Slow Food nation

Crafting a culture of change

Posted by Stephanie Paige Ogburn (Guest Contributor) at 11:55 AM on 05 Apr 2007

Read more about: green living | food | slow food

Yale University students, staff, and other community members crowded a university conference room yesterday to watch Erika Lesser, director of Slow Food USA, give a talk on the Slow Food movement in America. Lesser spoke pretty generally about Slow Food USA's goals, philosophy, and achievements. The talk was interesting in itself, but there were two aspects that I found particularly significant:

Lesser made some very interesting connections between Slow Food and American environmentalism (more on this below).

It was a horribly cold, rainy, awful day, the talk was located in an incredibly out-of-the-way part of campus, yet nonetheless the room was packed.

Slow Food, so the story goes, was founded by Italians who rallied around a protest against a McDonalds in Rome. From what I previously knew about Slow Food (two of my colleagues conduct research on the European-based organization), I had perceived it as a movement focused primarily on taste and preserving heirloom or heritage foods.

Yet in this talk, Lesser made some important links between Slow Food and the environmental movement. She spoke specifically about "eco-gastronomy," a term she used to link taste and pleasure with a wider ecological consciousness. Eco-gastronomy bridges the gap from the taste-based, European movement to the American eco-conscious audience, an important step for Slow Food USA. "We realized that, going back to the early days of Slow Food, that pleasure, and good flavor, is not enough," she said. So Slow Food moved up the taste ladder to a wider focus on ecology and environmentalism.

"If we wanted to preserve the pleasure that was on our plates," Lesser stressed, "we had to pay attention to the origins of our food. But not just the origins, but the whole system that the food came from. And the system is our ecology."

This linking of taste and ecology in the form of eco-gastronomy is a key step forward in the merging of food politics with environmental issues. In a continuation of this theme, Lesser went on to talk about Slow Food's Ark of Taste, which is essentially an endangered species list for foods. Importantly, only tasty foods are allowed entry onto the Ark -- Slow Food, like enviros, has a weakness for charismatic species.

What struck me about Lesser's talk were the fascinating ways in which Slow Food has borrowed from the successes of the environmental movement, and also recognized and tried to avoid environmentalism's failures. Lesser talked about Americans' Puritanical tendencies, and how Slow Food is not about denial but about pleasure. This was an explicit nod to the part of environmentalism's history that based itself in self-denial (bike don't drive, save don't shop, eat vegetables not meat), and how Slow Food rejects this type of denial, opting instead for a full-on embrace of the sensual and pleasurable.

Yet Slow Food's brilliance comes from its embrace of what does work in environmentalism. The genius involved in creating an Endangered Species List of foods is one example. Interdisciplinary connection-making is another. Lesser gave an example of this when she spoke about Slow Food USA's partnership with a small group of poultry breeders in Pittsboro, N.C.: American Livestock Breeds Conservancy. This group works to preserve heritage breeds of domesticated poultry, and has been around since 1977. According to Lesser, the Conservancy had remained a somewhat marginal organization until their partnership with Slow Food catalyzed a new type of market connection for them -- a connection focused on history, small farming, and taste.

Another fascinating part of Lesser's talk was her introduction of a specific movement vocabulary. "It's always about story-telling in Slow Food," she said, and this was evident in her presentation. Slow Food has specifically cultivated a "creation myth" that tells an inspirational founding story. (We have Rachel Carson, Slow Food has Carlos Petrini.) It crafts a specific language for its members, calling chapter groups "convivia," and its activist food protection projects "presidia," from the Latin word for "fort."

Essentially, Slow Food crafts a culture around its movement. It not only has its own values, but it creates new words to embody these values, giving movement members a cultural vocabulary. A key difference between Slow Food and general environmental activist groups seems to be the focus on crafting a rich sense of history, culture, and pleasure around the movement. Since a particular interest of mine (and others, I imagine) is imagining and crafting ways to make eco-consciousness more palatable and relevant to a wider audience, this might be something worth pondering further.

Finally, here's a shout-out to the talk's sponsor: Yale's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.This Center is home to Kelly Brownell, a professor whose fascinating work focuses on obesity and the psychology of food. (I was first introduced to Brownell's work in a story I heard on NPR a while back.) He and Lesser have both done work with Marion Nestle, an NYU professor who's written a few important books about food.

