University of Amsterdam
FROM COMMENSALITY TO COMMONALITY: HOW FOOD CAN UNITE US ALL The Influence of Culinary Citizen Diplomacy on the Process of Peacebuilding from Below Assessed through the Analysis of Three Case-Studies
MA Thesis in European Studies Graduate School for Humanities Universiteit van Amsterdam
Student: Lenneke Kraak
Student number: 10632182
Main Supervisor: Alex Drace-Francis
Second Supervisor: Yolanda Rodríguez Pérez
July 2018
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality
University of Amsterdam
Acknowledgements
Of course, this thesis could not have been completed without the unconditional help and guidance of a number of people. First of all, I would like to thank Alex Drace-Francis for taking the supervision of my thesis at the last minute and for providing me with useful feedback throughout the process. Secondly, I am grateful to my family, for being extremely patient and tolerating. Special thanks go out to my aunt, Mariette, for being an amazing advisor and counselor from the very beginning. Lastly, my sincere gratitude goes out to the people who made this research possible: Niki Psarias, for being so open to all of my questions and for giving extensive explanation about her work. Kamal Mouzawak, for being so kind to share his intelligent insights on the topic with me. And Akudo McGee for being so extremely big-hearted and friendly to reach out to all her friends in Pittsburgh thus providing me with enough feedback.
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 2 University of Amsterdam
Abstract
In a world where more and more cultures cross paths, and possibly result in the emergence of conflicts, many approaches and theories have been passed and implemented that sought to mediate in these conflicts somehow. The field of conflict resolution and peacebuilding is therefore very extensive. More recently however, scholars have found that in order to achieve sustainable peace, implementing peace on the ground, or at grassroots level, is likely to be more successful then forcing regulations upon a community by means of an official, higher level. This study applies this idea of ‘peacebuilding from below’ to the field of culinary diplomacy, which can be classed under the heading of both public and cultural diplomacy. It argues that the concepts of food, cuisine and the act of commensality, fit perfectly within this framework, as they provide a comfortable atmosphere which allows people to be open for discussion, cultural exchange and even friendship. In this way culinary diplomacy on citizen level could provide a suitable setting for moving towards peacebuilding between conflicting communities on grassroots level. This thesis investigates this assumption on the basis of three case-studies, which are compared on the basis of the Most Similar and Most Different Systems Design approach, from the field of comparative politics. In response to this comparison, it will be possible to detect aspects within the analysed cases that are essential for creating a successful culinary citizen project.
Keywords: Culinary diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, Contact Theory, peacebuilding, commensality, conflict solving.
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 3 University of Amsterdam
Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...... 2 Abstract ...... 3 1. Introduction ...... 6 2. Theoretical Framework ...... 9 2.1 Tracks of Diplomacy ...... 9
2.2 Definitions and Concepts ...... 10
2.3 Cultural Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy and Soft Power ...... 11
2.3.1 Cultural Diplomacy ...... 11 2.3.2 Public Diplomacy ...... 12 2.3.3 Soft Power ...... 13 2.4 Delineating the Field of Culinary Diplomacy ...... 13
2.5 Commensality ...... 15
2.6 Conflict Resolution ...... 16
2.6.1 Contact hypothesis/Intergroup Contact Theory ...... 16 2.6.2 Peacebuilding from Below ...... 18 3. Approaches: Food as a Tool for Public Diplomacy ...... 21 3.1 Diplomatic Gastronomy ...... 21
3.2 Gastronomic Diplomacy (Gastrodiplomacy) ...... 23
3.3 Culinary Diplomacy...... 24
3.4 Taxonomy of Definitions ...... 27
3.5 Food as a Trigger for Conflict ...... 29
4. Methodology ...... 31 4.1 The Comparative Method ...... 31
4.1.1 Case-Studies in Comparative Research ...... 32 4.2 MSDS & MDDS ...... 32
5. Culinary Diplomacy in Practice: Process & Case-studies ...... 35 5.1 Process ...... 35
5.2 The Case-studies ...... 36
5.2.1 ‘The Conflict Kitchen’, Pittsburgh ...... 37 5.2.2 ‘The Border Kitchen’, Nicosia ...... 40
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 4 University of Amsterdam
5.2.3 ‘Buttercreme und Börek’, Rendsburg ...... 43 6. Culinary Diplomacy in Practice: Analysis of the Case-studies & Key Concepts ...... 46 7. Synthesis of Results ...... 52 8. Conclusion ...... 56 8.1 Culinary Citizen Diplomacy as a tool for Peacebuilding from Below ...... 56
8.2 Indicators: Value and Contribution ...... 57
8.3 Personal Interaction through Food as Key to Success ...... 58
8.4 Recipe for Peace? ...... 60
9. Bibliography ...... 62 10. Annexes ...... 66
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 5 University of Amsterdam
1. Introduction
Borders. Natural borders, political borders, geometric borders, relict borders or perceived borders. Not always can a border be regarded to as a clearly defined boundary, but more often as an area between two whether or not conflicting communities. Besides a geographic boundary between political entities or legal jurisdictions, a border can also exist between two groups of people living within the same space. Such ‘perceived’ borders have become inextricably linked to relationships within our society and play an essential role in many violent and non-violent conflicts that take place nowadays. The number of such conflicts is expanding all over the world, partly due to increased migration through improved infrastructure and mobility and deterioration of the living conditions in existing conflict areas, forcing people to flee their country. In this way, cities, where these people seek their refuge, become busier causing different cultures to get into contact, which makes the differences between these cultures to become more visible, in some cases leading to misunderstandings, malevolent prejudices and even violence. Governments, scholars, non-governmental organisations and other institutions have been searching for ways to move towards constructive intervention and peacebuilding between these conflicting communities by implementing peace agreements. However, in the past two decades more scholar-practitioners have come to understand the importance of the empowerment of communities that face conflict, which is needed to build peace from below.1 This revision of thought by scholars from the field of conflict resolution and peacebuilding has led firstly to the recognition that when conflict is entrenched in a culture or economy, it is much less likely to be open to one-dimensional intervention from outside or ‘above’, than initially was expected. Secondly, it has induced the understanding that the notions of formal agreements and implementation need to be substantiated by structures for and awareness about sustainable peace processes on the ground and by local non- governmental actors and local knowledge.2 Thus, there seems to be need for a medium that implements structures that lead to the reduction of prejudices and misunderstanding within conflicting cultures, whether violent or non-violent, from below and which is represented within communities and by local actors. Several studies already have proven the effectiveness of public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy, being ways to appeal to the people instead of to governments. Public diplomacy
1 O. Ramsbotham, T. Woodhouse and H. Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Polity Press (2005): 215. 2 Ramsbotham, Woudhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 216. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 6 University of Amsterdam
can be regarded to as the overarching concept and intended to indirectly influence governments by focussing on the people, and cultural diplomacy as a means to achieve this through the exchange of cultural aspects, such as values ideas or traditions, in order to strengthen relationships and cooperation within the community. 34 This study examines one of the ways in which these forms of diplomacy can be carried out and functions as a medium in the way in it is discussed above, namely by means of food, food culture and cuisine. It is argued that by bringing people together to cook or share a meal, cross-cultural understanding and cooperation between communities can be promoted. Food is always present and a very tangible concept, but less understood as a means of bringing citizens around the table to work towards a form of peacebuilding, that could not be accomplished by constructive implementations by the elite. This approach is what multiple scholars have ben referring to as culinary diplomacy, a recent developed term for the use of food as a tool of public diplomacy. This study will expand on the already laid foundation of culinary citizen diplomacy within the field of public diplomacy. The concept of using food and cuisine to achieve certain diplomatic goals is an ancient one, as old as diplomacy itself. However, culinary diplomacy, in any form, is a relatively new and untested field of research. Though, since the early 2000’s its popularity and scope are increasing and spreading all over the world and as this research will prove, food, cuisine and the act of commensality are important parts of a community’s identity and thus intrinsically essential in creating cross-cultural understanding between conflicting communities. They pave the way for creating mutual understanding and respect for the other’s values and culture, by introducing each other to their own kitchen and food habits. In this way it is made possible to move towards the process of ‘building peace from below’, as delineated by Ramsbotham et all, which assumes that conflict resolution works through the cooperation within conflicting communities themselves. This study argues that the use of food and cuisine fits perfectly within the framework of this approach, through the application of the Contact Theory of Gorden W. Allport, which is based on the notion that when effective communication between groups is sparked, prejudices and hostility towards the other are likely to be reduced.5 The concept of food, whether by thinking about it, cooking together or eating together, can be considered a way to remove the barriers to communication, as it is a vital part of life and an ancient way to connect people.
3 What is Cultural Diplomacy? http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_culturaldiplomacy, last accessed at 12 May 2018. 4 G.R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, New York: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf (1995): 182. 5 Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 1954). Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 7 University of Amsterdam
Sitting at the table together, talking with the chefs, learning about food and food culture is a way to learn about the humanize a conflict, and can be regarded to as the ‘third pillar of culinary diplomacy’ or culinary citizen diplomacy, according to public diplomacy scholar Samuel Chapple-Sokol.6 This study will therefore try to answer the question to what extent culinary citizen diplomacy can be a useful tool in the process of peacebuilding from below within non-violent conflicting communities, by creating cross-cultural understanding and reduced prejudices, with the aim of improving interactions and contact, based on Allport’s theory, and cooperation through the act of commensality. Due to the growth in popularity of the concept since the early 2000’s, a number of projects has been initiated that apply a form of culinary citizen diplomacy. This research will analyse three of these projects and measure their relative success in order to further demarcate the field of culinary citizen diplomacy and answer the research question posed above. In order to narrow down the scope, the underlying theoretical foundations of this research will be reviewed in chapter 2 and 3. Subsequently, the case-studies will be discussed in chapter 5. The three case-studies will be assessed using the comparative method through the framework of a combination of the Most Similar and Most Different System Design approach, which will be outlined in chapter 4. This approach utilizes five aspects of culinary citizen diplomacy and indicates their presence or absence in the cases, which will provide this study with a structured overview of the characteristics that are contributing to the success of the case-studies and eventually the concept of culinary citizen diplomacy. Chapter 6 will then analyse the results of the application of this method and chapter 7 will provide a synthesis of these results. By investigating the best way to apply culinary citizen diplomacy, this research forms a basis for later studies that seek to utilize the theory of culinary citizen diplomacy in conflicted areas by using food as a tool for reconciliation.
6 S. Chapple-Sokol, ‘A New Structure for Culinary Diplomacy’, http://culinarydiplomacy.com/blog/2016/08/28/a-new-structure-for-culinary-diplomacy/, last accessed May 20, 2018. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 8 University of Amsterdam
2. Theoretical Framework
The concept of culinary diplomacy is as old as society is. Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even proclaimed that ‘food is the oldest form of diplomacy’.7 However, the theory that underlies this concept is relatively young as it only has been studied as a phenomenon since the early 2000’s. In this chapter, multiple aspects within the field of diplomacy will be assessed, as they form the basis of the theory behind this study, and will be placed in the broader context of diplomacy, in order to fully comprehend these aspects.
2.1 Tracks of Diplomacy The Cambridge Dictionary defines the term diplomacy as ‘the management of relationships between countries’.8 However, more recently, scholars have delineated multiple levels of diplomacy, that don’t solely include state to state interaction and can be applied separately or combined in what is called ‘multitrack diplomacy’.9 Several institutes apply a process of international peace-making that looks at a synthesis of efforts by different actors, such as governments, institutions, communities and individuals, to achieve a common goal. Examples of these institutes are the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and the Institute for Multi- Track Diplomacy (IMTD). The first utilizes a framework consisting of three tracks, whilst the latter mentions even eight tracks of diplomacy. Both the USIP and the IMTD distinguish the to this research essential citizen-to-citizen diplomacy as one of the tracks of diplomacy. The first defines this third category as ‘People-to-people diplomacy undertaken by individuals and private groups to encourage interaction and understanding between hostile communities and involving awareness raising and empowerment within these communities’.10 The second one describes its fourth ‘private-citizen-track’ as ‘peacemaking through personal involvement’, implying activities such as exchange programs, private voluntary organizations and interest-groups, carried out by individuals and aimed at creating space for development and peace.11 This chapter will clarify and reason from the approach as specified by the USIP and its third track of diplomacy, that is focussed on citizen-to-citizen diplomacy as a tool for building peace from below.
7 Braden Ruddy, ‘Hearts, Minds, and Stomachs: Gastrodiplomacy and the Potential of National Cuisine in Changing Public Perception of National Image’, Public Diplomacy Magazine, 2 March 2014: 4. 8 Cambridge Dictionary definition, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/diplomacy. 9 Tracks or Diplomacy, https://www.usip.org/glossary/tracks-diplomacy, last accessed May 16, 2018. 10 Ibid. 11 What is Multi-Track Diplomacy? http://imtd.org/about/what-is-multi-track-diplomacy/, last accessed at May 16, 2018. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 9 University of Amsterdam
According to the USIP, the first track of diplomacy covers official discussions involving high- level political and military leaders and focusses on cease-fires, peace talks, treaties and other agreements.12 This term is most frequently used when discussing international relations. Track 2 encompasses the unofficial dialogue and problem-solving activities, aimed at informing the official processes.13 Academics, religious leaders, NGO’s and other influential civil society actors are the central players in this track. Often these actors are able to reach a larger public and interact more freely than their official counterparts, due to reduced accountability. A combination of the first two tracks, where official and unofficial actors cooperate in resolving conflicts or peacebuilding processes, is sometimes called track 1.5. The third and last track, following the USIP, is focussed at grassroots levels and involves, among other things, organizing meetings and conferences and generating media exposure in order to encourage interaction and understanding between hostile communities and raise awareness about their issues within and outside these communities.14 Hence, track 3 is in line with the underlying theory of this study, that is focused on laying the groundwork for solving conflicts by creating mutual understanding and contact between conflicting communities ‘from below’ by means of food and the act of commensality. On the other hand, track 1 and 2, as specified by the USIP framework for multi-track diplomacy, are aimed at the wider sense of conflict solving, by implementing policy or actions ‘from above’.
2.2 Definitions and Concepts The approach applied in this research is based on concepts and theories from the field of diplomacy as well as conflict resolution. Below the first will be assessed, focusing specifically on public diplomacy, which in turn encompasses cultural and culinary diplomacy. Setting out these concepts and theories that underlie the field of culinary diplomacy is necessary in order to understand the approach as a whole and to give a clear definition of the concept of culinary diplomacy, as applied throughout this research. The comprising form of diplomacy that this study applies, is called public diplomacy. Public diplomacy is a process through which governments or national leaders seek to influence foreign governments by appealing to the people, in this way indirectly affecting their government. An important, more confining component of this process is cultural
12 Tracks of Diplomacy, https://www.usip.org/glossary/tracks-diplomacy, last accessed May 16, 2018. 13 Ibid. 14 Tracks of Diplomacy, https://www.usip.org/glossary/tracks-diplomacy, last accessed May 16, 2018. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 10 University of Amsterdam
diplomacy. It applies a nation’s cultural capital to appeal to a foreign nation’s populace.15 Both public and cultural diplomacy fit into the context of soft power, a concept, defined by Joseph Nye, that reasons from a nation’s ability to attract and co-opt, rather than obtain what they want by using means of force. These concepts will be elucidated in paragraph 2.3. Under the heading of public and cultural diplomacy then falls the concept of culinary diplomacy, as it relies on a cultural source: food and cuisine and the act of commensality.16 Within culinary diplomacy we distinguish in turn the concepts of private and public culinary diplomacy, explained through a multi-track framework, which will be explained in paragraph 2.4.
2.3 Cultural Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy and Soft Power The concept of culinary diplomacy, as delineated by public diplomacy scholar Samuel Chapple-Sokol, is partly based on a set of concepts and theories from the field of cultural and public diplomacy and embedded in the framework of soft power. In order to obtain an accurate picture of the field of culinary diplomacy, an outline of these concepts and theories will be given below.
