I'm Leaving...On a Jet Plane...

I have so many posts that I want to write, and apologize for not getting them up in a timely fashion. However, the past week has been a bit frantic as I have been finishing work for the magazine and getting myself packed and ready...because...I am off to England for a month!

Ben and I will be meeting in London and then traveling to Suffolk (where we will be for Christmas), Norwich, Cambridge, Lancaster, Chester, York, Durham, Leeds, and then back to London.

So this post is to say several things:

First, I don't know how much internet access I will have during my travels. Ideally, I would like to post about the food I am eating, seeing, cooking, smelling, etc. while I traipse around the United Kingdom, but the posts may have to wait until I get back. However, if I manage to get to an internet café, I will surely put up a post.

Second, is to say that although I do not have a very cerebral post here for you today, I did write a guest blog post for Ben's blog on Christmas food. He is doing a 12 Days of Christmas special series on his blog that is really cool. And you can also read about his travels in Russia, including the merits (and maybe misfortunes) of Russian beer.

So with that, I leave you with a picture of my favorite Christmas food, my annual Christmas cake (read about the cake on Ben's blog and my previous post on fruitcake). And I hope that I will post again sooner rather than later...

Anthropology: The tantilizing, the titillating, the shocking...the mundane

“People are as fascinated by anthropology as anthropologists are fascinated by people. The anthropologist makes us take a new look at ourselves; he shows us the alternatives to our own secure and petty lives—or insecure and grandiose lives, for that matter.”
--Robin Fox, Encounter with Anthropology

I have not written much in the realm of anthropological theory lately, and I thought that it may be time to briefly go back to academics for a bit. The reason being is that I received an email a few days ago telling me that this blog was included in a list of the Top 100 Anthropology Blogs by Online Universities.com. Click here for the complete list. I am extremely flattered to be included on this list, and I bring it up for two reasons. First, because there are some really great and fascinating blogs included on there that you should really check out. Second, because being included on this list of anthropology blogs makes me think about what this blog actually is…is it an “anthropology blog,” or is it a “food blog”? I don’t really know how to answer that question, but the more I think about it, I think that it is a good thing that I cannot easily categorize this blog.

I have a love/hate relationship with the field of anthropology. Well, maybe “hate” is a bit too strong of a word. I should say that I have a love/skeptical relationship with anthropology. However, the more I think about the discipline, I realize that my skeptical feelings are not necessarily toward anthropology, but rather are toward anthropology in academia. The quote at the beginning of this post is by Robin Fox, one of my favorite anthropologists—Mr. Fox sums up the discipline perfectly. Anthropology, by definition, is the study of man. It makes us take a deeper look at who we are as a living species—our physical nature, our social behavior, our culture, our psychology. Mr. Fox also states that, “Anthropologists are the custodians of the unconscious of the human race…making the familiar seem exotic amusing.” To me, human beings are fascinating, and I think that we deserve an entire discipline devoted to studying the complexities of our physical, social, and cultural nature.

However, the problem with anthropology in academia is that it stays in academia. The research of anthropologists is so diverse and so fascinating, but too often it remains confined within the walls of universities. Like I said, this is not a problem with anthropology per say; rather it is a problem with the nature of academia. The best and the brightest anthropologists too often write only for an academic audience. They assume that their readers already have a somewhat extensive background in the field, and thus their writing is drenched in anthropological nomenclature and abstract academic theory. This is all fine and well if you do indeed have the background to understand this writing, but this also means that all the innovative research and insight only speaks to a very small population. However, anthropology is the study of humans…ALL humans! If we want to make our world a better place to live in, isn’t taking a critical look at ourselves a key part of the equation? And this means that anthropological insight should be reported not just to academics, but to everyone in hopes of educating all people about the nature of our societies.

Basically, this conundrum comes down to the age-old binary of theory vs. practice. My belief is that anthropological theory and insight should be put into everyday practice. But the only way this will happen is if everyone has access to the knowledge that is being generated in academia. This means that we need a bridge between academia and the “real world” (I hate using that term, but I think that is the best way express what I mean for the time being). That bridge is where I hope to carve my niche.