For story: Slow Food nation
26 Comments | Post a Comment

Expanding the idea of pleasure

Nice reporting, Stephanie. Slow Food is a very positive movement. I do want to take exception to a common meme that you are inadvertently propagating:

...environmentalism's history that based itself in self-denial (bike don't drive, save don't shop, eat vegetables not meat), and how Slow Food rejects this type of denial, opting instead for a full-on embrace of the sensual and pleasurable.

Wa-wa-wait a minute! Let's look at this charge more closely.

Bicycling is self-denial? This is news to me and the billions of others who have experienced the pleasure of feeling wind in one's face, of body parts tingling with a sense of well-being, of delicious relaxation the evening after a long bike trip.

To me, car travel is torture, no matter what the auto ads say. You're either bored or stressed out.

If you're used to exercise, the forced inactivity is maddening. Long-term, one becomes fat and unattractive from lack of exercise. Not my idea of a sensuous experience.

Shopping - well, there is the momentary thrill at the point of sale, I'll grant that, but what about the rest of the picture? Driving through traffic to a noisy, crowded store with rude clerks. If you've bought electronic equipment, you have to set up the d*mn thing, read the badly written instruction manuals and fix the inevitable problems. Plus, if you're like most us, you already have too much crap as it is.

At the end of the month, there is the sickening feeling when the VISA statement comes, perhaps another boring money argument with the spouse. Then there is the chronic apprehension about being in debt, being enslaved to a stupid job, having little free time.

I find the traditional view of possessions much more to my liking: having a few things of high quality. Being out of debt and free from worry. To me, this is true sensuality.

Finally, vegetables not meat... No need to go into detail, since I'm sure you know the problems already with the typical American diet, heavy with fat and meat. Slow Food and other culinary movements have rightly brought vegetables out to center stage, showing that they are stars in their own right. It's true that small portions of meat, thoughtfully prepared, are a sensuous experience. But meat is not necessary, and we live in an environment in which the main problem is too much meat, not too little.

Slow Food has the right idea of educating our tastes, so that we appreciate good food and want to protect it. But why not extend the idea to other spheres of activity?

Thoughtful and active enjoyment.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

by Bart Anderson at 1:47 PM on 05 Apr 2007

Slow Food is great

Right idea, right time. They have to keep broadening the appeal to all kinds of people: Slow Food to date has had an air of the elite here in the US, not for any good reason other than it's people with discriminating tastes that largely got the ball rolling. But all of us can appreciate the best, the most local, the odd, the regional, the special. Slow Food is part of the puzzle that can bring society back from the brink.

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

by Erik Hoffner at 4:59 PM on 05 Apr 2007

Puritanical leanings

Bart,

I kind of agree with you on all fronts. Biking is great, cars are only good if NPR is on and interesting or you have a super-long way to go or it is freezing cold and raining, I can't stand the mall or spending money in general, and I am a proud vegetarian.

But the point that both Lesser and I were trying to make is that, historically, environmentalism does have these puritanical tendencies of denial and a certain holier-than-thou attitude. It too often tends toward the ascetic as opposed to the pleasurable--that is, the reason people are exhorted to ride bikes is because cars are bad, not because bikes are fun. Shopping is linked to rampant, profligate consumerism (bad), not to the pleasure of buying a few, quality goods and finding joy in their craftmanship and way in which they enhance our lives. The reason we must eat vegetables is because meat is bad (for animals and ecosystems) and vegetables are good, not because lightly-steamed local winter greens with toasted sesame seeds are an amazing February treat.

So in your response I think you are trying to follow the lines of Lesser's (and Slow Food's) argument, which is great, but the original point made was that traditionally these are not the argumentative or persuasive lines that ecological arguments have typically followed. Which is why I praised Slow Food's adoption of a culture of pleasure as opposed to a culture of denial. It seems promising to me, and fun.

Oh, and a side note: the Slow Foodies are definitely not veggies. They're pretty big on heritage meats--you have to eat it to save it, so the saying goes.

Stephanie www.stephaniepaigeogburn.com

by Stephanie Paige Ogburn at 12:34 AM on 06 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

"Wa-wa-wait"!

My good friend Bart, to whom I know I can always turn for sound linguistic advice, has led us all in a new way of forming a verb! Provisionally, grammarians are referring to this as the shockative. (Cf.: Ea-ea-eat!; Mo-mo-move!; Dri-dri-drive!)

