Hacker News Reader

Comment by tchalla | Hacker News Reader

> Serving richly spiced stews was no longer a status symbol for Europe's wealthiest families — even the middle classes could afford to spice up their grub. "So the elite recoiled from the increasing popularity of spices," Ray says. "They moved on to an aesthetic theory of taste. Rather than infusing food with spice, they said things should taste like themselves. Meat should taste like meat, and anything you add only serves to intensify the existing flavors."

One of the main points in the article.

View on HN

I wonder if you can find similar cycles in, e.g., home furnishings? The elite get their fancy furs and rugs from $foreign for $$$, eventually the trade improves, prices drop, the poors start furnishing with fancy furs and rugs, the elite move towards shiny minimalism, rinse and repeat.

(cf just about anything technology-wise, I suppose)

Yes, you can absolutely see that same cycle everywhere, especially with anything fashion-related. And there are several layers, where every social class tries to imitate the one above them and distinguish themselves from the one below.

So what does the person wear who's on top of the pyramid? Probably Birkenstocks and a hoodie...

Indeed, I meant to add that the super-elite doesn't really care. They don't need to signal anything.

Some of them do, actually. Like with a tiny crocodile image on a Crocodile-brand t-shirt, or I guess even subtler signs, at the higher end, like no brand name or logo at all - but some way of signalling the (expensive) brand, to those in the know. Maybe by the shade of color of the garment, or the cut, or some other sign. But they do :) I don't know all the ways, I don't move in those circles, but have read about it. Human nature (like to show off, among other things) runs deep.

Edit: of course, some others really don't feel the need, being very secure in their eliteness, so they don't, as you say. And some others go to the opposite extreme of dressing down-market (so to speak), again as a signal that they can afford to do so.

Absolutely has happened with anything expensive that has gotten cheaper. Sumptuary laws are another reaction which can occur.

That is common in many other Asian countries, in Indonesia, some would bake fish as it is without anything, then you would add whatever you want when you take your cut to your plate, salt and other spices. It is a legitimate way of thinking about purity of foods and drinks I think. Coffee connoisseurs would not dilute the coffee with sugar nor cardamon, in the Levant for example.

>Coffee connoisseurs would not dilute the coffee with sugar

This seems to be a regional thing. In Australia I haven't actually seen anyone ever add sugar to coffee and these people aren't huge coffee enthusiasts. Other than premixed ice coffee.

I see ingredient purity as a cultural thing. Every culture has some version of it, especially as a form of conspicuous consumption. Wine, tea, and coffee immediately come to mind.

Chinese people can be absolute snobs about tea, but the same people like bubble tea which isn't made with high quality tea because you wouldn't taste the difference through the milk and sugar. Both are delicious in their own way.

Just speaking for my own diet (mostly Chinese), it's common to steam a fresh fish with a bit of salt, ginger, and scallion, and let the fish speak for itself. But the very next meal might be a curry or some other dish that relies heavily on the sauce. But then none of that carries over to making steak (buy high quality, cook neurotically), or making gumbo (get a few specific parts right but otherwise it's a high-tolerance dish), or making coffee.

There are definitely different paradigms for food, and I think if someone is unable or unwilling to appreciate that, it's their loss.

It does not really account for the fact that most of the population was peasants.

I would be really surprised that spices were a big part of cuisine. Maybe in the middle-class indeed, but that was still a really small part of the population.

Sounds to me like an argument presented ex post facto.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com