In a TV Guide interview, No Reservations host Anthony Bourdain called Food Network chef Paula Deen “the worst, most dangerous person in America” and criticized her for “telling an already obese nation that it’s OK to eat food that is killing us.” In response, Deen said, “You know, not everybody can afford to pay $58 for prime rib or $650 for a bottle of wine. My friends and I cook for regular families who worry about feeding their kids and paying the bills.” Frank Bruni talks about this feud in a New York Times op-ed piece.
Consider these questions and respond to at least one.
- How does Bruni’s use binaries in his argument about food TV programming? About America’s obesity crisis?
- How do the commenters respond to Bruni’s use of binaries when discussing Bourdain and Deen?
- Analyze this sentence: “You can almost imagine Bourdain and Deen as political candidates, a blue-state paternalist squaring off against a red-state populist over correct living versus liberty in all its artery-clogging, self-destructive glory.” What is interesting about this sentence? Strange? What does it reveal about Bruni's argument?
News Update: It turns out that our discussion of this op-ed is very timely - it's rumored that Deen has diabetes. This Huffington Post article links the latest news to a prior HP article covering the Bourdain vs. Deen feud, Bruni's op-ed, and responses to Bruni's op-ed from The Atlantic and the Village Voice.
23 comments:
Bourdain and Deen are compared to politicans within the article because of their opposing views on what types of food should be presented to people through the media. Bourdain believes that chefs show display healthy recipes and meals, which may not always be the cheapest. Deen is a family chef, where her foods aren't healthy but they are cheap and easy to make at home.
Paula Deen and Anthony Bourdain are 'imagined' as political oppositions within the article. Bourdain is the blue state paternalist while Deen is the red state populist. Blue states are where mainly democrats reside. They are for larger government which is seen as more control over things metaphorically representing the wanted increases in food media regulations. A paternalist believes in a fatherly figure guiding his "children". Bourdain wants media to limit the types of food presented to America, 'an already obese nation,' so people will eat healthier (paternal guidance). Deen disagrees and says average families can't accord his expensive diet so she goes for another alternative. She gives people the option to eat her unhealthy money-saving foods, a freedom of choice. This is why she is the red Republican state, that believes in individual rights and independent decision-making. As a "populist", she claims to represent the people and their beliefs on matters such as food.
While She produces the options, Bourdain wants to limit them, making this situation similar to political disagreements.
Although both arguments have their pros and cons, nothing is going to change. This is the same between Democrats and Republicans, people's beliefs rarely change. Bourdain is going to continue to complain about food and Paula Deen will continue to makes her meals, her way.
The sentence: “You can almost imagine Bourdain and Deen as political candidates, a blue-state paternalist squaring off against a red-state populist over correct living versus liberty in all its artery-clogging, self-destructive glory,” is interesting because many people can easily relate to it. People all around the world have watched different politicians arguing. This makes it simple for a wide variety of people to visualize the two cooks debating. It is strange because in general, chefs are not known for heated arguments.
Viewing the two sides as opposing politicians brings a more powerful feeling to the entire article. In politics, the fates of many people are influenced by the results of political arguments; therefore the author could be implying that the argument between Bourdain and Deen is more than preference in food types, but the well being of the nation. With obesity becoming a major issue in America, the need for nutritionally good food is becoming more prevalent. An unhealthy nation is an issue now, but could also influence the future. However, like the article states, many people do not have access to inexpensive, first-rate food. “Not everybody can afford to pay $58 for prime rib or $650 for a bottle of wine,” Deen says in the article. Deen continues by saying that the food she advertises is for families to be able to eat, and still cover other costs of living. Yet on the opposite side, with Bourdain’s arguments, America is becoming more obese with the unhealthy, inexpensive meals available. We need to find a balance between price and quality. In the mean time, food critics will continue to argue as if they are politicians.
Bruni uses binaries like "healthy" and "fatty", and "expensive" and "affordable" to explain the difference between Deen and Bourdain's type of food they show through the food media and how it can affect obesity in America. Portraying greasy and oily meals, Deen makes unhealthy foods. On the other hand, Bourdain portrays wholesome meals through the media. Hence, food TV programming can present "healthy" meals and "fatty" meals, which can either increase obeisty, or help Americans become more healthy.
The major reason for obesity in America is because of the lack of healthy foods we have that are more affordable. For the most part, healthy foods are expensive and fatty foods are affordable. Therefore, Americans have easy access to fatty foods than to healthy, increasing obesity.
