized by events including: the foundations of foreign affairs (1775-1823), the expansionist years (18231867), the rise to world power (1867-1913), the challenge of global conflict (1913-1945), containment and the Cold War (1945-1961), a collision of superpowers (1961-1981), the end of the Cold War (1981-1992), followed by: the world in 1981, the President and Secretary Haig, President Reagan’s foreign policy, Secretary Shultz taking charge, the U.S. involvement in European affairs, Gorbachev and Perestroika, failures in management, politicized department appointments, changes in foreign service, President Bush and Secretary Baker, Bush’s foreign policy, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the new global emergence of problems, and the First Gulf War, among others—the U.S. is now very much caught up in the affairs of other countries, and has created various “enemies” (Herring, 2008). All of the aforementioned history, which has been catalyzed in a constantly more globalized world, has helped to shape the political climate of the U.S. and should lend a hand in the understanding of the polarized nature of U.S. relations with so-called “enemy” states. The U.S., because of many motives, has been in conflict, and is currently in conflict (even if not directly) with various nations, and the reason behind the consciousness raising that Conflict Kitchen does through cuisine, is due to a binary ! 138 portrayal of common U.S. political discourse pinning them against us. This oversimplified picture, that mainstream media tends to paint of the conflicts that the U.S. has with other nations, is dangerous because it simplifies to the extent that it justifies the dehumanization of an entire nation of human beings, making the support for war much easier to ascertain. Because of this, Conflict Kitchen chooses countries that the U.S. is in/or has been in conflict with and represents them in a new light—which most U.S. citizens have not seen in their social realities. The next section will go further into depth about particular conflict countries that Conflict Kitchen has unveiled through cooking food from their homelands and raising political and social awareness through first the familiarization of the food experience. A Taste of Humanity Conflict Kitchen, which is a self-defined “take-out restaurant that only serves cuisine from countries with which the United States is in conflict” was established in 2010 by artist and Carnegie Mellon University professor Jon Rubin and artist Dawn Weleski in the “off-the-beaten-path neighborhood of East Liberty” (Conflictkitchen.org 2015; Rubin, 2015). Conflict Kitchen, which “by 2013 (with the support of local foundations such at Sprout Fund and the Heinz Endowments)…moved to bustling Schenley Plaza”, was founded as a culinary art project that aims (Rubin, 2015): [To] reformat the preexisting social relations of food and economic exchange to engage the general public in discussions about countries, cultures, and people that they might know little about outside of the polarizing rhetoric of U.S. politics and the narrow lens of media headlines. (Conflictkitchen.org, 2015) This culinary art project, which operates seven days a week, has served food from Afghanistan, North Korea, Palestine, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba—alternating their menu ! 139 and country every six months to highlight another country (Conflictkitchen.org, 2015). “The restaurant creates a constantly changing site for ethnic diversity in the post industrial city of Pittsburgh, as it has presented the only Iranian, Afghan, Venezuelan, Cuban restaurants the city has ever seen” (Conflictkitchen.org, 2015). Each of these “conflict” countries has been presented in U.S. mainstream media as enemies to the state—abiding by polarizing rhetoric, and narrow lenses, which only tend to show them in a negative light. This “enemy identity” created at the hands of the U.S. political rhetoric, is what casts an essentializing, assassin identity outlook on, in reality, very complex, intricate identities, leading to fundamentalism and violence (Maalouf, 2001). Part of being able to see oneself in the “other” is accepting the complex, hybrid nature of identity, which provides a platform for mutual recognition and understanding (Omar, 2008). Conflict Kitchen does exactly this—they provide a space for familiarization with the complexity and intricacy of the identity of the people from a certain, sometimes, different, culture. The restaurant offers a basic menu of traditional meals from one “conflict” country every six months or so (Rubin, 2015). “Kubideh from Iran, bolani from Afghanistan, arepas from Venezuela, and bibimbop from North Korea. Not your typical rust belt cuisine” (Rubin, 2015). The food they serve is conveniently wrapped in paper packaging printed with statements on topics ranging from food to religion, work, and politics—all by people located in the “conflict country” as well as in the diaspora in Pittsburgh. It was an artistic experiment that quickly became a burgeoning business…Conflict Kitchen’s customer base has steadily grown by those equally impressed by its open-minded politics as the comestible diversity that makes it stand out in Pittsburgh’s culinary landscape. (Rubin, 2015) ! 