Let's talk authentic

At the risk of pulling you all away from a fascinating discussion of the White Castle menu, may I suggest this article from The Guardian, on what it means for food to be "authentic," as food for thought. In case you're wondering, a search of LTH does not yield any prior thread whose title suggests a focus on what it means for a food to be "authentic." There have been, however, several threads in which "authentic" appeared in the thread title, and several others in which some discussion occurred about what constitutes authenticity in cuisine, and what were its merits.

For starters, I'm wondering what you (who are interested) think about this: can authenticity be assessed objectively, or is "authentic" in the eye of the beholder? And here's another question: when it comes to food, is what's authentic objectively better than what's not? Is a preoccupation with authenticity in food just a form of snobbery? (I ask because, I must say, it seems a favorite trick of the professional in this biz to demonstrate a knowlege of a certain cuisine greater than that of the average Joe's by dissing someone's food offering as "not authentic.") Is placing value on the authentic rather than the adapted contrary to the natural way in which food trends and flavors move around the world and get shared among societies? As perhaps you can tell by my proposed conversation starters, right now I'm leaning toward some disdain for those who anoint themselves the identifiers of what foods are authentic. On the other hand, I can agree with the Guardian article's author that there's an "I know it when I see/taste it" element that tells us that, for example, Chinese tofu pizza is inauthentic. I'm curious about your opinions either way.

This is an interesting question for me.

An "authentic" dish doesn't make it "better" in any objective sense. But, as you know from the White Castle thread, I do not believe in any sort of objectivity when it comes to opinions about food. It's all subjective.

That said, I, personally, am interested in the "authentic" because it gives me an insight into the culture of the food I am exploring. I am curious about how foods are eaten in their places of origin, so authenticity, in that sense, is an important element to my enjoyment. Food, for me, is a way to explore other cultures. But a food being "authentic" does not in any way, shape, or form, mean it's objectively "better" than an "inauthentic" interpretation.

For centuries, nomadic cultures have adapted their recipes to local ingredients and tastes. Is anything truly "authentic" anymore? Is it a question of being inauthentic, or simply the evolution of culinary art, either out of necessity or taste? Look at the ubiquitous Jalapeno pepper that has found its way into all sorts of Asian and African dishes. Does that make those dishes any less "authentic" ?

"Authentic" for me is meant in the sense that this is the way the food is eaten in the place usually associated with it. Ideally, you wouldn't have to make any substitutions, but, at some point, due to a paucity of ingredients, you're going to have to substitute something out or omit it entirely. Sometimes, this makes a big difference. Sichuan food without Sichuan peppercorns tastes good, but is missing a key component of ma la ("numb and spicy"), an important concept in Sichuan cuisine. (Of course, not all Sichuan cuisine.) The lack of the peppercorn does make it somewhat less "authentic." Does it really matter? Up to you. If you get the definition of "authentic" strict enough, it will be almost impossible to have an "authentic" dish outside the area where it is normally eaten.

First, Katie: thank you. I think this is a very significant topic and I'm glad to take part in (probably mostly by reading) a thread on the subject.

Binko wrote:"Authentic" for me is meant in the sense that this is the way the food is eaten in the place usually associated with it.

I am inclined to agree although a thought occurs. Using your example of Sichuan cuisine, what do we make of the "authenticity" of peanuts in Sichuan cuisine. It's a New World food that has "only" been used there for about four hundred years. Presumably time validates culinary practice. Which of course begs the impossible question of when authenticity sets in.

Gypsy Boy wrote:I am inclined to agree although a thought occurs. Using your example of Sichuan cuisine, what do we make of the "authenticity" of peanuts in Sichuan cuisine. It's a New World food that has "only" been used there for about four hundred years.

It's no problem with me. Like I said, I am interested in how the food is eaten in the place it is usually associated with. I am not looking for some sort of proto-cuisine when I'm in search of the "authentic," just how things are eaten there now or have been eaten there in the past.

Addendum.