When reviewing what commenters have to say about Bruni's use of binaries when comparing Bourdain and Deen, some of them strongly favor his views of Deen. One commenter displays a hostile outlook towards Bruni's favoritism of Bourdain's higher-end tastes and preferences; "Bourdain may globetrot and eat at the finest restaurants on his show, but he is just as likely to wax rhapsodic about a ten cent bowl of pho served in a ramshackle roadside hut in Laos as he is about a meal at Momofuko". Another comment supporting Deen's style of cooking rips on Bourdain by saying "it has not been shown that organically grown produce is any more nutritious or tasty than the regular variety".
A reader can look further down the comment’s page and see that not all people see eye-to-eye with Bruni's assumptions that Deen cook's for convenience and simplicity. Likewise, they support that Bruni sides with Bourdain, which is the real case in the article. "I don't think the nation is fat because of the likes of Paula Deen...but gone are those slow cooked dinners that simmered all day, replaced by convenience". Either way one looks, there is a constant tension that exists between the binaries between Deen and Bourdain. The general consensus from commenters though is that America still supports the fast and easy meals Deen cooks up with "pre-packaged commercial products instead of just focusing on traditional cooking techniques".
Like Haruna said, Bruni uses biniaries to describe their different types of cooking style. Deen cooks for simplicity and the price of the average or below average family. Bourdain on the other hand, he cooks for the more upper class, those with money. Deen has a great comment that follows that idea, “You know, not everybody can afford to pay $58 for prime rib or $650 for a bottle of wine. My friends and I cook for regular families who worry about feeding their kids and paying the bills.” The author is trying to show that Deen's unhealthier food style may be a result of the price of food itself.
As noted in the article, Bourdain is cooking very fancy and eloquent dinners for the upper class. Sure, that food may be healthier but it always has a much higher cost. Deen on the other hand, she is cooking for the lower and middle class, making her food stlye a bit more fatty. This shows that a true reason for obesity in America is the fact that the healthier foods are priced much higher than fatty foods. For this to change, the price of healthy foods will have to decrease so that it is affordable for everyone.
In the article about Bourdain and Deen, Bruni used a variety of binaries in order to describe their different styles of cooking/taste that are displayed through their respective TV food programs. In order to represent Bourdain, he used "expensive" and "healthy" because Bourdain says that by eating higher quality foods, which unfortunately are the more expensive foods, you are able to receive a better quality diet which can help lead to a healthier America. On the other hand, in order to represent Deen who cooks more "home-cooked" meals, Bruni uses words like "fatty" and affordable" because the meals she shows to her TV audience are cheaper to make but they sacrifice the quality that Bourdain talks about and that's what causes her meals to be "unhealthy" for the viewers to eat. Deen backs up her argument by saying that "Not everybody can afford to pay $58 for prime rib or $650 for a bottle of wine" and that is why she chooses to make food the way she does and for her audience.
Overall, Bruni does a good job showing the differences between Bourdain and Deen's styles through his use of binaries throughout the article. The representation of food through TV now is so influencial on the general public it is easy to understand why Deen chooses to try and make it easy on the public to find affordable foods. However, Bourdain also has a valid point stating that it is not good for us as a country to eat these food all the time becuase it is leading to a rise in obesity. The best way to decrease this rate would be to make healthier foods more affordable which would hopefully make the public more encouraged to start eating a healthier diet.
"You can almost imagine Bourdain and Deen as political candidates, a blue-state paternalist squaring off against a red-state populist over correct living versus liberty in all its artery-clogging, self-destructive glory". In this sentence, the author creates a very powerful comparison within the essay. By using such opposition he is able to create a feeling of tension that entices the reader to involuntarily start 'choosing a side'. The fact that the author uses a very commonly known aspect of politics, Republicans and Democrats, he is able to lure in the reader by linking cooking to government.
I have to agree completely with Jacquelynn and her supporting ideas behind this very intriguing dispute. Bourdain is all about change, a similar value the Democratic party holds, and wanting to figure out new ways of people eating healthy; while Deen is about letting the people decide and holding a more conservative view- similar to the views of the Republican party.
However, due to our economic situation and some families not having enough money to get them through the weeks, Paula Deen's argument seems to be holding a favorable opinion. As Deen states, "Not everybody can afford to pay $58 for prime rib or $650 for a bottle of wine," we can see that the better way of living isn't necessarily the easiest; and with America becoming more and more 'on the go,' Bourdains perspective may not be considered as easily done as Deens.