Stephanie weakly responds (and Erik, to my surprise, more morally weakly agrees):
<<
these are not the argumentative or persuasive lines that ecological arguments have typically followed. Which is why I praised Slow Food's adoption of a culture of pleasure as opposed to a culture of denial. It seems promising to me, and fun.
>>

This is a totally false choice, both as presented in this passage, and as presented throughout.

"Culture of denial" is a term that is unacceptable. Totally so. If environmentalists refuse to choose certain menu options, whether we are talking about food options or anything else, it is not because they in principle disapprove of pleasure and approve of self-affliction. And to suggest that, is totally wrong and unfair.

What we all ought to be cultivating is a culture of thoughtfulness. And that means, so far as eating is involved, understanding where our food comes from. And, what the procurement of that food has cost, to all living creatures involved.

There is nothing at all puritanical about that.

Can the Slow Food people rise to that moral level? Possibly, though I have not seen good evidence of it.

But insofar as they, and you, Stephanie, appeal to hedonism, i.e. that pleasure is all that matters, you all fail. And you render yourselves quite uninteresting.

Stephanie has not had enough; she goes on:
<<
Oh, and a side note: the Slow Foodies are definitely not veggies. They're pretty big on heritage meats--you have to eat it to save it, so the saying goes.
>>

As you hold that knife at the throat of that pig or that chicken, you might do well to remember another saying, from a better book, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:23 AM on 06 Apr 2007

Psychology of Social Change

So, "fun" may be a simplistic way of putting it. But I maintain the distinction between a culture of denial and a culture of, put more broadly, participation.

Slow Food is about coming together. This is generally over a good meal, but it can also be in a common cause (their Terra Madre event) or in a larger-scale celebration of good food (their future Slow Food Nation event in San Francisco in 2008). From what Lesser said, the movement seems to be about positive reinforcement and inclusivity and coming together. This is importantly different from what I see as the individualistic, isolationist, and puritanical tendencies of the eco-culture of denial.

Lets think about how social change happens. There are always a few true believers, but then the movement must widen and deepen to both include more and attain more far-reaching goals. One good way of doing this is to create a culture of inclusivity that brings people in around pleasure and gets them engaged and talking. Slow Food does this. Eco-denial does not.

Think about it: When is the last time not doing things brought people together? Not going shopping does not include others in a new culture of less consumption. Not driving a car is also often an isolationist, not a collaborative act. (With the exception of monthly Critical Masses, which are great, of course). While I generally think that people should buy less and drive less, simply telling them to do this does not engage them. And social change is partly about engaging people in alternative visions. So, based on what I know of it, I see Slow Food as a positive and practical endeavor because it offers a highly sociable alternative, crafting a culture of enjoyment that can be the gateway to bigger conversations about things like overconsumption and car culture. I like to think of environmentalists as teachers, but it seems as though they often see themselves as priests. Good teachers produce results by positive reinforcement. (Any good psychologist will tell you that.) Priests have some true believers who follow the commandments but a lot of people who are constantly falling off the bandwagon. See the difference?

Stephanie www.stephaniepaigeogburn.com

by Stephanie Paige Ogburn at 9:14 AM on 06 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

"Fun" yes, but that's only part of life

Some good comments from Stephanie and CC. I'll write more later, but there a couple of points I'd like to make now.

Yes, SlowFood is a good idea, but it can lapse into superficial feel-goodism, unless there is a backbone of principle. Some things should be done, even though they may not be fun. The various struggles of the last century, for civil rights, labor rights, feminism, etc. were not "fun", though they could be very satisfying and meaningful. And along the way, there could be many fun activities.

I really don't see eco-denial as the great problem that Stephanie does. I think it is a meme that is used by business and consumerist interests, that we would be wise to investigate before propagating further.

There are plenty of opportunities to get together for people who want to be thoughful about their activities. There is a whole sub-culture built around "Voluntary Simplicty" -- Simplicity circles, for example (support groups for people who want to break out of consumerism).

There are also churches & religious groups, some of which provide a bulwark against consumerist society.

Rather than use the label "eco-denialism," I think I'd use the term "heavy handed moralism" - dogmatism, preaching, self-righteousness. It's pretty common in our society, not restricted to environmentalism at all. This is the big problem.

But there are many ways to live out one's principles. Looking at history shows us that there are productive ways and non-productive ways (e.g. burning people at the stake).

Wow, this got longer than I meant. I want to expand on some other ideas that Stephanie and CC raised, but that will have to wait.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

by Bart Anderson at 12:56 PM on 06 Apr 2007

Perspective

Wa-wa-wait a minute! Let's look at this charge more closely.

