Culinary Diplomacy & Nationalism: Japan & Thailand

Culinary Diplomacy and Nationalism Japan and Thailand

Clarrie Si Qian Ng January 17, 2015

Nationalism and diplomacy are common terms that often appear in discourses involving politics,

foreign policies, globalization and identities. Nationalism - the strong belief that the interests of a

particular nation-state are of primary importance. Diplomacy - the art and practice of conducting

negotiations between representatives of states. Under the umbrella of derivatives for the two

terms, ‘Culinary Nationalism’ and ‘Culinary Diplomacy’ particularly intrigued me. In this paper,

I will attempt to answer two questions:

1) How does national identity in the globalized world accommodate change through the means of

culinary nationalism and culinary diplomacy?

2) How does the retention of culinary ‘authenticity’ through government initiatives build towards

a stronger national identity in the globalized world?

The attempt to answer these two questions is to explore and build onto the literature of

understanding a culinary approach towards the preservation of national identity in our globalized

world. In this paper, I will be comparing two case studies: Japan and Thailand - their culinary

history, strategies towards culinary diplomacy and government’s intervention to accentuate

authenticity within national cuisine. With imminent innovation and the obligation to preserve

traditions, there is a thin line of balance between protecting national identity and confronting

incoming changes due to the mobility of people, ideas and information.

Culinary Nationalism and Culinary Diplomacy?

Culinary Nationalism (also known as gastronationalism) is a term that accentuates a belief that

that a nation’s foodways becomes a marker of identification, prestige and authenticity. Several

scholars have specific definition for culinary nationalism1 that looks at a specific facet of either

production, consumption or reception of food.

Culinary Diplomacy (also known as gastrodiplomacy) is a type of cultural diplomacy, which

itself is a subcategory of public diplomacy. Some scholars have differing opinions of the

distinction between culinary diplomacy and gastrodiplomacy2. I define culinary diplomacy as an

instrument to relate an aspect of local culture to foreign public through homegrown cuisine that

ties with a nation’s identity – national branding.

These two terms were introduced into academia in the early 2000s – Culinary diplomacy was a

term that was conceived in a post cold war era where soft power and public diplomacy were

used. Meanwhile, various forms of culinary nationalism could be seen in even earlier years

particularly in France3.

In today’s globalized world, people travel around and live in different countries throughout their

lifetime. As information, ideas and culture transports itself around the world, there is a tendency

to preserve traditions that is attached to one’s national identity. Culinary nationalism and

1 Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson introduces the concept of “culinary nationalism.” She defines

cuisine as “culinary discourse,” a literary organization of practices that socializes cooking into an

expression of collective identity. (Carroll) 2 According to Paul Rockower, culinary diplomacy is the use of cuisine as a medium to develop

formal diplomacy in official diplomatic functions such as visits by heads-of-state, ambassadors

and other personages whereas gastrodiplomacy is a broader public diplomacy, in an effort to

interconnect culinary culture to foreign publics and tries to influence broader audiences rather

than high-level elites. (Rokower) 3 Appellation d'origine controlee - which translates as "controlled designation of origin", is the

French certification granted to certain French geographical indications for wines, cheeses,

butters, and other agricultural products. The strict law to such geographical indicators for

ingredients in France displayed a really strong nationalistic view of food origins.

diplomacy encourages the preservation and promotion of a nation’s identity. Yet, with fluid

changes over the years, there is no fixed classification for marker’s of identity.

Culinary authenticity is often brought up as an indicator to what counts for a symbolic

representation of an identity because people vie for its origins. Concurring to Benedict

Anderson’s concept of an imagined community, citizens are connected through a mental image

of a symbol that supposedly ties them together as a nation. However, an experience (let alone, a

culinary one) is more often than not, unique on its own. Authenticity then creates a dilemma to

define national identity – who decides what is authentic to the nation?

