Slow Food's anti-globalist subversion: cachet items that can't scale up
Link (via Beyond the Beyond)
As a nonprofit heritage organization, the Slow Food empire retains a mere 150 full-time employees with a modest budget of $37 million a year. Yet Slow Food has invented the modern Italian food-heritage industry. Today it is a thriving ganglion of local chapters, called convivia, which number about 83,000 people in more than 100 countries. It’s also a publishing house specializing in tourist guidebooks, restaurant recipes, and heritage reprints.The group is the suave host for massive international food events in Torino. Other Slow Food emanations include a hotel, various nonprofit foundations, and—in a particularly significant development—a private college. The University of Gastronomic Sciences, founded in 2004, is the training ground for 200-plus international Slow Food myrmidons per year, who are taught to infiltrate farms, groceries, heritage tourism, restaurants, commercial consortia, hotel chains, catering companies, product promotion, journalism, and government. These areas are, of course, where Slow Food already lives...
Slow Food deploys its convivia to serve as talent scouts for food rarities (such as Polish Mead, the Istrian Giant Ox, and the Tehuacan Amaranth). Candidate discoveries are passed to Slow Food’s International Ark Commission, which decides whether the foodstuff is worthy of inclusion. Its criteria are strict: (a) Is the product nonglobalized or, better yet, inherently nonglobalizable? (b) Is it artisanally made (so there’s no possibility of any industrial economies of scale)? (c) Is it high-quality (the consumer “wow” factor)? (d) Is it sustainably produced? (Not only is this politically pleasing, but it swiftly eliminates competition from most multinationals.) (e) Is this product likely to disappear from the planet otherwise? (Biodiversity must be served!)
(Image: Slow Food Vancouver Potluck May 10, 2005 - 4, a Creative Commons Attribution licensed photo from Roland's Flickr stream)
the latest
latest episodes
What they are really doing is creating items of conspicuous consumption that will never be affordable by the masses! This isn't about "anti-globalization" or "anti-capitalism" - This is about upper middle class and above white folk creating a class-culture esthetic that can't be imitated by the lower middle class and poor!
It allows rich white people to clearly deliniate themselves as "upper class", and at the same time to berate the "lower classes" for not making consumption decisions that they can't afford. Class warfare against the poor disguised as "progressive" ideology.
Anyone who thinks this crap is smart, or cool, or "responsible" and "green", is just another rich yuppy twit.
I kind of disagree. The strict emphasis on food here is a dead end. It will never be much more than it is right now. Call it the fashion or Fine Art of the food world. Inherently exclusive but not automatically irrelevant.
However, carry the same ideas over into other industries and I think you could see some positive benefits. Applied to things like furniture I'd think the same ideals would encourage local manufacture and quality. Put the value back into individual objects. Would this encourage more of a second hand market for unique quality goods? I'm not talking about the current 'antique' market, but the idea of things built to last and having value over time. It may or may not work, but I think it's a logical extension of what is being done here.
Besides, while a certain amount of the middle/upper class are rich twats, many are normal people who have worked hard and caught a few lucky breaks. If they want to spend their money on nice things, let them. Why should culture be completely homogeneous? By your thinking, everyone should have to shop at the same store and eat the same food. After all, differnt is bad.
Now I'm as into anticapitalism as the next chap, but I'm also into this simply on the basis of loving food. Just the other day I was talking about how there is no creativity or variety in food where I live right now. Fair enough, I probably cant afford anything Slow Food, and it does seem a bit elitist, but in all seriousness, food heritage is something to think about. Well...I suppose its a surprisingly controversial issue, actually, given some thought. But I'm definitely pro delicious food.
PS: is there something up with the BB servers? I'm having trouble connecting.
#2
I don't mind that rich people eat nice food. I eat pretty good food myself without guilt.
I hate it though, that the rich are turning their consumption choices, which *BY DESIGN* are unattainable by all but a very small elite well-off class of people, into a moral statement. They want to claim the moral high-ground for having the money to buy hand-made expensive stuff.
The slow-food movement gives rich people the chance to buy a sense of moral superiority. They get to eat a bunch of fancy food, and at the same time condemn people who can't afford to make the same lifestyle choice.
Naturally, this is going to piss off a lot of people who normally aren't particularly anti-rich.
If you consider the slow-food to be a fun luxury, fine - I have no problem with you enjoying slow food. But presenting this sort of luxury consumption as some sort of progressive people-oriented social movement is a deception.
Slow food doesn't have to be elitist.
I was luck enough this past weekend to enjoy a Hungarian rooster stew made with a cock-a-doodler from the neighbor's farm. Juicy, succulent, real.
And despite joining the EU, we still get some fruit and vegetables that actually ROTS. But admittedly the tomatoes are not as good as they used to be.
As far as I'm concerned that also qualifies as slow food, but all it is is the food that people still eat here in the countryside.
#5
yeah, maybe, but Slow Food the organization seems a bit elitist, which I suspect is why Cory followed up with a nice 99¢ gourmet meal post. As I say, more people should definitely know about delicious food. It doesn't have to be pot noodle every night.