You make good points, Bart, but you're looking at it from your own point of view, rather than that of the average citizen. To the average citizen -- the person who needs Slow Food the most -- driving, spending, and carnivory[1] are rights, granted to us for being part of the Greatest Nation On Earth(tm). Since these are our fundamental rights, we're dead-set against anybody telling us that things can be different.

Example? Why sure! I work with people deep in credit card debt all the time. A line I hear over and over from husbands is that they can't keep their debts under controls, but they're only spending to give their families "the best life possible." Which, apparently, involves harrassing calls from creditors and enough interest payments to buy a trip for two to Hawaii every year[2]. It's not logical, but it feels good right now, so we do it.

[1] Did I just invent a word?
[2] That was me, not that long ago. At least the interest part was. Looking back, it's ridiculous. At the time, I did not care.

Taking accounting to the extreme since 2004.

by akbeancounter at 1:40 PM on 06 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

and she'll have fun fun fun ...

Our excellent Stephanie writes:
<<
Slow Food is about coming together. ... This is importantly different from what I see as the individualistic, isolationist, and puritanical tendencies of the eco-culture of denial.
>>

Of course, coming together is wonderful. Essential, even. And yes, fun is part of life, and we absolutely must have it.

What I am saying is, I do not believe that the "eco-culture of denial" exists, really. At least, I have never observed it. Oh sure, there are extremely boring vegan missionaries, among whom perhaps Jason Scorse should be counted. But even JS would insist that the food he eats gives him pleasure.

One of the least attractive tales told about Saint Francis of Assisi, great teacher of the incarnationalist aspect of Christology, and therefore a deservedly well loved patron of environmentalists, is that he would pour water on his food, to render it unpleasant. I cannot understand that at all.

And I do not know any environmentalists who behave like that, or think like that.

On "not doing things," and whether that brings people together: One could argue that Judaism is a world religion based to a large extent on "not doing" certain things. A whole lot of things, actually. Yes, the discipline is pretty severe. But it obviously has worked, for many centuries.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 3:36 PM on 06 Apr 2007

dietary restrictions

I am going to make another associative leap: this is exactly what Kosher/Halal/Sakahara/Buddhist Vegetarians are all about.

Ethical treatment of animals, even when you kill them.
Restraint in consumption and control over ones appetites.
Creation of a culture and a community through dietary restrictions.

So many folk say Kosher and Halal etc. are obsolete now that we know how to cure trichonosis or have otherwise rationalized away our need for religion.

They often don't get that religious dietary restrictions are about more than trichonosis. They give you moral precepts with which to govern essential relationships: with your own appetites, food producers, food products, and the community you eat with.

by Mmimika at 4:32 PM on 06 Apr 2007

who are you talking about?

I think the idea that environmentalists are into 'self-denial' lives only in the mind of those who refuse to give up their rampant consumerism, who believe that if they cannot live beyond their means (and that of the Earth) then they are being unfairly deprived. Anyone who suggests that they behave differently is some kind of self-righteous preacher, probably a hypocrite, since in their minds, no one could really want to live any other way than the 'American Way' (ie, gluttony). Stephanie talks about:

...the individualistic, isolationist, and puritanical tendencies of the eco-culture of denial.

Individualistic? I thought that was the American way, not the enviro-creep way... how does respecting the Earth make you an individual? Maybe just being different from the 'norm'?

Isolationist? Don't get that either, unless you think all enviros are hermits who hate the human race (another misbelief common among those who hate the idea of preserving the Earth at the expense of luxury).

Puritanical? Man, I know lot's of folks who are green to the skin and in no way Puritanical- I mean, sure our culture had its early roots in Puritanism, but except for our obsession with sex and anything else 'forbidden', only the far-right can claim that.

I really don't know who you've been talking to- these are all misconceptions about enviro's used to discredit our cause in the eyes of the typical consumer.

a liberal in redsville

by birdboy at 4:47 PM on 06 Apr 2007

Hmm

...[T]he mind of those who refuse to give up their rampant consumerism, who believe that if they cannot live beyond their means (and that of the Earth) then they are being unfairly deprived.

