Theorizing Authenticity

“Theorizing Authenticity” contributes to understanding the proliferation of authenticity in popular cultural and market arenas, a phenomenon reflected in the quantity and value of craft and heritage foods globally. The special section provides a place to explore how producers fashion authenticity through creative labor. The four articles in this section focus on the figure of the Italian artisanal producer1 and as such explore how individuals create value in global capitalist markets through the practices they perform to produce food as well as the stories they tell about their skill, creativity, and geography. The figure also allows the authors to remain cognizant that wielding authenticity is not an equally distributed possibility in today’s societies. Such privilege is rarely afforded to the innovators or to immigrant communities—the kabob maker in Perugia, Italy, can never be “authentic” (Nowak 2012). Those of us studying, writing, and thinking about food find authenticity suspect at best, but it persists—even through a pandemic—and food seems to be its most noble vehicle. In this special section, we confront authenticity head on while remaining skeptical of the impulse to attach simple good versus bad moral values to authenticity narratives. This special section comes out of a panel we originally organized for the 2020 American Anthropological Association (AAA) meetings, scheduled in St. Louis, where the first author was resident and the co-author was born, but the meetings were canceled due to COVID-19. The panel finally came to fruition in November 2021 in Baltimore. Like everyone else, we had been changed over a year and a half of isolation and separation. Separation not just from our panel, but from our research sites, from our in-person classes, from our rituals of commensality. While this separation was difficult and painful, it also expanded our interest in, and exploration of, authenticity in life in general and food in particular. During the lockdown, debates about the authenticity of foods amplified, especially for those of us who maintained our livelihoods during the economic instability of COVID-19. And it was in the context of instability that nostalgia and authenticity came together in tense ways through food. As food writer Tanushree Bhowmik explained, “What came along with the deluge of traditional food was the debate on authenticity” (Bhowmik 2020). This debate coincided with the pandemic affecting Italians especially hard early on, transforming spaces of authenticity into geographies of crisis. Even before the pandemic, Italians were engaging in discourse about foods, marketing local foodways as authentic. Given the market share of Italian craft food, Italian politicians were also adamant that a simple definition of authenticity exists and can be attached to foods; take, for example, the mayor of the city of Bologna, which is located in central Italy. In 2019, he went to Twitter to ask Italian citizens living abroad a favor. “Dear citizens, I’m collecting photos of spaghetti alla bolognese in circulation across the globe as a type of fake news…Send me yours” (Castrodale and Pollack 2019). According to the mayor, spaghetti bolognese did not exist in Italy. He made this claim even though writers such as Bologna native Piero Valdiserra have explained that the people of Bologna have consumed dried pasta for hundreds of years and probably even put ragù on it (Kirchgaessner 2016). The authors in this special section, who all research foodways in Italy, would probably scream: “But spaghetti bolognese does exist!”—at least in places like the United States, Canada, Argentina, and the United Kingdom. At the same time, most of us who work in Italy on food often talk about authenticity with our families and friends (Parasecoli 2017: 8). We are bombarded with questions about the authentic dishes we consumed while living in Italy. As scholars of culture first, we learned quickly what people didn’t want to hear: what we actually ate in Italy. We rarely brought up the Chinese hot pot, the Japanese sushi, or the halal hamburgers. It’s a curious thing: they wanted authenticity. Authenticity permeates the foodscape in tangible ways. European Union nation-states dominate place-based labeling—also known as Geographical Indications (GIs). Products labeled with the GIs contribute a total €75 billion to EU countries (European Commission 2021). Italy is a major powerhouse in this regard, holding a total of 850 GIs, of which 291 are categorized as agricultural products and foodstuffs and 559 as wines and spirits (ItalianFood. net 2020). Risk of fraud in the luxury end of these products is noteworthy. For example, a consortium of cheese makers developed a digital tracking chip to authenticate Parmigiano Reggiano, a product known as the “king” of Italian cheeses that carries a high-status Geographical Indication known as Protected Designation of Origin (PDO). Its estimated “global turnover of counterfeit” is said to be worth 2 billion (Southey 2022). This economic portrait provides a backdrop against which the authors grapple with authenticity from both personal and professional vantages across three major themes that intersect and influence one another. First, authors investigate the modern exclusions that arise from authenticity. They ask questions about who can participate and when. Second, authors deal with how to define authenticity and find that markets are a good place to start. They ask, how do artisanal producers—of salami, cheese, olive oils, figs—navigate and define their work? We find that many artisanal producers use diverse terms to think about their own contributions to authenticity. Many of the artisanal producers we meet in this special section straddle discipline and improvisation and demonstrate a healthy skepticism toward authenticity. Third, authors demonstrate that authenticity nevertheless helps artisanal producers make sense of their place in a multispecies world. They focus on how humans interact with a multitude of species to make claims to authentic products, lives, and experiences. The Mayor of Bologna works to construct a place, a geography where dishes have existed or haven’t in the same way since time immemorial. Let’s explore how authenticity came to be today through a history of the term “terroir. ” Terroir, a French term translated as taste of place (Trubek 2009) is often applied to “authentic” foods and beverages. The term was first applied to wine but has since expanded to other alcoholic beverages and now foods. David Beriss (2019) explains there is no simple connection to place, explaining that terroir “renders invisible a variety of conflicts” and, just as importantly, histories (63). Food historian Rachel Laudan (2004) argues that