GÖTEBORGS UNIVERSITET

Faculty of Social science

Breaking European A European memory project

Hravn Forsne Harrison McCartney Elin Persson Gesine Roggemann

EU2112 European Heritage and Identity Semester: Fall 2019

Introduction

In this European Memory project, the aim is to encourage and start discussions amongst Europeans on European heritage, identity, history and memory by linking those concepts to a daily chore: bread. We therefore propose a cookbook, that not only contains recipes of different types of bread from the whole of but also focuses on the historic and political importance of bread and its role as part of a cultural heritage and identity. Bread is not only an important , there is a lot of symbolic significance linked to it. To break bread is seen as an act of establishing friendship, forgiving old enmities and sharing a common experience. The expression has cultural, political and religious connotations and origins. As a symbol it is a powerful one that speaks to several aspects of the participants in the exercise; their cultural heritage, their view of the other and their intentions in the moment. There are many ways that this expression and its physical act can be put in a European context as well as show aspects of Europeanism that need to be discussed and remembered. The act is common across all of Europe in Muslim, Christian and Jewish cultures. But the bread that is broken is different depending on geography, ethnicity, religion and culture (tasteatlas.com, 2019). Bread has long been an essential part of communities across Europe, an integral part of everyday life of people both across nationstates and throughout history. There are numerous examples on the vital role of bread in European societies. For instance, the distribution of bread to the people of Rome to keep them calm or its role in the Women's march to Versailles. The access to, or shortage of, bread could be seen as highly politicized while simultaneously being a vital part of everyday life. Therefore, a cookbook that focuses on bread could be used as a way of showcasing that there is a commonality within the performance of identity that is making bread, with a shared but also contested heritage throughout Europe. The book would include myths and historical facts about bread in Europe. For example, the croissant has a rich and complex history. It is a staple of the continental

breakfast and something closely associated with , almost on a par with their national bread, the . But the history or rather histories of its origin are multifaceted. Some say that the croissant came to France with Marie Antoinette, as her craving for the type of pastries made in Vienna, especially the kipferl, introduced a new way of making bread to ​ ​ the french bakers and then became popular by being the favorite snack of the queen. Another story tells how a baker being awake in the early hours of the morning heard the Ottoman army trying to tunnel into either Vienna 1683 or Budapest 1686. He warned the defenders and as a gift he received the sole right to bake a commemorative croissant as a symbol of their victory. The final and most likely myth is that an Austrian artillery officer opened up a pastry shop in Paris and he’s the one that brought it to France. The croissant is just one bread or pastry amongst many that as a signifier has a contested meaning and past. Today some Egyptians say it came to Europe with the phoenicians and is derived from their culinary traditions. But some Islamist fundamentalists are also banning it because they believe it is a symbol of christian victory over Islam. This example shows that with the right information, a type of bread can become a conversation starter about what myths and legends we base our view of Europe on (cookwithkaty.com, 2016).

History & Heritage

Defining heritage is often difficult and many interpretations abound. Heritage often does not have an intrinsic value, but the value is given to the object or practice by people. However, Blake (2000:84-85) defines cultural heritage as something that is a form of inheritance passed down to future generations, and that it is vital in the construction of a group identity. It is also deeply tied to cultural, social and political purposes, which could include tangible but also intangible culture. This means that it as many other cultural artifacts have layered meanings which make it open to many interpretations and varied significance. The way in which the book focuses on a common heritage could also be seen as a use of the term “world heritage”, as discussed by Harrison (2009:154). By ascribing to this concept there is a risk that this overwrites local cultural context. Meaning, while uplifting

certain aspects of a common heritage there are some parts that are being forgotten or under prioritized. Realistically, one book simply cannot cover every local or regional type of bread. It is also important to consider what is hiding in this discourse, and given the narrow topic of bread this might entail a lot of topics, aspects or questions that cannot be answered within the forum of a book. Furthermore, it is of great importance who decides on what is part of this culinary heritage. The involvement of state actors in defining cultural heritage has an inherent risk of corrupting what is to be of universal value with what is currently of value to a certain political actor or group of the same. This means that when heritage is discussed it becomes important that those deciding are seen as impartial as possible and representing institutions that do not have political goals that transcend those of the target audience (Meskell, 2013:483-496). There is a balance to be made between moral aspects of defining an object as culturally relevant and a scientific one. By using a universal definition of scientific relevance other aspects might be lost. Furthermore who commissions a work or a project influences the standards that are set for similar works or definitions in the future. This can create an inherent bias towards promoting or talking about things that are important to powerful actors instead of having an approach that simply seeks to promote knowledge and debate. In summary it becomes of utmost importance to have as an unbiased idea as possible about why certain are included but not others. However, we must also acknowledge that any attempt to use a systematic criteria for inclusion risks creating its unwritten negative - a systematic criteria of exclusion. Our departure for the process of selection is therefore one that acknowledged the unbounded complexity of heritage, which does not simply sit on a local/global dichotomy but cuts across geographical scales and spaces. Whilst Harrison (2009: 189-191) suggests criteria must be based upon cultural significance and not other variables, we propose that the meanings of these products cannot be ranked by significance because their cultural meaning is ascribed differently across European space.