I was doing some reading over the weekend and found this lovely sentence by Chichi Wang on the Serious Eats website. Much as I value authenticity, I think she's bang on:

"Sichuanese "ya cai" pickles—leaves of mustard greens that have been sun-dried, rubbed with salt, then mixed with various aromatics and sealed in jars to mature for months—are the ones traditionally used for the dish, but I've never been a stickler for authenticity at the cost of gustatory pleasure."

(My italics)

Binko wrote:It's no problem with me. Like I said, I am interested in how the food is eaten in the place it is usually associated with. I am not looking for some sort of proto-cuisine when I'm in search of the "authentic," just how things are eaten there now or have been eaten there in the past.

Then the question has to be: if a dish was made one way fifty years ago and now, due to [fill in the blank, ranging from depletion of resources, greater availability of other things, external influence, or "simple" evolution of cuisine], it is now made another way, which is 'authentic'? It seems to me that both must be, differences notwithstanding.

Gypsy Boy wrote:

Binko wrote:It's no problem with me. Like I said, I am interested in how the food is eaten in the place it is usually associated with. I am not looking for some sort of proto-cuisine when I'm in search of the "authentic," just how things are eaten there now or have been eaten there in the past.

Then the question has to be: if a dish was made one way fifty years ago and now, due to [fill in the blank, ranging from depletion of resources, greater availability of other things, external influence, or "simple" evolution of cuisine], it is now made another way, which is 'authentic'? It seems to me that both must be, differences notwithstanding.

I would call them both "authentic" myself. I mean, look at something like Hungarian cuisine. If you were transported to Budapest in 1801, you probably wouldn't recognize much of the cuisine at all, as paprika was only introduced in the 18th century, and didn't really take off until the 1800s. Now, one can't imagine Hungarian food without paprika. I'd really be curious to find old cookbooks from Hungary pre-paprika, because it sounds like the cuisine back then was much more diverse in terms of herbs and spices used.

Fascinating. I hadn't realized that paprika was such a relatively recent addition to Hungarian cuisine. You're right: it's hard to imagine Hungarian food without it now. One has to believe that such pre-paprika "cookbooks" or manuals exist; it would indeed be intriguing to see how the cuisine has evolved over time, especially what was displaced. Here, I think, is where it gets really interesting. I have to believe that the long Ottoman occupation and the subsequent governance from Vienna had a role in the ethnic makeup of the country and that, in turn, heavily influenced the cuisine.

Hwa Jyau (excuse the Yale Romanization) is an essential ingredient in SzeChwan cooking. It is almost synonymous with the cuisne. Is a Yu Syang dish the same with anise substituted? I would have to say no. But is it authentic with Mexican dried Chiles instead of dried Chinese peppers? I think so. Curry is a good example. As the British East Indies Company transported their private Indian Army throughout Asia, local variations of the dish spread. Is Thai or Philipino curry less authentic? They are certainly different from their anscestors, but have become identified as native cusine. How about pasta? Are noodles which originated in China inauthentic when served elsewhere? Nobody would say that pasta is not an authentic Italian dish, although it did not exist before Marco Polo imported noodles from China and Tomatoes were brought from Peru. Is there a time limit involved?

In the early days of this community, pre-LTH, the authenticity debate was constant. After a while, both the pedantic fetishists of authenticity and the idiots who dismissed any and all cultural awareness as affectation faded, leaving a relatively moderate, unspoken prevailing middle ground. To me, there's an element of time to "authenticity," but only as one factor in local cultural acceptance and understanding of an identifiable food idea. Maybe memetics can be applied to food as, apparently, is being done with traditional music. I think one can understand an "authentic" bowl of chowder as much as one can identify an "authentic" sea shanty, a Cuban sandwich as much as a mambo.

d4v3 wrote:Is there a time limit involved?

No. My opinion is as stated above. If that's how they eat it now, it's authentic. If that's how they ate it in the past, that's also authentic. I consider Spam musibi an authentic part of Hawaiian cuisine even though it's obviously a recent addition. Same with budae jjigae (a Korean stew made with Spam, hot dogs, or other processed meats or surplus.) A lot of Hungarian food is now made with sunflower oil instead of lard. I still consider that authentic, if not historical.