the strategic use of terroir in the 1800s gave rise to contemporary forms of culinary modernism dominated by governmental and nongovernmental institutions. Laudan shows that terroir, and its application to French wines, was not a natural phenomenon but one embedded in structures of colonialism. Laudan focuses on the concerted efforts to create the French Terroir Strategy, or the cohesive, targeted approach to market French wines as the best in the world (Laudan 2004; Parasecoli 2017). Terroir would form the basis for the structure of Geographical Indications (GIs) today. French winemakers and the colonial government aggressively executed the terroir strategy during the 1855 World’s Fair (Parasecoli 2017: 57). And just in time, too, because in the 1860s American vines planted in Europe brought a pest known as phylloxera to European grape vines, which decimated European autochthonous grape varieties. While phylloxera ravaged vineyards in Europe, winemakers in French colonies began producing mass quantities of wine to export to France, establishing a global wine market. The solution to the pest wouldn’t come until 1888, when a Texan grape variety was grafted onto French vines (Gale 2011). Shortly after the French wine industry began to recover, winemakers in one colony, Algeria, began producing some of the best wines in the world that also happened to be cheaper than that of their French counterparts (Dhenin 2022). The burgeoning Algerian wine industry led to a moral dilemma because it complicated the civilizing mission of French colonial rule. To alleviate this paradox, the French Terroir Strategy was developed during “Algerian viticulture’s ‘golden age, ’” and was explicitly meant to exclude Algeria (Guy 2010: 233). The work to highlight the myth of terroir made France the place to find wine. The French Terroir Strategy helped “promoters create scarcity and high prices” (Laudan 2004: 138) and justified, to some extent, colonial rule. Terroir evolved to become something precious, a certain je ne sais quoi found exclusively in the soils, climates, and lands special to Europe. We concede that the codified connection between place and production makes “no sense as history” (Laudan 2004: 138), but rather is a space to examine the vestiges of colonial power structures that endure. Wine was just the beginning in a major cultural turn to “proclaiming that certain foodstuffs or meals were inextricably tied to specific places and to mythic histories” (Laudan 2004: 138). In the twentieth century, terroir was formalized into a very specific kind of intellectual property law: the Geographical Indication. GI labels2 are appearing more and more on grocery store shelves, and tout authentic production and mythic landscapes. Today, the technical definition of the mark is a symbolic icon of quality: “A geographical indication is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin” (World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO 2017: 6). Geographical Indictions appear simple but are actually complex because they signify the unquantifiable stuff of economic life, elements such as physical boundaries, generational histories, and stringent product specifications. 3 At the same time, regimes vary based on country and are also translated into EU regulations. Attributing authenticity to products across different geographies and communities is incredibly complex because the artisanal producers’ connection to place is rarely incontrovertible and often warrants justification. Today, many consumers believe that only the finest grapes can be found in French soils and climates. Never mind that any winemaker will tell you that every year the wine is different even with the same grape varietals and winemaking process. For the French Terroir Strategy to work, however, time, just as much as place, needs to remain constant. By far the most influential treaty active today regarding the protection of place and production is the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) proposed by the World Trade Organization (WTO). TRIPS went into effect in 1995 to address the international protection of GIs within a WTO framework (Parasecoli 2017). It laid out two types of GIs: Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). PDOs are the most restrictive and only allow characteristics resulting solely from the terrain and abilities of producers in the region of production to qualify for this designation. A favorite example is champagne, which can come only from a designated area of France’s Champagne region. PGIs are less restrictive. To gain a PGI, there must be a characteristic or reputation associating the product with a given area, and at least one stage in the production process must be carried out in that area. This means raw materials used in production often come from elsewhere. An example of this is bresaola della Valtellina, a northern Italian cured meat made from beef. Producers making bresaola della Valtellina source raw beef from outside the region but cure the meat locally. In Italy, there is another distinction backed by the European Union but not outlined in TRIPS, called Traditional Specialty Guaranteed (TSG). This EU designation is the least restrictive and highlights the “traditional” methods used to make the food. An example of a TSG is Neapolitan pizza. Today, there are approximately 65, 900 protected GIs across the globe, and the majority of GIs indicate an origin from Europe. Only approximately. 001 percent of GIs come from the continent of Africa (WIPO 2017, 2019: 182–183). Does this mean hardly any authentic craft goods or food products are worthy of a GI on the continent? Even writing the question feels ridiculous. the question and the us to do these do in the is authenticity and And to what In this special section, the authors focus on salami, olive cheese, and dried the and as authentic to on who is what is in this and what are the authors in this section grapple with the of a taste of place, which for the artisanal And artisanal producers use many terms to what they do because is even though the global of Geographical Indications would have consumers think For the artisanal producers we meet in the is less about place and more about of in craft foods. This is up in the term which we means and in We also As shows in meant an between the artisanal and and In the of a global pandemic, a way to the artisanal In to the distinction between with and an for olive than the something the that come from in markets and with to more about which characteristics we to foods, and with what and come not only from the and the place, as out in but the different within a and the practices as well as of and of artisanal is to that after is not a in the world to but an of value that or not its shows