Proper Terms of Address: Chef, or what…?

Proper Terms of Address: Chef, or what…?

The main reason I produce radio programs, develop articles and post on LTH is that I like talking about food…more than that, though, I like talking with chefs. Artists of any sort are usually fascinating beings, but chefs work in my favorite medium, and I’m fascinated by their strange amalgam of arrogance and humility, pride and a desire to please, urge to improve and what sometimes seems like resistance to criticism.

My question: is it proper to always address a chef with the honorific, Chef.

This afternoon, I got an email from Grant Achatz asking me to call him. Now, I’ve interviewed this this great man, have run into him at parties, casually shot the shit with him about Rage against the Machine, so although we’re not bosom buddies, we kind of know one another. In that circumstance, is it proper or weird to address him Chef Achatz? Does his international recognition demand the prefix of his profession? Or is this an old school ritual that is disdained by the new breed of American chefs (and in that category, Achatz would most certainly stand in the forefront).

Calling people by their professions is not uncommon. I call my doctor “Doctor,” but I don’t call my attorney “Counselor.” Kids in college call their teachers “Professor” (even if they’re not technically Professors) but kids in high school would probably never call their teachers anything but Mr. or Mrs.

The kind of restaurant a chef works at might also dictate how you address that chef, but this practice is far from generally recognized. For instance, I don’t think anyone calls Robert Adams of Honey 1 “Chef Adams” or Willie Wagner of Honky Tonk “Chef Wagner,” but at Lillie’s Q, I’m guessing Charlie McKenna is called “Chef McKenna” and at Chicago’s Q it’s probably “Chef Wippen.”

So, anyway, this is a busy day so I have no idea why this question is burning me right now, but as it’s a question I frequently ask myself, I’m wondering if you have any answers to suggest.

The easy answer is “Whatever feels right,” but that doesn’t work because, to date, no term of address has felt really right. It’s possible this is a question with no answer.

Either "Your Most Serene, Illustrious High Chef de Cuisine, Grand Master Exalted Chef Achatz" or "G-money".

David Hammond wrote:For instance, I don’t think anyone calls Robert Adams of Honey 1 “Chef Adams”

Doesn't that answer your question? If you wouldn't call Adams "Chef", why would you call Achatz that? They're in the same line of work and the former has seniority.

I think this is an interesting question and one that I struggle with. There are a couple of chefs where I just use their first name, but that's only because they know me. I guess for others I would call them "chef" at least the first time I spoke to them.

What drives me nuts though is when referring to "the chef" and dropping the "the". Like when the waiter comes over and says "Chef recommends you have the duck medium rare". Shouldn't it really be "the chef recommends" or "Chef Sven recommends"?

cilantro wrote:

David Hammond wrote:For instance, I don’t think anyone calls Robert Adams of Honey 1 “Chef Adams”

Doesn't that answer your question? If you wouldn't call Adams "Chef", why would you call Achatz that? They're in the same line of work and the former has seniority.

See, I don't think it's that easy, and the point I was making is that no one I've ever spoken to has referred to the most excellent and serene presence at Honey ! as "Chef." I think if you did, Robert would laugh at you. To complicate the issue, the chef at French Laundry is frequently referred to as simply "Thomas."

David Hammond wrote:
Calling people by their professions is not uncommon. I call my doctor “Doctor,” but I don’t call my attorney “Counselor.” Kids in college call their teachers “Professor” (even if they’re not technically Professors) but kids in high school would probably never call their teachers anything but Mr. or Mrs.

It’s possible this is a question with no answer.

We happen to have among our circle of friends one of the area's most renowned neurosurgeons. If I was a patient of his, based on his approximately 12 years of formal post graduate education, I would address him as "Doctor"--- but knowing him and seeing him in a personal setting, we address him by his first name.

To answer your original question "Is it proper to always address a chef with the honorific (chef )" my answer is a resounding "NO" I would also go further to say that I would personally never address a chef as "Chef" with the only exception being if I was a subordinate of his/her in their work setting. Despite all the training ( or lack thereof ) that a chef receives, I don't believe that his choice of profession dictates the use of the honorific by his customers.

cito wrote:

David Hammond wrote:
Calling people by their professions is not uncommon. I call my doctor “Doctor,” but I don’t call my attorney “Counselor.” Kids in college call their teachers “Professor” (even if they’re not technically Professors) but kids in high school would probably never call their teachers anything but Mr. or Mrs.