2.3.1 Cultural Diplomacy Food and cuisine are both important aspects of a nation’s cultural heritage, as will be illustrated in chapter 3.2. As cultural diplomacy historically has meant a country’s policy to facilitate the export of examples of culture, the concept of culinary diplomacy therefore is intrinsic to the field of cultural diplomacy.17 Cultural diplomacy can be best described as a course of actions, which is based on and utilize the exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of culture or identity in order to strengthen relationships, enhance socio-cultural cooperation and promote national interest.18 This interpretation is substantiated by political scientist M.C. Cummings, who defined the concept of cultural diplomacy as the ‘exchange of ideas, information, art and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples in order to foster mutual understanding’.19 As can be deducted from this, food and cuisine can both be seen as examples of these aspects of
15 Samuel Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy: Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, nr.8 (2013): 168.
17 Nicholas J. Cull, ‘Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories’, The Annals of the American Academy, no. 1 (2008): 33. 18 What is Cultural Diplomacy? http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_culturaldiplomacy, last accessed at 12 May 2018. 19 Milton C. Cummings, ‘Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey’, Cultural Diplomacy Research Series, Washington, D.C: Americans for the Arts (2003):1. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 11 University of Amsterdam
culture and identity and therefore are part of cultural diplomacy. Cultural and media historian Nicholas Cull argues in one of his works on the concept that cultural diplomacy is the effort of actors, largely national governments, to influence international relations by using national cultural aspects to create publicity and knowledge about their own nation.20 However, cultural diplomacy can also be applied at grassroots level, as is investigated by Sarah Imani, a researcher who is attached to the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. She argues that high profile cultural diplomacy, as explained above, and grassroots methods, can effectively supplement each other for a better understanding of the so called ‘other’ and in this way move towards building peace and eventually solving conflict.21 Imani’s finding, is what this this research is also trying to examine, applying a more specific approach within cultural diplomacy, namely culinary diplomacy, using three grassroots projects aimed at creating mutual understanding between conflicting communities. This is also substantiated by chef Mark Tafoya who argues in his article on food and diplomacy that ‘When we try a new dish that comes from another land, we have a visceral experience of foreignness brought into our bodies, which begins the process of familiarization which can lead to great understanding of our shared tastes and values.’22 The concept ‘familiarization’ is what seems to be the inextricably linked to the theory behind cultural, and with it also culinary, diplomacy. Transmitting national culture creates understanding, respect and appreciation for the ‘other’ culture, whether that being political values or cuisine, on official or grassroots level.
2.3.2 Public Diplomacy Cultural diplomacy in turn is part of the field of public diplomacy. The term public diplomacy is relatively new. It was first applied in 1965 to ‘the process by which international actors seek to accomplish the goals of their foreign policy by engaging with foreign publics’.23 The components of the process however, are as old as diplomacy itself. Public diplomacy is intended to ‘indirectly exert influence on foreign government by appealing to the people over the heads of those governments’, as stated by diplomacy theorist G. R. Berridge.24 It focusses mainly on government-to-citizen efforts to accomplish certain
20 Cull, ‘Public Diplomacy’: 33. 21Sarah Imani, ‘Cultural Diplomacy from Below: Bridging the Gap Between the Turkish and German Communities in Rendsburg’, http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case- studies/Cultural_Diplomacy_From_Below_.pdf: 6. 22 Mark Tafoya, ‘Diplomacy of the Dish: Cultural Understanding through Taste’, in: Fritz Allhoff and Dave Monroe (eds), Food and Philosophy, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell (2007): 264. 23 Cull, ‘Public Diplomacy’: 31. 24 G.R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, New York: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf (1995): 182. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 12 University of Amsterdam
goals, but when focussed on the cultural diplomacy component, it can be split up into official and unofficial or informal levels. The first is relying on a nation’s soft power, a theory that will be briefly explained in the next paragraph. The latter aims at the level on which culinary diplomacy takes place. The emphasis is here on citizen-to-citizen diplomacy and takes place behind closed doors. The act of commensality is an important part and applicable example of private public diplomacy. The concept of private culinary diplomacy forms the basis of the theory behind this research, as this is the branch of public diplomacy where concepts of food and cuisine can be best applied.
2.3.3 Soft Power This research concentrates on culinary citizen diplomacy, which is based on the unofficial level of public and cultural diplomacy and will therefore not actively apply Nye’s theory of soft power. However, in order to obtain a complete overview of the theory behind culinary citizen diplomacy, it is vital to briefly assess this concept. In order to go beyond traditional diplomacy, the official level of both public and cultural diplomacy is embedded in and reasons from a ‘soft power’ framework, to reach the general public. This framework is defined by Joseph Nye as: ‘The ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.’25 The theory assumes that governments can rely on the appeal of friendlier aspects of a country such as political ideals and cultural topics like music, art and food, instead of military excursions, economic motives and political decisions.26 For this reason, food and cuisine are perfect examples of this soft power within a nation. Soft power rejects the approach that seeks to forcibly, with military or economic tools, influence or even change the interest of a foreign actor. Instead, it aims to affect a nation’s interests in and attitude towards certain policies or cultural aspects through attraction and appeal, with food being its oldest form, being a tool to persuade and flatter.27
2.4 Delineating the Field of Culinary Diplomacy Although they both have a different view on the concept, public diplomacy scholars Paul Rockower and Sam Chapple-Sokol have introduced and popularized the concept of culinary diplomacy from 2010 on. Rockower utilized the term ‘Gastrodiplomacy’ to indicate the
25 Joseph S. Nye, ‘Soft Power and American Foreign Policy, Political Science Quarterly, no. 2 (2004): 256. 26 Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy: 168. 27 Marian Burros, ‘Diplomacy Travels on Its Stomach, Too’, The New York Times, 2 July 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/dining/secretary-of-state-transforms-the-diplomatic- menu.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fmarian- burros&action=click&contentCollection=undefined®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&con tentPlacement=7&pgtype=collection, last accessed at 14 May 2018. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 13 University of Amsterdam
process, while Chapple-Sokol exerts the term ‘Culinary Diplomacy’ to mark the same. In 2011, Rockower published an article in the Taiwanese Journal Issues & Studies in which he stated that about Gastrodiplomacy that ‘it is predicated on the notion that the easiest way to win hearts and minds is through the stomach.’28 In his article ‘Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds’, published in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Chapple-Sokol builds on Rockower’s theory and designates the process ‘Culinary Diplomacy’ and defines it as ‘the use of food and cuisine as an instrument to create cross-cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation.’29 Both of the definitions compass the concept of culinary diplomacy in a way that touches upon the studied subject, however the first will be utilized here as the more extensive elaboration of the concept of culinary diplomacy provided by Chapple Sokol, is vital for this research. The concept of culinary diplomacy as defined by Chapple-Sokol settles very well into the frameworks of as well cultural and public diplomacy and Nye’s soft power theory. This is because this framework applies cultural aspects of society, such as food and cuisine, which appeals to both the governmental layers, as it is tangible from below, in the popular regions. Rockower directs his study at gastrodiplomacy being the use of a country’s culinary delights as a means to conduct public diplomacy and to raise nation brand awareness, whereas Chapple-Sokol applies the term public diplomacy as being useful as an instrument of conflict resolution, relying on the Contact Hypothesis theory, from Gordon W. Allport.30 As this research seeks to demonstrate the role of culinary diplomacy in projects aimed at building peace from below, Chapple-Sokol’s interpretation of the concept is therefore best applicable, and will therefore be at the core of this study. Chapple-Sokol classifies the theory of culinary diplomacy into three pillars, in this way providing a structured overview which makes the dense matter more comprehensive. The focus in this study thus will be on the specific citizen-to-citizen form of private culinary diplomacy, which Chapple-Sokol simplifies into the third pillar ‘Citizen Culinary Diplomacy, as this model can be best employed when investigating ways to build peace and move towards conflict resolution between communities through sharing ideas about food and cuisine.
28 Paul S. Rockower, ‘Projecting Taiwan: Taiwan's Public Diplomacy Outreach’, Issues & Studies, no. 1 (2011): 108. 29 Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy’: 161. 30 Samuel Chapple-Sokol, ‘War and Peas: Culinary Conflict Resolution as Citizen Diplomacy’, Public Diplomacy Magazine, 2 March 2014: 1. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 14 University of Amsterdam
As multiple scholars have defined and investigated the field of culinary diplomacy, chapter 3 will briefly delineate the three most popular approaches, emphasizing culinary citizen diplomacy, in order to outline the theory. Chapter 3 will also elucidate that private culinary diplomacy is focussed on achieving diplomatic goals through commensality and takes place in an intimate or personal setting.31 Since the act of commensality is one of the core concepts in this research, the next paragraph will review this more extensively.
2.5 Commensality Commensality can be defined as the act or practice of eating at the same table or “fellowship at table”.32 The word derives from the Medieval Latin word commensalis, made up of com- together and mensa- table. The act of commensality is, according to Chapple-Sokol, vital to diplomatic discussion. Regarding the distinction between public and private culinary diplomacy, he argues that while public dialogue and large conferences can lead to making decisions, the best negotiation often happens in a private setting, over a meal or drink.33 Food is an important indicator in this practice, as it can be applied as a tool to persuade or convince the guest at the dinner table and promote positive impressions of person hosting the dinner. According to food columnist for the New York Times, Marian Burros, advertising cuisines, ceremonies and values is an often-overlooked tool of diplomacy, as it can cultivate a stronger cultural understanding between two groups than a simple business meeting would, and it creates a setting in which formal diplomacy can be enhanced. 34 Many of the studies regarding commensality, focus on state dinners or banquets organised by and for religious or political leaders and purposes. However, little attention is paid to the act of commensality in everyday life, while especially this can influence the formation of and thinking about personal and national identities, partly due to the fact that eating and drinking at the same table is a fundamental social activity, which creates and cements relationships.35 Artist Micheal Rakowitz, created the project ‘Enemy Kitchen’ in 2007 with the goal to open up dialogue in the US around the war in Iraq by inviting students and adults to cook recipes from his Jewish-Iraqi mother and subsequently eat them together. He refers to the act of commensality as the practice of cooking and eating together and values it
31 Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy’: 162. 32 https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Commensality. 33 Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy: 162. 34 Marian Burros, ‘Diplomacy Travels on Its Stomach, Too’, The New York Times, 2 July 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/dining/secretary-of-state-transforms-the-diplomatic-menu, last accessed at 14 May 2018. 35 S. Kerner, C. Chou and M. Warmind, Commensality: From Everyday Food to Feast, New York: Bloomsbury Academic (2015): 22. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 15 University of Amsterdam
as ‘a public act that enlists an audience as vital collaborator in the production of meaning’.36 Although commensality has both a public as the private aspect, this research focusses mainly on the latter, as the case-studies that form the basis of this paper, take place in an informal, citizen-to-citizen atmosphere. The next paragraph will focus on three for this research vital aspects from the field of conflict resolution, namely the Contact Hypothesis, ‘peacebuilding from below’ and nation- branding. 2.6 Conflict Resolution Besides the ideas behind public, cultural and culinary diplomacy, some theories from the field of conflict resolution are key in this research. Therefore, in addition to the study of diplomacy as a whole, aspects from this field will be addressed below, in order to improve understanding of the context of the issue examined. Specifically, attention will be paid to the Contact Hypothesis, a psychological facet from this field, and the concept of ‘peacebuilding from below’, which focusses on the grassroots levels of conflict solving: “ordinary” people and agents such as grassroots organisations (GRO’s), community-based organisations (CBO’s) and activists. As this study seeks to investigate the influence of food and commensality on the process of ‘peacebuilding from below’ relying on the Contact Theory, this chapter will discuss these concepts separately in order be able to make informed assumptions throughout the process.
2.6.1 Contact hypothesis/Intergroup Contact Theory As explained in the previous paragraph, commensality plays an important role in creating mutual understanding between two conflicting parties and in this way sets the table for moving towards building peace between them. Chapple-Sokol argues in his article ‘War and Peas: Culinary Conflict Resolution as Citizen Diplomacy’, that the soft power goal of culinary diplomacy is for commensality to create commonality.37 However, in order to get to the core of the issue, American psychologist Gordon W. Allport argues, it is essential to think beyond the value of sitting around the table and to ‘reach below the surface’ to assure that the contact actually is effective.38 The theory that underlies this thought is a more psychological aspect in the field of conflict resolution: the intergroup contact hypothesis or contact theory. In 1954 Allport
36 Winn, Steven. “Michael Rakowitz's Enemy Kitchen Breaks Down Cultural Barriers.” SFGate: San Francisco Chronicle 27 December 2007. Web. 7 June 2010.
37 Samuel Chapple-Sokol, ‘War and Peas: Culinary Conflict Resolution as Citizen Diplomacy’, Public Diplomacy Magazine, March 2014, http://www.publicdiplomacymagazine.com/warandpeas/. 38 Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 1954). Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 16 University of Amsterdam
laid the foundations for this theory, through which he explains how relationships evolve and change as a result of intergroup contact.39 In order to attain positive effects of intergroup contact, Allport asserted that it was essential for a contact situation to meet some criteria, of which the following are the key conditions: equal status, intergroup cooperation, common goals and the support of authorities, law or custom.
Source: Everett, ‘Intergroup Contact Theory: Past, Present, and Future’40 Figure 1 Conditions for successful intergroup contact.
This theory implies that contact between people, parties or communities is ‘a crucial aspect in the process of reducing prejudice and promoting a more tolerant and integrated society’.41 When intergroup or interpersonal contact answers at least to some extent to these requirements, many scholars argue it is one of the most effective ways to reduce prejudice between groups members. As contact between conflicting groups or persons has been shown to be essential to reduce prejudice, promote equal status and create mutual understanding of cultures and values between groups, Allport’s ideas about intergroup contact are key to theory underlying this research. An analysis of several studies regarding this concept, has proved that not only specific contact that meets the abovementioned requirements, but contact in general can contribute to reducing prejudices within communities.42 A very well applicable medium to enhance this theory is food, as this brings people, whether on public or private level (eg. individual civilians and officials), in contact while being in an intimate and comfortable setting. Not only the pleasant setting of sharing food is
39 Ibid. 40 Jim A. C. Everett, ‘Intergroup Contact Theory: Past, Present, and Future’, in: Diana Onu (ed.), The Inquisitive Mind, no. 2 (2013), http://www.in-mind.org/article/intergroup-contact-theory-past-present-and-future. 41 Allport, The Nature of Prejudice: 42 Thomas F. Pettigrew and Linda R. Tropp, ‘A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, no. 5 (2006): 767. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 17 University of Amsterdam
significant, consumption of food is also inextricably linked with and part of society and everyday life. Therefore, the act of contact through food, or ‘culinary contact’ as Chapple- Sokol names it, is a vital starting point in order to move towards a form of peacebuilding from below, which will be explained below.