I believe that the commenters provided just as much insight on this topic as Bruni himself did. The comments range from praising Bruni and his evaluation of Deen and Bourdain to complete disagreement on his analysis.
I thought one commenter especially made a very valid point. For the most part, this individual agreed with Bruni's conclusion about Bourdain and Deen, however, made an intriguing argument in saying that $58 prime rib is not intended to be a typical nightly family meal, where as Deen's cooking can be so easily prepared night after night without spending the week's worth of grocery money in one single meal. Families cannot be expected to spend such a great deal of money for one meal, when meals like Deen's are more accessible and affordable.
One commenter in particular I thought made a very convincing argument as well. This individual pointed out that it is Bourdain's job to travel around the world and indulge in international delicacies, but he is just as likely as Deen is to consume cheaper foods. The commenter also criticized Bruni for overlooking major factors in his argument. One of those factors in particular is Deen's multi-million dollar deal with Smithfield Foods -- a company that contributes a great deal to environmental pollution. This commenter points out that neither party in this argument is completely innocent.
This commenter in particular sparked my interest in the article. It caused me to inquire about the facts used in this article and their accuracy. It also caused me to notice, that as a reader, I am likely to believe the things I read without question. Deen DOES promote processed and fatty foods, and Bourdain's comment may, in fact, be more accurate than Bruni believed.
The sentence: "You can almost imagine Bourdain and Deen as political candidates, a blue-state paternalist squaring off against a red-state populist over correct living versus liberty in all its artery-clogging, self-destructive glory." is very interesting because it compares two different subjects you would never think to connect. Politics and food don't usually go together in casual conversation but Bruni compares the two to show how divided the food world is, just like politics.
The way Bruni sees it, Anthony Bourdain represents the upper class healthy eaters that spend loads of money on their food while, Paula Deen represents the regular families with lower income that tend to sacrifice health to save money. I believe Bruni sees both sides of this and would rather they just ignore each other than publicly argue. In his article, Bruni state, "And we’ve got enough ill will and polarization in our politics. Let’s not set a place for them at the table." He believes the chefs should stick to cooking and leave the fighting to the politicians.
Referring to the statement "blue-state paternalist versus the red-state populist", an interesting point is surfaced. Bruni uses a realistic comparison between the two political parties to further expound on the differences in the views of Bourdain and Deen.
As we look into the representative words following the political parties, we observe two descriptive nouns - paternalist and populist. The similarities between paternalist and the word "correct" when he said "correct living"; the word populist and liberty. Paternalistic is defined as benevolent but sometimes intrusive by the Merriam Webster dictionary. When he mentions correct living, there is a pinch of intrusiveness in it, suggesting that there is a correct way of living. One can also see the paternal nature in the way of being concerned if one lives the correct way. It shows an apt way of demonstrating the intent behind Bourdain's diction of correct and healthy living. As we move on to the word populist, it gives off an idea of being liked by many. The thought of having the liberty to eat whatever one wants, always having their preferred choice is one celebrated by many.
The use of something totally unrelated - politics, to talk about food, is in itself weird. However one sees the similarities in the relationship between the two factions in politics and the two factions of food making/commentary.
As we explore the phrase "liberty in all its artery-clogging, self-destructive glory" we see a stark contradiction. Artery-clogging is in itself limiting, and causes so much constraint on the way one has to live. And in self-destructive glory, we see yet another incongruity. How can destruction have any glory in it. The way the author uses the rhetoric brings about a lot of attention to the damages of unhealthy eating.
This short statement brings about disagreements of the author to both sides of the feud. The author disagreed to the intrusiveness of one and the obvious detrimental effects of unhealthy food.
Bruni’s uses the argument red state versus blue state to paint a very vivid picture in the mind of the readers. This statement is interesting, because it takes the fight beyond just food. It involves all the people and makes them chose a side. I think it is strange that he chose to say that Bourdain’s point of view is the “correct living” choice. What is correct for one person might not be for another. Also if Deen’s followers can’t afford Bourdain’s choice I don’t think that is the correct option. Bruni tries to stay independent in the article, but he slyly takes sides. I think Bruni looks down on Deen’s cooking like Bourdain, because he uses words with negative connotations like “artery clogging” instead of a gentler phrase like high in fat. Bruni’s word choice with politics is something that everyone relates to and people immediately think fighting and his word choices leans people towards Bourdain even though he label’s Deen as a populist.