It’s possible this is a question with no answer.

We happen to have among our circle of friends one of the area's most renowned neurosurgeons. If I was a patient of his, based on his approximately 12 years of formal post graduate education, I would address him as "Doctor"--- but knowing him and seeing him in a personal setting, we address him by his first name.

To answer your original question "Is it proper to always address a chef with the honorific (chef )" my answer is a resounding "NO" I would also go further to say that I would personally never address a chef as "Chef" with the only exception being if I was a subordinate of his/her in their work setting. Despite all the training ( or lack thereof ) that a chef receives, I don't believe that his choice of profession dictates the use of the honorific by his customers.

My use of "always" is problematic, but so is your use of "dictates." I don't think many chefs would demand that you address them "Chef," but calling them Chef is a show of respect, the same way one might addressing mature ladies "ma'am" and mature men "sir."

Your reference to "choice of profession" kind of begets the question: so, should all doctors, however mediocre, be addressed as Doctor and all chefs, however distinguished, be addressed simply by their names?

David Hammond wrote:My use of "always" is problematic, but so is your use of "dictates." I don't think many chefs would demand that you address them "Chef," but calling them Chef is a show of respect, the same way one might addressing mature ladies "ma'am" and mature men "sir."
Your reference to "choice of profession" kind of begets the question: so, should all doctors, however mediocre, be addressed as Doctor and all chefs, however distinguished, be addressed simply by their names?

Unfortunately, I would still address the most mediocre M.D. as "Doctor" up and until the point in which he has his license yanked. It is one of the few titles that I would use to address someone---some others being Senator, Governor, Father (as in Priest), Rabbi, Judge, Justice.

I have no difficulty with someone else addressing a chef as "Chef" to show respect ( if they so choose ) , but I would feel uncomfortable doing so. What I am attempting to say is that the title can be arbitrarily obtained or bestowed, unlike the examples listed above.

Let it be known that I am very generous with the use of "sir's" and "ma'am's"

I always address the judge as "Your Honor," and I throw in a slight bow of the head (especially when I'm the defendant).

Interesting question, but I don't see it as being as problematic as some others do. Sure, yes, why not "Chef"? If you become friends and refer to each other by first names, fine. If you're talking outside of the realm of kitchen matters, Mr. Hammond and Mr. Achatz (assuming you haven't already become Dave and Grant to each other). In a professional context, I'd say "Chef."

Geez, what's the harm? It's not like that's going to make the difference in setting his ego on the path to world domination or anything like that.

Ma'am? Sir? You really don't hear those much at all anymore among people who consider themselves to be of equal social standing; we do expect them, however, as a sign of subservience, inequality, and very occasionally, extreme formality (as in, I don't know you at all). Personally, I don't have any problem addressing as "Chef" someone who, unlike me, has had many hard years of training in the specialization that that term implies. But I can see how some people would.

As with any such honorific, it is the addressed person's option (and the well-mannered addressed person will generally exercise this option readily) to lower the barrier and say, "please, call me Grant."

David Hammond wrote:Your reference to "choice of profession" kind of begets the question: so, should all doctors, however mediocre, be addressed as Doctor ... ?

I follow what I think is a practical rule on this: that it is appropriate (though not essential) that medical doctors (however mediocre in their skills you may judge them to be) be addressed as "Doctor" in both professional and social settings. (I haven't checked lately, but my recollection is that Miss Manners would go along with this.) The rationale there, as I understand it, is that it may be useful to others at some moment, i.e., in an emergency, to know that a medical doctor is present. This rationale does not apply to J.D.'s and Ph.D.'s - indeed, it is better not to be addressed as a doctor in nonprofessional settings if you are not a medical doctor, lest you get called down from your hotel room in the middle of the night to assist in a life-or-death situation and are sadly unable to offer anything from your many years of physics or contracts training that is of any help.

David Hammond wrote:This afternoon, I got an email from Grant Achatz asking me to call him. Now, I’ve interviewed this this great man, have run into him at parties, casually shot the shit with him about Rage against the Machine, so although we’re not bosom buddies, we kind of know one another. In that circumstance, is it proper or weird to address him Chef Achatz?

Yes, I think it's weird. You've had enough encounters to develop a level of social comfort, shooting the shit and all, and even if Chef Achatz hasn't read everything you've written, he should know by your profession that you probably hold in higher regard than the average person his work and mastery.