140 Some of the projects, however, have proved to be more controversial than others, as in the case of the Palestinian version. The way in which Conflict Kitchen provides political awareness and fresh perspectives to the U.S. general public through culinary curiosity is fascinating, but they also promote a cultural exchange component within the “conflict country”. In the next section, I will begin delving deeper into each Conflict Kitchen version while pointing out the practical manifestation of the theoretical elements discussed in the past two chapters—ones of peace theory, identity, and food studies—so that it can be made clear how these case studies provide a space for unconditionality, intercultural dialogue, mutual recognition, and empathy, by challenging political power dynamics and narrow mass media narratives. I would like to go on to explain more in depth the activities that the Conflict Kitchen project implements, with the goal of initiating and debating diverse viewpoints about countries that the U.S. general public tends to see as demonized (by mass media and polarized U.S. political discourse). These fresh perspectives “reflect a nuanced range of thought within each country and serve to instigate questioning, conversation, and debate with…customers” (Rubin, 2015). I will touch on each version of Conflict Kitchen, hoping to demonstrate that this type of culinary open space, which generates political and social awareness, and debate through cultural exchange, can and does promote peace building through mutual recognition, intercultural dialogue and moral imagination. ! 141 Transforming Polarized U.S. Political Discourse In an interview conducted by journalist Chelsea Haines of Guernica Magazine28 January 2015, co-founder of Conflict Kitchen, Jon Rubin, speaks about the “surprisingly controversial politics of serving Palestinian food in Pittsburgh” (Rubin, 2015). Ordinarily, the goals of Conflict Kitchen, which are characterized by the “project’s transparent premise of cultural exchange and free expression,” have been easily executed and well received by members of the Pittsburgh community (Rubin, 2015). The project has hit some bumps along the road, however, which I choose to mention here because of the particularly controversial nature of this version, entailing the power dynamics behind U.S. political narratives. Grassroots projects like Conflict Kitchen, which strive for a more “sophisticated engagement between local social dynamics and global discourse” are challenged by having to confront quotidian, narrow-minded political narratives. One, which I became more familiar with in my research over the past two years in this masters program, and have been exposed to as a U.S. citizen, is the strong U.S. bond with Israel. This topic, which I consider to be one of the most polemic political debates regarding military aid in the U.S. (because of the nature of the undisputable use of that aid in the occupied Palestinian territories), has been one that Conflict Kitchen has tried to unveil by sharing perspectives—Jewish, Israeli, and Palestinian—that the general U.S. public has not had the opportunity to see. Unfortunately, the restaurant was met head-on with much scrutiny !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 28 Guernica Magazine is an art and politics magazine, specializing in poetry, fiction, art, special issues, features, and interviews with artists. This magazine interviewed artist, professor and founder of Conflict Kitchen about the restaurant’s controversial experience when serving Palestinian food and representing the country. For more information see 2015, “Jon Rubin: Conflict Kitchen” (Rubin, 2015). ! 142 by conservative Jewish organizations in Pittsburgh claiming that Conflict Kitchen had launched an anti-Israeli smear campaign, and even was sent an anonymous death threat, forcing them to close their doors temporarily (Rubin, 2015). Ultimately Fox News pronounced that Secretary of State John Kerry, whose wife Teresa Heinz Kerry was providing funding to Conflict Kitchen through Heinz Endowments, was sponsoring an anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic project (Rubin, 2015). “This conspiratorial pronouncement would have been laughable—Rubin himself is Jewish—if the Heinz Endowments did not send out a knee-jerk denouncement of the project” (Rubin, 2015). When asked what the criteria is in defining “conflict” when choosing which countries to represent in their project versions, Rubin stated: “we’ve always defined conflict fairly broadly from ideological conflict to troops on the ground” (Rubin, 2015). He went on to say that Palestine, though it did not become a project until last fall, was on the Conflict Kitchen agenda for some time (Rubin, 2015). Though he admits that they received quite a bit of criticism around their reasoning for adding Palestine to the list of countries that the U.S. is in conflict with, Rubin upheld that because Israel is in conflict with Palestine, and because Israel receives the most international support from the U.S.