I am not an anthropologist. I studied anthropology for a bit, and I continue to maintain an interest in the field. I continue to read anthropological writing. Because I have some background in academic anthropology, I do understand a great deal of the nomenclature and the theory. But like I said, I am not an anthropologist. I have not devoted decades of my life to reading and research and fieldwork. At one point, I thought that I would, but upon realizing the rickety-ness of that bridge connecting academia to the “real world,” I changed my mind. My goal now is to make that bridge stronger. Thus, my “ethnography” is mundane—it is simply a critical eye on the everyday behavior I see around me. I aim to write in hopes of inspiring everyday people to think about themselves and the world around them, and to connect people outside of the academy with the ideas that are happening within academia—specifically regarding food.

Food. This forays into my second question. Is this a “food blog”? Well, no. Not really. I am not an anthropologist, and I am not a chef. Sometimes I may post a non-cerebral rambling about the food I cooked or tried, but I don’t post recipes here. I love, love, love to cook. But there are FAR better cooks than me in the world. And there are thousands of wonderful food blogs out there—this is certainly not one of them.

Food, however, has the wonderful ability to capture almost everyone’s interest. This is simply because everyone eats. Because eating is an activity that every human partakes in, it is one of those “mundane” events that most people do not give a second thought to. We too often take eating for granted. And that statement has multiple and layered meanings. I hope to inspire thought in regards to these layers and meanings.

So, this blog is in a grey area somewhere between an anthropology blog and a food blog. It is a work in progress. I am not an expert. I just hope to get a discussion rolling. To me, the “mundane” aspects of life are often the most interesting—so, the mundane is my starting point, and we’ll see where it will take me.

My prediction (or hope) for the White House Chef

Over my morning bowl of oatmeal I read that Barack Obama officially nominated Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State. He certainly has lost no time making selections for his cabinet and the nations most important presidential advisers. However, while I sit and read the commentary about the whole matter, I can’t help but wonder about two particular appointments: the secretary of agriculture and the White House Chef.



OK, let’s set the secretary of agriculture aside for a minute, because that topic really deserves it own conversation. The White House Chef? Some people may laugh and think that the position is a novelty, but trust me, there is a lot of buzz about this. The bloggosphere of food writers and culinary enthusiasts are in heated discussion over who Obama will name as the nations First Chef. Perhaps the reason people are so interested in the appointment is because foodies have noticed that Obama eats well—he eats damn well.

Now, there is a difference between eating highbrow or eating trendy and eating well. By eating well, I mean that the Obamas definitely have the respect of many food writers, bloggers, and just general foodies due to their restaurant choices around Chicago. If Obama merely wanted to eat highbrow, he would eat at the myriad of ridiculously expensive steak houses around the city, or at the super trendy sushi places and huge fancy downtown restaurants that offer beautiful scenery and décor, attractive wait staff, and mediocre food—all for a hefty chunk-a-change. But the Obamas, besides being spotted at various incredibly delicious neighborhood joints around the windy city (including both Medici on 57th and Harold’s Chicken Shack in Hyde Park), frequents restaurants like Fonterra Grill, Charlie Trotters, and Spiagga. Don’t get me wrong—these places will cost you pretty penny as well (a TON of pretty pennies, actually), but these places are not only some of the best restaurants in the world, but all are known for their “Slow” ways (as in following the principles of the Slow Food Movement) as well sourcing all their ingredients from local purveyors and changing their menus according to the seasons. The point of me relaying all this info on where the Obamas eat is really just to point out that the Obamas are foodies—at least, (I think) Michele is a foodie. Like I said, they eat damn well.

Plenty of bloggers are using the Obamas’ choices of Chicago restaurants to predict who the next White House chef will be. Many predict that Obama will name Rick Bayless the White House Chef. Others are adamant that the appointment will go to Oprah’s personal chef, Art Smith. However, I disagree. I don’t think that it will be Bayless or the Oprah guy. Other people have suggested Charlie Trotter—but once again, I don’t think so. I am reluctant to “predict” anything, because I am horribly bad at predictions, but I will say who I think WOULD be a great pick for White House Chef, and why the heck it matters.

