- Email: [email protected]
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
Chapter 4
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies Barbara Santich
Introduction As the host nation for the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Greece accepted responsibility for the thousands of visitors welcomed into the country. ATHENS 2004, the committee which organised the event, provided safe and comfortable accommodation to athletes and team officials, and ensured that high-quality food was available to every individual according to individual preferences and requirements — from halal and kosher to particular foods for those with iodine intolerance (ATHENS 2004, 2004a). It took seriously, if metaphorically, the duties of host as succinctly expressed by Brillat-Savarin: ‘To invite someone is to take responsibility for ensuring his happiness for so long as he is beneath your roof’ (‘Convier quelqu’un, c’est se charger de son bonheur pendant tout le temps qu’il est sous notre toit’) (Brillat-Savarin, 1865). Brillat-Savarin is, of course, better known as the Father of Gastronomy, though this title might well be contested by one of his contemporaries, Grimod de la Reynière. Grimod was writing in the very early years of the nineteenth century, whereas Brillat-Savarin’s classic, Physiologie du Goût, ou Meditations de Gastronomie Transcendante, with its significant chapter on gastronomy, was published in December 1825 (with a publishing imprint of 1826). In this chapter, Brillat-Savarin outlined the scope and relevance of gastronomy and even proposed an ‘Academy of Gastronomes’, hypothesising that in the near future gastronomy would have ‘its own academicians, universities, professors and prizes’; Grimod, however, had already anticipated such a possibility some 17 years earlier, writing in his Manuel des Amphitryons that the vogue for ‘la science gastronomique’ was such that it would not be surprising to see a Chair of Gastronomy established in French colleges in the near future (Brillat-Savarin, 1994; Grimod de la Reynière, 1983). Both men viewed gastronomy as a science, a branch of study which is shaped ‘first by the combination of methods learned from experience, and later by the discovery of principles deduced from the combination of those methods’ (Brillat-Savarin, 1994). Most current dictionary definitions of gastronomy still emphasise the ‘science’ aspect,
Hospitality: A Social Lens Copyright © 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISBN: 0-08-045093-8
48
Barbara Santich
defining gastronomy in terms of the art and/or science of good or delicate eating. While it might be possible to translate art and science as skill and knowledge and thereby demonstrate a continuity and consistency with the early nineteenth-century understanding, most contemporary interpretations of gastronomy seem considerably narrower than that of Brillat-Savarin, who considered gastronomy to pertain to a range of disciplines including natural history, physics, chemistry, cookery, commerce and political economy (Brillat-Savarin, 1994). Further, in proposing that the aim of gastronomy should be to give guidance ‘to all who seek, provide or prepare substances which may be turned into food’, with the aim of ensuring the preservation of man by the best possible nourishment, Brillat-Savarin demonstrated that his understanding accorded with the etymological origins of the term, which derives from two ancient Greek words: gaster [the stomach and, by extension, the digestive system] ⫹ nomos [rule or regulation] (Brillat-Savarin, 1994). Thus gastronomy can be seen as relating to rules associated with eating — what, where, when, why, how and with whom. The ‘science’ of gastronomy enables the elucidation and understanding of these rules, which in turn serve as the basis for the guidance. Significantly, Brillat-Savarin’s understanding of gastronomy is also consistent with the intentions of Archestratus, possibly the first person to use the word. (Archestratus was a Sicilian Greek who lived in the fourth century BC and who wrote probably the earliest food and wine guide to the Mediterranean region — what was best to eat and drink and where to find it; Gastronomia is one of several putative titles to this book) (Wilkins & Hill, 1994).