Does this comment not seem to you to be kind of, I don't know, the kind of judgmental and perhaps divisive thing I was talking about in my post? But, to move on, I think in some ways we are talking past each other. There is much connectivity and inclusiveness to be found in aspects of environmentalism, but it is also seen as having many of the negative aspects I mentioned above. I may have had a different environmental experience than some of you, but I have certainly seen these tendencies in the movement, and also seen it try to address and move past many of them, which I think is good. A common example might be the wholesale blaming of "evil corporations" and "stupid American consumers," neither of which I think actually exist if one actually takes it down to the human level and talks to the heads of those corporations or interacts with those Wal-Mart shoppers (I mean, my Mom is a Wal-Mart shopper).

So I saw Slow Food as trying to incorporate the good and leave out the bad. The brightest point of the Slow Food presentation, I was trying to say, is its "Big Tent" environmentalism. So that, once a person has been brought inside the tent on the basis of pleasure and taste, it is much easier to talk to that person about curbing consumption and the ethical treatment of animals, because once you have a common human connection with them, they can't categorize you as someone extreme or puritanical, you can't categorize them as stupid or evil, and the dialogue has begun.

Stephanie www.stephaniepaigeogburn.com

by Stephanie Paige Ogburn at 5:14 PM on 06 Apr 2007

PS

My extremely awkware wordiness must be due to exhaustion. I apologize and wish one could edit comments.

Stephanie www.stephaniepaigeogburn.com

by Stephanie Paige Ogburn at 5:15 PM on 06 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

Awkward! Awkward!

Boo. Signing off for the night. Sleep is important and, I understand, highly recommended, so now I shall go get some.

Stephanie www.stephaniepaigeogburn.com

by Stephanie Paige Ogburn at 5:18 PM on 06 Apr 2007

No Exit

I wanted to talk about the other side, about how I agree with Stephanie.

From Stephanie's later comments, I suspect she is talking more about the heavy-handed moralism that she's found among some environmentalists. With her post, she wanted to share her excitement at finding a different approach to social change.

Does this sound right, Stephanie?

I agree with all this, and in fact I'd like to see the Slow Food idea extended to other areas. For example, Hans Noeldner proposed half-facetiously a Slow Movement Movement (also here):

a movement whose purpose is to champion moving slowly as opposed to moving rapidly via energy-gobbling, planet-dominating, climate-altering machines. Slow movement like walking. Bicycling. Strolling. Meandering. Sauntering. Wending. Skipping. Striding.

What some of us objected to is Stephanie's characterization of environmentalists as Puritanical. As I argued before, I think that's a false issue.

I think the real issue is dogmatism, preaching and self-righteousness, and here all of us must nod our heads in agreement with her. But it is not just environmentalists who are prone to moralism. It's endemic in our culture... the large part of the population who is fundamentalist, for example.

Personally, it drives me crazy! I've encountered in mostly in the left, but also among feminist, anti-racism, and other movements. I've read a great deal about the earlier socialist and communist movements, and it was exceedingly thick there too. That's where the term "Political Correct" came from, and it wasn't a joke.

But what can you do? This sort of thing just comes with the territory of social change. One learns to avoid certain groups, and stick with ones that one likes.

One learns techniques to cope with self-righteous people -- for example, finding common ground and not reacting to being baited.

SlowFood is a great idea, but one can never escape from conflict and difficult people.

I've found much wisdom in religion and philosophy. Here's a quote from the Buddha that might be apropros:

Someone who is about to admonish another must realize within himself five qualities before doing so [that he may be able to say], thus:
In due season will I speak, not out of season.
In truth will I speak, not in falsehood.
Gently will I speak, not harshly.
To his profit will I speak, not to his loss.
With kindly intent will I speak, not in anger.
(Vinaya Pitaka)

Bart
Energy Bulletin

by Bart Anderson at 1:02 AM on 07 Apr 2007

"Sauntering. Wending. Skipping."

I entirely agree with you, Bart.

And I more or less agree with the Buddha, bless his soul. But, provided that one maintains due regard for truth, timeliness, and the good of the person to whom one is speaking, with a sincere preference for gentleness and a dislike of harshness, I think there may very well be circumstances in which indignation is both respectful and charitable.

But it is very difficult to know what those circumstances are. Hence, better to say less than to say more. And no doubt having things like this in mind, one of the Desert Fathers asserts that discretion (or discernment: the same word really, with different connotations) is the mother of the virtues.

Anyway, yes, the stern, exclusivist, unfriendly, quite uncharitable insistence on ideological purity is a cruel tyrant. And if that is all that Stephanie meant, then I agree with her after all, in spite of her often troublesome words.

