So, a discussion in Coad's epic got me thinking about what defines a foodie as it seems there is some murkiness to the issue and divergent opinions. Rather than have the debate there, I thought the topic merited a new thread.
In my mind and in talking to a handful of friends I personally consider foodies, a foodie is a gourmand to an extreme. That is, a foodie not only cares about how food tastes, but has a keen and passionate interest in all aspects about food, including but not limited to the history/cultural significance of the ingredients/dish, the sourcing of ingredients, the preparation, the smells, the looks and the tastes. While a foodie certainly enjoys dining out and all that that offers, they are especially passionate about home cooking and sharing in the efforts of their foodie pursuits.
Being a foodie is not just a choice, but in many instances is a reflex. The intellectual pursuit of food knowledge is certainly by choice, choosing specific ingredients is a choice, but the way one reacts to a dish/ingredient, a picture of food, the smells, all of which may in fact lead to decisions of choice, is reflex, not choice.
A jaded and abrasive friend of mine says this about those that call themselves foodies "foodies - the highest form of pseudo-intellectualism of the 21st century, so far" and that foodies spend much of their time eating out at silly molecular gastronomic hash houses, talk all day long about restaurant experiences. For them, its the end product on the plate and not the ingredients thats paramount and their food nights are never in. That calling yourself a foodie is another way to pose, posture, strut and talk down to unfortunates that haven't been able to try X highly rated restaurant and their aerosoled oregano." That they look down on others that can't, or are unwilling to eat as adventurously as they have or do.
In my mind, the later definition, while also describing people I know, indeed some of whom I call my friends, is more of a food snob and more along the gourmand side of things.
Is there overlap between the two? I think so. Does either definition leave anything out? What do you think?
In my mind and in talking to a handful of friends I personally consider foodies, a foodie is a gourmand to an extreme. That is, a foodie not only cares about how food tastes, but has a keen and passionate interest in all aspects about food, including but not limited to the history/cultural significance of the ingredients/dish, the sourcing of ingredients, the preparation, the smells, the looks and the tastes. While a foodie certainly enjoys dining out and all that that offers, they are especially passionate about home cooking and sharing in the efforts of their foodie pursuits.
Being a foodie is not just a choice, but in many instances is a reflex. The intellectual pursuit of food knowledge is certainly by choice, choosing specific ingredients is a choice, but the way one reacts to a dish/ingredient, a picture of food, the smells, all of which may in fact lead to decisions of choice, is reflex, not choice.
A jaded and abrasive friend of mine says this about those that call themselves foodies "foodies - the highest form of pseudo-intellectualism of the 21st century, so far" and that foodies spend much of their time eating out at silly molecular gastronomic hash houses, talk all day long about restaurant experiences. For them, its the end product on the plate and not the ingredients thats paramount and their food nights are never in. That calling yourself a foodie is another way to pose, posture, strut and talk down to unfortunates that haven't been able to try X highly rated restaurant and their aerosoled oregano." That they look down on others that can't, or are unwilling to eat as adventurously as they have or do.
In my mind, the later definition, while also describing people I know, indeed some of whom I call my friends, is more of a food snob and more along the gourmand side of things.
Is there overlap between the two? I think so. Does either definition leave anything out? What do you think?