At My Soiree

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Because the Lord Chamberlain Says So

If I were being criticized, I think I would rather it be for something vulgar, coarse, or tactless than for something inappropriate and unacceptable. I could be inappropriate by standing out in the crowd or unacceptable because I am the wrong height or age - hardly much fun or even my fault. But I could be tactless because I had just told off the person everyone loves to hate at work, or vulgar because I showed too much cleavage - things more worthy of criticism (and surely more fun).

Edward Skidelsky, in his article "Words That Think for Us" in Prospect (Nov.18/09), believes that the words"inappropriate" and "unacceptable" should be removed from the language. They are words of political correctness that reduce what was previously labelled as immoral behaviour to mere faux pas against social and professional convention.

We avoid moral judgement, "hoping to eliminate....intolerance," but may not be as successful as we would like to think:

But this new, neutralised language does not spell any increase in freedom. When I call your action indecent, I state a fact that can be controverted. When I call it inappropriate, I invoke an institutional context—one which, by implication, I know better than you. Who can gainsay the Lord Chamberlain when he pronounces it “inappropriate” to wear jeans to the Queen’s garden party? This is what makes the new idiom so sinister. Calling your action indecent appeals to you as a human being; calling it inappropriate asserts official power.

According to Skidelsky, we just drive intolerance underground, where it rages against seeming "bureaucratic neutrality," which is his main reason for doing away with the words.

Skidelsky is right that one can raise an argument about what is indecent in a way that one cannot about what is inappropriate. Some of the older words of moral judgement are even defined by law which provides precedent for many such arguments. He is wrong, though, about the reason for the successful "career" of the newer words.

I disagree with Skidelsky's analysis about why we use the more politically correct words. He sees it as an attempt at tolerance, an avoidance of prickly morality. I see it as a power ploy, the cousin of 1984-type double speak.

"Inappropriate" and "unacceptable" should be thrown out, not because they neutralize, unlike older words of moral judgement, but because they are more vague and less defined. They are slippery and can define pretty much anything.

So it's not a liberal pluralist agenda to use these words; I see it, rather, as a conservative authoritarian agenda. Without the well-understood definitions of the older words of moral judgement, those in power in government, in business, anywhere really, can find anything inappropriate and unacceptable as it suits them. Skidelsky says it himself: the words invoke official power, without reference to the nuisance of argument.

Much is and has been at stake in the business of definition. Greek citizens could vote in the youth of democracy, but by definition women and slaves were not citizens. In Canada, the status (definition of who is aboriginal) of aboriginal peoples is established by parliament. Women are venerated and protected by law and religion, as long as they do not stray from the official definition of what a real woman is.

Skidelsky's example of the Lord Chamberlain makes the point perfectly. The Lord Chamberlain may find your jeans tasteless, crass, vulgar, inappropriate, and/or unacceptable attire for the Queen's garden party. The point is not the adjective he uses; the point is that in his official capacity, the Lord Chamberlain may find anything he (or the Queen) chooses as inappropriate or unacceptable for any reason at all.

Edward Skidelsky is a lecturer in philosophy at Exeter University. His book Ernst Cassirer: The Last Philosopher of Culture is forthcoming from Princeton University Press.

I would like to invite Edward Skidelsky to my soiree.

(flower photo credit)

Monday, November 23, 2009

Garnished According to Their Nature

Thirty-plus years ago, my, then, husband and I belonged to a "gourmet club," all the rage at the time. Ours involved four or five couples who rotated hosting four-or five-, even six-course dinners, one each month. The host couple prepared and served all the food; the guests brought all the drinks - pre-dinner cocktails, wine for the various courses, and brandy to have with coffee.

For awhile it was great fun. Like everyone else we knew, we were seriously "into" gourmet, mostly classic French, cooking, had ridiculously expensive cookware, and everything else for cooking and serving. After a year or so, we all became absurdly competitive, and great fun turned into great stress. One couple after another cancelled their turn, until we just stopped.

Browsing through Larousse Gastronomique reminds me of those days - the joy of finding a wonderful recipe and the anxiety of trying to find something extra special.

I was reading through the hors d'oeuvre section in Larousse recently--good entertainment in itself. Even in the seventies, I'm not sure whether I knew there were so many things to do with anchovies.

Always thinking of soirees and things for them these days, I decided to do a post on hors d'oeuvres. Larousse does not disappoint here. There are 32 pages of hors d'oeuvres, hot, cold, simple and sumptuously complicated.

I've purposely -and whimsically - chosen some of the more complicated hors d'oeuvres, with ingredients that many would be unable to get. I have never prepared any of these recipes, but they are exactly the kind of thing we used to make for our gourmet dinners.

Imagine my surprise when a search turned up a picture of Salad of Ox Muzzle! Although the preparation does not sound difficult, according to Larousse, the dish can be purchased ready made. In France at one time, but I wonder if it would be available today.

Jellied eels in Chablis was another interesting find. The ingredients for it would be more readily available. I found a picture of a bowl of jellied eels, but not in Chablis!

Scallop shells of skate liver and brown butter does not appeal to me. Calf's liver is nice, and wonderful things are possible with chicken livers, but fish liver? There was no picture for this recipe to be found, although Wikipedia refers to skate liver as an English dish.

Bone marrow fritters are more common than I thought they would be. I didn't find a picture, but be warned, a search turns up medical photos that no one wants to see, especially in the context of food!

Rarely do I cook, eat, or drink the way I did all those years ago. I rarely have the patience for the intricate recipes, or the fortitude for so much food and drink.

These days, I prefer to prepare and eat simpler dishes which can be stunning and sophisticated with intense, satisfying flavours. Artichokes roasted and dressed with butter and garlic are delicious.

Caviar served with chopped onion and egg always delights.

Beets are readily available and nutritious. There are five recipes for them in Larousse, from the most simple way of dressing roasted beets with a vinaigrette or a cream sauce, to the only slightly more complicated presentation with chopped egg. Delicious.

Canapes is an entire category within the hors d'oeuvre section, with a page and a half of listings. Toast is the preferred base for the canapes and "makes a very dainty hors d'oeuvre."

The crusts should be removed and the toast slices cut into smaller pieces with a biscuit cutter.

Large slices of toast may be buttered and "garnished accordingly," then cut into various shapes.

The possibilities are endless, from the simple, to the sublime, to the ridiculous. The most important advice, appearing repeatedly in Larousse Gastronomique, is to always respect the foodstuffs and garnish them "according to their nature".

Bon appetite and happy soiree!

(Artichoke photo)

(Caviar photo)
(Beet photo)
(Salad of ox muzzle photo)
(Jellied eels photo)