I am sure there was another Gristmill occasion when I wrote out this classic meta-joke:

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: That's not funny!

I agree too with Birdboy, however. And it should be observed that the Gristmill community generally maintains a sense of tolerance, respect, hospitality and sociability, even amidst disagreement. We all should be grateful, and count it among Gristmill's strengths, that there are very few communications of this sort: "If you were a true environmentalist, you would be doing such-and-such, and saying such-and-such; but as it is, you are plainly a disgraceful hypocrite."

Now, so far as what Mimi was saying about kashrut, the Jewish code of dietary laws (the other traditions I am unfamiliar with): she is absolutely right, it was never about defending against trichanosis, it was always about creating community.

Ages ago, returning to PA in my rental car from a motor trip in the Rocky Mountains states, I passed through SD, and went to see Mount Rushmore. The parking lot was crowded that day; but I found a spot next to a van with a CA plate, filled with a gang of scruffy young men and women. They were going in and out of the side door of the van, doing this and that, but also discussing kashrut, and the fear-of-trichanosis theory, and how practical that was, and how much preferable it was to the stark religious it-is-God's-will theory. So, I reasoned, they were young, intelligent, very well-educated, very scruffy and scroungy Jews, plus pals, from Berkeley maybe, or even Stanford, doing some sight-seeing in the course of their summer vacation.

As I got out of my car, one of those kids said to me, "You are brave. Many people have driven past this spot, afraid to park here next to us." I said, "Here you are, talking about God's law! I feel I am in the safest parking spot in all America."

I did not tell him, though, that I thought they were wrong about kashrut. The Greeks and Romans, after all, contemporaries of the ancient Jews, were very clever people, and they ate lots of pork. If there were a health issue with the meat, they would have picked up on it, and avoided it as strictly as the Jews decided to do.

Remember that one of the heroes of the Odyssey is Eumaeus, the swineherd.

No, clearly, the point of rejecting pigs and all sorts of other animals as "unclean" had nothing to do with public health. But it had everything to do with creating a community.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 3:29 AM on 07 Apr 2007

Sensible

Bart,
What you say makes sense to me. Puritanical made sense to me too, probably because I'm coming out of two traditions: One is the Southern Baptist tradition, and I see a lot of parallels between that and environmentalism. But it seems logical to draw the even broader conclusion that this phenomenon is more widespread "heavy-handed moralism," as you say.

The second reason the Puritan comparison made sense to me is that I'm coming out of an academic tradition, and in my recollection of the literature I've read, many academics have traced Western environmentalism's roots (and, interestingly, successful capitalism's roots as well) back to a sort of weird combination of Puritanical moralism and Romantic wilderness adoration, where the wild takes the place of God.

But if the objections were mostly semantic (and perhaps they were) I would have to say that your characterization of my argument is solid. Lesser specifically mentioned the Puritans, which is what got me thinking about all this in the first place! But a more general characterization, such as the one you submit of moralism, also seems to be a reasonable comparison.

I shall add that I am, as canis, continually impressed at the level of dialogue, respect, and general thought happening here at Grist.org. It was, in part, a reason why I recently assigned some of my students to re-evaluate Putnam's Bowling Alone (the idea that Americans are much less civically engaged nowadays) with an eye toward the blogosphere and the Internet.

Stephanie www.stephaniepaigeogburn.com

by Stephanie Paige Ogburn at 6:34 AM on 07 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

the slow movement movement...

...reminds me of the flaneur, first citizen of modernity, dilettante dandy extraordinaire, with no where to go except here, nowhere to be except now, daintily leading? following? a lobster on a leash around Paris for a stroll, as though time weren't money and life weren't, in fact, nasty, brutal and short.

The Slow Movementarian and the Flaneur probably look the same on the outside, but one has a moral purpose and one does not. Because of that distinction, I do not think that the slow movement movement, or the slow food movement, could be intrinsically un-dogmatic. I've never met an moral lifestyle that you couldn't use as a whip, either for yourself or for your neighbor. Indeed, speaking of Puritans, weren't blue laws first created to preserve Sunday as a day of rest?

The potential for dogmatism, heresy, or orthodoxy is not a fatal flaw, it is the ever-present danger of communities with a shared moral aesthetic - and having a shared moral aesthetic is a very good thing!