To me authentic food means food prepared in a way that is faithful to the place it originates. Such as not putting catsup on a Chicago hot dog...that would not be "authentic". (but if that is what you like, who really cares). It can also mean non packaged or processed in some cases also, such as "real food". "Real" cheese is authentic but Cheeze wiz or velveeta might not be considered "authentic cheese" by some....its an imposter. Remember food does not know where it is....if its good (subjective), then its good whether it comes from your kitchen, a fast food restaurant, a GNR place, a chain, a top Chicago eatery, whatever. I think sometimes people see things through these lenses to declare whether food is bad or good regardless of taste. I think there are people who would never concede anything they ate at a chain restaurant is any good at all. I've tasted a lot of bad food that people have made in their own kitchens with good ingredients because they did not know how to cook.

In my own post history, I note a LTH-colored change in the use of "authentic" and "authenticity," to the point where I only usually now use them in a metasense.

To complicate things further, is Mickey D's authentic American food? Or to be totally recursive, how about White Castle? Where do "contemporary" restaurants fall on the scale? Is Alinea authentic? It is certainly faithful to its style, or is a restaurant Like Perennial, where they source local ingredients more authentic? Is North Pond an authentic upscale Midwestern restaurant? How about a place like American Depot which uses authentic recipes, but is itself a concious copy of a restaurant genre? Seems like considering authenticity raises more questions than it answers. It is much easier to define what is not authentic. For instance, Taco Bell and Olive Garden are definitely not authentic (or are they?).

JeffB wrote:the pedantic fetishists of authenticity and the idiots who dismissed any and all cultural awareness as affectation faded, leaving a relatively moderate, unspoken prevailing middle ground.

Not to go off on a tangent, but as a grammar geek, I see a parallel to the prescriptivist/descriptivist dichotomy in your characterization of the opposing views on cuisine authenticity, which is a helpful insight.

Santander wrote:In my own post history, I note a LTH-colored change in the use of "authentic" and "authenticity," to the point where I only usually now use them in a metasense.

I must confess I don't understand what you mean. Would you be willing to elaborate?

d4v3 wrote:For instance, Taco Bell and Olive Garden are definitely not authentic (or are they?).

This is a good place to argue that 'authentic' is a "substantive-hungry" adjective. -- Authentic whats?

Here’s the problem I have with “authentic”; when people talk about an authentic dish they usually have a particular example in mind. Someone will say the restaurant A version of a dish is more authentic then restaurant B. The problem is that even in the native country these dishes tend to have a pretty wide variation. It would not surprise me at all if the people from the area of the dishes origin don’t even agree on what’s “authentic”.

Let's look at meatloaf; my mother used only ground beef, eggs, breadcrumbs, and seasoning. It was always glazed with a mixture of ketchup, brown sugar and ground clove. I had a girlfriend whose mother made a killer meatloaf; hers had ground beef, pork and veal. She always covered it with ketchup but also served it with mushroom gravy. Some are wrapped in bacon and covered with bbq sauce. To me they’re all meatloaf and one is no more authentic than the other.

As usual – just my 2¢

Where do you draw a circle around authentic anyway?
Few here would argue about, say, Lao Sze Chuan's authentic-ness... but something like "Mayonnaise Shrimp" is a modern Hong Kong, not a traditional Sichuan, dish. It may be authentic modern Hong Kong, but it's not authentic Chengdu.

Katie wrote:

Santander wrote:In my own post history, I note a LTH-colored change in the use of "authentic" and "authenticity," to the point where I only usually now use them in a metasense.

I must confess I don't understand what you mean. Would you be willing to elaborate?

Only that LTH has gradually stopped me from using the word organically (in contexts beyond food, as well). However, my non-ironic use of "toothsome" is up 5000%.