David Hammond wrote:Does his international recognition demand the prefix of his profession? Or is this an old school ritual that is disdained by the new breed of American chefs (and in that category, Achatz would most certainly stand in the forefront).

David Hammond wrote:I always address the judge as "Your Honor," and I throw in a slight bow of the head (especially when I'm the defendant).

I do believe an honorific should convey respect, but I also think there are many ways to indicate one's regard for another person. My general rule is to use first name (unless I know that the person is always or almost always addressed in another way) but in the same breath or soon after using the first name to express my respect in another way. For example, I might extra emphatically thank the person for taking time to talk with me or praise the person's work in a specific way. I feel that this combo of "first name + acknowledgment of the person's status or accomplishment" accomplishes basically the same thing as an honorific, with less brevity but perhaps more sincerity.

That said, I sometimes bend my rule if I know I'm talking to someone who isn't American or sense that there might be cultural differences between myself and the other person. If I'm communicating in English, I will then use an honorific. If I'm communicating in a language other than English, I will almost without exception use at the very least the equivalent of "Mr." or "Ms."

Now, all of this said, I am prone to extreme star-struckness and sometimes my rule and standard exceptions all go out the window. There was no way I could call Chef Keller "Thomas." Occasionally, I'm so star struck that I can't even muster an honorific. He's not a chef, but I almost literally ran into the starchitect Daniel Libeskind in NYC circa 2002. I've been an architecture nerd since I was about eight years old, so the encounter was a big deal for me. When I turned around and saw him, I was so stunned that all I could say was, "You. Are. Daniel. Libeskind." He laughed and said, "Yes, I am." I've told that story probably 300 times now and have considered how I could have reacted in a more poised, articulate and charming way, but, truthfully, if I encountered him again, I'd probably address him precisely the same. Again, there are many ways to show respect, just some more suave than others.

happy_stomach wrote:Now, all of this said, I am prone to extreme star-struckness and sometimes my rule and standard exceptions all go out the window. There was no way I could call Chef Keller "Thomas."

Me neither. In fact, I was so befuddled when I met him that when he said "Hello, David," I said, "Hello, Mr. Keller." Idiot.

Walking home from the Oak Park Boys' Night Out, I was thinking about this, and it seems to me that when we call a physican "Doctor," it's less about the physician and more about us. We WANT to believe we are in the hands of a complete professional, a flawless practitioner of the craft, someone who deserves the special title because of his or her unquestioned differentness from mere mortals. Calling the person "Doctor" lifts the individual out of personal space and identity, elevates him or her to a different place, a position in the centuries of tradition and science that have lead up to that one day when you're sitting in the office with your pants off waiting to hear if you're going to be okay. In that circumstance, I don't want to call this guy Dan or Fred or Mrs. Jones; I want to call that person Doctor.

David Hammond wrote:casually shot the shit with him about Rage against the Machine

Pre or Post De La Rocha?

"They rally, round the family, with a pocket full of shells"

How did he address you? (David, Mr. Hammond, hey you writer guy???) Seriously, I would probably follow the lead of the person I'm addressing if I don't know them well.

David Hammond wrote:I always address the judge as "Your Honor," and I throw in a slight bow of the head (especially when I'm the defendant).

Call me next time. No bowing necessary

David Hammond wrote:Walking home from the Oak Park Boys' Night Out, I was thinking about this, and it seems to me that when we call a physican "Doctor," it's less about the physician and more about us. We WANT to believe we are in the hands of a complete professional, a flawless practitioner of the craft, someone who deserves the special title because of his or her unquestioned differentness from mere mortals.

This could be true of chefs as well, perhaps most applicable to situations when eating in a restaurant is considered an extra special treat (regardless of restaurant type). The restaurant patron wants to feel that he or she is being served, is paying for the chef's skill and the pleasure of the resulting food. Using the honorific "chef" can be one way to elevate one's own experience, to make it sound more special to oneself or a companion. I suppose using an honorific could also elevate one's experience if it is used to flatter a chef, who may then respond in such a way that would improve the patron's experience.

Ask him. I know a bunch of MDs and I just ask. 9 times out of 10 they ask me to use their first name.

I spoke to a good friend of mine last night who currently works as a baker at Per Se. She says whenever Thomas Keller comes into the restaurant, which typically happens unannounced about once a month, everyone there addresses him by 'chef'. Whenever they are talking about him in third person, they refer to him as TK.