2.6.2 Peacebuilding from Below This paragraph elaborates on the concept of peacebuilding from below, being a form of peacebuilding that is implemented at the roots of society, instead of being imposed by higher authorities or ‘from above.’ Peacebuilding itself can be explained as a form of conflict resolution encompassing actions taken to prevent violent conflict by transforming relationships, interactions and governing structures. 43 The concept of peacebuilding from below involves several approaches that are implemented over an extensive time period and aims to change the social structures underlying conflict and the attitudes of the parties involved. 44 In chapter 9 of their extensive work on contemporary conflict resolution, Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall dedicate a considerably large part on the concept of peacebuilding from below. They state that increasingly more scholars are rethinking the dynamics and processed of post-conflict peacebuilding, coming to the conclusion that ‘effective and sustainable peace- making processes must be based not merely on the manipulation of peace agreements made by elites, but more importantly on the empowerment of communities…’.45 In this book on contemporary conflict resolution they assess the key concepts, developments, successes and failures in the field and main challenges in the second decade of the twenty-first century. The authors assert that applying a peacebuilding from below approach can alter the way in which a conflict is viewed.46 They argue that normally the people within the conflict are seen as the problem, with the outsiders providing the solution to the conflict. However, in the perspective of peacebuilding from below, the solutions are derived and built from local resources, with non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and more specifically GRO’s and CBO’s, being the decisive actors in this approach.47
43 L. A. Fast, & R. C., Neufeldt, ‘Envisioning Success: Building Blocks for Strategic and Comprehensive Peacebuilding Impact Evaluation’, Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, no. 2 (2005):24. 44 N. Ropers, Peaceful Intervention: Structures, Processes and Strategies for the Constructive Resolution of Ethnopolitical Conflicts, Berlin: Berghof Forschungszentrum für konstruktive Konfliktbearbeitung (1995): 35. 45 O. Ramsbotham, T. Woodhouse and H. Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Polity Press (2005): 215. 46 Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 222. 47 Ramsbotham, Woudhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 222-223. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 18 University of Amsterdam
The authors start the chapter with the assumption that peace-making processes, in order to be effective and sustainable, must be based on the empowerment of communities affected by conflict, instead of merely on the manipulation of peace agreements made by elites.48 They argue that this process of peacebuilding from below has led as well to a change in perception within the field of conflict resolution and as to a clearer understanding of three aspects within the field: 1) the recognition that it is much harder to reach by violence affected cultures or economies through constructed intervention than originally assumed.49 2) the importance of the idea that formal agents, such as governments, need to be underpinned by understandings and structures on the ground, that take away the violence and sustain peace.50 3) the importance of local actors and the non-governmental sector and the links with local knowledge and wisdom. Two scholar-practitioners within the field of conflict resolution and specifically peacebuilding, Adam Curle and John Paul Lederach, have contributed to the emergence of this change in perception of the peacebuilding approach. The first did an extensive research in the 1990’s on the Serb-Croat war, from which he eventually concluded that ‘since conflict resolution by outside bodies and individuals has so far proved ineffective … it is essential to consider the peace-making potential within the conflicting communities themselves.’51 The approach Curle advises is compatible with the concept of soft power, as the original idea of active mediation, for example by official actors, as an outsider intervention process needs to be transformed into a more context-sensitive, empowering approach, which emancipates people of goodwill in conflict-affected communities.52 This approach is substantiated by Lederach, who calls it ‘indigenous empowerment’. This suggests that, in order to transform a conflict, human and cultural resources from within the setting must be respected and promoted and involves ‘A new set of lenses through which we do not primarily ‘see’ the setting and the people as the ‘problem’ and the outsider as the ‘answer’.’ 53 Furthermore, Lederach argues that its more effective understand the long-term goal of transformation as validating and to build on people and resources within the setting. Both Curle and Lederach have based their ideas about the alteration in the approach of peacebuilding on their practical experiences and on the fact that they criticized the lack of significance and sensitivity given to local cultures within conflicted communities. This
48 Ramsbotham, Woudhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 215. 49 Ibid. 50 Ramsbotham, Woudhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 216. 51 A. Curle, ‘New Challenges for Citizen Peacemaking’, Medicine and War, no. 2 (1994): 96. 52 Ramsbotham, Woudhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 218. 53 John Paul Lederach, Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, New York: Syracuse University Press (1995): 212. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 19 University of Amsterdam
negligence caused in many of the researched communities miscomprehension and distrust towards ‘western’ outsider mediators. Lederach therefore argues that, in order for a long-term strategy to be sustainable, outsiders need to support and nurture rather than displace resources and address all the levels of the population. He describes these levels of population as a triangle, with at the top military and political leaders, in the middle regional leaders (within politics, religion, business, health-care and education) and at the bottom, the grassroots level, the common people.54 What can be deducted from as well Lederach as Curle and from the work of Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall, is that it is essential to combine and coordinate between these levels of population, in order for conflict resolution and peacebuilding to be effective and viable. In this approach, solutions mainly emanate from local resources, such as NGO’s, GRO’s and CBO’s, instead from outside the conflicted community, however the outsiders still play a (reoriented) role. In line with this is also Judith Large’s research on many examples of local-level cross-community peacebuilding work in Eastern Croatia. She argues that these small-scale initiatives, taking place inside the conflicted communities, might seem to be ineffective and unnecessary in the eyes of outsiders, but are certainly not on the inside.55 Thereby, the authors argue that, through building peace from below, an approach is taken which tends to attract people to a certain cause instead of forcing them. This process is what Nye has labelled as ‘soft power’. Exactly this approach is called ‘peacebuilding from below’ and is what underlies the core of this study. Food culture, cuisine and commensality may seem far-fetched tools to move towards peacebuilding between conflicting communities, but it does create a commonality, which in turn has the ability to make a first move towards bridging gaps.
Source: Lederach, Building Peace, 1997. Figure 2 Triangle of actors within the framework of peacebuilding
54 John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, Washington D.C.: US Institute of Peace Press (1997). 55 Ramsbotham, Woudhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 226. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 20 University of Amsterdam
3. Approaches: Food as a Tool for Public Diplomacy
As already mentioned, the theory of culinary diplomacy has been popularized from the beginning of the 2000’s on. As a consequence, the number of projects, aimed at building peace between conflicting communities, using food and cuisine as a tool for creating familiarity and mutual understanding, is also increasing. However, there has been a lot of debate ever since about the name of this research field. Many terms, such as “gastrodiplomacy”, “food diplomacy”, “gastronomic diplomacy,” and “diplomatic gastronomy” have passed, all implying more or less the same process. Therefore, before giving three examples of this type of projects in chapter 5 this section will briefly elaborate on the nature of and distinction between the names of and perspectives on the different approaches within the field of culinary diplomacy, in order to demarcate the approach applied in this study. To ensure absolute clarity in this research, a distinction must first be made regarding the applied concept of culinary diplomacy. As Chapple-Sokol notes in his main article on culinary diplomacy, its discrepancy with food diplomacy must be designated. Food diplomacy involves ‘using food aid as a tool of public outreach to reduce global hunger’ and therefore lies outside the culinary diplomacy-domain, as it is applied as a developmental tool as well as diplomatic.56 Secondly, the concept of culinary diplomacy, as applied in this research, must be distinguished from other models in order to apply it as well as possible to the case studies. Therefore, this chapter will briefly review the most common applied models of ‘Gastrodiplomacy’, ‘Diplomatic Gastronomy’ and ‘Culinary Diplomacy’, in order to demarcate the field and ensure a clear understanding of the matter. Finally, the end of this chapter will assess the negative effect that food can have on a conflict situation, to obtain a thorough and objective view of these approaches.
3.1 Diplomatic Gastronomy This form culinary diplomacy happens on a higher level than the concept of citizen-to-citizen diplomacy, which is the centre of this study, and is focussed at the intersection of gastronomy, anthropology and diplomacy and the influence that gastronomy, cuisine and food have on diplomatic and political affairs. The idea of diplomatic gastronomy was first mentioned by Linda Morgan in her article ‘Diplomatic Gastronomy: Style and Power at the Table’, in which she drew on ideas of
56 Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy’: 162. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 21 University of Amsterdam
Cypriot professor Costas Consantinou’s work from 1996. This book, named On the Way to Diplomacy, includes a whole chapter called ‘Gastronomic Diplomacy: Commensality, Communion, Communication’, describing the connections between food and diplomacy in ancient Greece and in the Bible.57 In this chapter Constantinou argues that ‘if we are to understand gastronomy simply as a natural or personal activity, or only as a socialising device, we run the risk of leaving unexamined the political implications of it’, thus laying the foundation for further research regarding the essential role food plays in diplomatic relations, attributing an important role to the concept of commensality.58 Morgan elaborates on Constantinou by re-framing his ideas into the concept of ‘diplomatic gastronomy’, which indicates the act of ‘diplomatic dining in which individuals representing sovereign political interests share a meal under the auspices of certain protocol’, in other words, the use of food and dining for diplomatic pursuits.59 A second aspect of diplomatic gastronomy works through the notion of non- logocentrism, a concept also introduced by Constantinou, which implies the use of non-verbal communication. This in turn is derived from Raymond Cohen’s work Theatre of Power, from 1987, in which he defines non-verbal communication as having two aspects: ‘the deliberate transfer of information by non-verbal means from one state to another and from the state- leadership to its population on an international issue’. 60 An example of this first non-verbal transfer could be a state banquet or shared meal between diplomatic officials, in which attention is paid to culinary specialties of the home country and personal preferences of the guest. The second transfer of information is exemplified by a culinary outreach program, implemented by a government, of which the most famous is the Global Thai program, an initiative set up in 2002 and aimed to boost the number of Thai restaurants around the world in order to persuade more people to visit Thailand, but also to strengthen relations with other countries.61 Thus, gastrodiplomacy encompasses the way food can positively influence political decision-making by creating a comfortable and friendly atmosphere, as well at government- government, as government-citizen level, but not at the citizen-to-citizen level, which is
57 Costas Constantinou, On the Way to Diplomacy, Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press (1996): 126. 58 Ibid. 59 Linda Morgan, ‘Diplomatic Gastronomy: Style and Power at the Table’, Food and Foodways, no. 2 (2012): 146-166, 60 Raymond Cohen, Theatre of Power: The Art of Diplomatic Signalling, London: Longman (1987): 19. 61 Author unknown, ‘Thailand’s Gastrodiplomacy’, The Economist, February 2002, https://www.economist.com/node/999687, last accessed at May 15, 2018. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 22 University of Amsterdam
central in this study. The second approach discussed in this chapter utilizes food as a tool for public diplomacy on government to citizen level and is explained below.
3.2 Gastronomic Diplomacy (Gastrodiplomacy) Although gastrodiplomacy and culinary diplomacy are often used interchangeably, it is vital to this research to distinct them from each other in order to explain which definition is being applied here. According to Paul Rockower, the term gastrodiplomacy has emerged as a way for countries to use their unique culinary histories to promote themselves on the global stage.62 Rockower sees gastrodiplomacy, being a form of public diplomacy, as a tool ’to communicate culture through food to the broader foreign public’ and also as a way to ‘engage people-to- people connections through the act of breaking bread.63 According to Rockower, gastrodiplomacy is a public diplomacy pursuit, which has a visible impact on our daily lives. He states that: ‘gastro diplomacy is to culinary diplomacy what public diplomacy is to diplomacy. It is the act of winning hearts and minds through stomach.64 Following this line of thought, examples of gastrodiplomacy would be an initiative to bring a country’s nationals and immigrants together to enjoy a dinner, but also ordering in foreign food.65 As gastrodiplomacy exists at the intersection of food and foreign policy, Rockower argues, it uses a country’s culinary delights to convey public diplomacy and promote national awareness, in this way combining cultural diplomacy, soft power, culinary diplomacy and nation-branding.66 Sam Chapple-Sokol however, has a different interpretation of the concept. According to him, culinary diplomacy as well as gastrodiplomacy falls under the categorization of culinary diplomacy, but a distinction can be made between public and private culinary diplomacy, with the latter alluding to Rockower’s definition of gastrodiplomacy. Where Rockower utilizes gastrodiplomacy and culinary diplomacy, Chapple-Sokol uses respectively the terms public and private culinary diplomacy to indicate the difference between these two aspects.
62 Rockower, Paul, ‘The Gastrodiplomacy Cookbook’, The Huffington Post, September 2010, last accessed May 18, 2018. 63 Rockower, ‘Setting the Table for Diplomacy, The Huffington Post, September 2012, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rockower/setting-the-table-for-dip_b_1904521.html, last accessed May 18, 2018. 64 Paul S. Rockower, Recipes for Gastrodiplomacy, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, no. 3 (2012): 235-237. 65 Valerie Gecowets, ‘Culinary Diplomacy vs. Gastrodiplomacy’, http://www.conflictcuisine.com/culinary- diplomacy-vs-gastrodiplomacy/, last accessed at May 18, 2018. 66 Rockower, ‘Recipes for Gastrodiplomacy’: 243. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 23 University of Amsterdam
Thus, Rockower applies the term gastrodiplomacy to the process of individual exchange of food culture between people, which Chapple-Sokol denominates culinary diplomacy. To the term gastrodiplomacy on the other side, Chapple-Sokol allocates the engagement of government-to-foreign public, a sub-component of public diplomacy, which is aimed at building a nation’s soft power, promoting trade and tourism and encouraging cultural exchange.67 This model is what he has labelled as the second pillar of culinary diplomacy and has become popularized in the last fifteen years. As Chapple-Sokol makes a distinction between private and public culinary diplomacy, instead of respectively culinary diplomacy and gastrodiplomacy, he provides a more structured and extensive overview of the concept of culinary diplomacy than Rockower does. Therefore, this study will utilize Chapple-Sokol’s framework of the theories behind culinary diplomacy and thus also refer to the term gastrodiplomacy as government-to-foreign public engagement. The concept of culinary diplomacy, which is central to this research will be explained below.