Contemporary Gastronomy and the Study of Gastronomy A concise definition of ‘gastronomy’ is notoriously elusive. The interpretations given in a recent text, European Gastronomy into the 21st Century, echo the standard dictionary definitions: ‘the art, or science, of good eating’, ‘the enjoyment of food and beverages’, ‘the enjoyment of good food, and good beverage, in good company’ (Gillespie, 2001). These stock interpretations coincide with popular perceptions that position gastronomy as an interest of, or somehow restricted to, a certain elite, and that place gastronomy at the opposite end of the scale to everyday eating. A recent article in a popular French magazine described how to transform ‘cuisine’ into ‘gastronomie’, thus implying that gastronomy is in some way special or superior, either by the cost or quality of the ingredients, by the preparation methods or techniques or by the care and time devoted to the finished dish. (Ironically, the idea of transforming an ordinary dish or meal into a special one also implies sleight-of-hand tricks specifically designed to deceive the eater.) Such ‘elitist’ interpretations tend to associate gastronomy almost exclusively with restaurants and restaurant cuisine. Thus in European Gastronomy into the 21st Century, Gillespie’s list of contributors to the development of modern cuisine and gastronomy consists solely of chefs; almost all are owner-chefs of restaurants, almost all Michelin-starred, and all are authors of books describing and promoting their individual culinary style. When Gillespie adds that gastronomy is ‘also an examination of the terms “good food” and “good wine” (or other beverages), and “in whose terms”’, the ‘terms’ suggested relate specifically to restaurant situations (Gillespie, 2001). While this narrow interpretation might seem
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
49
appropriate in the context of restaurants and commercial hospitality, it is inadequate to represent the potential depth and breadth of gastronomy. In Brillat-Savarin’s interpretation, gastronomy is ‘the reasoned understanding of everything that concerns us insofar as we sustain ourselves’ (La gastronomie est la connaissance raisonnée de tout ce qui a rapport à l’homme, en tant qu’il se nourrit) (Santich, 1996a, 1996b; Brillat-Savarin, 1865). Accepting gastronomy as the ‘reasoned understanding’, it follows that choosing and preparing foods, eating and drinking, must be accompanied by intellectual activity, by reflections on our choices, our eating and drinking, a conscious response or analysis. This understanding is implicit in Richards’ definition of gastronomy as ‘the reflexive cooking, preparation, presentation and eating of food’ (Richards, 2002, p. 17). It is significant that Brillat-Savarin does not specifically refer to food and drink in his definition of gastronomy, but rather to everything that relates to our nourishment (‘... insofar as we sustain ourselves’). To sustain ourselves, however, both physically and spiritually, we must eat and drink. Thus the focus of gastronomy is not so much food and drink per se, or even meals, but our eating of food, our drinking of beverages — in other words, consumption. To the extent that this is a convivial rather than a solitary activity, gastronomy therefore extends to sociability and communication. While gastronomy necessarily refers to food and drink, what is more important is their place in human societies and how human societies produce, prepare, classify and value food and drink — in other words, the norms, explicit or implicit, which are understood and accepted by the culture in which they originate and which apply to such concepts as mealtimes and contents of meals, to the values associated with foods, to the ways foods are produced and to food and beverage partnerings. Ferguson has proposed that gastronomy be considered a ‘cultural field’ which includes not only the ‘culinary products’, but also an understanding of the ‘practices and products, values and behaviour, rules and norms, institutions and ideas that are attendant upon the preparation and consumption of food’ in a particular social setting (Ferguson, 1998). This underlines the importance of the cultural context, including the beliefs and values which shape what is deemed edible, when certain foods are eaten and in what form, in what setting, by whom, for what reason. With