Discriminating Palates: Evaluation and Inequality in American Fine Dining

Discriminating Palates: Evaluation and Inequality in American Fine Dining By Gillian Denise Gualtieri A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Raka Ray, Co-Chair Professor Heather Haveman, Co-Chair Professor G. Cristina Mora Professor Ming Leung Summer 2018 ©2018 Gillian Denise Gualtieri ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1 Abstract Discriminating Palates: Evaluation and Inequality in American Fine Dining by Gillian Denise Gualtieri Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology University of California, Berkeley Professor Raka Ray, Co-Chair Professor Heather Haveman, Co-Chair How are cultural fields organized? How do producers make sense of their products’ value in a cultural field informed by structures of both art and commerce? How are categorization and evaluation related in cultural fields? How do these processes relate to broader systems of social inequality, such as those based on race, class and gender? In this dissertation, I analyze 120 in-depth interviews with critically recognized chefs and 1380 Michelin Guide restaurant reviews in New York City and the San Francisco Bay Area to examine the relationship between ethnoracial and gender inequality and cultural production in the context of American fine dining. I find that the system of ethnoracial categorization that defines the boundaries between restaurants and chefs in the field of American fine dining interacts with a system of three logics of evaluation that have different meanings and relevance to the assessment of distinct categories of cuisine in the field. This differential evaluation of different categories of cultural products and cultural producers then reproduces gender and ethnoracial hierarchies of culinary, artistic, and material value. I argue that chefs and restaurant critics use the logics of (1) technique, (2) creativity, and (3) authenticity to differentially evaluate restaurants and chefs serving (1) Classic, (2) Flexible, and (3) Ethnic cuisine, reflecting and reproducing a broader system of value that disproportionately celebrates culinary products and producers associated with whiteness and masculinity and devalues those actors that are symbolically or socially connected to femininity and /or non-whiteness. I find that Classic restaurants, that is, those restaurants serving French, Italian, and Japanese cuisine, occupy a prestigious position based on their historical association with formalized technique, culinary hegemony, and tradition. Classic restaurants are primarily and uniquely valued for their ability to replicate institutionalized techniques and shared traditions in fine dining. Restaurants and chefs serving unfamiliar Flexible cuisine types, such as “Contemporary,” American, and Californian cuisine, which lack shared meanings in the field are primarily valued for their artistic and scientific creativity, uniquely celebrated for the distinct contributions they make to the field through the production of personal, 2 previously unknown cuisine. Finally, Ethnic restaurants are evaluated according to the logic of authenticity, which has inconsistent standards formed in relation to three reference points—(1) Classic and Flexible restaurants already recognized as legitimate in the fine dining field, (2) inexpensive, Americanized take out establishments, and (3) Ethnic home cooking. This differential system of evaluation then veils an insidious form of gender and racial bias in language focused on the technical, creative, and authentic merits of artistic and commercial products in an emerging, globalizing cultural field. i “Well, there's nothing actually more political than food. I mean, who's eating, who's not eating. Also, I’ve found it's just very, very useful to not be a journalist. I mean, journalists drop into a situation, ask a question. People sort of tighten up. Whereas if you sit down with people and just say, ‘hey, what makes you happy? What's your life like? What do you like to eat?’ More often than not, they will tell you extraordinary things, many of which have nothing to do with food.” Anthony Bourdain on Fresh Air in 2016 ii Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………….…ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………...iii CHAPTER ONE: Setting the Table: An Introduction to the Organization and Evaluation of the American Fine Dining Field………………………………………………………………...1 CHAPTER TWO: From French Hegemony to American Flexibility: The Historical Development of the Contemporary American Fine Dining Field…………………………...24 CHAPTER THREE: Tradition, Technique, and Classic Cuisine…………………………...44 CHAPTER FOUR: Blending the Rules: Flexible Cuisine and the Logic of Creativity……65 CHAPTER FIVE: “Too Expensive to be Authentic”: The Logic of Authenticity and the Devaluation of Ethnic Cuisine…………………………………………………………………91 CHAPTER SIX: Conclusion…………………………………………………………………119 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………….125 METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX……………………………………………………….143 iii Acknowledgements Writing a dissertation is, in many ways, a solitary experience, spent alone with a computer and too many thoughts. While I certainly put in my hours alone with the keyboard (and the notepad and the audio recordings and the books), this document is anything but a solo effort, and I am immeasurably thankful for the labor—both visible and invisible—that so many graciously gave to me through this process. First, I am so grateful to my advisors, who, with patience, kindness, and brilliance, guided me through this entire process, from conceptualization to revision. Thank you to Raka Ray, who has instilled in me a commitment to a scholarly practice that exists at the intersection of love and intellect. I thank her for providing me with a model of kind, rigorous, and humorous knowledge production, mentorship, and womanhood. I am so lucky to be a member of her wildly impressive legacy of feminist scholars. Thank you to Cristina Mora, who generously summarizes what I am blunderingly writing and offers me clarity, compassion, and community with empathy, fun, and boundless intelligence. These women ensured I always had a reader, an ear, and a sense of belonging, especially when I could have felt heartbreakingly alone. Thanks to Heather Haveman, who, in addition to ensuring I came to Berkeley in the first place, taught me how to use quick wit, logic, and far fewer words to design and do research that is both compelling and convincing. Thanks also to all of those advisors at Berkeley who offered comments and guidance throughout the research process, including Ming Leung, Irene Bloemraad, Mara Loveman, Ann Swidler, Neil Fligstein, KT Albiston, Marion Fourcade-Gourinchas, Armando Lara- Milan, and Jill Bakehorn. I am also grateful for the time, encouragement, and advice of Michele Lamont, Daphne Demetry, Philippa Chong, Gary Alan Fine, and six anonymous reviewers, who all responded to variously coherent versions of the arguments developed in these pages. Thank you to Krishnendu Ray, who, in addition to writing one of the texts that serves as the primary inspiration for this study, has provided thoughtful and compassionate feedback and encouragement during this stage of my career and the next. Thank you to those who taught me what sociology was and believed I could contribute to the discipline from the beginning. I am so grateful for the humor and resilience of Marla Kohlman, the kind and steady of mentorship of Anna Sun, and the jocular encouragement of Ric Sheffield. Thank you to my friends and colleagues at Berkeley. Thank you to Sanaz Mobasseri for always picking up the phone, encouraging me to keep going, and providing me with a home at moments of joy and deep sadness. Thank you to Zawadi Rucks Ahidiana for her fierce friendship, her model of super womanhood, and her careful, calm resolve. Thank you to Joy Hightower for reminding me that there is strength in community and belonging in vulnerability. Thank you to Shelly Steward for her colorful and funny reminders that we can, and indeed did, do it. And thank you to my beloved conference/television/lunch pals iv Lindsay Bayham and Matty Lichtenstein for always being down to exchange ideas and share dessert. I am also grateful for my friends who kept me sane, satiated, and laughing in that Village on the Hill. Thank you to Shaun Golding, for always listening with patience, compassion, and outrage, and to Austin Johnson, for knowing just what to say and how to say it in the funniest way. During my time in graduate school, I was lucky to belong to three writing groups, where I learned from my friends and colleagues as we muddled through our sentences and paragraphs together. I am so grateful for the camaraderie and collective brilliance of Lindsay Berkowitz, Isabel García-Validivia, Sunmin Kim, Carter Koppelman, Louise Ly, Kate Maich, Jessica Schirmer, Michaela Simmons, and Gowri Vijayakumar. While writing my dissertation, I had the opportunity to mentor several incredibly talented, motivated, and inspiring undergraduates through the research process. These students assisted with data collection and organization, and without them, I would not have the rich data, nor the detailed explanations for my research design that they pushed me to develop. Thank you Dominique Acosta, Gabriella Armato, Noelle Atkins, Natalie Bayer, Hannah Berris, Sandra Cam, Michael Cheng, Madeline Chong, Charlotte Cordova, Olivia Flechsig, Helen Gao, Anne Giltvedt, Yingda Hu, Lawrence Jiang,

Load more