The Slow Food movement is commendable in it's efforts to conserve the good cuisines that all cultures have evolved since they began to cook. In the long run I don't think it will overshadow local groups of farmers and cooks who love food and have a passion to reclaim our collective cultural heritages. Rexrhino, I think that you are completely wrong in your evaluation of slow food, completely off the mark. Good local food is almost always a product of average to poor folks taking cheap and plentiful ingredients and making delicious and nutritious dishes to feed their families and friends. How, pray tell, is this elitist? Perhaps at this point the only people able to afford good,local, organic foods are at the top of the food chain, but I must tell you that it is possible to grow your own heritage beans, tomatoes, and greens, without much effort, and it is possible to search out your local farms and learn about where food actually comes from, which inevitable will be the earth, the ground, the soil. All powered by the sun of course. These are basic things that structure our reality, and without them we can't go on playing our WoW on Wifi because we will be freaking dead. Unless of course you're of the opine that we will be able to create life out of nothing, which as of yet hasn't been possible. I think that Slow Food basically recognizes that we do not understand that multitude of intricacies that weave the ecologies that sustain our human lives, so it is better to stick with the tried and true and to savor life and the many heritage food that have sustained our existences up until now. Don't forget, it's easy and pretty cheap to join a CSA and get a box of veg every week, but I guess for some it's even easier to buy a Big Mac and participate in the gradual destruction of the earth that we really depend on. I know I sound like a hippy, but it's really that serious.
Except that as far as I can see, this Slow Food movement legitimately is good for the environment, agriculture, and independent farmers and producers. So why should the people involved not take pride in that? As far as I can see, if they are going to be eating expensive food anyways, this is about as moral and thoughtful as it gets.
What's next, condemning someone for putting in an ultra expensive environmentally friendly home heating system just because most home owners can't afford it?
The Slow Food movement is commendable in it's efforts to conserve the good cuisines that all cultures have evolved since they began to cook. In the long run I don't think it will overshadow local groups of farmers and cooks who love food and have a passion to reclaim our collective cultural heritages. Rexrhino, I think that you are completely wrong in your evaluation of slow food, completely off the mark. Good local food is almost always a product of average to poor folks taking cheap and plentiful ingredients and making delicious and nutritious dishes to feed their families and friends. How, pray tell, is this elitist? Perhaps at this point the only people able to afford good,local, organic foods are at the top of the food chain, but I must tell you that it is possible to grow your own heritage beans, tomatoes, and greens, without much effort, and it is possible to search out your local farms and learn about where food actually comes from, which inevitable will be the earth, the ground, the soil. All powered by the sun of course. These are basic things that structure our reality, and without them we can't go on playing our WoW on Wifi because we will be freaking dead. Unless of course you're of the opine that we will be able to create life out of nothing, which as of yet hasn't been possible. I think that Slow Food basically recognizes that we do not understand that multitude of intricacies that weave the ecologies that sustain our human lives, so it is better to stick with the tried and true and to savor life and the many heritage food that have sustained our existences up until now. Don't forget, it's easy and pretty cheap to join a CSA and get a box of veg every week, but I guess for some it's even easier to buy a Big Mac and participate in the gradual destruction of the earth that we really depend on. I know I sound like a hippy, but it's really that serious.
Blah blah... rich ... blah blah ... white. Those who've decided this is all about a privlidged demographic came to that conclusion, called it nasty, and left it at that. Epic fail. Look a little more carefully. In the last couple of decades, the population of the US has experienced a dramatic increase in obesity and related health problems. The content of our available food HAS CHANGED correlated with that. There are other factors, like suburban sprawl, but food content is a HUGE factor. What is cheap, quick, readily available, and produced in a global fashion, is reducing our lifespans in many cases.
Those of the cited and derided "upper middle class and beyond" who eat differently aren't impacted, and don't see a problem with the food supply. Why don't they see a problem? They don't consider this type of eating to be exclusive. And they're right. It is more expensive; it does take more time, and it is so much healthier.
Try this: Look at a packaged food product's advertised features / components. i.e. a can of chicken soup. Enumerate what you'd put in to re-create that dish. Then read the label. Do this again with something simple: a can/bag of roasted nuts for example. You'd probably say salt, nuts... oil perhaps. Now read the label.
Call it classist all you want. Then consider if those of means want / have longer life spans and better health. Is it all based on them having better doctors? Good health starts way before your doctor... Don't dismiss it; learn how you can participate and partake of the same! There's more at stake here than sustainable domestic business (which helps more than upper-middle-class types too).
Local versions of 'slow food' are always available, but they might take some effort to find, or grow. I've heard people who eat fast food regularly complaining about the price of a gallon of milk, but if they added up all the money they spend on fast food in a month, they'd find it to be surprisingly expensive. They might even be spending enough money to buy real food instead of corn-based products molded into pretty and colorful substrates that hold just enough vitamins and minerals to keep someone alive and unhealthy (along with the nasty industrial meat preferred for the main course).