this understanding of gastronomy, the scope of the study of gastronomy therefore extends to the study of the production and preparation of food and drink and how, where, when and why they are consumed. This is the knowledge required by, and assumed of, the gastronome (in Mennell’s (1985) sense of the term), which in his or her writing contributes to a wider understanding of food and drink, of customs and tastes. It necessarily implicates the philosophies, beliefs and values influencing gastronomic practices. These in turn relate to the social, cultural and historical aspects of food and eating, encompassing study of cuisines, restaurants and dining, food and wine matching, tourism and gastronomic writing. Extrapolating from Brillat-Savarin’s understanding of gastronomy and all that pertains to it, the study of gastronomy today relates to ‘the production of food, and the means by which foods are produced; the political economy of food; the treatment of foods, their storage and transport and processing; their preparation and cooking; meals and manners; the chemistry of food, digestion, and the physiological effects of food; food choices and customs and traditions’ (Santich, 1996a, 1996b). Gillespie’s focus on the material aspects of food and its preparation, typically in a restaurant context, not only places unreasonable limits on the domain of gastronomy but overlooks the crucial roles of the critic, the guide, the adviser, roles which were pioneered in the
50
Barbara Santich
nineteenth century by Grimod de la Reynière and Brillat-Savarin. A number of contemporary writers on the history of gastronomy explicitly differentiate the gastronomer (who wields a pen) from the chef (who wields a pan) (Ferguson, 1998; Ory, 1997). According to Mennell, ‘a gastronome is generally understood to be a person who not only cultivates his own “refined taste for the pleasures of the table” but also, by writing about it, helps to cultivate other people’s too. The gastronome is more than a gourmet — he is also a theorist and propagandist about culinary taste’ (Mennell, 1985). As Archestratus told his readers what was best to eat where in the Mediterranean, when it was best and how it was best prepared, so too does the modern gastronome who shares his or her knowledge, experiences and judgements. And by sharing this understanding, they enhance the pleasure of the experience for others. In this context it is significant that the pioneers of modern gastronomy, Grimod de la Reynière and Brillat-Savarin, both took pains to distinguish the discriminating gourmand from the greedy, intemperate glutton. Grimod viewed the gourmand as ‘a gustatory veteran who, through years of application, has evolved an extraordinarily sensitive, discerning palate’ (Garval, 2001). According to Brillat-Savarin, a gourmand is someone who enjoys the pleasures of taste, and gourmandism, ‘an impassioned, reasoned, and habitual preference for everything which gratifies the organ of taste’, is a virtue, ‘the enemy of excess’ (Brillat-Savarin, 1994). This emphasis on pleasure makes gourmandism a necessary associate of gastronomy. Brillat-Savarin believed that some knowledge of gastronomy is essential for everyone, since it tends to increase the sum total of pleasure, which is our birthright (‘Les connaissances gastronomiques sont nécessaires à tous les hommes, puisqu’elles tendent à augmenter la somme du plaisir qui leur est destinée’) (Brillat-Savarin, 1865, 1994). The Slow Food movement taken the pleasure aspect one stage further with its concept of ‘eco-gastronomy’, described as the pursuit of culinary pleasure with particular attention to environmental issues and the defence of biodiversity, arguing that a gastronome who eats and enjoys the products of the land cannot be insensitive to environmental concerns, to economic problems on a world scale, or to the profound changes which have affected the rural world all over the planet (Sardo, 2003). One of the principal achievements of these two nineteenth-century trailblazers was to make gastronomy respectable, seeing it as an intelligent and entirely proper interest in food, drink and taste. To some extent, they also set the stage for the development of gastronomic tourism, tourism wholly or partly motivated by an interest in food and drink. In addition, their attention to the ‘happiness of guests’ also implicated gastronomy in hospitality.
