Mediated Identities: Asian Americans, Popular Culture and the Mainstream Audience

 

Tablo reader up chevron

Table of Contents

 

1.  An Introduction to the Major Themes in Our “Book”

2. “Black Belt” - Black and Asian American Conflict and Collaboration on the Silver Screen (Elise Tran)

3.  “Kung-fu Kenny” - Asian Americans and the Hip-Hop Scene (Dounia Sawaya)

4.  “Fusing Authenticity” - Asian American Chefs in the Popular Food Scene (Charlotte Benz)

5. Charlotte Benz's Works Cited & Image Credits

 
Comment Log in or Join Tablo to comment on this chapter...

An Introduction to the Major Themes in Our “Book”

Authenticity

The term authenticity can be understood in the following chapters as, an “arbitrary, subjective notion of what is real or genuine”  (Ono and Pham, 2009; 188). This ideal is value ladened, complex, and not typically self-determined by the subject under evaluation but rather by an etic/outsider perspective.

 

Appropriation  

Appropriation occurs when the members of one culture use the “ symbols, artifacts, genres, rituals, or technologies” of another culture. Using Rogers, in his analysis of “(re)conceptualizing cultural appropriation” specifically, appropriating can be sectioned off into 4 categories: Exchange, Dominance, Exploitation, and Transculturation. These 4 categories asses cultural appropriation through the lense of dominant versus subordinate cultures and hybrids between such cultures, that makes for transculturation which essentially suggests that cultures can stem from appropriation. Additionally, stating appropriation depends on the ETIC or outsider perspective; the group that judges whether something is appropriative relies on a subjective opinion, not on an objective standard. (Rogers, 2011)

 

The Forever/Perpetual Foreigner Myth:

The Forever Foreigner Myth “...posits that members of ethnic minorities will always be seen as the ‘other’ in the White (Anglo) dominant society of the United States.” Asian Americans have been heavily subjected to the Forever Foreigner Myth since the 19th century and have been accused of being unwilling to assimilate. The Forever Foreigner Myth complicates the narrative that Asian Americans have succeeded in American society to the extent that they are “honorary whites.”    

 

Liminality

According to Victor Turner, “liminal entities are neither here nor there; they are betwixt and between the positions assigned and arrayed by law, custom, convention, and ceremonial” (Turner, 1969). Asian Americans find themselves in positions of liminality as a result of Racial Triangulation as a result of contested notions of these individuals as foreign, ethnic bodies as well as honorary whites. Such circumstances can be both empowering and disempowering as evidenced in the following chapters.

 

Oriental Obscene

As America was met with the end of the Vietnam War, the American media utilized Asian figures to create racial “phantasmatics,” portraying these figures as either victims or perpetrators of heinous violence. For Chong, this depiction is the “oriental obscene,” where American media, to cope with the post-war trauma of loss and suffering, used the “imagined oriental body” to hold up the American identity, thus upholding whiteness. The post-war timeline is poignant to the creation of the “oriental obscene,” as Asian-American visibility was becoming more prevalent in the late 1960s and Asian Americans were becoming acknowledged as a feature of American society, rather than completely excluded from it. (Chong, 2011)

 

Racial Triangulation

Through the interplay of the Forever Foreigner and Model Minority myths, Asian Americans inhabit a triangulated position between Blacks and Whites in which they are seen as superior to Blacks yet inferior to Whites, while also more foreign than both groups. The liminality inhabited by Asian Americans as successful yet othered plays a key role in how Asian Americans have been able to succeed in the food industry, and has facilitated the mutual appropriation between Blacks and Asian Americans in the hip-hop and film industry.



 

 

Works Cited:


Kim, Claire J.. "The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans." Politics & Society, vol. 27,

no. 1, 1999, pp. 105-138.

Lai, Paul. "The Oriental Obscene: Violence and Racial Fantasies in the Vietnam Era." Journal of

Asian American Studies, vol. 16, no. 3, 2013, pp. 333.

Ono, Kent A., and Vincent N. Pham. Asian Americans and the Media. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2009. Print.

Turner, Victor. “Liminality and Communitas,” in The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1960), pp. 94-133, 125-30.

 
Comment Log in or Join Tablo to comment on this chapter...