To chef or not to chef? A term that is losing it's significance by being over used, incorrectly. Back in the day (when chefs walked in the service entrance not the stage door) we used to have to earn the honorific, not just work in a kitchen, diluting its actual meaning which is "boss".

Me? In a kitchen I'm chef. To my employees, in or out of the kitchen, I'm chef. To my friends, I'm whatever you choose to call me.

Suggest not worrying too much on this. Here in the US we've been shitting on traditions throughout our history. Not being a slave to them can be a strength on occasion.

More important is the way you answer me. "Yes" or Yes chef" being the preferred response.

jesteinf wrote:What drives me nuts though is when referring to "the chef" and dropping the "the". Like when the waiter comes over and says "Chef recommends you have the duck medium rare".

This usage definitely needs to be included in Forbidden Words of 2011.

riddlemay wrote:

jesteinf wrote:What drives me nuts though is when referring to "the chef" and dropping the "the". Like when the waiter comes over and says "Chef recommends you have the duck medium rare".

This usage definitely needs to be included in Forbidden Words of 2011.

Not sure why this is an issue...if you're referring to "THE" chef--meaning the top dog, guy/gal in charge, it's a shortened version of Chef So & So recommends (as opposed to anyone wearing whites in the building--to Alan's point, calling anyone "the chef" without specification that it's someone who actually deserves the title). To me it's just an abbreviation. Perhaps not grammatically correct but not sure why anyone would care.

boudreaulicious wrote:

riddlemay wrote:

jesteinf wrote:What drives me nuts though is when referring to "the chef" and dropping the "the". Like when the waiter comes over and says "Chef recommends you have the duck medium rare".

This usage definitely needs to be included in Forbidden Words of 2011.

Not sure why this is an issue...if you're referring to "THE" chef--meaning the top dog, guy/gal in charge, it's a shortened version of Chef So & So recommends (as opposed to anyone wearing whites in the building--to Alan's point, calling anyone "the chef" without specification that it's someone who actually deserves the title). To me it's just an abbreviation. Perhaps not grammatically correct but not sure why anyone would care.

It comes across as pretentious to me. If you're referring to the chef, say "the chef". When else would you use this type of construction?

"It will be just a minute, Doctor is busy with another patient."
"After looking at the pipes, Plumber thinks it will cost $250 to fix the leak."

It's common in work settings where people work in tight-knit units where comraderie and respect are both important characteristics..

"After reviewing the film, Coach decided to bench me for Sunday's game."

"Sorry, I know you were only going 62MPH, but Sarge says we've gotta up our speeding ticket numbers this month."

Right, in the context of the kitchen it makes more sense to me. "Chef says get your ass in gear" = Coach wants us to play better.

When it gets thrown around in the dining room or by "foodies" (or the even more delightful "fooshebags") I think it's a little silly.

I've only heard it used in the dining room in the context that you described--Chef recommends the duck...
I assumed it was because the staff called Chef So & So "Chef" and it was the same for them in or out of the kitchen. For anyone else, I doubt I'd notice it but if I did, I'd assume they were mimicking the staff, abbreviating or avoiding mispronunciation (Achatz anyone??) None of the above seem to rise to the level of "fooshebag"ism (awesome word by the way!) to me.

As someone who grew up in the era when adults were always addressed by a title, if only "Miss So-and-So" or "Mr. Whoever" (I even referred to my family's most intimate friends with the courtesy titles of "Aunt" and "Uncle"), I kind of miss those days. They were mostly but not quite gone by the time achieved my own adulthood, but I remember how thrillingly grown up it made me feel to be addressed as "Miss" or "Ms." and the charm of being invited to make an acquaintance closer as signaled by the a request to address someone by his given name.

Now complete strangers who are trying to sell me things over the phone feel entitled to use my first name, which they invariably mispronounce.

One of the delights of Lawry's is the way all the waitstaff use courtesy titles for each other.

I don't think it's that easy, and the point I was making is that no one I've ever spoken to has referred to the most excellent and serene presence at Honey ! as "Chef."

"Chef," no. "Maestro," yes.

Nick Kokonas and talks to Grant Achatz about calling chefs “Chef” – in the book, Kokonas always refers to Achatz by this title, which I kind of think he may actually use when in one-on-one conversations with him.

I've been trying to get my coworkers to start calling me "Attorney", seriously, it hasn't worked. I think they've just settled on "Asshole" now.