3.3 Culinary Diplomacy Lastly the overarching concept of culinary diplomacy, as it will be applied throughout the rest of this study, will be examined. As highlighted above, many interpretations of the ideas behind culinary diplomacy, gastrodiplomacy, diplomatic gastronomy and all their underlying and related aspects exist. In order to ensure clarity, it is important to utilize the same definitions and approaches for the whole of this study. The concept of culinary diplomacy is widely known and used to create awareness and enhance a country’s image and status in the world. The United States were the first to establish a of Diplomatic Culinary Partnership, an initiative of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, elevating ‘the role of culinary engagement in America’s formal and public diplomacy efforts’.68 This exemplifies that nations utilize food as a tool to promote cultures, ideas, identities and values. Although the concept of culinary diplomacy is applied at a large scale, it comprises many divergent structures and shapes. For example, Rockower differentiates culinary diplomacy from gastrodiplomacy by arguing that the latter refers to a tool of public diplomacy
67 Samuel Chapple-Sokol, ‘A New Structure for Culinary Diplomacy’, http://culinarydiplomacy.com/blog/2016/08/28/a-new-structure-for-culinary-diplomacy/, last accessed at May 19, 2018. 68 Mary Beth Albright, Culinary Diplomacy is on America’s Menu, National Geographic, April 2015, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2015/04/25/culinary-diplomacy-is- on-americas-menu/, last accessed May 20, 2018. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 24 University of Amsterdam
while the first serves as a means to further diplomatic protocol through cuisine.69 He refers to culinary diplomacy as ‘the use of cuisine as a medium to enhance formal diplomacy in official diplomatic functions such as visits by heads-of-state, ambassadors and other dignitaries’ and distinguishes it from the above explained gastrodiplomacy, which would be focused on the broader foreign public and people-to-people connections.70 As mentioned above, Chapple-Sokol on the other hand, divides the concept into two facets: public and private culinary diplomacy.71 The first one, he argues, is part of cultural diplomacy, which in turn is covered by public diplomacy. Examples of public culinary diplomacy are programmes that national governments initiate to put themselves on the world map, such as the above-mentioned Global Thai plan. Private culinary diplomacy on the other hand, is focussed on achieving diplomatic goals through commensality, the act of eating and drinking at the same table and takes place in a more intimate or personal setting.72 He finally defines the overarching concept as ‘the use of food and cuisine as instruments to create cross- cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation’.73 In August 2016 Chapple-Sokol revised and restructured this thought about culinary diplomacy, dividing it into three pillars, however retaining the definition originally signed to the term. This revised overview will form the basis for this study and will be elucidated below. The three pillars that form together the overarching term culinary diplomacy, are all already existing concepts. However, they have been reconsidered and adjusted to new research that was done within the field. The first pillar is called Track 1 Culinary Diplomacy and is almost equal to the above-mentioned concepts of private culinary diplomacy (Chapple-Sokol) and culinary diplomacy (Rockower). This pillar is the widely known and described in scholarly literature. According to Chapple-Sokol, ‘it involves formal interaction between governments officials, either behind closed doors or in public’.74 Examples of this formal interaction could be state banquets, lunch meetings or different kinds of (culinary) entertainment during diplomatic affairs. The second pillar is the one that Chapple-Sokol refers to as gastrodiplomacy, which differs from the definition that Rockower assigns to this and indicates government-to-foreign
69 Rockower, ‘Recipes for Gastrodiplomacy’: 240. 70 Ibid. 71 Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy’: 162. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 S. Chapple-Sokol, ‘A New Structure for Culinary Diplomacy’, http://culinarydiplomacy.com/blog/2016/08/28/a-new-structure-for-culinary-diplomacy/, last accessed May 20, 2018. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 25 University of Amsterdam
public engagement and can be considered a sub-component of public diplomacy.75 With this form of diplomacy, nations seeks to spread its cultural treasures, such as cuisine, aiming to promote trade and tourism. These efforts fall under the heading of what Joseph Nye has labeled ‘soft power’. This pillar is not as well-established as the first one and has its roots in the work of the Thai government and later also in projects from the Peruvian, South Korean and Malaysian government, aimed at promoting their national cultural heritage in order to improve their position within international relations, and the initiation of US Diplomatic Culinary Partnership. The third and last pillar comprises the part that is most essential for this research. It is an area of research that is relatively new to the field and has only come under the attention since the early 2000’s. This section of culinary diplomacy, which ‘involves any project or idea that for the most part engages non-state actors’ and unlike the previous, doesn’t have ‘the explicit goal of promoting a nation’s foreign affairs’, is called Citizen Culinary Diplomacy by Chapple-Sokol.76 He defines this concept as ‘The use of food and cuisine as an instrument to create cross-cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation’.77 The interest in this field has grown over the past 10 years and gained specific attention with the establishment of the Conflict Café in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and other initiatives following the idea of combining immigration and cuisine. This last pillar or culinary citizen diplomacy, as it is referred to from now on, is particularly significant for this study, as it is at the citizen level that food and cuisine can be best applied as a tool for conflict resolution and peacebuilding from below. This third approach is the least investigated method in the field of culinary diplomacy, partly due to the fact that is difficult to analyse the cases that apply this form as they are set below the surface, which makes their results intangible and hard to draw conclusions from. Therefore a few more scholarly insights will be discussed to give a more comprehensive overview of the matter. According to Gordon Allport, intensive contact between groups can reduce the formation of stereotypes and replace fear of or hostility towards the other with a realistic view.78 This underlies the theory of culinary citizen diplomacy in a way that it is vital that, due to food and commensality, a deeper and more sustainable form of intergroup relationship
75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 Samuel Chapple-Sokol, ‘Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, nr.8 (2013), p. 161. 78 Allport, The Nature of Prejudice: 273. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 26 University of Amsterdam
is established, that can counter prejudices and encourage cooperation.79 This relationship is based on trust and common goals, which can be achieved by not just eating, but also cooking together. Allport’s Contact Hypothesis is key to this third pillar, as it is contact through food, by means of cooking and/or sharing a dinner, that brings people together in an intimate and comfortable setting, which in turn encourages them to seek mutual understanding and appreciation.80 Allport asserts in his study on race and contact in the 1940’s and 1950’s that when there is more communication between communities, stereotypes, fear and hostility regarding the other are removed.81 As explained above, food provides a tool for communication, and therefore Allport’s hypothesis is essential for understanding the theory behind this study. Social psychologist Ifat Moaz substantiates this vision, arguing that in order for contact to improve intergroup relations as much as possible, a common goal must be envisioned.82 Thus, an indispensable aspect of this third pillar and therefore also for this research is that, in order to obtain results out of the application of culinary citizen diplomacy on a conflicted community, both groups must strive to cooperate and set common goals. In this way the probability of mutual and cross-cultural understanding will increase. Furthermore, this research will indicate that besides the presence of a common goal, the duration of the project, the development trust in the other participants and in the project, the role of food and the distance to the actual conflict area plays an essential role in the success of culinary citizen diplomacy. These indicators, that are essential for the theory of culinary citizen diplomacy to become effective and even successful, will be discussed in detail in chapter 6.
3.4 Taxonomy of Definitions Of course, not every case or project falls exactly within the format of one of these pillars, but they provide a guidance to a clear and structured rendition of the matter discussed in this research. The aim of this chapter was to distinguish three approaches and their similarities and differences, in order to define and demarcate the research field of this study. In summary, the following can be deducted from this: Diplomatic gastronomy refers to the use of food and dining for diplomatic pursuits and works mainly through the notion of non-logocentrism (the use of non-verbal communication). With
79 I. E., Padeanu, ‘Face to Face: The Role of Managed Intergroup Contact in Peacebuilding and Reconciliation’, Queen’s University Review, Belfast: Queen’s University, no 1 (2014): 35. 80 Chapple-Sokol, ‘War and Peas’. 81 Allport, The Nature of Prejudice: 276. 82 Ifat Maoz, ‘Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of reconciliation- aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians’, Journal of Peace Research, no. 1 (2011): 118-19.
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 27 University of Amsterdam
the term gastrodiplomacy is meant in this research the engagement of government-to-foreign public, aimed at building a nation’s soft power, promoting trade and tourism and encouraging cultural exchange.83 It should be mentioned that this definition differs from the meaning Rockower assigned to it, which comprised the process of individual exchange of food culture between people. The third approach, culinary diplomacy, with emphasis on culinary citizen diplomacy, is key to this research and has many interpretations. Rockower and Chapple-Sokol have defined the most prominent ones, with the first referring to the use of cuisine as a tool to amplify diplomacy on an official level. The latter defines it as ‘the use of food and cuisine as an instrument to create cross-cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation’.84 As mentioned above, this study applies the second definition of the approach, as it fits in a more structured overview of the different forms of culinary diplomacy delineated by Chapple-Sokol. The three approaches discussed here all apply three concepts that are important for them to be successful. However, each approach utilizes these concepts in a different way. The first concept, personal interaction is applied to the greatest extent by culinary (citizen) diplomacy and in a lower degree by diplomatic gastronomy. Gastrodiplomacy builds largely on interaction between groups, but not at all on the personal variant. Secondly, the three approaches all exert food as a tool for communication, although on another level. Diplomatic gastronomy is being used as a ‘non-logocentric form of communication’, which means that the approach does not use words to communicate intentions, but non-verbal tools like seating arrangements or menu’s. Gastrodiplomacy applies the method, but on a more elementary scale, while culinary (citizen) diplomacy on the other hand is for the most part based on the concept of commonality as a tool for communication. Finally, the use of common goals or shared incentives is especially present at and also part of the core of culinary diplomacy, where extensive and sustained contact and cooperation towards shared goals is required. Gastrodiplomacy also uses incentives or goals, but these are mainly economical and rewarded to the participants individually.85 Diplomatic gastronomy however, doesn’t apply explicit incentives as it is focussed on representing the interests of the own group or promoting the interests of this group.
83 Samuel Chapple-Sokol, ‘A New Structure for Culinary Diplomacy’, http://culinarydiplomacy.com/blog/2016/08/28/a-new-structure-for-culinary-diplomacy/, last accessed at May 19, 2018. 84 Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy’:162. 85 Padeanu, ‘Face to Face’:35.
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 28 University of Amsterdam
This research will attempt to examine and explore the effectiveness of cases that apply culinary diplomacy on citizen level, on the basis of the five aspects, derived from the three concepts mentioned above: time, trust, a common goal, the role of food and their distance to the conflict area. These aspects will be discussed at the end of paragraph 3.3.
3.5 Food as a Trigger for Conflict Before moving on to the methodology of this research, it is important to shed light on an important aspect regarding the field of culinary diplomacy, in order to obtain as complete a picture as possible. This study seeks to investigate the extent to which food and cuisine could be a useful tool in the process of conflict resolution and specifically ‘peacebuilding from below’, by uniting people through the act of commensality and the setting of common goals in the kitchen. However, it must be noted that food is obviously not always a source of unity. There are many examples of conflicts and quarrels on the ‘gastro-geopolitical landscape’. Besides the older, sometimes ancient, examples of wars that broke out due to the scarcity of supplies, mainly wheat or grains, there are also more recent cases of conflict sparked by food. One famous example is the conflict over hummus, a dish served in many Middle Eastern countries. The conflict centres about the question who invented it, the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Israelis or the Greeks. In 2008, Lebanon accomplished to create the world’s largest portion of hummus and were therefore eternalized in the Guinness Book of Records. They placed the Lebanese flag on top of the plate in an attempt to claim proprietorship over the dish. In this way they triggered an international debate and deteriorating the ongoing war over regional cuisine between Lebanon and Israel.86 Yotam Ottolenghi, a well-known Israeli- British chef however, states about this ‘that food (hummus or otherwise) has just as much power to bring people together as it does to force them apart. While it would be flippant to suggest that hummus per se is a tool for peace, there is something very real about the act of bringing people together around a table to eat, whatever their differences: the very act of cooking and sharing food is a unifying one. It’s certainly a good place to start, if nothing else.’87 As can be derived from this chapter, food can be a way to create understanding and promote cooperation, but it can apparently also serve as a trigger for competition between groups or communities, pulling them apart and cause hostility. There are many initiatives all over the world that share Ottolenghi’s vision on the function food and commensality can have
86 See attachement 1. 87 Yotam Ottolenghi, ‘Yotam Ottolenghi’s Grape Recipes, The Guardian, February 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/23/grape-recipes-burrata-salad-yotam-ottolenghi-grilled- chicken-fennel-granita-vodka-pomegranate. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 29 University of Amsterdam
in moving towards peace. These initiatives seek to overcome hostilities and use food as a mediator instead of a trigger, creating a friendly and comfortable atmosphere to openly discuss difficult topics and create cross-cultural understanding. Three examples of such projects will be analysed in this study, based on the principles described in this chapter.
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 30 University of Amsterdam
4. Methodology
Having delineated the theory and clarified the different approaches in the field of culinary diplomacy, this chapter will give an outline of the methodology used to answer the research questions. For this thesis, a comparative case study approach comprising the Most Different Systems Design (MDSD) and the Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD) is applied in combination with the analysis of relevant literature. The comparative method will be based on three case studies that apply a form of citizen-to-citizen culinary diplomacy. This approach of comparing case studies is particularly useful for understanding and explaining how context influences the success of a project and how better to design the project to the specific context to achieve the envisioned outcome. When it comes to investigated peacebuilding processes, an experimental research method is insufficient, because conflict sensitivity concerns make them risky to implement. A comparative case-study approach takes into account the intangible aspects of peacebuilding and conflict solving projects, such as mutual understanding and friendship. Therefore, this approach will be best applicable to this type of research. This chapter will first shed light on the comparative method and specifically, the MDSD and MSSD approach will be explained and placed within the context of this study. Subsequently, the way case studies work in comparative research will be assessed.
4.1 The Comparative Method Comparative research is a research methodology that aims to make comparisons across different countries or cultures, applied mainly in social sciences. The method involves, among other things, an analysis of a small number of cases in order to identify and assess empirical relationships between variables.88 A lower number of cases is used in this method, in comparison with statistical methods. As the field of culinary diplomacy is still relatively under-researched and not many well documented cases exist, this method is very appropriate for this study. Besides this, the small number of case-studies also ensures a thorough analysis of the projects and their perspectives and outcomes, which is significant for studying subjective notions such as mutual understanding, cooperation and friendship. These are aspects that are inextricably linked with the concepts of intergroup relations and peacebuilding from below.89 Therefore, a comparative case-study approach is best applicable
88 A. Lijphart, ‘Comparative politics and the comparative method’ American Political Science Review, no 3 (1971):683. 89 L. A. Fast, & R. C., Neufeldt, ‘Envisioning Success: Building
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 31 University of Amsterdam
to this study. In order to optimize the use of the comparative method, a combination of Most Different Systems Design and Most Similar Systems Design will be utilized, which will be clarified in the paragraph 4.2.
4.1.1 Case-Studies in Comparative Research A case study can be defined as an in-depth examination, often undertaken over time, of a single case – such as a policy, programme, intervention site, implementation process or participant. 90 When multiple case-studies are compared to acquire information about causes, incentives and results, we talk about comparative case-studies. These stress the importance of comparison within and across the object of study. One utilizes comparative case-studies in order to understand or explain the way specific aspects within the study affect the success or failure of it. Comparative case studies involve the analysis and synthesis of the similarities, differences and patterns across two or more cases that share a common focus or goal.91 According to Li, scholars prefer the use of comparative case-studies to the use of single case- studies, because of their potential to achieve two seemingly contradictory goals: the abovementioned in-depth understanding of the cases and generalization.92 For this combining method, both the MSSD and the MDSD approach will be applied, with the aim of structuring comparisons and discovering and confirming arguments. In order to discover these similarities, differences and patterns, the case-studies that are used in this research, will be extensively discussed and described beforehand in chapter 5.
4.2 MSDS & MDDS Within the field of comparative research, multiple approaches can be distinguished regarding the use of case-studies. One of the most frequently applied approach within the field of comparative politics, is the Most Similar System Design (MSSD), that focusses on case-studies which are as similar as possible and only differ in their dependant variable. In this way, it is easier to find the independent variable, which explains the presence or absence of a dependent
Blocks for Strategic and Comprehensive Peacebuilding Impact Evaluation’, Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, no. 2 (2005): 24. 90 Delwyn Goodrick, ‘Comparative Case Studies’, Methodological Briefs: Impact Evaluation no. 9 (2014), Florence: UNICEF Office of Research, http://devinfolive.info/impact_evaluation/ie/img/downloads/Comparative_Case_Studies_ENG.pdf, last accessed May 21, 2018. 91 Ibid. 92 Li, Governing Environmental Conflicts in China. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 32 University of Amsterdam
variable.93 However, according to political scientist, specialized in comparative politics, Arend Lijphart, the MSSD model is also likely to suffer from the problem of ‘many variables, small number of cases’.94 Therefore, Przeworksi and Teune designed an alternative to this approach, named the Most Different Systems Approach (MDSD). In this approach, different case-studies are investigated that have the same independent variable. This ensures the fact that all the other aspects of the cases that are similar, can be seen as independent variable. In other words, not the similarities, but the differences between the cases are important variables, because differences cannot explain similarities between the cases.95 As Ancker argues, this approach depends on falsification rather than verification, which resolves the problem of too many variables and too few cases.96 Thus, the MDSD model relies on cases that include different variables but do have similar outcomes and tries to find what caused this. When applying this method, first the differences within the cases are investigated and then the results of the collected data are compared within their setting. If the results differ, the MSSD method have to be applied. Normally, different approaches, represented by a case study, are compared in the application of this method. In this study I will apply a different form of this method, which will examine three ways of applying one approach, namely culinary citizen diplomacy. Each case-study utilizes the framework of culinary citizen diplomacy, but with different variables and a slightly different outcome. Both the MSSD and the MDSD approach are analytic tools to structure comparisons and identify similarities and differences between cases, the MSSD approach can be applied to distinguish necessary conditions, whereas the MDSD approach distinguishes the sufficient conditions.97 Therefore, a combination of the two methods will be applied in order to structure these differences and similarities and find the most effective use of culinary citizen diplomacy. By combining these two approaches, several comparisons can be made in order to draw conclusions. When the two approaches are used simultaneously, it is not necessary to select comparable cases in a research, because different comparisons can be made. Therefore, three cases have been selected for this research that apply a form of culinary citizen diplomacy, using both matching and deviating indicators. These cases will be investigated by
93 Carsten Anckar, ‘On the Applicability of the Most Similar Systems Design and the Most Different Systems Design in Comparative Research’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, no. 5 (2008): 390. 94 Lijphart, ‘Comparative Politics’: 685. 95 Anckar, ‘The Most Similar Systems Design and the Most Different Systems Design’: 390. 96 Ibid. 97 J. Mahoney, & R. Snyder, ‘Rethinking Agency and Structure in the Study of Regime Change’, Studies in Comparative International Development, no. 2 (1999): 10. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 33 University of Amsterdam
means of a combination of both the MSSD and the MDSD approach, as this approach will elucidate the conditions that are important to explain the differences in different implementations of culinary citizen diplomacy and in this way allows to find an explanation for the emergence of the best applicable strategy for this theory.98 The MDSD approach will identify the conditions that explain the similarities within the case-studies, while by means of the MSSD approach the conditions that explain the differences will be identified. Furthermore, this combined method is applied in this research, as it makes it unnecessary to test the variability of the dependent variable, which is required when using the methods separately. Some scholars argue that when cases are selected on the basis of a dependent variable, it is more likely to come to a biased conclusion.99 When both MDSD and MSSD are applied, this problem is not an issue; the method adapts to the case instead of the other way around and the cases do not necessarily have to be comparable, as this combined approach enables different types of comparisons.100 Thus, the emphasis in this study is on finding similarities as well as differences between cases that slightly differ from each other in their implementation of culinary citizen diplomacy but strive for the same goal in the end. This goal is in the case of this study, to build bridges between conflicting communities through the medium of food and in this way build peace from below and move towards conflict solving. In order to structure this study, chapter 5 will firstly assesses the process of analysing the case-studies and applying the methods, after which chapter 6 and 7 will focus on the outcomes of these analysis.