Identity & Memory

The fact that heritage is vital for the construction of a group identity could be connected to the current discussions about what a European identity actually is. Andrén (2017:160-167) poses an idea of identity being a performance, which is particularly salient to the practices of making food. These everyday practices are often perceived as apolitical because they are construed as mundane, unimportant, and generally unworthy of critical attention by both citizens as scholars alike. However, the ‘everyday practice’ of making bread is both the participant and the product of a whole set of norms, customs, habits and rules which shape how it is created. As Andrén (2017:167) states “Programmes for a ​ European identity tend to obscure societal conflicts.” Meaning, when discussing a Europan ​ identity, the focus is often shifted towards what unifies. By showing the complex and contradictory nature of bread we can broaden the concept of identity by using a European staple. However, according to Andrén (2017:160-167) identity has also been used to exclude some. This can be seen in light of recent events where identity has been a divider across Europe (Hobolt, 2016:1264-1266). A good example is Goodharts definition of Somewheres and Anywheres. The “Anywheres” in society are often more comfortable with European integration and concepts such as equality, and the “somewheres” often has a fixed identity, and is inherently communitarian. Therefore, a cookbook that traces both the ​ ​ local heritage as well as the international or regional influence with a simple vehicle such as bread could be fairly easily accessible to both. Using local breadmaking and the culture surrounding it as a starting point would ease the barriers to political discussion. It could move the conversation of Europeanness from universities, educated elites and political bodies into kitchens and dining tables (Krastev, 2017:39-40). However, this project might face criticism of nationalist movements or people who feel that their national identity is being overlooked or simplified, as food can be an important aspect of national identity. This further shows the need for an inclusive and broad view of the project, to ensure there is an emphasis on a diverse narrative. Since memory is created through aspects of one's history,

one’s wishes to promote and include that also changes our perspective on the present. This can also lead to controversy both inside and outside nationstates as different groups lay claim to the same, or parts of the same, heritage (Zerofsky, 2018:1-6). But not only nationalists could feel offended by this project. In some regions there have been instances where the introduction of bread into societies has been used to assert power over others, often in communities with low-carbohydrate diets such as the Sámi in northern . Some minority groups, as the Sámi in Sweden, might not connect bread to their cultural heritage but rather to dietary habits introduced by others (Kylli, 2014:182). This however could be a contribution to the book, meaning that by discussing aspects like this could showcase parts of a shared colonial heritage, and how this might have impacted regions inside as well as outside of Europe.

Theoretical impact on the EMP

The fact that the book would aim to include recipes while simultaneously having a historical narrative that stretches beyond nationstates could contribute to introduce a narrative opposed the one that often surrounds national cuisines (Kaiser, Krankenhagen & Poehls, 2016:115-116). Meaning, this would showcase that something so simple as bread is inherent in European memory, heritage, identity and history, and that it is as vital for people throughout Europe. As has been the case with different signifiers through Europe’s history, the fact that they are contested is what makes them interesting and good starting points for discussion. By connecting bread to bigger societal trends and histories it becomes a useful anchor for more complex discussions about heritage and its purported role in defining the present and future. One of the problems with memory or heritage projects is that those that fund it often have political, financial or other kinds of interest that are not those of historians or proponents of furthering discussion. As is mentioned above by both Meskell (2013: 483-496) and Harrison (2009:154) , these issues are not simple and require thought. Funding, curator and publisher need to be unconnected to political interests. This has to do with both the legitimacy of the project and fears of blackmail if the curators and writers do

