Breaking European Bread a European Memory Project
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
GÖTEBORGS UNIVERSITET Faculty of Social science Breaking European Bread 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: baking bread. We therefore propose a cookbook, that not only contains recipes of different types of bread from the whole of Europe 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 staple food, 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 France, almost on a par with their national bread, the baguette. 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 breads 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 Sweden.