Posts Tagged ‘meta’
Having just read Tammi’s post on the role that food and eating out takes in Italian social interactions got me questioning our own society. How do we interact with others during food. What about these so-called “share” plates? Or perhaps the “communal” tables? Do we actually share? Is food or even wine a great social lubricant here in Australia?
Eating – and dining are a very personal thing here. Going out to dinner for a birthday, cooking dinner as a show of thanks, the family roast, a romantic dinner for 2. These are all ways in which we share our emotion and our friendship with each other through food. Each of these examples though are an inherently private experience. Having a stranger crash a birthday party would be construed as rude, a housemate inviting themselves into the thankyou meal may be alright, perhaps a little awkward and even an overly friendly waitress may strange during a romantic dinner.
And there is nothing wrong with feeling any of that. But couldn’t it – shouldn’t it be so much more than that? Isn’t eating a way of bringing in new friends and acquaintances? A shared meal with a new flatmate, going to the inlaws for dinner or having coffee as an initial business meeting. Each a common practice so why not with a complete stranger? Why are we so protective of our food when we are eating out?
But are we as a society afraid of taking this to the next step? Is having the only 2 spare seats at the communal table a little bit strange? Do we move the newspaper off the seat to invite someone to take a seat? Do we make eye contact? Say G’day? I don’t, but I should. Why not? Are these rituals so entrenched that other people entering in them is foreign and unwelcome. I know my mother would love the idea of the communal seating. Her super friendliness would have her knowing the life story of all her fellow diners in minutes.
It wasn’t that long ago that I was eating at Cumulus enjoy a late meal of cured meats. We had lucked out and scored a seat at the big communal table across from 3 people. As they were struggling through the lamb shoulder I asked them how they were enjoying it. They loved it and they offered for us to finish it. It felt awkward as we finished the piece of meat and though we thanked them for their generosity that’s where our relationship ended. This was the perfect peace offering, a breaking of bread, an offering of the olive branch and yet we didn’t converse. We shared no wine nor even a good bye.
We often think of bars as a place to go to meet people (though how good it actually is is debatable). There is a certain casualness, the bar forms a shared ground and naturally strangers will meet. Add a little bit of wine and conversation can flow and friendships may form. And now as restaurants are sharing more and more features with bars; will this same social dynamic occur?
This idea of sharing your meal with strangers isn’t that foreign when staying in backpackers. Often enough someone you don’t know will offer you a cup of tea, a plate of pasta or even a beer. It breaks down the barriers – it’s easy to enjoy a beer together with no common language. In fact, I learnt a lot about loving food from strangers in hostels. But where do we draw the line? Why is it that when we are out of our comfort zone we will let someone in, but at a restaurant or cafe perhaps not?
I’m really curious to learn more about how other cultures are affected by this. Is sharing eating experiences with strangers common elsewhere? Is there a shift towards social or anti-social eating?
I suppose it all begs the question. If a stranger offers you a lolly, do you accept?You should follow me on Twitter.
It’s a storm in a teacup. Phil Lees over at Last Appetite has thrown down his ethical gauntlet stating, “I’ve decided to go postal on any food bloggers accepting free shit from public relations folk.” Going postal means he is going to nofollow any links to your blog and mark on his list of Australian food blogs with a dollar sign if you have accepted “cash or other incentives” for comment.
It’s an interesting point he’s raising and there is some good conversation in the comments, some people are offended others are applauding. It’s interesting because Phil is one of the only paid food bloggers in Australia, a point he is very happy to make. So to some extent it’s all a bit of the pot calling the kettle somewhere between grey and black.
Personally, I believe the rule of full disclosure on blogs works and those who don’t disclose should be named and shamed. Readers deserve to know conflicts of interest and be allowed to make up their own opinion. I’m sure this is exactly how Phil sees what he is doing, an exercise in disclosure.
At the end of the day, its one man and his blog and a dollar sign and a nofollow link probably aren’t going to make a difference to any of the affected blogs. Each blogger has their own appeal to their readers and this isn’t going to change that.
In the interest of full disclosure, someone has paid me to use so many cliches in a blog post.