Cooking, Celebrity Chefs, and Their Influence on Us

Cooking, Celebrity Chefs, and Their Influence on Us

            Taking raw ingredients, and combining a heat source has been the marker in which humans differentiated themselves from fellow ape. By learning of this method of cooking it has allowed mankind to flourish into the intellectual sentient beings we are today. Harvard University professor of biological anthropology, Richard Wrangham believes that the invention of cooking was more important than farming, invention of tools, and eating meat. Since this notion of cooking food arose about 1.8 million years ago, the different civilizations and cultures of the world have been mastering their own unique form of cooking and cuisine. As time went forward and humans became adjust to cooking, ideologies such as social structure, wealth, and status have slowly started to control how and what people eat. This belief can be traced to the middle ages where lords eat the best cuts of livestock, while the lowly peasants eat porridge and the less favorable cuts of animals (intestines, stomach, genitals). In the modern day there are hundreds of famous chefs who have gained stardom in the culinary world. Names such as Gordon Ramsay, Eric Ripert, Wolfgang Puck, and Alice Waters have all caught the spotlight of food lovers everywhere. This essay will hope to investigate what has led to this concept of eating as a luxury, the celebrity chef and their impact, and the way food culture is perceived today in the 21^st century.

            In order to learn more about cooking and how it affects humanity as a whole, one must grasp the historical context of how cooking began and its significance for humans. At the very start humans were given the chance to eat cooked meat when they discovered an animal that was killed in a forest fire. Realizing that the meat was easier to consume and had better flavor, this sparked the attention of the early humans. Richard Wrangham says, “cooking has a number of important effects but more important than any in our view is the fact that it systematically raises the net energy gain that you get from eating your food when it’s cooked compared to when it’s eaten raw and there are two reasons for this one is that in increases the proportion of the nutrients that you eat that you actually digest and absorb and the other reason is that it reduces the energetic cost that your body pays to digest that food” (Wrangham). Roasting meats over an open flame was the main means of cooking up until the Paleolithic period. It was discovered that this is when groups of humans began using steam as a source of cooking by utilizing embers and leaves, such as the Aurignacians in modern day France.

When humans started living stationary lifestyles and were straying away from the nomadic way of life, the domestication of animals, farming, and pottery helped push cooking forward. This brought on the techniques like boiling, braising, and frying as we know today. It was also believed that cheese-making and yogurt was to be introduced to the world at this time. In about 3500 B.C. Egyptians were thought to start baking bread for the first time. In about 25-200 A.D. the Chinese first used cast iron to cook their meals. Egypt and Persia held the role of bridging India and China in the glorious spice trade that brought ingredients like: turmeric (anti-inflammatory), ginger (relieves nausea), cinnamon, and more. These spices were then brought to Europe and eventually the New World. 1550 marked the year of the first public café in the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, Constantinople.

Cooking and eating with others also has a variety of health benefits, mental, emotional, and physical. Sharing a meal can also help foster debates and discussions on topics small and large. In Justin Eckstein’s and Anna M. Young’s essay titled, “Cooking, Celebrity Chefs, and Public Chef Intellectuals” they state, “This event not only involves the transformation of raw food into a cooked dish but also brings people together at a table to engage communal norms like taking turns, sharing, invitational speaking, and arguing” (Eckstein & Young, 205-206). Although arguing is not always looked upon, it is necessary for an agreement to be reached. Eating together enables us to have these conversations, however controversial they are, because the table is the setting for discussion. The meal serves as a tool for negotiation and a liaison of the two or more parties. Alice Waters, owner of Chez Panisse in Berkeley and author of The Art of Simple Food says, “eating is a political act, but in the way the ancient Greeks used the word ‘political’ – not just having to do with voting in an election, but to mean ‘of, or pertaining to, all our interactions with other people’” (Eckstein & Young, 205). Waters is right in this aspect as well because eating food opens doors to different cultures and identities the world offers us. Private spheres are turned into public simply by ingesting (hopefully) nutritional sustenance and conversing with the people we know, or maybe do not know. Eckstein and Young further this point by emphasizing, “the meal – it offers a space where ‘private people can come together in public’ to ‘manifest a public-oriented subjectivity, that is, a self that is more or less able to turn private reactions’ about a dish, a cultural tradition, a dinner party, the source of the food on the table and so on, into ‘discourses that address some shared concerns’” (Eckstein & Young, 205). Unfortunately, with the ever-growing presence of technology and increase of individualism we face in the 21^st century there has been a lack of eating together, talking to other people, and the exchange of humanistic information.

