But anyway, the Pandagon article and the article it links to (both at the end) discuss the absolutely baffling rage at the new menu choices at the congressional cafeteria. House Minority Leader John Boehner is apalled:
“I like real food,” proclaimed Republican leader John Boehner when asked about the new menu by a producer for another cable news outfit. “Food that I can pronounce the name of.”
Boehner is now forced to wrap his lips around such phrases as “broccoli rabe and shaved persimmon,” “balsamic glazed butternut squash,” and “calico pinto beans”…
I have a slightly different take on what this all means than Pandagon does, but it's not that dissimilar. Read on....
When visiting The Joelster's family, we are frequently mocked for our choices of food -- something about eating sushi or drinking wine is somehow threatening to these people. As with other divergences of opinion, conservatives view different food preferences as a direct insult and/or threat to them, personally. Conservatives routinely make fun of "liberal" food stuff -- latte-drinking liberals, sushi-eating progressives, blah. I'm currently reading a book called Food: The History of Taste, and a really interesting point is made in the introduction (I'm only on the first chapter, and I imagine this will be explored later in the book).
Historically, food has been a way for the upper classes to prove their upper class. Peasants ate peasant food, the upper classes ate fancy food. This distinction was based on the type of food consumed rather than the manner of consuming it -- upper classes ate meat, peasants ate pease porridge. Contrast that with our modern society. Upper class folks now distinguish themselves with the manner of eating -- expensive restaraunts, exotic settings. There aren't that manny foods that are so unaffordable that they are only confined to the upper classes. Food in many ways has become more egalitarian.
EXCEPT. Except for foods stereotypically consumed by the "lower classes" (obviously using this term to indicate socioeconomic status, and am not trying to make any kind of value judgement!!!) -- think Spam, think processed cheese, think fast food. How does this concept of low-class food coincide with the conservative fear of broccoli rabe?
Here's my guess. I don't think any of us really believe that the House Minority Leader actually eats spam in his actual life. I'm sure he's perfectly comfortable with balsamic vinegar. His comments are a calculated political move to keep the peasants (his constituents) in line. They don't want fancy food, they don't even like fancy food, and of course the undertone to that -- they don't deserve fancy food. This is strikingly similar to the attitudes of the upper classes in the (ok this might be corrected later -- don't have my book with me) medieval times, who contended that peasants didn't even want to eat meat, they didn't like it, they were much happier with their diet of dried beans and cabbage. Really!
But why? What are the implications? My theory? By convincing the peasants that they don't want "fancy" food, the Republican leadership is ensuring, in a small way, that they remain ignorant, which means they'll keep voting in politicians who are actively trying to institute policies that are bad for their constituents. Just an idea.
I think there's more to the concepts of food and class, including the rise in obesity as related to the lack of affordable, fresh fruit and veggies. That'll have to wait for another time.
Pandagon
Open Left
MSNBC (original source for blog articles)