The only way to permanently avoid dogma, be it socialist, neo-con, or somehow related to the velocity of your food, is to embrace total commodification and abandon all sense of morality, environmental or otherwise. And - maybe its just me, but thats the movement that I'm trying to avoid.

by Mmimika at 10:53 AM on 07 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

Save the Lobsters!

A new chapter in the history of Samoan poetry now needs to be written. Everybody caught the Hobbes reference, I hope? And all those loan-words? Wow!

If there was a whiff of homophobia, well, let us let that pass. The classic flaneurs are in fact mostly straight youngish men, or straight men of a certain age who fancy themselves as young, more slouchy and studiously self-neglected, fashionably so, than dandified and dainty, and just the sort who would abuse a poor defenseless lobster on the Boul Mich.

Dogmatism, heresy and orthodoxy usually do not get mentioned all in the same breath. They certainly are not synonymous. Both the orthodox and the heretics can be dogmatic. And, while both orthodox and heretics typically adhere to dogmas with respect to creed, they can also be accepting of the presence of people who do not believe as they do. Belief, and commitment to one's belief, by no means imply exclusivism, necessarily, even if history gives us plenty of examples of how they have sadly gone together.

"Shared moral aesthetic" is a lovely expression -- and yes, it is a very good thing -- but it suggests precisely what dogmatism and orthodoxy are not, if in fact those are understood to be exclusivist and discriminatory. "Shared" is most meaningful, in that expression, implying mutual respect and tolerance.

"Jesus is not tolerant!," they like to say, at the evangelical Vatican in Colorado Springs. Well, it is very controversial, just what is meant by that. Inasmuch as Jesus is depicted as not tolerant in the Gospels, his intolerance is directed at the religious goody-goodies who prance around saying, "We cannot tolerate this!" The intolerance of Jesus is an intolerance of intolerance. On the other hand, he is very sweet and accepting of the socially ostracized "sinners."

Those of us who embrace the idea of a pluralist, tolerant, carefully and respectfully negotiated society, as a creation of positive moral value, and (for those of us who are Christian) fully in accord with Gospel values, strongly dislike the suggestion that our pluralism and our tolerance amount to an "abandonment of all sense of morality," morally equivalent with a general effort to "commodify."

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 12:41 PM on 07 Apr 2007

Puritanism, the left, etc.

My take on Slow Food USA is that despite a lot of high talk, the way I've seen it operate is mainly as a high-end tasting club. That's ok, but not particularly interesting.

But I've very much liked the tone of this discussion. I'd like to point everyone to a terrific article on the founding of Slow Food that appeared in the summer, 2003 issue of Gastronomica (unavailable on the Web, but easily found in a good library): "Postrevolutionary Chowhounds: Food, Globalization, and the Italian Left," by Fabio Parasecoli.

Stephanie, I think you'd really appreciate it. Slow Food grew out of the Italian Communist Party and was a self-concious rejection of the Old Left's dourness, its tendency to view pleasure with suspicion, as a bourgeois indulgence. No, said Slow Food's founders: Pleasure is a right, not a privilege.

And that is a revolutionary politics that I can support.

Also, you guys might be interested in a little piece I did a while back on food, pleasure, and the left.

Victual Reality

by Tom Philpott at 2:54 PM on 07 Apr 2007

Thanks, Tom

Thanks for the tip, Tom.

What you say falls in line with what I know. As I mentioned before, two of my colleagues are doing fascinating research on Slow Food in the Basque country of Spain. And based on their preliminary findings, the movement's focus on taste has been problematic because it is elitist and also rather alienating and dogmatic--that is, growers are told what to grow because certain things are Slow Food approved, therefore "taste" dictates what is grown, to an almost ridiculous extent. (this is probably a huge bastardization of the research, but is the general gist). This, obviously, is problematic and can also be incredibly elitist.

However, I heard a different tone in Lesser's talk, one that seemed more inclusive and democratic. This is what I found interesting, and why I wrote about it. My impression of Slow Food had been less favorable before hearing her speak. And though I'll still reserve judgement, if Slow Food is taking root on college campuses (and not just Yale), and in small towns across America--then this would be a trend deserving of exploration.

Stephanie www.stephaniepaigeogburn.com

by Stephanie Paige Ogburn at 4:29 PM on 07 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

its about self-restraint, not self-denial

Food, like growth, should always be slow.

There's no pleasure found
in wolfing down
a greasy snack and rushing back
to work;

But savoring the taste of Nature,
it's color, flavor and smell,
puts you back in touch with Life

and feeds the spirit well.

a liberal in redsville

by birdboy at 6:41 PM on 07 Apr 2007

I deeply apologize for that bad smell.