“Fusing Authenticity” - Asian American Chefs in the Popular Food Scene

The liminality of Asian American identity formation, is the joint result of racial triangulation and the forever foreigner myth. The combination of these two social phenomena has forced Asian Americans to straddle the line and (in many cases) choose between occupying a public ‘ethnic’ identity or existing in society as an honorary white (a result of the Model Minority Myth). While this polarizing dynamic of identity formation has marginalized and exempted Asian Americans as belonging to either social grouping, this same ambiguous structuring of identity has cache within the contemporary American culinary scene. On this basis, I assert the argument that Asian Americans are uniquely positioned within the current culinary landscape to subvert the classist domination of the White mainstream in determining markers of palatal taste – a powerful symbolic marker of soft power.

 

Why food?

Symbolic materiality is central to the human condition. In today’s consumptive age, “new materialisms have refocused our attention on objects, especially the material and affective connections between objects and humans” (Ray, 2016; 2). Few substances carry greater consumptive meaning than foodstuffs, as these entities are internalized and thus, embodied by the eater and come to embody the eater. The adage, you are what you eat, is an appropriate synopsis of this point. In recent years, food studies have reached a preliminary zenith, “[illuminating] broad societal processes such as political-economic value creation, symbolic value creation, and the social construction of memory” (Mintz and Du Bois, 2002; 99).

Through the repetitive act of eating, “food serves both to solidify group membership and set groups apart…in terms of ethnicity, race, nationality…[and] class” (Mintz and Du Bois, 2002; 109). In this exploration of culunarity differentiation will be under assessment, with particular attention paid to the symbolic value creation of food and its associated eaters. The result of this combination, is the assessment of the authenticity of chefs, the perceived authenticity of ethnic and fusion foods, and the shifting category of American taste-makers – who act as the gatekeepers to such perceptions and the popularity of certain foods. Exploring such topics, speaks to broader cultural trends related to identity formation, cultural exchange, and to the shifting power structures in the world today. 

 

The Contemporary American Culinary Scene:

Two major components make up what I refer to as the ‘contemporary American culinary scene.’ The first is audience, the second is authenticity. In 2010, the immigrant food-scholar, Krishnendu Ray, refered to this audience as, “the imagined mainstream” (Ray, 2016; 9). The imagined mainstream consists of “influential journalists and restaurant-reviewers,” who make up the media’s White majority (Ray, 2010; 1). Within the food scene, this “normative non-ethnic center” observes, critiques, venerates, and fetishizes its “radiating, multiple, ethnic others;” thereby dictating popular taste to a “normative, non-ethnic” audience (Ray, 2016; 4).

The desire for experiencing the ‘exotic other’ through cuisine is complex. “Today, seeking out ever more varied cuisine is…a mark of culinary sophistication” (Godoy, 2016). Sophistication in this case, is achieved by the acquisition of ‘real,’ “authentic experiences of authentic cultures” (Ray, 2016; 6). The “contemporary Euro-American food adventurer,” obsessively seeks out “the new the obscure and the exotic…[and] grasps ethnic food to serve this interest” (Ray, 2016; 6). Ethnic food, sold for profit, has historically been mediated by and for the (White) American audience, to become both literally and figuratively digestible to the ‘mainstream’ palate. Ironically, those who eat to access the authentic fetishize authenticity, accessing the real reality: that “authenticity lies in its perception in the public mind, rather than in the food itself” (Lu and Fine, 1995; 543). Consequently, the power dynamic rests in the food chain. As opposed to eating with ‘the other,’ more often the imagined mainstream, “eats the other,” or a mediated notion there of (Ray, 2016; 5).

 

“The Other:” Understanding Ethnicity

The term ‘the other,’ has thus far been used to refer to non-white bodies. However, this understanding is too simplistic to be productive and requires further appraisal. “In the US the term ethnicity…came into play almost simultaneously in the fields of American journalism and social sciences in the late 1950s in what appeared then to be a relatively neutral way of constructing difference” (Ray, 2016; 4). Cuisine plays a unique role in symbolizing difference. Objective difference between ingredients and preparation styles distinguish regional cuisine from others geographically. While these distinctions are physically real, their symbolic difference is constructed through cultural transactions (Lu and Fine, 1995; 535). Once imagined, “such cuisines provide added concreteness to the idea of national or ethnic identity” (Mintz and Du Bois, 2002; 109). Presently, this transaction is conducted publically, grounded economically and transforms imagined meanings into symbolic potent realities (Lu and Fine, 1995; 535)

 

Asian American Identities:

The first Asians to arrive on US soil were the Chinese in the early 19th century. These men were migrant laborers interested in capitalizing on the discovery of gold in California. This first wave of migration was halted by Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Although this law was repealed in the 1940s, it was not until after the Immigration Act of 1965, that the second wave of non-white immigration to the US began to swell. Today, “the arrival of tens of millions of immigrants to the US … [has] transformed the demographic landscape of the nation” (Junn and Masuoka, 2008; 729). According to a 2008 report, “a quarter of new Americans today are from Asia and Asian Americans are among the fastest growing demographics in [the country], increasing from less than a million people in 1960 to roughly 14 million” on record in 2008 (Junn and Masuoka, 2008; 729). This finding is significant but paints broad strokes, failing to address who is included under the umbrella-term ‘Asian American’?

The 2000 U.S. Census, used the ethnic grouping ‘Asian American,’ to refer to “Chinese, Filipino, Asian Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, and ‘Other’” (Junn and Masuoka, 2008; 730). This information is important but like any categorical effort the result of this grouping (based on phenotype) was essentializing and has engendered a distinct dualism amongst Asian American peoples. First and foremost, this notion of Asian-American identity groups cultural identities from a massive geographical area within which, many of these countries do not even share a common boarder. Thus, these individuals are given a Pan-Asian identity, which fails to recognize distinction amongst Asian countries: dehumanizing and erasing cultural uniqueness from individual members of separate countries or cultural groups. Second, the phenotypic distinction between individuals of Asian descent and the normative association between Americanness and Anglo-European descent, engineers what has been outlined as the ‘Forever Foreigner Myth.’ The combination of these two phenomena has challenged Asian American identity formation in the context of the mainstream. Asian Americans have historically been distanced by their abject foreignness, only included within the American narrative as essentialized, nonspecific bodies.

Racial_triangulation.jpgSomehow, discussions of distinction based on ethnicity escape their less palatable corollary: distinctions based on race. This is a mistake. The two are inextricably linked, as the notion of ethnicity became a more politically correct, culturally-based stand-in for discussions of racial difference. While ethnic constructions of pan-Asian-ness and the Forever Foreigner Myth marginalize and essentialized the Asian-American minority experience, their ethnic positionality does not exist in a vacuum. One-hundred and forty-two years after the abolishment of slavery, the dynamic between Black and White Americans remains fraught with tension.

In the past half-century, Asian-Americans have found themselves “situated in a triangulated position in relation to the Black-White binary” (Junn and Masuoka, 2008; 730). Promoted to ‘honorary whites’ by the Model Minority Myth in the 1970s, Asian Americans are likely to be more highly educated than their Blacks and Latinos and are more likely “to be economically integrated with Whites” (Junn and Masuoka, 2008; 730). Eddie Huang, a first-generation American restauranteur, born to Taiwanese parents, wrote a memoir entitled, Fresh Off The Boat, in which he describes his first-person views on the racial triangulation of Asian Americans stating, “…I always felt as if America took half the good traits of a person and impressed them on Asians and the other half on Black people…” (Huang, 2013; 235). In this statement, Huang clearly illustrates the invented triangulation of Asians in America: differentiated as ethnic and non-white, and yet naturalized and accepted by White-America over other racial minorities. The result of the combined effects of Pan-Asian-ness, the Forever Foreigner Myth, and racial triangulation is liminality. Liminality is an important component to constructing the current status of Asian-American chefs and their fusion cuisines in America.

 

What is Ethnic Food?

When it comes to cuisine, the term ‘ethnic’ has both a pejorative and authenticating cache. As discussed previously, “ethnicity is born of acknowledged difference and works through contrast. Hence an ethnic cuisine is associated with a geographically …defined eating community” (Mintz and Du Bois, 2002; 109) Historically, this term has become synonymous with foreign, immigrant cuisines. Ironically, eating out has always been at least partially associated with a degree of cultural tourism. The departure from the home to experience an alternative (an ‘other’), extends and problematizes this notion of the proximate and subordinated position of the ethnic-other within the culinary landscape. Here again, the eater – a member of the mainstream – seeks an authentic ‘ethnic’ experience, but continues to play a pivotal role in determining the expectations of what that ‘authentic’ experience ought to entail.