98 Yanwei Li, Chapter 7, Governing Environmental Conflicts in China, New York: Routledgde (2018). 99 "The Importance of Research Design in Political Science.(The Qualitative-Quantitative Disputation: Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba's Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research)." American Political Science Review 89, no. 2 (1995): 475. 100 John P. Frendreis, ‘Explanation of Variation and Detection of Covariation ‘, Comparative Political Studies, no.2 (1983): 255-272.
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 34 University of Amsterdam
5. Culinary Diplomacy in Practice: Process & Case-studies
This study will analyse three projects that assess a form of non-violent conflict and apply a certain form of culinary diplomacy and evaluate the ways in which this approach is applied. In order to structure this analysis, a comparative approach will be utilized. This is done on the basis of three different cases with the same objective: they use food as a tool for non-verbal communication in order to the meliorate intergroup contact. This chapter gives an overview of the way this process will be addressed, subsequently, the three case-studies that are analysed will be assessed and finally the results of this research will be discussed.
5.1 Process Conducting research on the basis of case-studies is comparative, which means that it describes methods to identify and explain differences and similarities between cases.101 Before selecting these case-studies, a proper review of the literature and theory must be done in order to clarify the applied concepts and be able to ‘operationalise’ them. Subsequently, it is essential to pick your case-studies deliberately and not because they are obvious or provide the results that are viable for the research. When selecting the cases, it is important to not pick the cases to suit the theory, but to look for ways to justify your selection. Thus, instead of ‘selecting on the dependent variable’, or comparing cases because they seem to have the outcome in common, focus on what causes these outcomes.102 As explained in the previous chapter, two approaches can be distinguished within this form of conducting research: ‘Most Similar System Design’ (MSSD) and ‘Most Different System Design’ (MDSD). As the MDSD approach dictates, case-studies are being selected which are different from each other, in order to track the effect of key similarities and the in MSSD cases which are similar are investigated with the aim of finding differences.103 Following both approaches, this research provides an analysis of differences and similarities of within the three cases which are related to their independent and dependent variables.104 This research has tried to indicate the amount of present or absent indicators that were found useful for the creation of an image of success in projects that apply a form of culinary citizen diplomacy. With the ‘success’ of a culinary citizen project in this study is
101 Sandra Halperin and Oliver Heath, ‘Chapter 9: Comparative Research’, Political Research: Methods and Practical Skills (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press (2016): 211-238. 102 Ibid. 103 Paul Cairney, ‘Research Design: Case Studies and Comparative Research’, https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/research-design-case-studies-and-comparative-research/. 104 See figure 3. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 35 University of Amsterdam
meant the increased interaction and cooperation between two conflicting communities, with the aim of creating cross-cultural understanding. Based on the literature that was reviewed in this research it was found that it is vital that several variables are present in a case, in order for it to be ‘successful’. Although many of these variables were present in all three cases, the extent to which differed considerably per case. It is argued in this study, that the presence of these aspects to a certain degree could contribute to and measure this level ‘success’. Thereby, these variables can be considered indicators that allow this study to make a comparison between the three case-studies. The variables that need to be taken into account and are part of the success of culinary diplomacy on citizen level, as pursued in this study (and will be placed in the context of the projects in paragraph 5.3) are:
- Time: the timeframe in which a project takes place. This applies to both the total duration of a project as to the amount of contact hours on a weekly or monthly basis. The longer the timeframe, the more room there is for intergroup contact and thus for personal interaction and cooperation, which can eventually contribute to the success of the project. - Trust: refers to the confidence participants have in the project, determined on the one hand by the fact that both communities are represented and on the other hand the involvement of both communities in the project. - Common goal: the presence of as well an incentive for initiating the project as a tangible goal to work towards. - The role of food: the way in which food plays a role in the project. Not only the presence of food, but also the act of cooking together, creating recipes, exchanging methods and the act of commensality. - Relation to the conflict area: the direct influence of the conflict in question, expressed by the distance to the conflict area.
5.2 The Case-studies This paragraph will discuss the three case-studies that are being examined in this research and the presence of the abovementioned indicators within them. The cases all represent a form of citizen-to-citizen culinary diplomacy, as defined by Chapple-Sokol. Although the cases have a lot in common, each case is distinctly different from the other. The cases covered in this study are: The Conflict Kitchen (CK) in Pittsburgh, The Border Kitchen (BK) in Cyprus and
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 36 University of Amsterdam
the ‘Buttercreme und Borek’ (BB) project in Rendsburg.105 Below, they will be discussed in detail in order to be able to discern these differences and similarities and to obtain a complete overview for the research. Subsequently, the key concepts of ‘successful implementation of culinary diplomacy’ will be placed within the context of the studies.
5.2.1 ‘The Conflict Kitchen’, Pittsburgh The first case that will be assessed in this chapter is the one that initially received the most media attention and which was also the motivation behind this research. The Conflict Kitchen (CK) began as take-out window in East Liberty, Pittsburgh (USA), which was active from 2010 until 2012. The eatery was an initiative of Carnegie Mellon University professor Jon Rubin and Dawn Weleski, who aimed to foster understanding of and conversation about the cultures of communities or countries where the United States are in conflict with. 106 In April 2013, the restaurant relocated to Schenley Plaza in downtown Pittsburgh, where it remained active as a sit-down restaurant until May 2017. Besides serving food, CK organised performances, discussions and lectures with the aim to inform the guests and open the floor to debate, in order to gather people to promote peace, reconciliation and understanding about cultures where the United States are in conflict with. The founders of CK believe that food can be utilized as a tool to spread global awareness of different cultures and political practices. According to Rubin, ‘the communal act of eating is central to all cultures and we believe that it can help break down barriers to understanding.’107 Rubin argues that CK restructures the already established social relations of food and economic exchange in order to let the public participate in debates about cultures and people that they are not familiar with partly because of the polarizing rhetoric of US media and politics.108 He also asserts that these discussions can often be uncomfortable for many Americans, as they require the humanizing of people and cultures from countries that the US government is in conflict with and recognizing that they have many things in common.109 The Conflict Kitchen brings a different conflict under the attention every three to six months, depending on current political events, thereby changing its identity and food it serves. Food and cuisine from Iran, North Korea, Cuba and indigenous nations from within the US, along with complementary artistic performances and outreach programs, have been
105 Both the full name as the abbreviation of the projects are used interchangeably in this chapter. 106 https://www.conflictkitchen.org/about/, last accessed May 29, 2018. 107 https://www.vogue.com/article/conflict-kitchen-pittsburgh-travel-ban-restaurant, last accessed May 29, 2018. 108 https://www.conflictkitchen.org/about/, last accessed May 29, 2018. 109 Ibid. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 37 University of Amsterdam
subject of CK’s project. For this study, the latest project, focussed on the Iroquois or Haudenosaunee, a northeast native American confederacy, is being examined. Ten Pittsburgh residents, mainly students, have been asked if they were familiar with the Conflict Kitchen and its project and to briefly comment on the concept.110 The figure below provides a structured summary of the findings from the participants’ answers.
Figure 3. Overview 10 opinions on the concept of Conflict Kitchen Pittsburgh Source: See attachment 3.
As this figure demonstrates, a few assumptions can be deducted from the given answers. Firstly, the reactions on the CK project were visibly more positive than negative. The respondents allocated the concept clearly more assets than ways to improve. The asset that the greater part of the respondents assigned to CK, is the way it provided the visitors with additional educational information, such as readers, flyers, lectures and performances. The fact that the CK packed their food in wrappers imprinted with interviews with people from the conflicted area was also greatly appreciated and valued.111 Secondly, a slight majority of the respondents was attracted to the CK because of the food itself instead of the idea behind the food. They state that initially they visited the restaurant because of the quality of the food and because it was different from what the majority of the take-out places served. However, all of them said to be convinced of the aim and importance of the project due to the information that was provided at the restaurant. Finally, it appears that the focal point of improvement for CK lies in the fact that the respondents would have liked to see more depth in the information about the conflicts. From these reactions can be deducted that during the years that it has been active, the Conflict Kitchen has made a big impression on Pittsburgh’s residents who generally give positive feedback on the concept. As CK’s main aim was to raise awareness about and create understanding for cultures where the US were in conflict with, which were often presented
110 See attachment 3 for the complete answers. 111 See attachment 2. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 38 University of Amsterdam
one-sidedly by politicians and media, it can be argued that Rubin and Weleski have been successful in carrying out their goal for a large part.
5.2.1.1 Measurement of Success When it comes to the definition of success for culinary diplomacy as applied in this study on the other hand, it can be said that the CK does not fully meet the requirements, as not all the necessary actors are present. For instance, the projects of CK didn’t involve intensive personal interaction between participants of two conflicting communities. CK brought certain issues under the attention of the public by means of performances, lectures, events or on food wrappers, but, with the exception that arranged an Palestinian table companion who was willing to answer questions of the guests at the dinner table, there was no exhaustive interaction between the two concerned conflicting communities and representatives of the discussed community seemed to be missing in the commensality process.112 Furthermore, although CK had a clear incentive, namely the fact that the founders believed that US citizens know little about countries, cultures and people outside the polarizing rhetoric of US politics, which they wanted to change by teaching about these cultures on a daily basis through the medium of food, the concept lacked a common goal which was tangible for the participants. Finally, an essential actor that needs to be taken into account, is the physical relation to the discussed conflict area. The case used for this study highlighted the conflict between the United States and the Haudenosaunee confederacy, which is a Native American community. Therefore, the distance between the two communities was very small, making it easier for participants to relate and emphasize with the conflict. However, other countries that have been subject of the Conflict Kitchen, like Iran, Palestine and North Korea, are obviously too far away for Pittsburgh citizens to relate very well to culture, people and thus the conflict. This aspect is what made CK’s Haudenosaunee project probably more effective in improving relations between the two concerned communities, than the previous versions. What also contributed to this effectiveness was the involvement of multiple Haudenosaunee associates, like museums and networks that collaborated with CK to establish performances and provide additional information about the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Although there were various examples of involvement of non-US actors, this aspect was largely missing in the previous versions. The additional sources that were consulted for the Iranian event for example, were mainly from American origin, which provides a very biased image of the conflict.113 The role of food in CK was indispensable, as the concept started as a take-out window
112 https://www.conflictkitchen.org/events/join-a-local-palestinian-for-lunch/. 113 https://www.conflictkitchen.org/past/iran/. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 39 University of Amsterdam
and developed into a restaurant, the whole concept revolved around this aspect. In every CK event, chefs would prepare dishes from the affected area. However, the process of constructing recipes, preparing and cooking the meals happened largely behind closed doors, serving the participants only the end result. The act of cooking together and exchanging experiences and knowledge, which proved to be essential according to the reviewed literature, was missing in this concept.
5.2.2 ‘The Border Kitchen’, Nicosia The border kitchen, located in Nicosia (Cyprus) is an initiative from Niki Psarias. Psarias is a self-employed campaigns and digital communications specialist, born in the Greek part of Cyprus and raised in the UK. She develops high-profile NGO campaigns and had particular expertise in applying food in order to increase dialogue and encourage action and collaboration on global issues, such as hunger, poverty and conflict resolution. As Psarias is passionate about the role that food can play in particularly conflict resolution, she initiated the Border Kitchen in her home country Cyprus. Cyprus, officially called the Republic of Cyprus, is an island country in the Eastern Mediterranean, located south of Turkey, west of Syria and Lebanon, northwest of Israel, north of Egypt and southeast of Greece and thus wedged between several very different and sometimes conflicting cultures. The island has been under influence of many of these cultures and this is also the reason that it has been suffering from identity and culture related struggle since their independence in 1960 and is divided in two camps since a conflict in the 70’s.114 This division is the main struggle present in Cyprus nowadays and involves Greek Cypriots on the one and Turkish Cypriots on the other hand. In the capital of Cyprus, Nicosia, which is the only divided capital in Europe, the Greek Cypriots live on one side while the Turkish Cypriots on inhabit the other, although some movement takes place. In between there is a United Nations buffer-zone. According to Psarias, there a are several ‘bi-communal’ projects active in Nicosia and the rest of Cyprus, that involve both communities and create a safe space for them to come together. Border Kitchen (BK) is one of these projects that utilizes food to unite people, helping them with understanding each other and celebrate similarities but also differences. Chefs from different backgrounds are brought together to prepare a harmonious meal. The most recent BK project is the one located in Nicosia, working with chefs from a Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot background. They combined their skills and assembled a menu that highlighted their
114 Interview with Niki Psarias Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 40 University of Amsterdam
heritage, which is in fact a shared heritage as they are both from the same relatively small island with the same (limited) resources and produce. There appeared to be many similarities in food and cuisine between the two communities. These menus were presented during events with diners from both sides, who were sitting at communal tables. The project received a lot of media attention: the inaugural ‘Facebook event’ alone reached more than 20.000 people. However, the number of diners who eventually attended was smaller, as the aim was to create a more private setting in order to really create a space to create commonality. Niki Psarias initiated the Border Kitchen project in Cyprus after five years of working experience in spaces where food was utilized for communal purposes by community organizations and NGO’s as a way to unite and inform. By participating in food and community related projects, such as the Conflict Café in Londen, an initiative of peacebuilding NGO International Alert, is specialized in making topics that seem difficult to approach, such as conflict, to become more accessible through the use of food. Subsequently, Psarias decided to replace her work from the UK into regions that actually experience conflict directly. Cyprus already had a number of ‘bi-communal’ projects that used music, photography, film and other kinds of arts to bring Greek and Turkish Cypriots together and make them understand each other, but Psarias believed that food could make a positive contribution, as it has a special bi- communal function in Cyprus, being a vital aspect for both the Greek and the Turkish culture and identity.115 To substantiate this, Psarias asserts that the kitchen is a space with no borders but is an open field where people can learn about and understand each other and that ‘food functions as a connecter and ‘leveler’, because it is one of our basic needs and a way to understand each other on a basic level, as it is linked to identity: we show what we are through food, in this way sharing our identity.’116 Thus, this process of connecting through food and identity happens on a very personal level, it’s not merely about the concept, but also about the persons involved in the concept. In this way it is possible to reach a form of peacebuilding from the bottom level. As Psarias asserts rightfully, the process of cooking and eating together, or commensality in general, is not going to solve conflicts overnight, peacebuilding processes in the literal sense are not initiated over a dinner. However, a dinner is what gets people together at a table, where discussion begins. Due to the fact that so many people enjoy food and the act of dining relaxes
115 Interview Niki Psarias
116 Interview Niki Psarias Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 41 University of Amsterdam
them, it makes people more open for debate and openness and discussion is what is vital for peacebuilding processes.117 With this in mind, Niki Psarias started the Border Kitchen in her hometown Nicosia as a pop- up kitchen at a pop-up festival in December 2017. The BK pop-up received many positive responses in local media, for example in the Cyprus Mail, which said about the BK, that a visit in which enables people to break bread and make new friends, would definitely be worth the time. 118 According to BK’s initiator the pop-up was a great success in Nicosia and succeeded in its aim to bring people from both the Greek and Turkish Cypriot community together, along with others, and enjoy a meal together and open the floor for discussion in a comfortable manner.