More than anything, I think that one of Obama’s great strengths as President will be to lead by example. He is already an inspiration to millions of black children around the country who can now realistically believe that they can grow up to be president one day. In an interview with Barbara Walters, the Obamas said that they intend to “open up the White House,” inviting both the children of all the people who work for the administration as well as D.C. neighborhood children to play with their kids. Barack Obama is extremely open about his workout regimen, and there sure is a ton of media hype about them adopting a rescue dog. The point being, the Obamas are attempting to openly set and example of good parenting, good fitness, and animal welfare already. I think we will continue to see similar openness regarding other aspects of their personal lives.

So, the White House Chef, who we normally see as a novelty, can also be a strategic pick aimed at setting an example for food and cooking in America. That is why I think that the First Chef should not be a highfalutin celebrity chef, but rather a cook who prepares simple food in accordance with the season and supports local farmers and producers. Michael Pollan puts forward this very same suggestion in his open letter to the President Elect. He says, “The choice of White House chef is always closely watched, and you [the president elect] would be wise to appoint a figure who is identified with the food movement and committed to cooking simple from fresh local ingredients. Besides feeding you and your family exceptionally well, such a chef would demonstrate how it is possible even in Washington to eat locally for much of the year, and that good food needn’t be fussy or complicated, but it does depend on good farming.” Pollan also suggests that the President Elect should name a White House farmer who would work closely with the chef to grow and procure the produce for the First Family.

The bottom line is that the White House chef is not a novelty. My faculty adviser for my bachelor’s thesis once told me, “Melissa, everything is political.” And this statement could not fit the situation more perfectly—make the White House chef a political statement. Make the food that the first family eats an example to the rest of the nation. And don’t just set an example of “good nutrition” by eating lots of veggies, but rather the President Elect should be mindful of the whole picture around food and set and example with HOW the first family eats.

Obviously, there are more pressing issues in our country at the moment to deal with than what the first family has for dinner. But we need to realize that food is wrapped up in these pressing issues. If we can get more people to farm, we create more jobs. If we can get better school lunches in public schools, and even gardening programs in public schools, we are improving both public health and education. (Studies have shown that there is sharp decline in elementary school kids attention spans after the lunch period when most of them eat tons of sugar.)

I can envision a role for the White House chef as not only the cook for the President and his visitors, but as an adviser to the President on issues surrounding food. I can envision the White House chef as supporting programs that will aid school lunch initiatives, especially in low-income communities. An executive chef does not slave away in the kitchen, but rather is more like the captain of a ship—overseeing the whole operation. So let the First chef oversee more than just the First Family’s meals—let he or she speak publicly and set and example for responsible eating. All this would be very subtle, but I think still very influential.

So with all of this said, who do I think Obama should name as White House chef? I am not making a prediction, but I would like to see Alice Waters as White House chef. She started a movement back in the 1970’s and has been committed to it ever since. She understands the principles behind the food movement. She developed The Edible School Yard program, started in Berkeley public schools, which then spread to other school districts across the country. She transformed the way that students eat on campus at Yale University. Alice Waters knows the farmers, knows the chefs, knows the food leaders to make the connections across the nation to bring attention to small farms and small ranches. She knows foreign leaders who care about food (she showed Prince Charles and Camilla around Berkeley public school gardens two years ago). She is the vice president of Slow Food International. And Alice Waters knows the Obamas (well, at least Michele). Michele Obama showed Alice Waters around Chicago’s Green City Market last year preceding a talk she gave here on public school gardens.



All the cards are in place, so I am crossing my fingers. To change the way Americans think about food does not have to be an all-or-nothing deal. I am not saying that we should wake up tomorrow and never eat a candy bar or Easy Mac again. Processed food will never go away. However, Americans still have one of the unhealthiest relationships to food compared to the vast majority of other “Western” industrialized countries. Small changes and a good example could go a long way to improving the way that we think about food. Or maybe I should say that small changes and a good example could get us to think more about food in the first place, which is all I am really asking for at the moment.