Regarding the topic of Bourdain as a blue state paternalist and Deen as a red state populist, I am under the impression that the author should change the metaphor of the roles of these so called political candidates in order to farther illustrate the point he is trying to make. Although there is merit to his argument, (with Bourdain as a democrat, he would want more control or regulation of government in all aspects, including the food industry, while Deen would want little government interference) I believe there would be better metaphors to show this point of view, such as the one between the confederates and the Yankees. Not only does this tie in the southern food nicely into the article, the confederates were fighting for their way of life, even though it was wrong, which carries the same meaning of eating unhealthy fatty foods despite the health risks. The authors view point is also shown very strongly in these statements when he uses words such as “artery-clogging” and “self-destructive glory”. Whenever the author discusses Deen, he uses words that have a negative connotation, swaying the reader’s viewpoint in favor of Bourdain, even though his food is seen as more expensive. Had the author used words such as "wholesome" or "filling", perhaps the reader would have different opinions about which "political candidate" they would chose in the battle for quality and price.
Bruni uses binaries in his argument about America's obesity crisis such as vegan verses deep-fried. In the article, healthy represents Bourdain's meals and buttery and fatty portrays Deen's cooking. Bourdain accuses Deen of being the "most dangerous person in America" because she promotes cooking with unhealthy and fatty foods. In response, Deen rebuts that she is cooking for "regular families".
This is the ugly truth. People would rather have a piece of double chocolate, peanut butter pie than a crisp salad with leafy greens. Why would someone rather have something that is fattening and unhealthy? Most adults know that foods high in calories and fat are not good for them. Therefore, it is not due to a lack in knowledge about consequences of a wrongful food choice.
Perhaps, the unhealthy and fatty foods are more glamorous than the healthy options. For example, LeBron James and Dwight Howard recently appeared in a McDonald's commercial. Another example includes the commercials broadcasted during each Super Bowl. Who could forget the hilarious Doritos commercials? However, when was the last time you saw a commercial featuring fresh vegetables or crisp apples?
Deen's cooking is popular because it tastes good, not because it is good for you. As recent news proves, eating food that Deen makes on a regular basis in not healthy. Deen's recent diabetes diagnosis is most likely due to her eating habits. Americans need to understand that they are what they eat. What people put into their body, affects every aspect of the way their bodies develop and function.
Young Americans need to be instilled with proper eating habits at a young age. This way they will grow up with healthy tendencies. One way to encourage these habits is to set a good example.
When Bourdain calls Deen the "most dangerous person in America", he might be saying this because she is not setting a good example in her eating habits. Celebrity chefs and cooking personalities have an affect on the food fads. How they use this power can have profound affects on the dietary habits in America.
I think the most interesting part of this article is the contrast between upper class and lower class that is presented by the writer. Anthony Bourdain represents the high class TV personality that eats fancy, healthy, expensive foods. This is something the average, middle class American cannot afford. So the average American will turn to a cheaper route, and listen to someone like Paula Deen, who cooks unhealthy, fat, life threatening foods. It is quite the contrast because it is as if the high class lives much more healthily than the lower class simply because they can afford to pay for these foods. Anthony Bourdain wants people to eat healthy and stop this trend of obesity, while Paula Deen wants people to eat cost-effective types of food.
This is the main point the author is trying to put across, that America is trying to eliminate obesity but does not realize that not everyone can afford to eat and live that way, in this time of economic decline.
Bourdain and Deen can easily be compared to political candidates. Where Bourdain is the blue state republican and Den is the red state liberal. Both of them are wealthy people and they are in opposition of each other so they debate, just like political candidates. Bourdain is more about what is healthy for the people and the best for him, but Dean brings to his attention not everyone is able to afford the expensive meals he is used to. On the other hand Dean is all about making cost effective and delicious meals for families to cook, but Bourdain argues that it’s not ok to tell people to make these incredibly fattening meals. Now both of them have good arguments with flaws in them.
What is interesting about this sentence is that it seems in any aspect or situation of life it can be related back to or compared to politics. The strange thing about this is the argument is over one of the simplest things, food. Food is an everyday necessity for everyone and this argument between these two is blown out of proportion because both of them are wealthy and aren’t looking from the perspective of a less fortunate family. This is Bruni’s point that both of the food experts have a downfall in their argument. Neither can have exactly the right answer and for someone who is looking for helpful information from these experts is to look behind the fighting and take out the important points of both arguments.