5.2.2.1 Measurement of Success When assessing the BK project through the lens of ‘success’, as defined in this research, there are a few assumptions that can be made. Firstly, the timeframe in which the program took place is relatively short. Since it was a pop-up project, the total duration was just a few days and since it had the shape of a restaurant, the contact hours between the participants was varied. On the one hand, the chefs involved, from both Cypriot communities, spent a considerable amount of time together in order to comprise a menu, share ideas and test recipes. On the other hand, the interaction between the diners that visited the BK was clearly of shorter duration. The diners were however, placed on communal tables next to people they might not know or from the opposite community, in this way triggered to start a conversation. Despite this, the contact between the diners was just a one-off experience, after which there was no active encouragement from the program to meet again. Thus, on a small scale, namely the extensive contact between the chefs from both the Cypriot communities, the timeframe provided by the program, was long enough to contribute to improvement of cross-cultural interactions. However, for the broader public, the limited time spent together, could not have been sufficient to improve relationships between the two communities or even build friendships. Secondly, amount of trust the participants are likely to have in this project, plays a role in the measuring of its success. The two factors that need to be taken into account are the presence of representatives from both communities and the involvement in the project of people from both communities. The first being clearly present, as chefs from both communities prepare the dinners and the diners come from the conflicted
117 Ibid. 118 Alix Norman, ‘Pop-up Festivals Provide Temporary Delights’, https://cyprus-mail.com/2017/12/11/pop- festivals-provide-temporary-delights/, last accessed at May 30, 2018. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 42 University of Amsterdam
areas, since the project takes place in Nicosia, the centre of the conflict. The latter factor therefore also applies; however, the actual contribution of the diners is nothing more than consuming the food and adding to the discussion around the dinner table. A tangible common goal seems to be absent for the majority of the participants. Although there was a clear motive or incentive for the initiator of BK, Niki Psarias, as she herself has personal ties with the Greek Cypriot community, it can be argued that an actual shared goal that could contribute to strengthening of intergroup interaction and friendships and eventually lead to the improvement of cross-cultural understanding, was not obviously present in this case. As was the case in Conflict Kitchen, the role of food in this project was divided into two parts: the cooking and commensality part. In CK the emphasis was on neither of them specifically, while in the BK special attention was paid to as well the process of comprises menus and cooking as the act of commensality. However, these two processes didn’t have much to do with each other. Finally, as mentioned above, BK took place in the middle of a conflict area, namely in the divided capital of Cyprus. Its location caused active involvement by the participants, as they are already familiar with the conflict and thus the focus can be shifted towards solving the problem.
5.2.3 ‘Buttercreme und Börek’, Rendsburg ‘Buttercreme und Börek’ is a project established in 2006 by Hannelore Salzmann-Tohsche, ‘Gleichstellungsbeauftragte’ (equal opportunity commissioner) in the Rendsburg- Eckernförde region in North Germany, and Edith Berkau. They cooperated with two women, who each represented a cultural community within the Rendsburg- Eckernförde area: Sigrid Aust, from the rather conservative ‘Landfrauenverband’ from within the region, and Ayce Ipekçioglu, a migration social worker with Turkish roots. Together they set up the 12-month project ‘Buttercreme und Börek: Wie Integration auch funktionieren kann’. The aim of group, consisting out of 23 participants who identified as either German or from the local Turkish immigrant community, was to open dialogue between the two cultures, which were both isolated from the other as a result of a lack of integration into social life outside their community on the Turkish women’s side and a lack of interest in their ‘foreign’ neighbours on the German women’s side.119 The idea behind the project was based on the intention to build sustainable structures where intercultural dialogue could take place and relationships
119 Sarah Imani, ‘Cultural Diplomacy from Below: Bridging the Gap between Turkish and German Communities in Rendsburg’, http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case- studies/Cultural_Diplomacy_From_Below_.pdf. Last accessed at May 31, 2018. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 43 University of Amsterdam
would be given the time and opportunity to grow and mainly, where prejudices and stereotypes could be broken down. The motto of the project was therefore “Miteinander reden statt übereinander” (talking with each other instead of about/against each other).120 In contrast to the two previously discussed cases, this project intended to be a one-off program, covering the period of one year, with the contact between the participants being more frequent and intensive in order to achieve the aimed goals. The project aimed to gather women from these two cultural communities in the region, to cook and celebrate their traditional festivities together and had the final goal of publishing a book about the course and results of the project afterwards. The women met regularly, at their traditional holidays, Christmas and Bayram, and other occasions throughout the year. In addition, this one-off integration project and the book that resulted from it had the purpose to apply a citizen-to-citizen level of intercultural integration, instead of the classical models and approaches, in order to get closer to the communal and social reality of the women’s lives. The experiences, skills and culinary practice learned from the project, are chronologically presented in the 100 pages counting book, along with images, considerations, notes from the participants on culture and traditions from Germany and Turkey and particularly recipes. Not only did the 12-month project result in the abovementioned book, also a close friendship arose between the women, about which Sigrid Aust says: ‘Wir verstehen uns alle so gut, dass wir uns auch heute noch regelmäßig treffen und sind mit viel Spaß und Freude dabei’ (‘we all get along so well that we still meet regularly and are having a lot of fun and joy’).121 The project thus lead to a long-term, sustainable friendship between the participating women and after it ended they even organized a joint trip to Istanbul. According to another participant, Helga Gäthjen, the project has had a positive influence on the perceptions of German rural women on fellow citizens with foreign roots. Her interest in integration issues was sparked by the program and caused her to engage more in different cultures that were close to her.
5.2.3.1 Measurement of Success The fact that the ‘Buttercreme und Börek’ project included the weekly meetings of the same women for one year, allowed intense relationships to actually take shape and grow. This is in contrast with the relative short time period in which the participants from the two other cases
120 Kathrin Iselt-Segert, ‘Rückblick 2008 Kreislandfrauen Rendsburg Eckenförde’, https://www.kreislandfrauen- rendsburg-eckernfoerde.de/downloads/rueckblick_2008_kreislandfrauen_rendsburg_eckernfoerde.pdf, Last accessed at May 31, 2018. 121 Author unknown, ‘Buttercreme und Börek - Integrationsarbeit Mal Anders’, https://www.shz.de/lokales/norddeutsche-rundschau/buttercreme-und-boerek-integrationsarbeit-mal-anders- id139192.html. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 44 University of Amsterdam
actually got together. Due to this extensive personal interaction, more sustainable relations developed, which in turn enhanced cross-cultural understanding, trust and effective cooperation. This is in line with Border Kitchen’s initiator Niki Psarias emphasis on personal interaction as key to the peacebuilding process, discussed in the interview above.122 The more extensive time period in combination with the fact that the women came together on a weekly basis to cook, eat and talk together, seems to be one of the motives for the success of the BB project. In addition, the presence of both communities, the Turkish as well as the German, and their intensive involvement in the project can also be considered to be a cause for success. Together with the existence of a shared goal, as well in the form of an incentive by the initiators as by means of an actual tangible goal (the book), the multiple ways in which food plays a role in the project and the indirect closeness to the conflicted area, this contributed to the success of the BB project. In addition, the success of this case is easier to measure, as its goal to build sustainable relationships and promote intercultural dialogue between them was embodied by their trip to Istanbul.
122 Interview with Niki Psarias Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 45 University of Amsterdam
6. Culinary Diplomacy in Practice: Analysis of the Case-studies & Key Concepts
It becomes clear that the above described cases all apply a form of culinary diplomacy on citizen level, although implemented in a different way. They each utilize other concepts, incentives, tools, cuisine, venues and people to achieve their objectives; however, they also share quite a few characteristics. Below, the most important key concepts for creating cross- cultural understanding within the three analysed projects will be assessed in order to eventually try to paint a picture of the most and least effective ways to move towards peacebuilding from below, through the use of citizen culinary diplomacy. By evaluating these aspects, it will be possible to discover differences and similarities between the cases. These will in turn provide this study with one aspect that all the cases have in common, which is called the dependent variable. As will be elucidated in the next chapter, the degree of presence or absence of this shared aspect is to a certain extent decisive for the success of the analysed projects and will thus make it possible to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the theory of culinary diplomacy in the process of peacebuilding from below. As already pointed out throughout the previous chapter, the first actor that plays a role in the way in which the analysed culinary diplomacy projects can be compared to each other is time. In this study, time regards to both the period of time in which the whole program took place, and the number of specific events or contact hours between the participants, that took place throughout the project. The first is important because this comprises the period where several approaches, which are vital for the peacebuilding process, are implemented. The longer this period lasts, the better the foundation is for the changing of social structures that underlie the problems between the conflicting communities and their perceptions of each other. The number of specific events or contact hours on the other is essential as well, as this is where an increase intergroup liking can occur, because of its more intensive character. When it comes to the duration of the whole program, the ‘Buttercreme und Börek’ project differs considerably from the other two discussed culinary diplomacy initiatives, since the total personal intergroup contact covered a significantly longer period of time. The duration of the total project combined with the time spent time between the participants appeared to be very effective in the process towards creating cross-cultural understanding. Both CK and BK both apply a short-term variant of personal contact, during the dining-experience, which encompasses only one night or a few hours maximum. The second key concept that contributes to the process of creating understanding and building friendships between conflicting cultures is trust, as Iulia Padeanu asserts in her
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 46 University of Amsterdam
article on managed intergroup contact.123 Trust is essential when two opposing groups find themselves in a situation of building understanding and moving towards peacebuilding and conflict resolution. When there is a lack of trust in the project or sincerity of efforts, Padeanu argues, it is difficult for the groups to begin a process of forgiveness, which can lead to peacebuilding.124 Besides leading towards forgiveness, trust encourages negotiation and allows people to build up meaningful relationships, which is vital in the process of peacebuilding from below.125 By organising multiple events that create intergroup liking, like cooking or dining together, trust is gradually developed. Therefore, a combination of an extensive timeframe and the arranging of numerous events can contribute largely to the success of the program. Besides trust in the other participants, the concept of ‘trust’ in this research also regards to the belief in the success of program and its objectives, which in turn can be divided into the presence of representatives of both communities and in their collective involvement in the achievement of these goals. The first application of trust is influenced by the duration of the program but mainly by the number of contact-hours between the participants. Thus, it can be asserted that the confidence in the other participants was probably the most present in the ‘Buttercreme und Börek project’, as the women in this group met each other on a regular basis, over the time period of one year. According to the initiators this feeling of trust enhanced the willingness of the participants to be actively involved in the project.126 Besides this, the women in this project were also likely to be more confident about a successful outcome because they were both represented equally, as the initiators were from the Turkish as well as the German community and they were all evenly involved in the process. In BK and CK these feelings of trust seemed to be present to a lesser extent, as the intensive contact between the communities lasted only for a short period of time, namely during dinner. On a smaller scale, personal contact in BK was present between the two chefs, one from each community, who prepared the dinners. However, the contact between the diners was only short-lived, as was also the case for Conflict Kitchen. The impressions the interviewed students provided regarding the concept of CK however, were for the most part very positive, which could have had to do with the additional
123 Iulia E. Padeanu, ‘Face to Face: The Role of Managed Intergroup Contact in Peace-building And Reconciliation’, Queen’s University Review, Belfast: Queen’s University, no 1 (2014): 38. 124 Ibid. 125 Hewstone et all, ‘Stepping Stone to Reconciliation in Northern Ireland: Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and Trust’, in: Nadler, A., Malloy, T. E. and Fisher, J.D. (eds.) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Contact. New York: Oxford University Press (2008): 211. 126 Berkau, E., and Salzmann-Tohsche, H., (eds) ‘Buttercreme und Börek oder: Wie Integration auch funktionieren kann’, Gleichstellungsbeauftragte (2008): 3.
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 47 University of Amsterdam
information and performances on the project that were arranged. In this case, it can be argued that this additional information provided a form of an incentive and shared goal, which gives the project a justification to spark feelings of trust among the participants. Therefore, the third key aspect, which is vital for creating these feelings of understanding, trust and eventually for moving towards a form of peacebuilding, is the presence of a common goal between the participating groups or individuals. Primarily, a shared ambition in a project ensures commitment to it by all the participants or members of a group. If there is no shared ambition, it could result in an uneven distribution of tasks or amount of work between the participating communities, which could eventually lead to the emergence of (more) conflict.127 As Imani also argues, a part of the success of a project, such as the ones discussed in this chapter, lies within the ‘endeavour and devotion of its participants’ and their ‘personal and individual input that shapes the project rather than an agenda which is brought in by an outsider’.128 In addition, it is not necessary for the project’s shared goal to be extremely ambitious or notable in order to be successful: when the bar for a common goal is set too high, it is more likely to fail. This risk of failure can lead to a decreased morale and an intergroup conflict situation, which would deteriorate the conditions even more. The setting of achievable, short term objectives therefore, would be a more feasible way to success of the project.129 Both the two abovementioned characteristics of implementing common goals in a culinary diplomacy project touch upon the theory of cultural diplomacy ‘from below’. The message that a project aims to propagate is directly rooted in the concerned community, instead of being spread afterwards by different kinds of media.130 The people themselves are the creators, contributors and stakeholders of the project at the same time and the spreading of the message occurs in the everyday life of people and not on a higher (intellectual, political) level. This direct involvement in accomplishing certain common ambitions is more likely to result in cooperation and in the course of time cross-cultural understanding. A common goal was visible in as well the Border Kitchen project as in the ‘Buttercreme und Börek’ program, but to a lesser extent in the Conflict Kitchen. In both the two first cases, the common goal of the participating groups was to cook and share food and exchange recipes, food-ways, memories and heritage. In the case of Border Kitchen, two chefs from different (conflicting) communities, i.e. the Turkish and Greek Cypriots, combined their skills
127 Ifat Maoz, ‘Does Contact Work in Protracted Asymmetrical Conflict? Appraising 20 Years of Reconciliation- aimed Encounters Between Israeli Jews and Palestinians’, Journal of Peace Research, no. 1 (2011): 120. 128 Imani, ‘Cultural Diplomacy from Below’. 129 Maoz, ‘Does Contact Work in Protracted Asymmetrical Conflict?’: 119. 130 Imani, ‘Cultural Diplomacy from Below’. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 48 University of Amsterdam
and knowledge to design a tasteful menu that represented both the communities as well as their shared heritage. As for BB, the initiators and the participating women had, besides bridging a gap between two communities, a very clear goal to work towards, namely the book. The book that resulted from the mutual efforts of the participating women can be regarded as an overarching work that encompasses the different levels of working towards a common goal. The concept of food is interwoven through the whole of this study and plays an important, if not, indispensable role in all he analysed case-studies. Therefore, it’s considered the fourth key variable that contributes to a successful application of culinary citizen diplomacy. As Imani points out in her article on the BB project, the central role that food and cooking have in the success of the project becomes very clear: food is deeply rooted in every culture and connected to many different aspects of this culture.131 Imani found that at first sight, the German and Turkish cuisine seemed not to have much in common, but as the project progressed it became evident that the two cultures had quite a few shared customs and interests. Chapple-Sokol substantiates Imani’s finding, by asserting that this shared interest could be a starting point for exchange, in which the practice of culinary diplomacy on citizen level, the ‘non-verbal communication of food’ but mainly the ‘physical closeness of commensality’, plays an essential role. The universal importance of food, makes it an effective tool for peacebuilding on many levels. In every case-study, assessed in this research, this concept plays an important role and is inextricably linked to the extent to which the project was successful. The role food plays in the project is divided into two parts for this study; the act of cooking and the act of commensality. Where the latter is focussed on the actual dining experience, the first fixates on the ritual of cooking together, the comprising of menus and the sharing of recipes. Commensality plays especially an important role in the BK project, as the tables in the pop-up restaurant are deliberately placed in a communal way, creating the opportunity for diners to engage with each other easily. This concept is also essential in the BB project, where the participating women share multiple dinners within an intimate atmosphere, as this contributes to the creating of trust in each other and in the project. Finally, there is one last key concept that needs to be considered which is characterizing for an effective path towards the successful implementation of culinary citizen diplomacy. The reviewed literature in this study showed that a project’s distance to the conflict area appears to be vital for its effectiveness in contributing to a successful way to build peace from below. Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall argue that within the perspective of
131 Ibid. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 49 University of Amsterdam
peacebuilding from below, the solutions are derived and built from local resources, where NGO’s and other locally operating institutions or initiatives, are the decisive actors.132 The authors of the extensive book on contemporary conflict solving assert that in many projects aimed at conflict solving, the people within the conflict are viewed as the problem and outsiders as the ones who provide a solution. According to the authors, the roots of resolving a conflict lie within the community, as the people from this community are more able to estimate the need for certain aspects of peacebuilding and have the means of appealing to local knowledge.133 Border Kitchen is the case-study in which this approach is best applied, as this project takes place within the epi-centre of the conflict, namely Nicosia, the divided capital of Cyprus. The guest of the BK are largely people from within the conflict area and thus attach great value to the cause of the project. Conflict Kitchen’s last project, focussed on the conflict with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, did also meet the peace-building from below requirements to a certain extent, due the fact that CK is located in an area that was affected by the Haudenosaunee conflict. However, its previous projects, which also took place in Pittsburgh, US, were focussed on areas outside the US, such as Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba and North Korea. The considerable distance of these countries to the US can be considered one of the reasons that the interviewed residents found it more difficult to empathize with the former projects, than with the most recent one.134 From the reactions of the respondents and reviews found on the internet it appeared that visitors of CK primarily were attracted to the concept because of the food and its aim to inform people and evoke discussion was seen as an additional benefit. When it comes to the ‘Buttercreme und Börek’ project however, the distance to the conflict area plays a different role, as the concerned area is not conflicted due to natural or political borders, but as a result of migration in the past. In addition, the project reflects a problem that exists throughout the country, namely the isolation of Turkish people with a migrant background from the German society. Thus, the project does not take place within the epi-centre of the conflict, as it is more a personification of the problem, but it does take place within the concerned society. As follows, the distance to the conflict area have to be approached in a different way in each of the analysed case-studies as their relation to and the circumstances within the conflict differ considerably.