Figure 1:

The featured cover story of the March 2017 edition of Bon Appétit Magazine, was entitled “Generation Next.” The featured photograph, is an image of the cover photo from the online spread, featuring immigrant chefs, known for their “boundary-pushing,” ethnic cuisine (Bon Appétit, 2017). ‘Generation Next,’ refers to the ‘new wave’ of foreign immigrant cuisine in America. Its critical to note that this celebratory feature was produced by the same media company that published the online video: “PSA: This is How You Should Be Eating Pho” (Rodriguez, 2016). This video – which featured Tyler Akin (a non-Asian, non-Vietnamese individual), gives a tutorial on how to properly eat Pho, the traditionally Vietnamese soup – became the subject of severe public backlash and was said to exemplify, a “peak case of cuisine Columbusing,” by Mic writer Matthew Rodriguez (Rodriguez, 2016). That was five months ago.

Fast forward from September 2016 to March 2017 and BA magazine appears to be apologetically reframing their approach. As the caption of the cover photo states, BA credits these sons and daughters of immigrants with creating, “the most dynamic food scene in the world” ­(Bon Appétit, 2017). This statement is prefaced by the claim that BA’s representation of these chefs and their culinary contributions are told, “in [the chefs’] words” (Bon Appétit, 2017). This caveat is made to ‘authenticate’ and remove the subject’s narrative, from its obviously mediated proxy. BA is a mainstream media company, after all.  

 Credited with a certain degree of authenticity, this new generation of immigrant chefs have been offered a platform by the imagined mainstream, mediated or not. However, the notion that this ‘new wave’ of first and second generation migrants is reinventing the food scene, leaves out all of the documented and undocumented ‘ethnic’ migrants who came before and continue to work a predominant proportion of the restaurant jobs in North America. It should come as no surprise that, “the foreign-born have numerically dominated the feeding occupations in US cities, [and] yet, their role in the culinary field and their own perspectives… are lacking in the literature that deals with taste and culture making” (Grosglik, 2017).

An exception to this finding is Krishnendu Ray’s 2016 work, The Ethnic Restaurateur, in which he pays tribute to “the unseen Latino cook” (Ray, 2016; 93-95). When asked why such voices were not “celebrated” in BA exposé, Adam Rappaport, editor in-chief of the magazine, responded, that he was hesitant to make a political statement on the basis that BA is not “in a position of authority” and that such commentary did not fit the brand’s image of providing, readers with “great food, beautiful photography, interesting stories, [and] fun design” (Spiegal, 2017). This explanation, while cringe-worthy, is important to illuminate and offers a distinct counterpoint to the magazine’s marketed notions of authentic voice in their narrative style seeing as BA silenced an important dimension of the dialogue.

Additionally, this celebration of immigrant culture and authenticity, fails to recognize Black people in America. African Americans have a long history on the continent that has nothing to do with immigration. Slavery brought the first Black people to this country and confusing slavery for immigration would be a profound error. In a way, the omission of Black individuals from this grouping elucidates and confirms the naturalization of African Americans as non-foreign bodies; a stark contrast to the positioning of Asian Americans as the perpetual foreigner. The dynamic exhibited by the inclusionary and exclusionary writing of Bon Appétit magazine passively asserts that authenticity in the current moment is personified in the immigrant body: qualified by exoticism and cultural familiarity.

 

Taste and Distinction – Ethnic, Foreign, Fusion:

The preference or distaste for foreign, ethnic, immigrant or fusion foods functions within a systematic network of palatal and symbolic taste-based distinction. In 1979, Pierre Bourdieu wrote the book, Distinction: A Social Critique on the Judgement of Taste, in which he examined the arbitrary and yet, utterly meaningful distinctions humanity makes through notions of ‘taste.’ Krishnendu Ray, utilizes Bourdieu’s work in his text, “A Taste for Ethnic Difference,” to discuss the power of taste-preference in the contemporary culinary scene as it relates to foreign, ethnic, immigrant and fusion foods: their cultural standing and their perceived authenticity. Ray recognizes Bourdieu’s critique of aesthetic taste, “…as nothing more transcendental than durable class dispositions” (Ray, 2010; 12). However, Ray also acknowledges that class-based taste preferences engineer a power dynamic, in which “taste [becomes] a social weapon” capable of establishing “relative position-taking in the field of gastronomy” and capable of cementing social hierarchies (Ray, 2010; 12).