not listen to whomever is financing. This leads us to conclude that the financing needs to be from an educational institution, preferably a number of universities in collaboration, since the project is one that promotes the search for knowledge and discussion without having an end goal beyond it. Furthermore the curating should be done by professionals that have expertise in how to describe culture through artefacts together with those that are involved in the production of bread. This combination of academics/historians/anthropologists and bakers/chefs would give legitimacy to the book among a wide sway of people since they are not seen as having a political goal. As the main function of the project is to inspire a debate surrounding Europe, the focus should not lie on a fair and equal representation of different kinds of bread. Heritage is something that is often claimed by different groups as well as states which sometimes makes it a sensitive topic, open to interpretation. This demands a balanced and well informed curating (Ighe, 2017:1-4). Our organising imperative therefore focuses on the common practice of making bread as a form of overarching heritage, rather than attempt to bring the various heritages emerging out of these practices into direct comparison. Again, putting more pressure on who makes the definition and choice of what is included. The book should be translated in most European languages but realistically, it will be difficult to translate the book to all minority languages existing within Europe. Therefore, some people and especially minority groups will likely not be reached. Since the project is a book, instead of one single location the book will be spread across Europe. The book would be sold across bookstores around Europe, in big cities as well as in small communities. To make it even more accessible, particularly to people with lower incomes, the book should be available in public libraries as well. After publication of the book, a website featuring the content of the book would be a natural next step since this would enable it to be updated with more recipes, myths and information, thus keeping the discussion going. By reaching a broader audience, this project seeks to democratize the European discussion. By literally bringing the fraught history of Europe to the kitchen tables hopefully more people will engage with the topic and further it.

Conclusion

By making bread (an everyday practice and product) the focus of our European Memory Project, we can bridge the perceived gap between politics and everyday life through the medium of the cookbook itself. It’s ostensible aim is to stimulate discussions over the meaning of bread to those making the recipes in the book and those sat around the kitchen table eating it, taking discussions about heritage and identity outside of the realm of formal political practices and spaces and placing them in the spaces of ordinary Europeans. By forging a connection between the recipes and their historical social and political significance we hope to highlight how an everyday practice like making bread can, and should be, the ground for political action; the practice can be tied to the assertion of rooted, localised European identities or to the assertion of a common Europeanness. The use of narratives that tie these two poles together, through breads role in collective political movements and moments of ‘breaking bread’, will hopefully stimulate discussion and reflection upon the role of this seemingly mundane product in both individual and collective memories. Furthermore, the focus on practice, the physical act of making, aims to reinvigorate the relation between practice and identity politics. This link which is disintegrating in the conditions of late modernity, whereby food and the relations involved in its production are hidden - these products simply ‘appear’ on supermarket shelves, as if spontaneously, contributing to their construction as inherently uneventful and random objects. This cookbook hopes to reinvigorate the lost relations between identity and practice by encouraging Europeans to make, and break, bread with others, connecting them to pan-European heritages and rediscovering the significance of food to socio cultural connections across multiple scales.

References

Andrén, Mats (2017). ‘The Controversial Concept of European Identity’, Andrén, M., Lindkvist, T., Söhrman, I., & Vajta, K. (eds.). Cultural Borders of Europe: Narratives, Concepts ​ and Practices in the Present and the Past New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 159-169. ​

Blake, Janet (2000). ‘On Defining the Cultural Heritage’, International and Comparative Law ​ Quarterly 49.1: 61-85. ​ https://cookwithkathy.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/the-history-of-the-croissant/ (Collected 2019-10-04)

Harrison, Rodney (2009). 'Chapter 5 - The politics of heritage', in Harrison, R. (Ed.) Understanding the politics of heritage. https://www.academia.edu/776646/The_politics_of_heritage

Hobolt, Sara (2016). “The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent” Journal of European Public Policy 23(9): 1259-1277.

Ighe, Ann (2017) Eurozine “The legacy of 2015” https://www.eurozine.com/the-legacy-of-2015 (Collected 2019-10-07) ​

Kylli, R. (2014). Bread and Power in the "Land of No Bread" - Low-Carbohydrate Sami Diet in Transition. Acta Borealia, 31(2), 176-197.

Krastev, Ivan (2017). After Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kaiser, Wolfram, Krankenhagen, Stefan & Poehls, Kerstin (eds.) (2016). Exhibiting Europe in museums. Transnational Networks, Collections, Narratives, and Representations. New York: Berghahn Books.

Meskell, Lynn (2013) ‘UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention at 40. Challenging the Economic and Political Order of International Heritage Conservation’, Current Anthropology ​ 54.4: 483-94 https://www.tasteatlas.com/europe/breads (Collected 2019-10-06) ​ ​

Zerofsky, Elisabeth (2018). “Is Poland Retreating from Democracy? A debate about the country’s past has revealed sharply divergent views of its future.” The New Yorker. ​ ​