132 Ramsbotham, Woudhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 222-223. 133 Ramsbotham, Woudhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 218. 134 See interviews with Pittsburgh residents, attachment 1. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 50 University of Amsterdam
For this research, Kamal Mouzawak, a Lebanese entrepreneur who initiated Souk el Tayeb, the first farmer’s market in Beirut, was asked to share his views on the role of food and commensality in the process of conflict solving and whether he believes that the exchange of products and recipes, as it is done in his market, could create understanding of each other’s’ cultures and even friendships. His vision reflects the conclusions of this chapter very well. Mouzawak argues that food and sharing food pushes us to move towards understanding and accepting each other and in in this way building peace. He believes that people must work together, talk and share things like music but also sex. As this is not always feasible, as interests may differ, or certain aspects can be considered as controversial or unacceptable, food can be the solution. Mouzawak argues that food is the best medium to move towards understanding and accepting as it is something that is needed and interwoven in every culture and it works towards achieving a common goal, the preparing of a dinner or organising an event. Furthermore, Mouzawak states that food is a way to express identity, more than clothing, architecture or music, as it propagates someone’s land, history and roots. The sharing of food can bridge between two cultures not by emphasizing the differences, but by focussing on the similarities, he says. If differences, like religion, skin colour, political views, origins or social class, are stressed, people only see ‘the other’. When similarities, like the love for food or shared aspects of cuisine, are pointed out, a common threat of humanity is visible, which can help overcome cultural conflicts.135
135 Interview through e-mail with Kamal Mouzawak. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 51 University of Amsterdam
7. Synthesis of Results
Several assumptions, regarding to the process of this research, can be made on the basis of the previous chapter. First of all, as already mentioned, although the three investigated case- studies differ from each other in their ways of applying culinary citizen diplomacy, they do share the pursuit of a certain result, namely the creating of mutual understanding and building of relationships between people from two somehow conflicting communities. This aim is in line with the intent of culinary diplomacy, as defined by Chapple-Sokol, which is ‘to create cross-cultural understanding in the hope of improving interactions and cooperation’.136 This impact can be tested by analysing interaction between groups, like reducing or increasing prejudice, moving from isolation towards cooperation and creating friendships and understanding. In this research these aspects are listed under the heading of ‘personal interaction’ which is measured on the basis of five indicators: time, trust, a common goal, the role of food and the relation to the conflict area. In chapter 5, the three case-studies are described and analysed on the basis of these five indicators. Below a brief synthesis of the in chapter 5 obtained knowledge about the cases will be provided in order to draw a clear overview, from which subsequently conclusions and points of discussion can be derived. On the basis of the five indicators for moving towards successful implementation of culinary citizen diplomacy and the results that were obtained from analysing the three case- studies, a general guideline can be provided. This information can be derived from applying the MSSD and MDSD approach, as they help to structure the comparisons and can be used to discover and confirm arguments.137 As mentioned in chapter 4, the combination of the two approaches allowed this study to identify similarities as well as differences between the case- studies, from which several conditions that appear essential for successful implementation of culinary citizen diplomacy can be derived. Two different aspects of each feature are assessed in each method, as one method uses a different way of comparison than the other. Below, a visual display of the results obtained from comparing the three case-studies is provided.
136 Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy’: 162. 137 Yanwei Li, Governing Environmental Conflicts in China: unknown. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 52 University of Amsterdam
Figure 4. Combination of the MSSD and MDSD model.
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 53 University of Amsterdam
The figure on the previous page aims to structure the variables that were taken into account when comparing the application of culinary citizen diplomacy within the three case-studies. The figure is divided into two parts, which each focus on a different comparative method. The left part of the figure demonstrates the presence of similar variables in every case on the basis of the first dimension of the five indicators as well as a slightly different outcome. This outcome differs due to the fact that the ‘Buttercreme und Börek’ project achieved its goal of bringing two isolated communities within the German region Rendsburg together through the medium of food, while Conflict Kitchen and Border Kitchen have not yet accomplished their objective of creating measurable mutual understanding . The right part of the figure displays the presence or absence of the second dimension of the five features, which causes the factors that were different in each case to become visible and enables this study to derive from this the necessary conditions for the successful implementing of culinary citizen diplomacy. As can be seen from the figure, the MSSD approach illustrates that the three cases share the presence of the first dimension of the five indicators, namely the fact that the total duration of the program lasted over a year, both concerned communities were in some way involved, there was a clear incentive for the initiating of the project, the act of commensality played a major role and on a short-term basis the project took place near the conflict area. However, the results, indicated by whether or not achieving the goal, are differing. As appeared in every case and is also inextricably linked to the five features, personal interaction plays an essential role in the successfulness of a project. Therefore, it can be deducted from the model, that the amount of personal interaction was lower in Border Kitchen and Conflict Kitchen, which lead eventually to the fact that the goal of extensive cooperation, cross-cultural understanding and eventually peace-building from below, has not yet been achieved. The MDSD approach on the other hand, applies a second dimension of the five key concepts on the case-studies, in which there appear to be many dissimilarities within the conditions. However, when placing the case-studies in a different context, it becomes apparent that their results turn out to be equal, since they are all well on their way towards achieving their goal. From this observation can be deducted that the condition which is present in all the cases, is a dependent variable. This dependent variable is changed by independent variables, the key concepts in this case. It becomes clear that personal interaction is considered the variable which is dependent in this research, as an increase of one of the five key concepts, used to define the similarities and differences in this study, could affect the extent of personal interaction, but the presence or absence of personal interaction is not able affect the key concepts (independent variables)
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 54 University of Amsterdam
in the case-study.138 Thus, in this model that would mean that when for example the amount of intensive contact between the participants, representatives of both communities or commensality-activities within the project increases, personal interaction would also improve. A combination of the two models shows that the variable of personal interaction is of great importance for the process of deriving the condition(s) that could be sufficient for successful application of culinary citizen diplomacy in non-violent conflicts. What can be deducted from the synthesis of both approaches, is that personal interaction is essential in all of the case-studies. As deducted from the MSSD approach, a project was likely to succeed later in its objectives, when there was less personal interaction, while the presence of more personal interaction led to the achievement of the set goal, which was in one case the improving of intercultural interaction between German and Turkish women in Rendsburg. Furthermore, by applying the MDSD model, it appeared that however the presence of the five indicators differed in every investigated case, its goal was still achieved to a certain extent, namely by the emergence of better cross-cultural understanding between the two communities. As there was a degree of personal interaction present in all of the cases, it can be deducted that the concept of personal interaction can be regarded to as the key explanatory factor that causes each project to move towards the achievement of its goal and thus its success. Thus, by examining a combination of the MSSD and MDSD approach from the field of comparative politics, it became apparent that personal interaction between two conflicting communities is vital for peacebuilding projects to become successful. The first model showed that the higher the level of personal interaction, the greater the chance of achievement of the set goal, whilst the second model indicated that even though the indicators for possible success of the project differed, the presence of personal interaction was sufficient for the project to accomplish its goal to a certain extent. As follows, the five analysed indicators in this study are essential and need to be taken into account when initiating a project that utilized the framework of culinary citizen diplomacy, as they separately influence the key factor of personal interaction and therefore are valuable for a successful outcome of the project. In addition, it appeared to be even more vital to create a setting that advances and encourages extensive personal interaction.
138 http://www.statisticshowto.com/dependent-variable-definition/. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 55 University of Amsterdam
8. Conclusion
The objective of this final chapter is to sum up the discussed theories and findings in the analysis of the case-studies and thus provide an answer to the question posed in the beginning of this research. This included the investigation of the extent to which food and cuisine could be a useful tool in the process of conflict resolution and specifically ‘peacebuilding from below’, by uniting people through the act of commensality and the setting of common goals in the kitchen. By investigating the best way to apply culinary citizen diplomacy, the aim of this research was to form a basis for later studies that seek to utilize the theory of culinary citizen diplomacy in conflicted areas.
8.1 Culinary Citizen Diplomacy as a tool for Peacebuilding from Below The field of culinary diplomacy is a field that is emerging as an interdisciplinary approach, that furthers diplomatic protocol through cuisine, at a citizen-to-citizen level.139 Therefore, the foundations of the concept of culinary diplomacy, as applied in this research, lie in a combination of multiple concepts borrowed from and referring to existing theories in the field of cultural and public diplomacy and the contact theory from the field of conflict resolution. This thesis has expanded on the already laid foundation of culinary citizen diplomacy within the field of public diplomacy in the hopes of contributing to the theory of peacebuilding from below from Ramsbotham et all. The authors argue that a new form of cosmopolitan conflict resolution is emerging, which offers a hopeful means for human societies to transcend and celebrate their differences. It is investigated here to what extent food, in the sense of sharing cuisine and dinners, can influence the peacebuilding process between two conflicting communities, by combining the theory of culinary diplomacy and the concept of peacebuilding from below. Gordon W. Allport’s Contact Hypothesis is used to substantiate this, as it suggests that through intensive intergroup contact, such as the act of eating together, relationships can evolve and change, and hostility will be replaced by a positive attitude towards the other. Scholars who have investigated this matter are for example public diplomacy experts Paul Rockower and Samuel Chapple-Sokol, who both argue that food or cuisine can be utilized as a tool for creating mutual understanding and reducing prejudices between two groups who are in some way opposed to each other. Whilst Rockower focusses is more on the
139 Report of the Conflict Cuisine Project, ‘Is the Kitchen the New Venue of Foreign Policy?’, American University, School of International Service, March 2016, https://www.american.edu/spa/gov/first- ladies/upload/Kitchen-as-the-New-Venue-of-Foreign-Policy.pdf, last accessed at 12 May 2018. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 56 University of Amsterdam
official level, Chapple-Sokol distinguishes this official level from an unofficial level, dividing the latter into three pillars. The first pillar corresponds to Rockower’s definition of culinary diplomacy and is the most common researched section in the field. The second pillar concerns the government-to-citizen aspect of culinary diplomacy, aimed at promoting national interests. The third pillar is the one that is vital for this research, as it comprises any concept or idea that engages non-state actors and is not aimed at promoting a nation’s affairs, but mainly at creating cross-cultural understanding between communities. This approach is based on the idea that peacebuilding can work when certain approaches are implemented at community level instead of from higher authorities and that the meal or food in general can be utilized as a tool for this, as this can provide a comfortable space in which understanding and trust can grow and shared characteristics become visible. In this thesis, this approach is assessed, and its strengths are filtered out in order to build on the foundations laid by Rockower and Chapple-Sokol.
8.2 Indicators: Value and Contribution The assessment of the above-mentioned approach is done through the analysis of three case studies, that all apply a form of culinary citizen diplomacy, namely the Border Kitchen project in Nicosia, Conflict Kitchen in Pittsburgh and the ‘Buttercreme und Börek’ program in Rendsburg. These projects all have in common that they focus on two conflicting communities and on the use of food to create understanding and reduce prejudices between them. However, as can be derived from chapter 5 and 6, their methods and tools differ which resulted in slightly different outcomes. On the basis of the synthesis of results provided in these chapters, several conclusions regarding the effectiveness of culinary citizen diplomacy projects can be drawn. Firstly, it can be asserted that a project that covers a longer period of time, like the ‘Buttercreme und Börek’ program, is more likely to achieve the goals that are required for citizen culinary diplomacy to be successful, than projects that work with short-term intergroup contact. The latter could therefore be useful not necessarily for creating friendships, but for creating awareness in order to open the floor for debate and exchange of thoughts. Secondly, from examining ‘Buttercreme und Börek’ it appeared vital that a culinary citizen diplomacy project involves trust, as well in the project as in the fellow participants, as this enhances the willingness of participants to involve actively in the program. Furthermore, this research proved that the presence of a common goal or objective is essential in the process of moving towards peacebuilding through culinary citizen diplomacy,
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 57 University of Amsterdam
as the absence of an incentive or tangible ambition in a project creates an aimless feeling among participants, which was visible in Conflict Kitchen, where the respondents largely were familiar with the project because of the food and missed a link to the underlying meaning. The fourth decisive aspect in the projects is the role of food and specifically the act of commensality, as food’s universal importance makes it an effective tool for peacebuilding and the practice of eating together creates trust and paves the way for creating new friendships. Finally, the distance to the conflict area is essential in the process, as local knowledge and estimating the need for certain aspects, is best found within the actual affected area. What can be deducted from the analysis of these indicators, is that there are a number of conditions that are requisite in order for a culinary citizen project to create cross-cultural understanding. First, trust, that is created through participation and cooperation of people from both communities is essential, as was shown in Border Kitchen and ‘Buttercreme und Börek’. In addition, the distance to the conflict area appeared vital, as it emerged in Conflict Kitchen that the visitors felt a deeper connection to and understanding of the matter when the project concerned a conflict that took place within their own surroundings, such as the Haudenosaunee case, then when it concerned a conflict with a country far away. The importance of this aspect became also evident from the Border Kitchen project, which was situated in the very centre of the conflicted area and thus directly influenced the participants as well as the other way around, in this way coming closer to the essence of the conflict and the contribution of possible solutions. Finally, the role of turned out to be crucial for the effectiveness of the projects. As came forward especially in ‘Buttercreme und Börek’, not only eating together plays an essential role in creating understanding and reducing prejudices, also the act of comprising menus, sharing recipes and cooking together provide an atmosphere in which depth can be given to the broader social role of producing, gathering and preparing food.