— financially, militarily, and in the denial of Palestine as a state in the United Nations—the U.S. is irrefutably in conflict with Palestine (Rubin, 2015). After being asked about the particular nature of conflict in Palestine, Rubin strongly stated in the interview with Haines: The criticisms that are often presented to us by some in the conservative Jewish community about our Palestinian version are: first, that the U.S. is not in conflict with “Palestine” (quotes are theirs) and second, that Conflict Kitchen should counter the Palestinian viewpoints it presents with pro-Israeli viewpoints, otherwise we are spreading dangerous propaganda. The contradiction here is fairly obvious; if we are not in conflict with Palestine than why are they so afraid ! 143 of us presenting Palestinian voices? Of course the answer is obvious, and we see it throughout the U.S. and the world, controlling the master narrative of Israel means vigilantly controlling the narrative about Palestine. (Rubin, 2015) Conflict Kitchen struggles to combat polarized political narratives, which lead to dehumanization, and violence by making different, fresh perspectives available on controversial political debates (Rubin, 2015). They also strive for intercultural exchange and dialogue by traveling to the countries that they represent in their Pittsburgh restaurant (Conflictkitchen.org, 2015). Research is usually conducted by the co-founder Rubin, the restaurant chef Robert Sayre, and assistant chef John Shaver, by traveling to those countries and moving from kitchen to kitchen, home to home, delving into the culture. When asked to explain the research done in the West Bank the summer before the Palestine version was implemented in Pittsburgh, Rubin explained: When we travel for research our strategy is to simply move from kitchen to kitchen. It’s truly a wonderful way to travel—food shopping, cooking and eating in one home for lunch and then another for dinner. The process of cooking takes us immediately into the rituals and rhythms of daily life and also places us firmly in the position of learners. We were met with incredible generosity by all of the families we ate with. The trip was also eye-opening, as it is for anyone who travels into the West Bank, because nearly every aspect of daily life is effected by the occupation—from check points and travel restrictions to growing settlements and economic roadblocks. (Rubin, 2015) Not only does this project create the opportunity for U.S. citizens to experience life in the shoes of their “enemy countries”, which by Rubin’s description serves to be a humbling, life-changing experience, but the way in which they then hold on to those connections made and bring back those experiences from the “conflict country” to the U.S. is when moral imagination can take place. In bringing back knowledge and perspectives from places and people that are commonly labeled enemies to the U.S., Conflict Kitchen serves as a stepping-stone to create social change by bridging connections through culinary ! 144 experiences. Lederach’s peace-building concept of fostering moral imagination through the capacity to imagine oneself in a web of relationships, which even include our enemies, can be exhibited in the actions of Conflict Kitchen (Lederach, 2005). When in Palestine, Rubin and his crew were guided by an East Jerusalem local called Mohammed Barakat (Rubin, 2015). They have continued to work with him by creating an event available to the general public in Pittsburgh in which he enjoys a virtual lunch with the customers through the body of a local Pittsburgher who functions as Barakat’s real time physical avatar (Rubin, 2015). Rubin says, “it’s one of the ways we try to collapse and confuse the space between what is familiar and foreign in the project” (Rubin, 2015). By virtually creating a space embodied by this project they call the Foreigner, in which Pittsburgh locals can dine with a Palestinian man, and ask him questions regarding life on the ground in Palestine, Conflict Kitchen demonstrates peace building components through using an already existing social reality to create intercultural dialogue (Muñoz, 2001). All four components addressed in Lederach’s explanation of his idea of moral