Santander wrote:

Katie wrote:

Santander wrote:In my own post history, I note a LTH-colored change in the use of "authentic" and "authenticity," to the point where I only usually now use them in a metasense.

I must confess I don't understand what you mean. Would you be willing to elaborate?

Only that LTH has gradually stopped me from using the word organically (in contexts beyond food, as well). However, my non-ironic use of "toothsome" is up 5000%.

"Toothsome" is the new "unctuous".

Having just seen a video on making budae-jjigae -- the authentic and popular Korean stew that includes Spam and canned beans (perhaps not too surprisingly, budae jjigae translates "army base stew") -- I thought I'd search and see if this dish had ever been mentinoed here -- and so it has. (And if you're interested, here's a link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euVyBKNfxkk ) This is a topic that has long made me smile -- and squirm -- not just because of new vs. old, but also because of "what's on hand" and "that's how mom made it." A lot of the world's cuisine was just what was available (from pasta carbonara to chicken Marengo -- and, I suspect, just about everything else ever cooked, at least the first time it was prepared). As for what mom made, which is authentic tuna salad -- mayo and onions with albacore or Miracle Whip and pickle relish with chunk light.. Personal preference (and family history) is the albacore with mayo, but I don't think that is more authentic than the alternative.

As I've traveled, I've had food all over the world that was undeniably authentic and yet nothing like someone else made it. For example, fish amok in Cambodia. Some versions are soupy and served in a coconut. Others are more like a firm custard and wrapped in a banana leaf. Both versions were eaten in Cambodia, prepared by Cambodians, so both were authentic. The older a recipe is, the more versions there are likely to be. I think the idea of having an "absolute" version is a relatively new idea -- just like the people who think current borders have always existed.

I think the general discussion reflects much of this thinking, so I'm probably preaching to the choir.

The more one researches, the more one finds that "authentic" is elusive, simply because so many versions of things can be authentic, depending on the timing. If one thinks in terms of absolutes, then a Mongolian's roasted mutton and fermented mares' milk might be among the only truly authentic dishes left, as there are no variations on the theme, no new spins, and no introduced ingredients. That said, I think, as toria notes above, a wide range of options can be accepted if a dish is faithful to a place it originated, irrespective of what history has brought into play. For example, Chinese American food is authentic to the Chinese in America who created it, to try to hang on to memories of home.

I think the danger lies in ruling something out as inauthentic just because it is not what one has experienced previously. That's when one needs to move into "not my preference" mode. And then there is the question of "is it tasty?" I have discovered in many places that the authentic version of something isn't nearly as tasty as a slightly more tarted up version of the dish. So I think it's worth remembering that authentic doesn't always mean good (Icelandic rotted shark comes to mind).

I actually try to avoid the word "authentic" when writing about food, or else I'll say, "this is authentic, but it is only one version among many." Or I'll say "historic" or "this is how this person in the past made it." Just because "authentic" is usually not as definitive as I might wish.

This thread comes to my mind whenever I see the word "authentic" used in reference to cuisine. It's still an interesting topic for me. There has been a Chowhound thread running on the topic lately, and here's a recent comment that caught my attention more than any other:

"... I think, in general, the term 'authentic' is an outdated concept, the product of a time when we were much more isolated and regional differences did define things. Now everyone knows all about dishes being created all over the country if not the world, by chefs in places they've never visited. And they recreate those dishes in restaurants and home kitchens everywhere, not just in their regions of origin, sometimes changing ingredients to fit region. If I live in New York City and learn to make Mexican food in a traditional way on the internet, is that authentic? Does it matter? That's why I prefer the term 'traditional', because it refers to way things were in the past. And we can choose to learn and honor tradition or go our own way, or a little of both. 'Authentic' no longer seems relevant."

-mikeycook, Chowhound General thread, "Our perception of authenticity"

If people are concerned with authenticity because of a fear of losing traditions and because they seek to preserve those traditions, I get it. After that, I'm not sure why authenticity matters, especially when even the supposedly authentic versions of dishes often evolve and change from how they were originally prepared.