The relocation of regionally-linked culture, brought into new geographic contexts through the immigrant experience, has the capacity to illuminate stark differences between the host and graft cultures. The ‘ethnic’ person, “looks [different], …sounds different, [and] has different tastes” (Ray, 2016; 1). Additionally, ethnicity is presumed to carry the promise of cultural authenticity (Ray, 2016; 1). This promise is shallow and intangible, as authenticity is in the eye of the beholder. In such occurrences, immigrants become otherized; taxonomically assessed on material markers of difference, including phenotypic traits, adornment, and comestibles – food being an important example.

It is in this moment that non-white immigrants are turned into ‘ethnics,’ whose identity is solidified by the mainstream majority through the qualification of their cultural difference. Yet, there is a distinct difference in the evaluation of ‘ethnic’ versus ‘foreign’ bodies. This is demonstrated in the culinary world, by Ray’s hypothesizes that, the mainstream American audience has, “a three-fold classification system by which they venerate a few ‘foreign cuisines,’” which includes French, Italian and Japanese, or customers “‘slum it’ by patronizing” cheap ‘ethnic’ restaurants that serve “Soul, Mexican, Dominican food” (Ray, 2010; 15). The mainstream desire for authenticity, supposedly traceable in the ethnic or immigrant body makes these ethnic individuals both “proximate and subordinate” to the cultural gatekeepers through food (Ray, 2016; 1). Ray adds off-handedly that, “falling somewhere between [these] two [aforementioned] poles are Chinese, Indian, Korean, Thai, and Vietnamese foods – all Asian…which” he suggests, “hints at a larger dynamic of cultural capital…a global political-economy of signs…unrelated to food per se…” (Ray, 2010; 15). Shockingly, this point is left dangling. Ray does not address what this ‘larger dynamic of cultural capital’ is amongst Asian populations or what this “global political-economy of signs” is meant to mean. However, this dynamic of liminal positionality in these geographically associated Asian cuisine, is also readily observable amongst Asian American individuals and rests at the crux of my argument regarding the unique societal position of these Asian American chefs.

 

A Taste for Authenticity:  

Today, the preferential taste of the empowered, imagined mainstream is, ‘authenticity.’ Ethnic food and foreign food are both considered to be ‘authentic’ gastronomic options and yet, the two are not perceived or priced homogeneously. On a graph in which authenticity is held constant, with the Y-axis labeled ‘cultural capital’ and the X-axis marked ‘price,’ ethnic food falls in the bottom-left corner and foreign food in the top-right. The expensiveness of a food is an important distinguishing qualifier of taste. Ray has written extensively on this fact commenting that, “the richer the immigrants from a country, or the more economically developed the country, the more prestigious — and expensive — the cuisine” (Wang, 2016). Thereby marking the value-laden distinction between ‘expensive foreign food’ and ‘cheap ethnic food:’ distinguished by price and cultural capital.

 

Defining Fusion Food:

Foreign and ethnic foods, cheap or expensive, are both technically fusion foods if made in American. Fusion, is the innovative consequence of adaptation, as the result of change. More specifically, when it comes to food, “fusion cuisine is the deliberate combination of elements from two or more spatially or temporally distinct cuisines” (Encyclopedia of Food and Culture, 2003). Thus, the re-contextualization of ethnic food and immigrant bodies in new geographic settings results in blended identities and fusion cuisine.

Fusion food has been critiqued and held at arm’s length by the imagined mainstream, criticized for a generalizing association with Americanization and a lack of cultural sensitivity. Fusion food in America is not synonymous with assimilation or the ‘Americanization’ of ethnic food. The Americanization of ethnic cuisine, “[refers] to the conscious decision of restaurateurs to transform ingredients and techniques of traditional recipes to meet American tastes” (Encyclopedia of Food and Culture, 2003). Framing the fusion food scenario as such, is heavy-handed and imbues the situation with an unnecessary degree of forceful inculcation. This is not to say that such factors as Americanization and forced assimilation are not at play, but rather to suggest that there are also practical aspects to consider (Lu and Fine, 1995; 535). For example: the regional availability of certain ‘authentic’ products as well as “economic [realities]” also constrain access to authenticity” (Lu and Fine, 1995; 535).  Such factors demand some degree of adaptation for a restaurant in a new setting to say in business, demanding fusion as a result of cooking a culturally and regionally specific foreign cuisine within a new context.