Case Study 1: “Real Japanese Food” – Culinary Nationalism in Japan

History

Japanese culinary traditions and cuisines go way back many centuries ago that consist specific

classifications and traditional ingredients that is often still held with high regards in Japan.

和食(Washoku) is traditional Japanese cuisine that highlights the ingredients, preparation and

way of eating in Japan. The traditional food of Japan is based on rice with miso soup and other

dishes, with an emphasis on seasonal ingredients. One of the specific distinctions in Japanese

cuisine is seasonality. Seasonality can be understood in 3 parts: 走り (Hashiri) – Enjoying food

in advance to the best season. 旬 (Shun) – the right timing that balances: nutrition, taste and

supply. 名残 (Nagori) – the parting of the current season. This concept is embedded into

Japanese culinary practices when it comes to being particularly selective about their ingredients

and types of food to be eaten in a year. (translated from 马慧婕 2007)

Strategy:

(http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/img/photo/thumb/07915-BIG.jpg)

Out of many Japanese cuisines, Sushi is rather well known to the world. A surge in sushi

restaurants around the world also known as the “sushi boom” came into different parts of the

world over the last century. The perception of Sushi is vastly different in Japan and around the

world. The government made an attempt to create a certification system for Japanese restaurants

abroad in 2006, but it did not come to past after criticism that it was trying to appoint itself as the

“sushi police.” (The Asashi Shimbun 2014)

Many scholars have argued that when it comes to Japanese cuisines, a sense of culinary

nationalism can be seen from Japanese chefs and even through the Japanese government. One

could say that such nationalistic view prompted the Agency of Cultural Affairs in Japan to

advocate for 和食 (Washoku) to be recognized by UNESCO as an intangible cultural heritage

asset, which came to past in 2013.

In 2014, the Japanese government began a “culinary ambassador” scheme to promote the appeal

of 和食 (Washoku) and Japanese ingredients. It has also decided to grant two additional years for

foreigners to stay in Japan who wants to train in sushi restaurants after graduating from Japanese

culinary schools. Whilst the promotion of 和食 (Washoku) can be seen as a form of culinary

diplomacy, many of the adamant perception of sushi chefs in Japan still hold forms of

nationalistic pride.

Analysis:

Japanese’s culinary nationalism might be rooted in the understanding of how Japan’s foodways

and culture were throughout history. If we understand the concept of seasonality as part of

preparing Japanese food, it would draw stark comparison to a fusion sushi restaurant in another

part of the world where this concept is not heard of. However, in this globalized world, culture

and ideas are often changing with the times. 和食 (Washoku) might be a norm that people in

Japan have heard of growing up but this norm is also shifting with the import of other cultures

into Japan (such as 洋食 (yoshoku) – western food). The national identity then would have to

find a way to accommodate changes while preserving the imagined bond between people. In the

case of imported food cultures being prepared with Japanese ingredients and method of cooking,

there should then be positive response to Japanese food being prepared throughout cultural

means as a way into the formation of another country’s culture.

Case Study 2: “Kitchen of the World” – Culinary Diplomacy in Thailand

History

Thailand’s culinary traditions and cuisine have been largely influenced by its neighours over the

course of many centuries. Regional variations are associated with neighboring states (often

sharing the same cultural background and ethnicity on both sides of the border) as well as

climate and geography. The first government-led culinary diplomacy initiative was introduced by

Thailand through “Global Thai” program. The intention was to expand the number of Thai

restaurants worldwide and to encourage more people worldwide to eat Thai cuisine. An e-book

was published in 2003 titled “Thailand: Kitchen of the World” to promote the campaign, discuss

the agricultural highlights of Thailand, teach about the diet of Thailand, and share recipes for

favorite Thai dishes. The book also talks about partnerships between the government and Thai

universities that teaches the culinary arts.4 It also included an opportunity for Thai restaurants

4 Developing Chefs for Thai Cuisine Who Will Promote Thai Food Standards Overseas

(21/03/2011). (2011, March 21). Retrieved January 10, 2015, from

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=5585&a=2

abroad to be awarded a “Thailand’s Brand” certificate, indicating that they satisfy criteria set out

by the government.