Both of these chefs have very valid points, and are just trying to "win" over the approval of their viewers. Deen prepares unhealthy food, however, it is affordable and quick to make for families who are short on free time and spending money. While Bourdain cooks quite the opposite, very expensive, time consuming, healthy meals for his viewers. Right off the bat the controversy between the cooks is inevitable. Since they are both very pationate about what they do, they both are tiressly to defend the types of food they prepare, and it is easy to see how these two can be compared as "political opposites".
Bruni tries to get his point across by using strong words or phrases such as "fatty", "buttery", "food that is killing us" "too fat" and "affordable". These are all key points to the essay to try and show why these quick and unhealthy foods really are so harmful to the body and a nation as a whole.
Since both sides of their arguments are understandable, as a nation there has to be a balance so both sides can be won. Healthy foods that are easy to prepare, and not very expensive. Untill this balance is found, it will be hard to find a happy medium between these two chefs.
The interesting part about the sentence “You can almost imagine…self-destructive glory” is that it makes a vivid metaphor for the argument between Bourdain and Deen. When referring Bourdain and Deen to political candidates, the implication is that the perspectives Bourdain and Deen hold are more or less related to their own benefits rather than purely for the public. Why should Bourdain criticize the rubbish food? The reason may be that he excels at cooking high-class food instead of routine dinner. Why should Bourdain defend for her view that “Not everybody can afford to pay $58 for prime rib or $650 for a bottle of wine”? Rather than caring for the health of her views and fans, the true motivation of Deen to do so is very likely that she has to make money through teaching viewers how to cook fat food.
For Bruni, he regard Bourdain and his fans as those stand by correct living and Deen and her fans as those stand by “liberty in all its artery-clogging, self-destructive glory”. It is the implication that Bruni and Bourdain’s perspectives in food not only depend on their benefit but also related to their values and beliefs.
Bourdain and Deen are compared as political candidates, a blue-state paternalist squaring off against a red-state populist over correct living versus liberty in all its artery-clogging, self-destructive glory because both have very different views as how food should be portrayed over the media and what should be in our daily diets. Bourdain believes that healthy and elegant is the way to go, even if that causes the meal to be more expensive. Deen is more about home cooked family meals, which may be more fattening but are incredibly cheaper, making it appealing to the typical american family. Bourdain represents the blue-state or Democratic party. Which believes in more government control. Deen represents the red-state or Republican party which believes in more in-dependent decision making. Both make good points. America should eat healthier. However if eating healthier means more expensive, making americans will not be able to afford it and switch their lifestyles to it. Therefore Deen appeals to most americans because she understands that times are hard and money is tight. So she provides meals that can feed the family and are easily affordable. I believe that neither Bourdain or Deen are really ever going to make a huge difference. People will eat what they want and what they can afford. It all just depends on their lifestyle.
Comparing Paula Deen and Bourdain to political candidates is a great metaphor. Deen makes recipes for families on a budget which can be enjoyed by anyone for cheap. However, these easy recipes usually have the downside of being fatty. Bourdain could be considered a blue-state paternalist because he trying to get lobby for control by the media over healthy food regulation. Democrats usually are in favor of a bigger government to control more, so he directly correlates to their ideas. Dean is "acting like a red state populist" by saying that not everybody can afford to pay so much money like Bourdain's extravagant lifestyle. This sentence shows that Bruni's argument is valid and is a good metaphor to show how Deen and Bourdain are binaries in the TV cooking show world.
The sentence above is very interesting just based on what is being used to symbolize Deen and Bourdain. It is a very strong use of symbolism to compare to chefs in an argument to strongly worded political candidates. This is what also makes the sentence strange. It is somewhat different to draw parallels between such unlike things. All of this only helps to further Bruni’s point that neither one is completely correct or completely incorrect. He is just showing that each person is very strongly opinioned and that no one will be able to change that.
In this article, the author calls Bourdain a blue-state paternalist while Deen is a red-state populist. In politics, Blue state is predominately democrats and a red state is predominately republicans. Democrats desire more government control and regulations. Bourdain is associated with them because he wants food to be regulated more and to be healthier. He thinks this way because America is considered an obese nation. Republicans desire less government control and regulations. Deen is associated with them because she is all for it to have choices in what we get to eat without the government sticking their nose into it.
Post a Comment