EE1 Draft

Bill Schaff

Professor Leake

Writ 1133

April 23, 2013

The Language of Food

            Food is used in our society in so many different ways that most individuals never even notice. People will go their whole life without making these connections that food has to the people around them and to the culture that they live in. There is clearly the obvious way that we use food, to be eaten, but it can provide us with so much more: things like a topic of discussion, setting the atmosphere of the room, determining how fancy a restaurant is, and most importantly is the language of the food. In the words of Massino Montanari, who write the book “Food is Culture”, to describe what the language of food means, “The language of food, unlike verbal language, cannot be left out of the concreteness of the object, nor of the intrinsic, in some way predetermined, semantic value of the means of communication.” Food is essentially a means of conversation that cannot change. Each food has its own specific trait and meaning that goes along with it that cannot be changed.

            At a restaurant called Moe’s Original BBQ, this theory that food has a specific language is clearly proven. Moe’s is a small BBQ restaurant and bar on Broadway St. It is a unique little restaurant that is divided up into two parts: a bar area and a leisure area. In the bar area there is basically a very long bar with one row of table behind it, dark walls with few pictures, and the lighting is fairly dim. One the leisure side there is a bowling alley, pool tables, a few dining table, blue walls, and it is fairly well lit. Looking at the bar side, everything going on was revolved around the food and drinks. Most people in the bar area looked like they had recently gotten out of work but were still dressed in the work attire. The only thing that they all had in common was that they were all eating either a pulled pork sandwich or ribs.

 These individuals were also sharing amongst each other what they were eating. BBQ food at this restaurant is associated with a social time rather than a work time. Montanari has a good way to help understand this, “For example, coffee, a stimulant, can take on an antithetical social value when linked to the practice of relaxation, as with the pause for the ‘coffee break’ between two periods of work.” In her example, coffee is associated with “break time” for these individuals whereas on the bar side of Moe’s, BBQ food is associated with “social time”. This language that BBQ food has is specific to BBQ food and is almost always used in this way.

            What really made the language of BBQ food apparent at Moe’s Original was when you compare the bar side and the social side. In both sides of the restaurant, food is used as a way for individuals to communicate with each other. Food at both the bar and leisure side of Moe’s Original was being used for “social time”. They both were using this BBQ food and interacting around it, both sides were sharing the food with the people around them. In one period of time in the leisure side there was a birthday party happening and food was being used as a way for everyone to communicate with. Everyone would take their turn bowling but would then return to the table in which the BBQ food was sitting at. Both sides used this BBQ food differently but also in the same manner, the language of BBQ food was not changing only the setting was. To explain this better, if you look at the example with coffee, coffee is associated with “break time” not another kind of drink. This trait is one that coffee mainly uses, the business man would not be having “break time” with milk because milk is associated with breakfast or family. This is very true with what is going on at Moe’s, the BBQ food is what is allowing this “social time” to be possible. For example, if Moe’s offered steak instead of BBQ food, the same interaction would not be possible. People would not casually sit around a steak and share it with each other the same way that you could with BBQ food. It is the traits of the food that determine what kind of an interaction will take place around it, each different food has a different type of interaction associated with it.

Now lets look at potato chips. According to Freedman’s and Jurafsky’s article on potato chips, everyone no matter their social class eats potato chips. They call it a universal food. Potato chips are a food that can be closely associated with “snack time”. While yes they are used to accompany meals for lunch or dinner, a potato chip by itself is mainly used for “snack time”. When someone opens a bag of potato chips, nobody is, or should be, making a meal out of them. They are used to accompany what every is going on around you, for example a party of Sunday night football. People do not sit down and have dinner with potato chips because the language of the food does not allow it. Even among the different kinds of potato chips, the language does not change even if the audience does. Freedman and Jurafsky explain, “Expensive chips talk about health six times as much as inexpensive chips (about six times per bag versus once per bag). Most of the expensive chips emphasize their lack of msg and gluten, and every expensive chip notes that it is lower in fat and completely lacks trans fats.” Through marketing, potato chips are advertised to specific social classes. Not only do they use health as a way to distinguish between the social classes, they also explain how authenticity, distinction, and words choice can determine whom they are trying to advertise to. But, with all of this to get certain people to buy certain bags of chips, the languages of the chips never change. Whether it is the most expensive bag on the market or the cheapest, potato chips are always used for “social time” no matter who is buying them.

Most foods, whether they are associated with “snack time” or “social time”, are different but in many ways very similar. They both are used in very social and informal settings and in both cases; the food is good but not great. That all changes with up-scale foods because they speak a language of their own. Foods that are mainly served at five star restaurants are not about the social interaction that people have around the food but rather the extravagancy of the food itself. For example, Pete Wells, a New York Times author, did a review on the top 12 restaurants in New York City and says this about the IL BUCO ALIMENTARI E VINERIA, “she installed a baker who makes slow-risen, wild-fermented breads; a curing specialist who ages astonishing salami and hams; and a chef, Justin Smillie, who roasts the best short ribs I’ve ever tasted.” The food at this restaurant is not meant to be an additive to a social gathering or something you share, it is meant to be the reason that you are there. You go to this restaurant because of the food and nothing else. Because of this, the language of food associated with the IL BUCO ALIMENTARI E VINERIA is “food time”. There is not meant to be anything else going on when eating this food but eating the food. Wells goes onto say that, “No place I reviewed this year inspired so many to write (or tweet) their enthusiasm. A larger number wrote something along the lines of “so delicious,” with an intensifier before delicious that won’t make it past my copy editors.” People do not care about what is going on around them; they only care about the food that they are getting.

All in all, food has far to many different languages and meaning to bring forward in such a short writing. But the most prevalent way that food is used is through its determined traits. Naturally, food that you can pick at like BBQ, fries, and chips will be associated more with “social time” Coffee is associated with “break time”, cereal is associated with “breakfast time”, and up-scale foods are associated with “food time”. Every food has a different but unique trait or quality that goes along with it that will determine the kind of interaction that people have with that food. It is the food that is creating the type of interaction between the people.

Works Cited

Freedman, Joshua, and Dan Jurafsky. "Authenticity in America Class Distinctions in Potato Chip Advertising." Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture. Vol. 11. N.p.: University of California Press, 2011. 46-54. Web. 23 Apr. 2013.

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/udenver/Doc?id=10183599&ppg=107

Montanari, Massimo; Sonnenfeld, Albert (Translated by). Food Is Culture.

New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press, 2006. p 93-97.

Copyright © 2006. Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

Wells, Pete. "12 Restaurant Triumphs of 2012." New York Times 24 Dec. 2012. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/dining/reviews/12-restaurant-triumphs-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.