I know many of us desire to taste the very best versions of certain dishes, and perhaps we assume that if we go to the source (say, xiao long bao in Shanghai or Peking duck in Beijing or bagels in New York), we feel like we'll have that experience. We can then use those - dare I say authentic? - versions to compare to versions here to find out which versions are really the best.

But authentic doesn't always mean better. Perhaps a recreated version uses better quality ingredients or otherwise improves upon a dish. And of course what if the original (i.e., authentic) version contains more or less spice than the taster desires. And who says that using more locally available ingredients makes a dish worse? There are simply some foods that are not available worldwide so we learn to substitute. Some substitutions may mean the dish is no longer authentic in the eyes of those who created the dish, but that's not the same as saying that the substitution made the dish worse.

Ultimately, what I'm getting at is that I think it's foolish to claim that a dish is not of suitable quality simply because it's less authentic than other versions. This is especially so given how complex and subjective taste is and how everyone tastes food just a little bit differently.

This is an issue that I've thought a lot about in the past few years, and there's little in this thread that I do not agree with wholeheartedly.

So, consider this hypothetical: We go to a Mexican restaurant and are served what the menu calls "Yucatan-style Cochinita Pibil." We receive pork rolled in enchiladas, simmered in a kind of dark mole sauce, with some pickled red onions on top and black beans on the side. You hate it, I like it, but the issue of taste is here irrelevant. Would not a fair criticism be that the dish is "inauthentic," and would not that this criticism be, in some way, also an appraisal of the dish's quality?


PS. Like Cynthia, I avoid using the term "authentic" because it is, as she says, too "elusive."

ah yes---but isn't "authentic" in the eye of the beholder? If Yancy Yelpsalot goes to In on Thai and orders Pad Thai, takes one bite and freaks because it isn't syrupy sweet steamed noodles, is she wrong to think they're doing something inauthentic--because, to her, the "authentic" version of Pad Thai wasn't provided?

I agree with David--I avoid the word because it's used for a catchall of situations that are often a variation of "I didn't get what I thought I was getting or am used to getting"--along with "this is or isn't an accurate reflection of indigenous cuisine". Most of us aren't knowledgeable enough to really use it for the latter and are being lazy when we use the term to describe the former, no?

Like others I don't use the term, since it can mean so many different things.

What's especially problematic about the term is that it generally isn't intended to tell you what the food is, it is intended to tell you what it isn't. If a restaurant advertises "Authentic Italian Cuisine" they aren't trying to tell you what they make. They're trying to tell you that they aren't an old school "red sauce" type place, and they aren't Olive Garden.

I do use the term traditional, but that always leave open the question of "what tradition?". Traditional could be used to describe Italian places that focuses on Piemontese, Tuscan, Sicilian, etc, cuisines. It could also mean the cuisine of Long Island circa 1960 and still be thoroughly traditional. Traditional doesn't mean anything without getting specific to a cuisine, not a country.

Just got off the phone with Tommi Miers, a chef/owner of a series of Wahaca restaurants in Britain. We ate at one of Wahaca's London locations (Southbank), and we both really liked the minty pea-filled empanada. Miers said she did not consider this an "accommodation" to British tastes, but rather, like indigenous Mexican chefs, she's utilizing what's local, taking an authentic attitude with non-traditional ingredients. Her new place, DF Mexico, set to open in the next few weeks, (http://www.dfmexico.co.uk/menu/) will offer NYC style Tortas, which is a very interesting take on the whole issue of authentic Mexican food. Is there a Chicago-Mex culinary tradition? Not sure.

Brits are taking well to Mexican food (in what might be considered a rather perverse turn, we pretty much ate nothing but Mexican food in London). My guess is that the Brit's continuing affection for Indian cuisine has prepared their palates quite well for chili heat -- and Mexico is very popular tourist destination for English travelers. Wahaca is an incredibly successful operation; a new location opened in Bristol last month and another is scheduled to open in Manchester next week.