Strategy: “Thai Select” – Authenticity of Thai Food

(http://www.coccahotel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Tthai.jpg)

“Thai Select”, a certification and logo to brand an overseas Thai restaurant implying that these

restaurants carry out the same or similar cooking methods as in Thailand, and may import

ingredients from Thailand. This strategy launched by the Ministry of Commerce in Thailand

aims to set presence outside Thailand as a way to reach out to foreign communities, strengthen

ties with other countries and to boost their economic condition. Interestingly, on the “Thai

Select” website, run by the Department of International Trade Promotion, it states that the

certification “neither rates foods nor endorses any quality standard of the restaurant. They merely

indicate authenticity of the Thai foods prepared.” The website also provides a list of approved

restaurants all around the world including Thailand.

Stepping out of Thailand and looking at Thai Restaurants around the world, there are 3

restaurants in the world that were given one Michelin star5. “Nahm” in London, “Kiin Kiin” in

Copenhagen and “Pok Pok NY” in New York City – none of which are owned by Thai chefs. As

we carefully observe the advertising of these restaurants, there were no attachment of “ Thai

Select” logo on their websites but a variety of press and media releases about their popularity

through magazines and newspapers recommendation. In 2010, David Thompson, an Australian

chef who owns Nahm, a Thai restaurant in London, opened a branch of the acclaimed restaurant

in Bangkok. He responded in an interview saying – “I’m striving for authenticity, that’s my

primary goal.” Many local food writers and chefs were not particularly excited by his ambition.

Suthon Sukphisit, a food writer for Thai newspapers and a specialist on Thai cuisine responded,

“He is slapping the faces of Thai people. If you start telling Thais how to cook real Thai food,

that’s unacceptable.” (Fuller 2010)

Analysis

The intention for culinary diplomacy is to encourage and inform foreign public about a specific

culture. The Thailand government set the initiative to boost the economy and introducing the

foodways of Thailand to the world. However, it appears that promoting Thai food comes with a

few prerequisites that tie with authenticity.

“Authenticity measures the degree to which something is more or less what it ought to be. It is a

norm of some sort. But is it an immanent norm, emerging somehow from the cuisine itself? Or is

5 Michelin Star is a mark of distinction awarded by the Michelin travel guides to a restaurant in

recognition of the high quality of its cooking. A restaurant may receive one, two, or three stars,

representing very good, exceptional, or exquisite cuisine, respectively.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/michelin+star)

it an external norm, reflecting some imposed gastronomic standard? If it is an immanent norm,

who is its authoritative voice: The professional cook? The average consumer? The gourmand?

The housewife? If it is an imposed norm, who is its privileged voice: the connoisseur of exotic

food? The tourist? The ordinary participants in a neighboring cuisine? The cultivated eater from

a distant one?” (Appadurai 1986)

There is a standard to what qualifies as authentic. The government of Thailand believes that it

lies in the place of the ingredients and the cooking methods from Thailand. David Thompson

believes it is through his dedicated pursuit for hidden recipes around Thailand that he collects

and experiments with. A regular Thai food critic believes it lies in nationality – “because they

did not grow up wandering through vast, wet markets filled with the cornucopia of Thai produce,

or pulling on the apron strings of grandmothers and maids who imparted the complex and subtle

balance of ingredients required for the perfect curry it chili paste.”

Culinary diplomacy, in Thailand’s case, does not contribute to a stronger national identity in this

globalized world. It contributes to an identity that stems from nostalgia. Thailand, today, is part

of the global village – a lot of people come in and out of Thailand and thus, using a singular

national identity to authenticate culture that has to accommodate change is not strengthened in

the process.

Conclusion: Comparative Analysis of Japan and Thailand

The two case studies have provided an aspect of government initiatives towards culinary

diplomacy and a preview to the underlying piece of culinary nationalism within both countries.