 

Who can fuse what for whom, by whom?
A Case of Complicating Notions of Appropriation or Authenticity

The innovative, experimental, and novel reputation of fusion food is seen by many as antithetical to authenticity. The term ‘fusion’ can be a turn-off to the imagined mainstream in their quest for experiencing cultural legitimacy. Popular food critics have chastised fusion restaurants and chefs like Tyler Akin, for their “haphazard mixing of cultures that lacks a respect for tradition” (Encyclopedia of Food and Culture, 2003). There is a delicate balance between exoticism, authenticity, and cultural familiarity when it comes to fusion food. But when grease hits the pan, the public perception and acceptance of fusion food is dependent on price and social positionality of the chef and the regional cuisines.

When it comes to how positionality can affect the consumer perception and accepted authenticity of a fusion food, the question: who can fuse what for whom, by whom, becomes imparative. There is an implicit notion that the immigrant or ethnic status of a chef cooking ‘foreign’ food, endows them with a certain degree of authenticity. The result is the misconception that anyone can cook ‘fusion’ food. To illustrate the importance of positionality regarding notions of perceived authenticity, it is necessary to revisit the case of Tyler Akin. Akin is a non-Asian head-chef at his Vietnamese noodle bar “Stock,” in Philadelphia (Rodriguez, 2016). Google the chef and the restaurant’s name and you will find that the first four pages of the search are frontloaded with scathing reviews of what was previously referred to as ‘cuisine Columbusing,’ before accessing the restaurant’s homepage (Rodriguez, 2016). It was inappropriate for Akin to act as an expert on a culture that is not his own and even worse to administer a ‘PSA’ on the proper eating technique of a traditional food with which he is not ethnically associated. However, he is certainly not the only chef in America cooking a fusion cuisine that mixes elements of a culture he was not born into.

Take Danny Bowien for example. Born in Korea, adopted and raised in Oklahoma by a White family, and famous for cooking Sichuanese food at Mission Chinese Food in NYC and San Francisco, Bowien has experienced a complete lack of scrutiny for cooking an ethnic cuisine of which he is culturally unrelated (Fresh Air, 2016). In fact, no article that I have read sees his Korean ancestry, his White upbringing and his choice in cooking Sichuanese food as incongruent aspects of his identity or as culturally appropriative.

Why? Enter: racial triangulation, pan-Asian-ness, the forever foreigner myth, and honorary whiteness. These two cases of Asian American fusion cuisines cannot negotiate authenticity and mainstream acceptance independent from the identity of their creators. Bowien’s circumstances illustrate how the combined interplay of these cultural constructions engineer a uniquely liminal position as Asian Americans in contemporary society. Consequently, Bowien capitalizes on the pan-ethnic perception of the Asian American identity and is thus, perceived as an authentic, non-appropriative chef. The contrast between Bowien and Akin, demonstrates that while the authenticity of fusion food exists somewhere between adaptation and appropriation; the reality is that the ethnic identity of the individual chef is perhaps the most concrete marker of authenticity, particularly for the imagined mainstream.

 

The Unique Positionality of Asian American Chefs:

Bowien is the first example of a greater trend of Asian American fusion chefs, who capitalize on their liminal status to present themselves and their culinary creations as both, ‘vertically authentic’ – accepted by the upper-class, white mainstream as “Honorary Whites,” as well as ‘horizontally authentic’ – recognized as ethnic or non-White, by people of color.

 David Chang – a Korean-American chef trained at the Culinary Institute of America, who owns and runs the casual, yet high-end Momofuku francize out of New York City – exemplifies the ‘vertically authentic’ approach to fusion cuisine. Chang broadly proclaims that “everything is fusion; and there are only two type of cuisine – good food and bad food, and [he strives] for the former” (Davis, 2013). It comes as no surprise that Chang defines his cuisine not as fusion, but as ‘New American’ – a name that hardly gets at “the radical re-mixing of haute and not-so-haute that [he] has mastered in the Manhattan fine dining market place” (Ray, 2016; 171). Ray has termed Chang’s culinary operations, as “anti-restaurants: no white tablecloth, no wine glass, no elegant silverware (plain wooden chopsticks), shared tables, no chairs (backless stools), kinetic, young,inter-racial clientele with a yen of miscegenated food” (Ray, 2016; 169). Chang’s ability to attract youthful, dynamic and diverse clientele, willing to pay the (not exorbitant but) healthy-price for his innovative fusion food, is particularly interesting. Chang’s price point and his creation of “ethnic haute-cuisine,” negotiates the balance between novelty, authenticity, and cultural familiarity; achieved as a result of his liminal positionality as an Asian American chef (Ray, 2016; 196).