The world we live in today is dominated in the practices of fast, easy, and accessible. Even though cooking some meals may take the same amount of time as ordering delivery, people are still not spending enough time in the kitchen. Beginning in the mid 1960’s the decline of cooking in the United States officially started. Multiple factors are attributed to this idea such as women entering the workplace, the introduction of processed foods, and the popularized activity of going out to eat. “Guess who’s cooking? The role of men in meal planning, shopping, and preparation in U.S. families” by Lisa Harnack, Mary Story, Brian Martinson, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, and Jamie Stang provide some insight on the link between gender roles and the production of home-cooked meals. Women joining the workforce brought the great question of  “Who’s cooking?” to life. According to the essay, “In 1940, 14.7% of husband-wife households had a wife working outside the home. In 1970 this figure was 40.8%, and by 1982, 51.2% of wives in husband-wife households were employed outside the home” (Guess who’s cooking, Harnack, Story, etc.). Since both genders are out of the house working long hours, when they both arrive home cooking is the last thing on their mind. A Washington Post article, “The slow death of the home cooked meal” gives some shocking statistics on the matter. The article goes on, “ the two genders spend roughly 110 minutes combined cooking each day, compared with about 140 minutes per day in the 1970’s and closer to 150 minutes per day in the 1960’s” (Ferdman). The trend is noticeable and is inversely correlative with time, as the years go up, the average cooking time goes down. Another statistic the article shares is, “In 2008, women spent 66 minutes per day cooking, almost 50 minutes less than in the 1960’s, when they spent upward of 112 minutes on average” (Ferdman). Who or what is responsible for this decrease of time in the home kitchen? The partial answer is the dreaded processed foods.

Processed foods has changed the world of food by providing the public with ready to eat “food” and drinks that have changed the taste buds of people on a global scale. Delia Chiaro speaks on this topic specifically in the UK, but her ideas can be applied to the United States. Her study titled “A Taste of Otherness” states, “In the UK, the last 50 years have seen an enormous change in food mores and food attitudes, brought about partly by social changes (i.e. the industrialization of foodstuff)” (Chiaro, 195). The same notion can be seen in the United States.  Scientists during World War II researched how to preserve and reshape certain foods and drinks to feed the troops fighting over seas. These food and drink items needed the ability to stay edible without the need for refrigeration. When the war ended, companies believed that this would “benefit” the public by offering them a quick alternative to fresh, unprocessed food. The main target audience for these companies was the busy house-wife, who at the time was “responsible” for preparing meals at home. TV dinners and oven-ready meals were introduced to the hundreds of millions of Americans around the same time. As stated earlier, women were just entering the workforce and did not have as much time as they used to. Hence, the market for processed foods flourished and continues to do so today. Chiaro also states, “the consumption of food in Western society is no longer simply a human function carried out for reasons of physiological sustenance. Nowadays, food represents a series of complex social and psychological factors. In other words, as we no longer need to eat to survive, food has taken on a new and multifaceted dimension which goes beyond the need for nourishment” (Chiaro, 195). Food for us today has brought upon the ideas of convenience as a key factor, instead of the ingredients, source, and nutritional value.

Going out to eat can mean several things to a person. Family night, an anniversary, or simply a social gathering of friends. With the boom of restaurants in the mid 20^th century, eating out has become a brand-new world. This sparked a new job market for a professional cook, it created a gap between social classes, and it brought upon new words in our vernacular such as “foodie” or “yelper”. In France after the French Revolution unemployed chefs from aristocratic households opened their own eateries in which they cooked and sold their homemade concoctions. As time continued, restaurants continued to develop all across Europe. With the influx of automobiles and restaurants dotting the European landscape, the first Michelin Guide was released in 1900. It was originally a guidebook for travelers that listed gas stations, hotels, and restaurants along the roadsides. It was not until 1926, when Michelin started rating the restaurants with their famous star system. With the publication of the Michelin guides came along a shift in the way chefs around the world cooked, presented, and served their dishes. Ratings of restaurants and the idea of people liking the food or not was always present. However, this title brought along the idea that eating at these restaurants and others that were highly regarded by the press, other chefs, and affluent people brought a new wave of restaurant goers. Different groups of restaurant-goers emerged because of this. There are the foodies, which has been introduced into the Merriam Webster dictionary as, “a person having an avid interest in the latest food fads” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). The second group are the people that simply go to these restaurants for simple bragging and bloating purposes. The final group is the devoted food lover, those who are infatuated by the new techniques, use of ingredients, and the ones that are truly considerate of the labor and time it takes to prepare these meals.  