that terroir allows for in a The term about the of the and the of production In this special section, this is Like we are in artisanal producers to the ways in which they their authentic Terroir, that of in the as the framework for modern forms of with authenticity in and ways. on heritage production in the United States, authenticity as an these diverse practices within a but it is also an also shows that authenticity is not just an is also the ways are for explains that be authentic for is about a that is not to because it is It is and very to of this connection is both and According to there is a at the of this connection that is made through with and many of these very same authors have authenticity is not only about and but also and argues that is a of authenticity. explains that of authenticity is at the same time a of a The authors in this special section also grapple with through authenticity. This makes in who can participate in the as and are due to a pandemic this articles by and in the figure of the immigrant who local and has a of heritage foods. It is no that we never meet this as a they are the cultural work to for authenticity is a of between us and While we with this we authenticity and to focus on the artisanal the and olive and the As the is a for producing and This focus allows for a to explore the artisanal as both and We explore how the artisanal producers’ and creative work is by capitalist while also as an to production and the artisanal producers we meet in this section are in at least two ways. First, they are between a capitalist and its which are of of production and with of and Second, these artisanal producers are in how they come up against and due to and an like these an to of and at 2019: is an of in contemporary and its influence food to and This makes it to the because it is as much creative as it is what and and is also the work of and agricultural is and The cultural work to means authenticity to An to the must be through the work of people histories, marketing on and and It is no that many scholars in with cultural and are to questions of authenticity because many of these same have with work, In of how the of authenticity with of and to and area such on of materials as of the cultural such as and and with a to and the argues that the of many came from a to out spaces in based on claims to the contemporary and in ways. They and create and to the and producers are a way from what as to authenticity the of the global Even have We find in global regimes of authenticity as to the of The authors in this section that economic on the vestiges of capitalist that before on that is a found in the spaces the capitalist means of production have such as the and of capitalist that make space for economic like capitalist their own of of capitalist the artisanal forms of and are and rarely these are as with no on the also the of The of culture for much of its embedded in a colonial with were the and found and from of tell a one that to curious as they and to the of the American and in when many “authentic” began to be as and to their the to claim authenticity was for the most the work of was central to the of authenticity create their own of to early in Like European goods out of before a and authenticity is as much as it is an in this work was also like a cure of its time, as in the to The work much of its power through with a of the who the of is only in the that questions about in come to the for example we elements of and in the authenticity of food we also how authenticity of to For example, how like can be up in ways that and an as has from as an in 2020). to authenticity in the years have become not only more and but also more creative and In this way we to what explains as of and from authenticity” We the work to create claims to the stuff that and on this work is of a that authenticity is not to be in the same and a of also be shows that colonial what be authentic. This a of cultural In Italy, the must be of production to onto agricultural to be and on and this work shows that authenticity something one can find or than authenticity as a we who that authenticity is an phenomenon of authenticity as or contribute to understanding the and of authenticity in In a in to of a in and foods. approach the discourse and of research with halal in Italy, the work that in like for artisanal producers of Italian foods, halal were with food and 2021). do heritage foods, and cheeses for markets on the global economic market in be it or in that these create economic and the place of we have on, all the authors in this special section questions in food forms of modern of and multispecies in craft not only on those craft but also on those engaging in This the authors not to think of as a but rather to focus on the and cultural that to between who can participate and when. Such do not just exclude but also work to exclude producers who do not have the to be us to two people both in heritage in And does something focuses on one who and one who While both were “authentic” their and what led to or In the same is that immigrant is used in making those do not into the of “authentic” of the producers us to a not just of the process but also of an to and a for In is on the work of that in Italy fashion and food is embedded in meant to exclude and the contributions of to a to in heritage food authors also with the of the in authenticity through production In terms this a that is when in the of authentic food products For the and of olive are in not the producers In are at the of a which is to in authentic as a and authenticity is rarely in both definition and in our authors grapple with local of be it or shows that to international while to the and both in the same northern region of Italy, the terms and to a and a process that both from but also to as And these “authentic” can the production process. In we meet an artisanal for is We that while that of only one variety of since the dried can be made only from the this also those on their head and to creativity, other for a of As all the authors in this section and up to and production become and even artisanal is also with very modern in the form of global like and in Europe that to and and the of economic to the globe, in Italy, as in the of the “authentic” to as a high on and international The artisanal is at the of this work, with local as well as global market for this section came from our 2021 at the American Anthropological Association much to the of this you to and our As the panel evolved into we were by the interest and we from the authors of this only do their articles contribute to the section but they all while also in the of our A special to who helped us as we developed the section along the For many we also the and the