National identity in the globalized world has to accommodate to changes due to globalization.

The speed, scope and scale of mobility have cracked many imagined borders. In the case of

Japan, one of the ways used to preserve the symbolic representation of Japanese cuisine is to

gain approval to be on the UNESCO as an intangible cultural heritage asset. This strategy is one

that helps celebrate a nation’s pride towards their shared culture as part of a record in history. In

the case of Thailand, the culinary diplomacy initiatives has a good basis on keeping the national

cuisine as authentic as the government would prefer but many of which is not within the control

of the initiatives just like the sushi example where it is difficult to set a fixed standard for

experience and taste.

The retention of culinary “authenticity” looks a lot like what drives a stronger national identity

but I think the idea of challenging authenticity is what keeps the nation’s identity together. The

instance mentioned about David Thompson wanting to acquire authenticity in Thai cuisine

would be a factor for harnessing a stronger national identity because it questions the notion of

our imagined community – our national identity – how we define it.

Bibliography

马慧婕. (2007). 从日本料理看日本人的国民性格. 广西大学学报：哲学社会科学版, (S2),

251-252.

Rockower, P. S. (2012). Recipes for gastrodiplomacy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy,

8(3), 235. doi:10.1057/pb.2012.17

Ferguson, P. P., & University Press Scholarship Online - Frontfile. (2004). Accounting for taste:

The triumph of french cuisine. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

DeSoucey, M. (2010). Gastronationalism: Food traditions and authenticity politics in the

european union. American Sociological Review, 75(3), 432-455.

doi:10.1177/0003122410372226

Hall, I., & Smith, F. (2013). The struggle for soft power in asia: Public diplomacy and regional

competition. Asian Security, 9(1), 1-18. doi:10.1080/14799855.2013.760926

Hudgins, S. (2006). In the Eye of the Beholder, on the Tongue of the Taster: What Constitutes

Culinary Authenticity?. In Authenticity in the Kitchen: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium

on Food and Cookery 2005 (pp. 238-251). Oxford Symposium.

Abarca, M. (2004). Authentic or not, It's Original. Food and Foodways, 12(1), 1-25.

doi:10.1080/07409710490467589

Assmann, S. (2013). Reassessing food safety, risk and globalization in China and Japan: An

overview of emerging research trends. Food Culture & Society, 16(1), 7-19.

doi:10.2752/175174413X13500468045281

Sakamoto, R., & Allen, M. (2011). There's something fishy about that sushi: How japan

interprets the global sushi boom. Japan Forum, 23(1), 99-121.

doi:10.1080/09555803.2011.580538

Carroll, A. (2007). Colonial custard" and "pilgrim soup": Culinary nationalism and the colonial

revival

Appadurai, A. (1988). How to make a national cuisine: Cookbooks in contemporary india.

Comparative Studies in Society and History, 30(1), 3-24. doi:10.1017/S0010417500015024

Appadurai, A. (1986). On culinary authenticity. Anthropology Today, 25.

Anonymous. (2014). Acquired taste; japan's cuisines. The Economist, 410(8874), 36.

Ku, R. J. (2014). Food in asia and the pacific: Dubious gastronomy : The cultural politics of

eating asian in the USA University of Hawaii Press.

Yang, W. (2013). The "authenticity" of sushi: Transforming and modernizing a japanese food

Developing Chefs for Thai Cuisine Who Will Promote Thai Food Standards Overseas

(21/03/2011). (2011, March 21). Retrieved January 10, 2015, from

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=5585&a=2

Fuller, T. (2010, September 23). Thais Bristle at Australian’s Take on Thai Cuisine. Retrieved

January 14, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/world/asia/25chef.html

The Asashi Shimbun. Certification system set up by Japanese chefs raises global quality of sushi.

(2014, January 24). Retrieved January 12, 2015, from

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/globe/feature/sushi/AJ201401240005