The categorization of chefs is also another entity. In popular culture today there are chefs that dot the tele-sphere, and are quite popular. Names such as Wolfgang Puck, Andrew Zimmern, Gordon Ramsay, Alice Waters, Francis Mallmann, Anthony Bourdain, and Guy Fieri can be seen or read on a variety of media texts. The one thing that they all share is that these people are all chefs, or used to be chefs. The main difference between some of these chefs are the way they connect their fans, viewers, etc. with food. Many shows that these chefs are featured on are simply for entertainment purposes. For example, Guy Fieri’s Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives, although he is exposing mom and pop shops that serve delicious food to locals in cities around the country, he is not using his role as a teacher or guide on how Americans can cook at home. Instead, he is invested in multi-leveled chain restaurant that serves up greasy hamburgers and Tex-Mex food. There is nothing wrong with that style, but these food “celebrities” should be more outspoken about the simplicities of cooking at home. Eckstein and Young go into detail about the term celebrity chef in detail. According to the authors a celebrity chef is, “A public figure anointed as a culinary expert but excluded from the technical sphere of culinary arts” (Eckstein & Young, 206). In context this is referring to chefs that appear on competition shows, shows that display cooking skills that can’t be mastered by the normal home cook, and the adventure type food shows, i.e. Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives. Eckstein and Young go on to say, “the celebrity chef likely began as a chef, but is not known as a chef anymore – instead, she or he is a media personality with television shows, product lines, appearance fees, and modeling gigs” (Eckstein & Young, 206). People often times religiously follow these “anointed” chefs and watch their shows routinely. However, although we are watching these people cook, we won’t actually cook for ourselves. Michael Pollen’s quote, “We are so much more eager to watch someone brown beef cubes than we are in browning them ourselves” (Eckstein & Young, 206). The industry of culinary media needs more people that are considered a public chef intellectual. The public chef intellectual, “educates the public on the art of cooking” (Eckstein & Young, 207). It is important that these chefs break down the technical aspects so the public will understand and not be intimidated.

These types of chefs such as Michael Pollen, Alice Waters, Marco Pierre White, and Julia Child are all public chef intellectuals, in the terms that in an approachable, not so intimidating way, they teach individuals at home around the world how to cook and the benefits of cooking for yourself. Antonio Gramsci’s idea of the organic intellectual is defined as, “the ‘thinking and organizing element of a particular fundamental social profession’ and is determined not by job title but ‘by function in directing ideas and aspirations of the class to which they organically belong” (Eckstein & Young, 207). Chefs do not make much money, unless they earn the title head chef of a well-organized restaurant, so many fall into the working, middle class of society. Until these well-known chefs gained spotlight, they were normal working people that needed the same things many normal people traditionally need. They have a sense in which how people function and work, and incorporate cooking into their daily life. “A Gramscian definition of the public chef intellectual relies not on traditional markers of intellectualism like numbers of degrees earned but on expertise paired with an ability to use that experience to positively advance publics politically or socially” (Eckstein & Young, 207). Instead of watching Guy Fieri stuff his face with a hamburger stuffed with bacon and donuts as a bun, people need to listen, read, watch other chefs that aim on teaching the unknowns of cooking and can be paralleled by people at home.

By learning about the importance and close relation ,we humans have with cooking it must be made clear that the current media industry regarding food is similar to many other texts of media. One must have the awareness to pick through the various shows and realize the context and purpose of the programs. If one is trying to learn about cooking and eating, choosing the right person and source is of utmost importance. The tools and ingredients are available, all that is needed is your action. If more people listen to the words of Michael Pollen or Alice Waters, Americans will see the light and will not be as intimidated at the stove top.

Work Cited List

Pollan, Michael. “Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 July 2009, www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/magazine/02cooking-t.html.

Ferdman, Roberto A. “The Slow Death of the Home-Cooked Meal.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Mar. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/05/the-slow-death-of-the-home-cooked-meal/?utm_term=.abefba380bb6.

Wilson, Bee. “Out of the Oven . . .” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Apr. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/books/review/cooked-by-michael-pollan.html.

“Michelin Guide.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Dec. 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Guide#History.

Liz Mineo, Harvard Staff Writer |, et al. “Invention of Cooking Drove Evolution of the Human Species, New Book Argues.” Harvard Gazette, 1 June 2009, news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/06/invention-of-cooking-drove-evolution-of-the-human-species-new-book-argues/.

“History of Cooking.” All That Cooking, 26 Jan. 2014, allthatcooking.com/history-of-cooking/.

Eckstein, Justin, and Anna M. Young. “Cooking, Celebrity Chefs, and Public Chef Intellectuals.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 2, Dec. 2015, pp. 205–208., doi:10.1080/14791420.2015.1014155.

www.bing.com/cr?IG=D8749AB1D3AE44A7957097A6156AB1B9&CID=30DE62D86360627C0379698A62CF63AD&rd=1&h=E3O0BKzoubN455-J77aJkcT7EOirpcOv6XRes60OFe4&v=1&r=http%3a%2f%2fwww.tandfonline.com%2fdoi%2ffull%2f10.1080%2f02773945.2015.1007518&p=DevEx,5085.1.

“A Taste of Otherness Eating and Thinking Globally.” Taylor & Francis, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13825570802151470.

Harnack, Lisa, et al. “Guess Who's Cooking? The Role of Men in Meal Planning, Shopping, and Preparation in US Families.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 98, no. 9, 1998, pp. 995–1000., doi:10.1016/s0002-8223(98)00228-4.

Daniels, Sarah, et al. “More than Preparing a Meal? Concerning the Meanings of Home Cooking.” Appetite, vol. 58, no. 3, 2012, pp. 1050–1056., doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.02.040.