EEK, I was too clever by half.

I meant Baudelaire's flaneur as a figure of god-is-dead modernity: shallowness incarnate, indifference to the point of solipsism.

I didn't think of 'the flaneur' as queer in this example. But I can totally see how that reading can be made, and how, by pitting a figure coded gay against the figure of established religion, I left myself open to be misinterpreted as an insult by my allies, and as encouragement by homophobes. I hope you can forgive - it was a mistake, and that reading is not representative of my politics, or my personal beliefs.

Theres a common confusion - very common where I live, of homosexuality and modernity. People conflate the two and think that if they ban gay marriage, they won't have to deal with modernity.

I strongly sympathize with the fear of modernity, and that makes me in some ways traditional. But I've never confused modernity with being gay. I do not endorse homophobia, its smell, or other attributes.

by Mmimika at 7:04 PM on 07 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

"the taste of nature"

Birdboy, your poem is not a masterpiece, but it is fine nevertheless, and I think highly of it.

Mimi, let us think nothing of it. It was never a "bad smell," it was just a questionable "whiff." Anyway, none of us can have any doubt of your impeccably excellent intentions.

Well, Baudelaire probably works better up here in NYC than he does in Atlanta, GA, to say nothing of New Haven, CN. God bless you all. Still less predictable, what is happening in NOLA these days.

On "common confusion": The very common confusion includes the failure, for example, to recognize that out of any random forty mixed men and women, one man and one woman are homosexual. I.e., that is based on the conservative figure of 5% of all men as being gay, one out of twenty; probably a more flexibly large figure of women as being lesbian.

Birdboy, this is very good:
<<
There is no pleasure found /
in wolfing down /
a greasy snack, and rushing back /
to work.
>>

Your "feeding the spirit well" deserves a much finer interpretation than all the economists of East Coast and of West can provide.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 5:55 AM on 09 Apr 2007

Denial vs. Thoughtfulness

As a Rudd Center employee who was at Erika Lesser's talk, I found the reaction to Stephanie's post illuminating. In the obesity sphere, much of the discussion about how to change the way people eat ends up in a heated debate over "denying" people their right to eat what they want.

If we could capture the positive tone that Stephanie is referring to, perhaps we would not have to hear people refer to "food police" when concerned members of society try to address the many problems in the current system.

Anyhow, thanks for the post. I thought that Grist members might also find the Rudd Center Blog an interesting place to join this discussion.

Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity www.ruddsoundbites.com

by Michael97 at 12:15 PM on 18 Apr 2007

Slow Food myths

Tom, you need to learn a little more about Slow Food if you think that it's just a high-end tasting club.

There may be a few elitists among us, but I couldn't tell you who they are. They hide it pretty well.

Here in our convivium to the east of you, almost all of our efforts have been toward supporting local farms and food artisans. We are very concerned about environmental issues. Can't food be both ethical AND fun?

by LaurieO at 12:40 PM on 03 May 2007

Its about good work for a good reward....

The whole point of the Slow Food movement is that life itself should be your reward. The work should be rewarding and the rest should be rewarding.

Picking strawberries for 2 hours after feeding the hens, turning the compost, collecting and washing the greens and weeding is a reward. Picking strawberries 10 hours a day, day after day is a punishment. Guess which strawberries are likely to be grown in nutrient rich soil?

A slow foodist knows that the last warped strawberries of the fall are incredibly sweet and flavorful. The rest of you never eat those strawberries because they are small and ugly. Too bad.

I also know that Ashmeads kernel apples while ugly little russets are incredibly fragrant. I know that a single quince placed in your kitchen will shock you with it's incredible fragrance when you come into the house from your next trip out.

It takes time to learn these things. Time that must be spent away from the slave-wagery that we call "work." It's also healthier for the mind, body and spirit. More time in the garden is less time in the shrinks office. We like long vacations and 35 hour work weeks.

A slow foodist may be more willing to live in a cob house than somebody who wants straight walls, white carpets and an easy flip in four years.

A slow foody is also much more likely to know what to do when the powers out, there's a tree on your roof and your chainsaw won't start.

What slow food is NOT is those nasty tasteless vegetarian meals you've been proudly served. You know the ones that tasted like wet cardboard without salt. If we're going to cook food it's going to taste good even if it's only brown rice.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 2:32 PM on 03 May 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.