According to Ray, “Chang comes from the edge, much like another Korean-American chef, Roy Choi. Choi is credited with “revolutionizing the notions of the restaurant in Los Angeles, by marrying Korean and Mexican fare with the hipster food truck movement, calling them loncheros, building a following on tweets and blogs” (Ray, 2016; 169). Despite being a student of CIA, Choi’s experiences growing up in urban Koreatown amongst other low income, ethnic minorities meant that he was considered a “Bad Korean,” not in keeping with the Model Minority Myth (Ray, 2016; 171). Thus, Choi’s ability to appeal to the mainstream as well as access the ethnically diverse, urban masses of LA through his cultural background and democratic, fusion food truck approach, demonstrates his achievement of ‘horizontal authenticity.’

 

Conclusion: A Shifting Audience of ‘Tastemakers’?

The last decade has seen a general trend in the upscaling and positive perception of ethnic fusion cuisine by chefs like Chang, Choi, Bowien, and those brought up in BA’s exposé. Additionally, articles like the The Atlantic’s 2016 piece, “The Future is Expensive Chinese Food,” and an article published by NPR’s ‘The Salt,’ entitled, “New Wave of Chinese Restaurants Challenges ‘Cheap’ Stereotype,” expound upon this trend (Pinsker, 2016) (Wang, 2016). The culinary expectations for fusion food (and in the case of these two articles, Chinese food), by the imagined mainstream in America has always been cheap: never according much in the way of cultural prestige. The MáLà Project, a restaurant opened by Amelie Ning Kang, a recent immigrant from Beijing, China and the focus of Wang’s NPR article, works against this stereotype (Wang, 2016). According to Wang, Kang has refused to “water down” her menu “to suit a non-Chinese palate” (Wang, 2016). This is not a one-off trend, other young Asian-American restaurateurs are of the same mindset, including The Tang (NYC), Mister Jui’s (SF), and Bad Saint (Washington D.C.). These owners, including the likes of Chang and Choi, have begun to palatally reject the translation of their fusion foods into the “European-derived idioms of fine dining,” and as a result have managed to achieve new heights of popularity amongst a wider audience (Wells, 2016).

Ray offered the idea that “the embodied potentiality of food has theoretical consequences,” and I wholeheartedly agree (Ray, 2016; 189). Fusion restaurants run by Asian American chefs on the high-end and the low-end of the spectrum, are beginning to rely more heavily on an internal (ethnic) as opposed to external (white) market. This is significant. Such a trend points to the possibility that “the aesthetic of the dominant class [the White ‘imagined mainstream’] is no longer the dominant aesthetic in urban food consumption” (Ray, 2016; 189).

Squeezed amongst ethnic and non-ethnic categorizations, the liminal positionality of Asian Americans in the United States has enabled these Asian American restaurateurs to be seen by ethnic and white audiences as ‘horizontally’ and ‘vertically’ authentic; thereby, legitimating the cultural capital fusion cuisine. The reality of the restaurant industry is that, “if the food does not appeal to the customers the food does not sell” (Lu and Fine, 1995; 543). And these restaurants are certainly not struggling with an issue of popularity; quite the contrary. In fact, the rising popularity amongst a broader and more diverse demographic of young people, suggests a rising tide and a demographic shift amongst who is considered ‘mainstream:’ inaugurating a new generation of American tastemakers.

Popular tastes, preferences and those that establish them are dynamic and in a constant state of flux. The liminal yet empowering position of Asian American chefs in the culinary scene, suggested in this chapter, is temporally significant. These individuals present a case for the potential of soft power to “modernize tradition” (Salvador-Amores, 2013; 414). This is a term used by Analyn Salvador-Amores, to refer to “re-invoking the traditional to become modern,” giving an object or practice new relevance by locating it in the present by both “local and foreign people” (Salvador-Amores, 2013; 414). In the case of Asian American chefs and fusion food, traditional food practices have been fused with novel elements, branding a new variety of authenticity. Such acts have illuminated not only a potential shift in the grouping of contemporary tastemakers, but moreover, the current transformation of the culinary scene at this moment in time. These changing meanings and changing audience demonstrate the perpetuity of culture change, indicating that “what was modern and strange yesterday, becomes modern and familiar today, and authentically traditional tomorrow” (Pack, 2017). 

Comment Log in or Join Tablo to comment on this chapter...

Bibliography & Image Credits

Comment Log in or Join Tablo to comment on this chapter...
~

You might like Charlotte Benz's other books...