imagination, including the centrality of relationships, the practice of paradoxical curiosity, the space provided for the creative act, and the willingness to risk, are evident in the Conflict Kitchen project (Lederach, 2005). By traveling to Palestine to gather research material and immerse himself and his crew in the life of an everyday Palestinian, Rubin brings an aspect of fostering a web of relationships with people that are considered by the U.S. polarized political discourse, and the mass media narrative, as enemies. When then bringing back his experience in Palestine back to Pittsburgh to share with the U.S. general public, both through culinary arts and through implementing projects such as the Foreigner, he creates a space in which ! 145 they can forge relationships in a context in which violence happens, but also generates the energy that enables people to transcend violence (Lederach, 2005; Rubin 2015). As people acknowledge their relational interdependency and recognize themselves as part of a pattern, they may be able to envision a wider set of relationships and take personal responsibility for their own choices and behavior. It short, peace-building requires that people be able to envision their interconnectedness and mutuality. (Lederach, 2005) According to Lederach’s principles of moral imagination, peace building requires a concentration on building a web of relationships, which includes our enemies, so that we can then embrace complexity without getting caught up in social schism (Lederach, 2005). Conflict Kitchen aims to do so through creating webs of relationships by way of learning to cook and understand the daily rhythms of life of the “enemy country” so that it can be then exposed to the U.S. general public so they may be able to transcend violence created by polarized U.S. political discourse and narrow-lensed mass media (Conflictkichen.org, 2015). Pittsburgh citizens are even given the opportunity to interact with citizens of the countries that their government has labeled enemies so that they can “rise above [] divisions and reach beyond accepted meanings” through Lederach’s practice of paradoxical curiosity (Lederach, 2005). Lederach argues that cycles of violence are often driven by polarities, and that choices about how to respond to conflict are often forced into either-or categories in which you are either with us or against us (Lederach, 2005). Unveiling Silenced Voices and Bridging Intercultural Connections Moral imagination, which comprises an element of what Lederach calls “paradoxical curiosity”, requires respect for complexity, and the search for something beyond what is visible, so that one can discover what holds seemingly opposed social ! 146 energies together, and accepting people at face value while also looking past appearances and withholding judgment in order to come across untold angles, opportunities, and unexpected potentialities (Lederach, 2005). Conflict Kitchen comprises this element of paradoxical curiosity in that it challenges the mainstream, visible political discourse by telling sides to the story that have not been heard or discovered in U.S. social realities. The U.S. context is swarming with cycles of violence that are driven by polarities, in Muslim shaming, in the racial profiling, in the every day life in which the U.S. general public is fed mind-numbing single story political narratives, which dehumanize and fuel the flames of violence toward peoples of “conflict countries”. Of course, the U.S. is not the only place in which this happens, but Conflict Kitchen’s goal is to problematize the “us versus them” narrative of U.S. politics by creating a space available for the creative act, and the willingness to risk and see past narrow-minded narratives (Lederach, 2005). Apart from working with peoples living within the “conflict country”, Conflict Kitchen also bridges connections to local diasporic communities from each country selected (Conflictkitchen.org, 2015). When asked how the Pittsburgh Palestinian population responded to their Palestine version, he answered by saying: One of the great things about the project is that it becomes a beacon for the local community that we’re focusing on. I met a lot of local Palestinians in Pittsburgh leading up to the opening. It is a small population of about 300 people. Often they are afraid to self-identify as Palestinians because they fear people will see them in a negative light or even because some Pittsburghers don’t know there is such a place as Palestine. A lot of Palestinians here simply say they’re from the Middle East. (Rubin, 2015) In the case of the Pittsburgh Palestinian community, the majority of the small population helped in celebrating the re-opening of the Palestine project after the death threat, with a Palestinian potluck at a local church (Rubin, 2015). About 200 people participated and