8.3 Personal Interaction through Food as Key to Success By means of the MSSD and MDSD approach, derived from the field of comparative politics, characteristics and strengths of the assessed case-studies were filtered out in this study in order to obtain a clear overview of the aspects that contribute to the successful course of a culinary citizen diplomacy project, such as the ones analysed in this thesis. Appling this approach to three case-studies has led to the possibility of drawing a number of conclusions. First of all, the five indicators, discussed in the previous paragraph, are of two-fold importance for the possible success of a project. On the one hand their presence
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 58 University of Amsterdam
or absence influenced the concept of personal interaction, which is in the explanatory factor for success. For example, the fact that the ‘Buttercreme und Börek’ program had the aim to develop a book at the end of the course, made the participants more confident about the cause of the project and thus more willing to put effort in it, which resulted in more personal interaction and eventually in increased cross-cultural understanding. On the other hand, it appeared that the indicators do not necessarily have to be present all together, as they are able to affect the project apart from each other. In addition, this study has found that there is one aspect that is indispensable for a project aimed at building peace between communities through the medium of food. The presence of a considerable high degree of personal interaction has shown to be evident in developing a successful approach for building peace from below by means of culinary diplomacy projects. In the analysed case-studies, personal interaction works through the medium of food, as food is considered to be a common bond that connects people from different backgrounds, through memories, family or migration. It is a way for people to express their identities and share things about themselves. Food lies at the heart of every culture and unlike cultural concepts such as music or art, it is a necessity for everyone and thus can be seen as a universal language, a tool to communicate. This study has shown the importance of building peace from within the conflicting communities, instead of from above, by elites, and of food and commensality as a tool for this form of citizen diplomacy. The combining of food-related activities and personal interaction in culinary citizen diplomacy projects proved to be an effective approach for moving towards peacebuilding between two conflicting communities, as in all the cases a better understanding of the opposite culture emerged and in one case it even led to the development of a long-lasting friendship. Although the idea of food as a connector of people and communities has been well recognized in many cultures, often its powerful locus, created through the act commensality, is overlooked in the evaluation and application of cultural and public diplomacy theories, as this is still a relatively under-researched area. However, as food is equally significant all over the world and functions as universal language and way to transfer culture, its grassroots application in citizen diplomacy processes can contribute to creating a better understanding of the ‘other’. As Kamal Mouzawak puts it, ‘The sharing of food can bridge between two cultures not by emphasizing the differences, but by focussing on the similarities. If differences, like religion, skin colour, political views, origins or social class, are stressed, people only see ‘the other’. When similarities, like the love for food
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 59 University of Amsterdam
or shared aspects of cuisine, are pointed out, a common threat of humanity is visible, which can help overcome cultural conflicts.’ The idea that food and the act of commensality function as perfect actors for increasing personal interaction between communities, is also in line with Niki Psarias thought, who asserts that ‘although food is not going to solve conflicts overnight and peacebuilding between whole communities does not happen over a dinner, it does get people together, in a comfortable setting, where the essential first step towards building sustainable relationships is made.’140
8.4 Recipe for Peace? Thus, from this research can be deducted that culinary citizen diplomacy can contribute to the process of peacebuilding from below by using food as a medium to increase personal interaction between the two conflicting communities and therefore is an important tool in both the field of cultural and public diplomacy as in that of conflict resolution and peacebuilding. However, although the field of culinary diplomacy has been evaluated and researched extensively in the past decade, the grassroots level of the theory lacks still thorough practical substantiation and prove. This is largely due to its qualitative character, which makes it difficult to assess its successes in achieving the set goals of increasing interaction. Yet, this study has sought to contribute to this practical dimension within the field of culinary citizen diplomacy by the analysis of three case-studies. This assessment led to the possibility to make a number of recommendations for future initiators of these kind of projects. First of all, it is essential to set up a project within or close to the actual conflict area. Secondly, both the communities ought to be equally represented and participating in the project. The final advice comprises the through this study recurring role of food. In order for culinary citizen diplomacy projects to be successful in achieving cross-cultural understanding and reduction of prejudices between conflicting communities, it is important to involve not only the act of commensality in the process, but to pay attention to the application of food in a broader sense, through cooking together, exchanging recipes and ingredients and for example by compiling a cookbook, as was done in ‘Buttercreme und Börek’. When looking at the matter through a theoretical lens, based on the work of Ramsbotham et all, Allport and Chapple-Sokol, the combination of peacebuilding from below, intensive intergroup contact and the act of commensality, is the perfect recipe for creating a comfortable atmosphere between two conflicting communities, that is open for discussion, exchanging of experiences, reducing prejudices and eventually for the shift from hostility to
140 Interview Niki Psarias. Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 60 University of Amsterdam
hospitality and even friendships. However, in practice it can be challenging to bring people together in areas facing conflict much more deeply rooted than the ones assessed in this study. Therefore, it is essential to keep investigating the field of culinary citizen diplomacy more thoroughly, in order to construct the perfect recipe for peace, and in this way move towards the solving of conflicts through the use of food, an ancient tool for diplomacy, instead of war.
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 61 University of Amsterdam
9. Bibliography
Articles
• Anckar, C., ‘On the Applicability of the Most Similar Systems Design and the Most Different Systems Design in Comparative Research’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, no. 5 (2008): 389-401. • Anholt, S., ‘Editor’s Forward to the First Issue,’ Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, no. 1 (2007): 4-11. • Author unknown, ‘Buttercreme und Börek - Integrationsarbeit Mal Anders’, https://www.shz.de/lokales/norddeutsche-rundschau/buttercreme-und-boerek- integrationsarbeit-mal-anders-id139192.html. • Chapple-Sokol, S., 'Culinary Diplomacy: Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds', Hague Journal of Diplomacy, no. 2 (2013): 161-183. • Chapple-Sokol, S., ‘War and Peas: Culinary Conflict Resolution as Citizen Diplomacy’, Public Diplomacy Magazine, no. 11 (2014): 38-44. • Curle, A. ‘New Challenges for Citizen Peacemaking’, Medicine and War, no. 2 (1994), pp.96-105. • Fast, L. A. & Neufeldt, R. C., ‘Envisioning Success: Building Blocks for Strategic and Comprehensive Peacebuilding Impact Evaluation’, Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, no. 2 (2005): 24-41. • Frendreis, John P., Explanation of Variation and Detection of Covariation, Comparative Political Studies, no. 2 (1983): 255-272. • Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Cairns, E., Tausch, N., Hughes, J., Tam, T., Voci, A., von Hecker, U. and Pinder, C. ‘Stepping Stone to Reconciliation in Northern Ireland: Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and Trust’ in Nadler, A., Malloy, T. E. and Fisher, J.D. (eds.) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Contact. New York: Oxford University Press (2008): 199-226. • Imani, S. (n.d.) ‘Cultural Diplomacy “From Below”: Bridging the Gap between the Turkish and German Communities in Rendsburg’, Cultural Diplomacy (2013), http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/casestudies/Cultural_Diplomacy_From_B elow_.pdf • King, Keohane and Verba, ‘The Importance of Research Design in Political Science (The Qualitative-Quantitative Disputation: Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 62 University of Amsterdam
Sidney Verba's Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research)’, American Political Science Review 89, no. 2 (1995): 475-481. • Lijphart, A., (1971). ‘Comparative politics and the comparative method’, American Political Science Review, no. 3: 682–693. • Luša, D., Jakešević, R., ‘The Role of Food in Diplomacy: Communicatig and “Winning Hearts and Minds” Through Food’, Medijske Studije (January 2018), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322765721_The_Role_of_Food_in_Dipl omacy_Communicating_and_Winning_Hearts_and_Minds_Through_Food , last accessed May 23, 2018. • Mahoney, J. & Snyder, R., ‘Rethinking Agency and Structure in the Study of Regime Change’, Studies in Comparative International Development, no. 2 (1999): 3-32. • Maoz, I., ‘Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of reconciliation-aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians’, Journal of Peace Research, no. 1 (2011) 115-125 • Mendelson-Forman, J. and S. Chapple-Sokol, ‘Conflict Cuisine: Teaching War through Washington’s Ethnic Restaurant Scene’, Public Diplomacy Magazine, no. 11 (2014): 21-26.
• Morgan, Linda, ‘Diplomatic Gastronomy: Style and Power at the Table’, Food and Foodways, no. 2 (2012): 146-166. • Nirwandy, N. and Awang, A. A., ‘Conceptualizing public diplomacy social convention culinary: Engaging gastro diplomacy warfare for economic branding’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, no. 2 (2014): 325–332. • Nye, Jr., J. S., ‘Soft Power’, Foreign Policy, no. 80 (1990): 153–171. • Nye, Jr., J. S., ‘Public Diplomacy and Soft Power’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, no. 1 (2008): 94–109. • Padeanu, I. E., ‘Face to Face: The Role of Managed Intergroup Contact in Peacebuilding and Reconciliation’, Queen’s University Review, Belfast: Queen’s University, no 1 (2014): 29-44. • Pettigrew, Thomas F. and Tropp, Linda R., ‘A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, no. 5 (2006): 751-783. • Reynolds, C. J., ‘Tipping the Scales: A New Understanding of Food's Power in the Political Sphere’, The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, no. 5 (2010): 295-304.
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 63 University of Amsterdam
• Rockower, P., ‘Korean Tacos and Kimchi Diplomacy, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, (25 March), http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/korean_tacos_and_kimchi_diplomacy. • Rockower, P., ‘Recipes for Gastrodiplomacy’, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, no. 3 (2012): 235–246. • Rockower, P., ‘The State of Gastro-diplomacy’, Public Diplomacy Magazine, no. 11 (2014): 12-17. • Ruddy, B., ‘Hearts, Minds, and Stomachs: Gastrodiplomacy and the Potential of National Cuisine in Changing Public Perception of National Image’, Public Diplomacy Magazine, no. 8 (2014): 235-246.
Books
• Allport, G., The Nature of Prejudice, Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Print (1954). • Berkau, E., and Salzmann-Tohsche, H., (eds) ‘Buttercreme und Börek oder: Wie Integration auch funktionieren kann’, Gleichstellungsbeauftragte (2008). • Cohen, R., Theatre of Power: The Art of Diplomatic Signalling, London: Longman (1987). • Constantinou, C. On the Way to Diplomacy, Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press (1996). • Cummings, M C., Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey, Washington, DC: Center for Arts and Culture (2003). • Gellner, E., Nations and Nationalism, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press (1983). • Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T., The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (1983). • Ichijo, A. and Ranta, R., Food, National Identity and Nationalism: From Everyday to Global Politics, Palgrave Macmillan UK (2016). • Lederach, J., Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, New York: Syracuse University Press (1995). • Nye, Jr., J. S., Soft power: the means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs (2004). • Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., Miall, H., Contemporary Conflict Resolution, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Polity Press (2005).
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 64 University of Amsterdam
Websites • Iselt-Segert, Kathrin, ‘Rückblick 2008 Kreislandfrauen Rendsburg Eckenförde’, https://www.kreislandfrauen-rendsburg- eckernfoerde.de/downloads/rueckblick_2008_kreislandfrauen_rendsburg_eckernfo erde.pdf. • United States Institute of Peace (USIP) ‘Tracks of Diplomacy’, Glossary of Terms for Conflict Management and Peacebuilding, (2011), http://glossary.usip.org/resource/tracks-diplomacy
Chapter in Book • Li, Yanwei, Chapter 7, Governing Environmental Conflicts in China, New York: Routledgde (2018).
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 65 University of Amsterdam
10. Annexes
Attachment 1: Largest Lebanese (left) and Israeli (right) platters of hummus. Source: The Food Section.
Attachment 2: Conflict Kitchen’s paper wrappers, imprinted with interviews and information. Source: https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/279645458097670025/.
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 66 University of Amsterdam
Attachment 3: In order to get an idea of the impact Conflict Kitchen Pittsburgh had, 10 Pittsburgh residents (mainly students), who were familiar with the restaurant, have been asked to comment briefly on the restaurant. They tried to answer (a few of) the following questions: - Were you drawn to it, and if so, what exactly drew you, the food, the concept or both? - What did you like most? - What could have been an improvement? Anthony: "Honestly I went less for the food and more to support a local project that I believed in It didn't really do anything for me, but that's largely because I'm already familiar with a lot of the issues they brought to light, especially the Palestinian crisis but it was refreshing to see a positive spin on the area" Nina: "Yeah, I loved it, and for me, it was both. I loved the food, especially since it was always from different places (the cuisine changed every 6 months or so). The times I went, they had Palestinian food, Cuban food, Native American food (I can’t remember what the exact name was), and others that I don’t exactly remember off the top of my head. They always had little pamphlets with interviews from people who were from those cultures. They were $1 during that cuisine’s run, but when they switched, they would give the old ones away for free, so I always collected them. They did face controversy, especially with the Palestinian cuisine, but I thought that they were doing something really important. There are people on each side of a conflict with their own identities and cultures. The media often objectifies or dehumanizes them, but CK helped to stop that mind-set. " Rachel: said "I was more interested in trying new foods and seeing which countries were chosen. Less because I wanted to learn about the conflicts, and more because I was interested in learning "What is conflict being described as." To be honest, most of the places that were chosen I already knew there was conflict. But I also appreciated that they didn't just keep it to foreign countries; they highlighted American Indians as well and discussed the conflicts involved there. I also liked that it collaborated with the Carnegie Library, who would sit outside Conflict Kitchen at a table with books about the conflict, about the country, or even just fiction books written by authors from that country." Kristina: "I mostly went for the food [lol] but it was interesting to see some of the history behind it. Every time they had a different country they had a little blurb posted about how long we’ve been in conflict and some reasons why. It definitely would’ve been cool to hear another take on it, but they were just there to serve their food which is fine "
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 67 University of Amsterdam
Zeba:"I came for the food, because it was from cultures I normally don't encounter. But I also liked reading the paper they give with the meal that explains why they chose that country that month and interview quotes from people of that culture. It might have been more impactful if it took the next step and went beyond introducing unfamiliar topic/countries, and actually suggested potential ways to get involved. Also, since it was a food stand, it was limited in that it couldn't really host events, which could have created a way to network and grow relationships with local people of the relevant culture" Audrey: "Lol honestly I was just there for the food. Just so happens that the countries represented by CK don’t have food cultures that are easily accessible in Pittsburgh. And I’m very interested in food and food culture, so it was nice Only thing I thought was not very effective was that though it seemed like it was being aimed at students, it definitely was priced terribly (prices going up year after year while food quantity and quality went down drastically)" Elizabeth: "I was primarily there for the food, but I also always picked up the materials they had on the current country and read them. I enjoyed the added educational aspect. I think the concept allowed me to try new cuisines I couldn’t have otherwise and to broaden my world view and learn more about international politics.” Brianna: (after I asked her if she went for the food, the concept or both) "I would say I definitely went for both! I had a general understanding of each conflict, but it was great to get food that isn't usually available in Pittsburgh and to learn more about the conflict from the other side and from every day people. Of course, the food was usually really good too. I also wanted to support the concept and the people behind it. I particularly loved when they did something for indigenous people on Columbus Day and African Americans for Juneteenth as a reminder of the internal conflicts we have in the us. If your friend wants she can definitely email me or I can email her if she wants more info “ Nick: “I was studying international relations, a few languages, studied abroad, etc. so I was very naturally drawn to it. I was honestly more interested in the food, which was excellent, but they provided info for curious customers to learn more about the country they were featuring. I feel like I casually learned a few things but ultimately it was just a good food joint for me. I thought it was an excellent concept and I was sad to hear it closed down. I knew a few people who generally had little interest in international affairs who ended up checking it out and enjoying it, which I’ll take as sign that they made an impact " Unidentified: "The concept is what drew me to it and the food was pretty good too which is why I kept going back "
Lenneke Kraak From Commensality to Commonality 68