Even on a low budget, much better food choices are available, but many people apparently don't want to give up their cable TV or cellphones so they can afford better food, which is a very false economy (and if you don't think 'the poor' have those things, well I'm sure a lot don't but I used to install cable in poor neighborhoods and the majority of residents had it). Most people also don't really know how to cook anymore; it's mostly reheating and defrosting. Buying high-quality fruits and vegetables is only part of it; knowing how to make a meal from scratch is another.
I ate nearly all organic food while I was on food stamps 15 years ago, but that's because I know what to do with raw ingredients and don't want to pay the insanely high costs of medical care later on that will come from eating modern pseudo-food.
Local versions of 'slow food' are always available, but they might take some effort to find, or grow. I've heard people who eat fast food regularly complaining about the price of a gallon of milk, but if they added up all the money they spend on fast food in a month, they'd find it to be surprisingly expensive. They might even be spending enough money to buy real food instead of corn-based products molded into pretty and colorful substrates that hold just enough vitamins and minerals to keep someone alive and unhealthy (along with the nasty industrial meat preferred for the main course).
Even on a low budget, much better food choices are available, but many people apparently don't want to give up their cable TV or cellphones so they can afford better food, which is a very false economy (and if you don't think 'the poor' have those things, well I'm sure a lot don't but I used to install cable in poor neighborhoods and the majority of residents had it). Most people also don't really know how to cook anymore; it's mostly reheating and defrosting. Buying high-quality fruits and vegetables is only part of it; knowing how to make a meal from scratch is another.
I ate nearly all organic food while I was on food stamps 15 years ago, but that's because I know what to do with raw ingredients and don't want to pay the insanely high costs of medical care later on that will come from eating modern pseudo-food.
Local versions of the slow food and craft are available. And it's not just about wealthy folks who can afford organic quail eggs at the local high-end market. It's about going to the local farmers market and paying for localy grown produce and meat and dairy. Also, there was a movement similar to this at the turn of the 20th century called the Arts and Crafts period.
don't want to give up their cable TV or cellphones so they can afford better food
It's about priorities. I don't have TV and I don't buy gadgets. I do eat three home-cooked meals made with fresh ingredients every day. I know many people who are struggling to make ends meet but have huge flat panel TVs, iPhones, gas-guzzling cars that they can't afford and cigarette and alcohol budgets of $300 per month.
Our local slow food guru has a pretty good response to Bruce here:
http://www.slowfoodblog.org/?p=213#more-213
NichePlayer,
Thanks, I was about to post that myself (since it's my post), but you beat me to it.
Point is Slow Food has received a bum rap for what it does, and the part about it that really is the org's fault is that we haven't properly fought back against that perception of elitism, instead we've let others frame the debate.
I for one am done with that. From now on we fight.
"a massive, moneyed global phenomenon that aims to fight globalization"
"oday it is a thriving ganglion of local chapters, called convivia, which number about 83,000 people in more than 100 countries."
A global anti-globalisation movement. This is a joke, right?
Spazzm,
Don't just react, read. Know of whence you speak.
For the one millionth time, Slow Food is NOT (is everyone listening this time?) NOT anti-globalization. It is not anti-anything. Slow Food is for things, including what we refer to as a "virtuous globalization." Now before you anti-PC, anti-new-expression-for-any-idea people start calling the term precious or something, take a moment to think about what it means.
It means a form of globalization that takes people, their livelihoods and their cultures into account. it takes the environment into account. This rather than saying, in the immortal (and immoral) words of Earl Butz, "Get Big or Get Out." It's not about getting rich, it's about helping EVERYONE, rich, poor and in between, live well.
I wouldnt call the slowfood movement so much elitist as a bit twisted. Polish Mead, the Istrian Giant Ox, and the Tehuacan Amaranth were not necessarily exclusive foodstuffs for the Polish, Istrians and Tehuacanos (?) as local products that were used out of neccesity rather than for their unique qualities.
Although i agree these heirlooms should be preserved, i dont like with the process of presenting them as "Candidates" before "Slow Food’s International Ark Commission." Aside from sounding a bit too masonic, this also puts these lowly ingredients on a golden pedestal, with a price tag to match it.
One thing i love about living in europe is that there are still enough old people around to keep most stores stocked with at least some local products (things that people ate before industrialization / nutritionism / whatever).
And unfortunatley all the encounters i have had with anything written-up or affiliated with slowfood have left me feeling underdressed and unnacepted into the club. what would Marx have said to this (Groucho or Karl)?
Quote #17 "A global anti-globalisation movement. This is a joke, right?"
Oh c'mon. Nobody is really anti-globalization. I've never heard anyone say I shouldn't be able to do business, send letters, make phone calls, or send email to my friends in Europe or whatever, but like MFKSWOLF said (#16) we've let others frame the debate.
It's not globalization that's the problem, on the contrary globalization is the solution, but we're being spoon-fed the multinational-corporation version of it, which is summed up with the phrase "Profits before people and planet." When a globalization movement emerges that turns those priorities around, we'll be getting somewhere.
People and Planet before Profits... That doesn't sound too crazy or extreme, does it? No one is saying "No Profits," just that we ought to take care of the basics first, not last.