The problem with "The Moral Crusade Against Foodies"

What a great conversation in the comments!  I finally had a chance to read the piece and agree with  many of your comments.  My biggest issue, aside from the fact that it was poorly written, is that it was a missed opportunity.

I remember first hearing the word "foodie" over 20 years ago back when it really was more closely tied to the notion of a "gourmet and/or gourmand".  Over the years, though, it has taken on a much broader definition.  Ironically, Myers includes in this review the book, Foodies: Democracy and Distinction in the Gourmet Foodscape wherein the authors introduce their sociological work by declaring that they are not foodies and then listing their food life which, to me, is the classic definition of a foodie!  You can read it on the "look inside" option on Amazon.com.

The real issue here, however, is that it is wrong to slam all foodies by reviewing only those who are lucky or talented enough to get a book deal.  Myers takes a very narrow slice of the pie and yields the expected result--a rarefied, fairly elitist, and often extreme snapshot of a very open and broad demographic.  And of course, it is easy then to make a case against such a group. 

The helpful thing about this piece is how it once again raises the issues of class and access in our food system.  Those of us who relish the treat of an exceptionally fine meal or luxuriate over elaborately prepared meals at our own hand, feel the discomfort of that pleasure in the wake of great hunger and malnutrition in our own neighborhoods and cities.  And because food is such a necessity, it feels really different from the inequities we may experience over quality and quantity of clothing, for example.

Myers' piece did not touch on those foodies who wrestle with eating organically on a budget--and to be fair, those folks don't often get the glossy book deals.  But I'd argue that someone like Mable Wilson--one of the heroines of Syracuse's food activism community--is as much a foodie as Anthony Bourdain. 

In the comments Anisa makes a point about the lack of a middle ground in these issues.  The middle ground isn't as exciting to write about but the fact is, the middle is where most of us live.  From what little I know of Myers, he strikes me as an egalitarian--he is on the side of the "common man" the plebe.  But it is hard to hear this amidst the ranting.

Finally, I need to comment on Myers' critique of the spiritualism of foodieism.  As an Episcopal priest I want people to see the sacred in food.  I believe one of the problems with our food system and food culture is that on the whole, we don't value enough the sacredness of the land that produces our food, the people who grow it, or the animals that give their life for our own.  Now, regylar readers of this blog are "in the choir" on this one but in general, we would be having a very different conversation if we understood food to be the divine gift it is.  And doing so doesn't require a particular faith tradition--or any, really--just the recognition that none of us can make food "happen" on our own.

I get where Myers is trying to go with the sin of gluttony but this point loses its power unless we can talk about the ways in which we make food a "god" by placing it in "wrong relationship" with everything else or worse, consider humanity to be god-like in its ability to control the production and access of food.  Myers doesn't claim to be a theologian so I'll give him a pass on that.  But any movement toward the ritualization of meals, the hallowing and gratitude for food and its producers, the enjoyment of that which sustains us, and the working toward more access for those who have not--is a good thing. 

Comments

[Cindy]

Well said!