Ken Natton
Über Member
I once heard a guy on the radio – and I should be clear, he was not talking particularly about food but more generally – and his unequivocal contention was that the word ‘authentic’ is only ever used as a way to say ‘I is bet’er ‘n you.’
I wasn’t quite so unequivocal as him, but I was certainly already aware of the spurious use of the word in a food context. I recall talking with someone once whose particular bee in his bonnet was about the fact that British people tend to put mushrooms in their Bolognese sauce. ‘Authentic’ Bolognese sauce does not have mushrooms, he contended. Now he might have a point about what an average Italian mama from Bologna would and wouldn’t use, but at the time, my thought about it was the mistaken idea that what the average British person made and saw fit to call Bolognese sauce was made inauthentic only by the presence of mushrooms. But recently, and I’m sorry to mention it again but it is just too pertinent to this point – on that Rick Stein episode in Bologna, he was invited to a typical Italian mama’s house who cooked for him a Bolognese sauce. So what do you think she used? Pure beef? 50% beef and 50% pork? No, she used tuna fish. And if you think that I am suggesting that authentic Bolognese sauce uses tuna fish, you are missing the point. The point is, if you are an actual Italian mama from Bologna, you are not constrained by any spurious notions of authenticity.
So another excellent case in point, another dish that seems to arouse passions around ideas of authenticity, is Hungarian Goulash. It’s an old peasant dish, as probably everyone is aware. Except that, the dish, as prepared by actual Hungarian shepherds on actual Hungarian hillsides, was not so identifiably constant. Until, in the 19th century, Austro-Hungarian chefs picked up on the dish and came up with a restaurantified version of it. And it is that restaurantified version that people think of when they talk of ‘authentic’ Hungarian Goulash.
And the other case in point I would like to cite is Stroganoff. That’s a dish I have seen demoed by various TV chefs, including Keith Floyd, the Two Fat Ladies, The Hairy Bikers and yes, Rick Stein. And all of them begin by telling you that the dish was invented by a particular chef. Take a wild guess at what his name was. The key here is that the dish he invented is Beef’Stroganoff. There are those who get very upset by the idea that you should make a dish and call it Chicken Stroganoff. But I make Chicken Stroganoff. Okay, so maybe, if it offends you so much, maybe I should call it chicken in a sour cream sauce. But don’t tell me that I shouldn’t make it, cause here’s the deal with Chicken Stroganoff. Its yummy.
So tell me, in a food context, is there ever a valid use of the word ‘authentic’?
I wasn’t quite so unequivocal as him, but I was certainly already aware of the spurious use of the word in a food context. I recall talking with someone once whose particular bee in his bonnet was about the fact that British people tend to put mushrooms in their Bolognese sauce. ‘Authentic’ Bolognese sauce does not have mushrooms, he contended. Now he might have a point about what an average Italian mama from Bologna would and wouldn’t use, but at the time, my thought about it was the mistaken idea that what the average British person made and saw fit to call Bolognese sauce was made inauthentic only by the presence of mushrooms. But recently, and I’m sorry to mention it again but it is just too pertinent to this point – on that Rick Stein episode in Bologna, he was invited to a typical Italian mama’s house who cooked for him a Bolognese sauce. So what do you think she used? Pure beef? 50% beef and 50% pork? No, she used tuna fish. And if you think that I am suggesting that authentic Bolognese sauce uses tuna fish, you are missing the point. The point is, if you are an actual Italian mama from Bologna, you are not constrained by any spurious notions of authenticity.
So another excellent case in point, another dish that seems to arouse passions around ideas of authenticity, is Hungarian Goulash. It’s an old peasant dish, as probably everyone is aware. Except that, the dish, as prepared by actual Hungarian shepherds on actual Hungarian hillsides, was not so identifiably constant. Until, in the 19th century, Austro-Hungarian chefs picked up on the dish and came up with a restaurantified version of it. And it is that restaurantified version that people think of when they talk of ‘authentic’ Hungarian Goulash.
And the other case in point I would like to cite is Stroganoff. That’s a dish I have seen demoed by various TV chefs, including Keith Floyd, the Two Fat Ladies, The Hairy Bikers and yes, Rick Stein. And all of them begin by telling you that the dish was invented by a particular chef. Take a wild guess at what his name was. The key here is that the dish he invented is Beef’Stroganoff. There are those who get very upset by the idea that you should make a dish and call it Chicken Stroganoff. But I make Chicken Stroganoff. Okay, so maybe, if it offends you so much, maybe I should call it chicken in a sour cream sauce. But don’t tell me that I shouldn’t make it, cause here’s the deal with Chicken Stroganoff. Its yummy.
So tell me, in a food context, is there ever a valid use of the word ‘authentic’?