Hospitality One might assume from Brillat-Savarin’s aphorism that hospitality is all about the happiness of others, about putting oneself at the service of others, and this is generally consistent with the earliest forms of hospitality. Nevertheless, emphasising the welfare and happiness of others gives a very simplistic understanding of hospitality, for almost always it brought some benefit — whether incidental or consciously sought. Even in ancient Greece, where hospitality was a sacred duty and a symbol of cultural identity (as it is in present-day Jordan, for example; (Shyrock, 2004), ensuring the happiness of others — or, in material terms, offering them food, drink and shelter — was not wholly disinterested because hosts
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
51
expected that they, in their turn, would be the recipients of equal hospitality. The social obligation of hospitality to strangers continued in the early Christian period, when strangers or guests were considered to be potential angels or God himself in disguise, and therefore even more deserving of hospitality. Guests in monasteries — and these included strangers as well as fellow monks — were to be received as Christ himself according to the sixth-century rule of St. Benedict, which established a series of protocols and conventions for the operations of monasteries. At the same time, however, there was a quid pro quo involved; this offering of hospitality was seen as a way of enhancing one’s chances of receiving hospitality in the hereafter (Catholic Encyclopedia, 2004). Hospitality, then, was never completely altruistic; the possibility of hidden or future benefit to the host was not far below the surface. Even Greece in 2004 was anticipating rewards from its hosting of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The long-term benefits, both tangible and intangible, included renewed civic pride and ‘re-invigorated public life throughout Greece’. In addition, ‘Athens and the surrounding region will have overhauled and upgraded every major sector of the economy’ (ATHENS 2004b, 2004a). On the other hand, nor was hospitality completely one-sided, as ‘ensuring the happiness of others’ might suggest. Almost always, hospitality implied a reciprocal relationship which imposed certain obligations on the guest. Browner suggests that the AngloEuropean world has adopted not only the Latin word, but also the Latin concept of hospitality rather than the ancient Greek concept (Browner, 2003). ‘Hospitalitas’ in Latin means the entertainment of guests, or hospitableness (Glare, 1973); it is derived from the word ‘hospes’, meaning either host or guest — guest in the sense of visitor or friend, someone with whom the host has some ties and not necessarily a complete stranger. In ancient Greek, hospitality is translated as ‘xenia’, derived from ‘xenos’, meaning host or guest but more particularly a stranger, wanderer, refugee, foreigner (Liddell & Scott, 1983). On the basis of this, Browner hypothesises that the Greek concept of hospitality was based on the primacy of the guest (the obligation towards strangers), whereas the Latin concept which we have inherited is based on the primacy of the host. ‘In the West, it is the role of the host that matters, for he is the lord of strangers’ (Browner, 2003). Nevertheless, in using the same word for both host and guest, both cultures imply that one is both host and guest, that in life people can move between the roles, host on one occasion and guest on another. This emphasises the notion of reciprocity in hospitality (which is also exemplified, in a more extreme way, by the custom of potlatch, or display feasts, among North American Indians) (Fieldhouse, 1986). The ethic of Homeric hospitality meant that the guest had an obligation to offer the same services in return, whether to the host or to another stranger. An additional, more immediate, obligation on the guest required that, after satisfying his hunger and thirst in a shared meal, he act as an attentive and sympathetic listener, or entertain in turn by telling his own story (Minchin, 1987). It is customary to differentiate early hospitality (private, traditional) from modern hospitality (predominantly commercial). According to the Slow Food movement, the reciprocity of traditional hospitality has been replaced by ‘an asymmetric relationship between a theoretically authoritative role and a fatally passive one’ (Slow Food, 2004). Historian Theodore Zeldin also makes a distinction between traditional and modern hospitality, theorising that the decline of hospitality in England dates from the sixteenth century when hosts lost direct touch with their guests and the free hospitality (offered by
52
Barbara Santich
monasteries and private homes) began to be superseded by the hospitality industry; ‘as soon as distress was dealt with impersonally by officials, hospitality was never the same again’ (Zeldin, 1995). Further, it is assumed that the two forms are mutually exclusive. Where private or traditional hospitality was typically — or ostensibly — between equals, with reciprocity conceived as the return of a similar service, in commercial hospitality the host–guest relationship is seen as biased, with reciprocity converted to payment for goods and services received, the host receiving a direct financial reward. According to Lashley, ‘commercial hospitality provision depends on a reciprocity based on money exchange’ (Lashley, 2000). Yet as this brief survey of the notion of early hospitality demonstrates, three basic and underpinning characteristics have persisted and are still relevant in the present day: hospitality is concerned with the happiness of the guest, benefits (actual or potential) are derived by the host, and obligations are imposed on the guest. Despite differences in detail — in the nature of the benefits and obligations, in the balance of power within the host–guest relationship — there is remarkable consistency in the theoretical nature of hospitality. The forms might have changed, but not the essence. Understanding the basic underlying characteristics opens a way to see hospitality as a kind of interchange, a transaction between host and guest subtended by a mutual understanding of the principles, norms and rules involved. ‘A wider understanding of hospitality suggests firstly that hospitality is essentially a relationship based on host and guest’ (Lashley, 2000).
Contemporary Understanding of Hospitality Dictionary definitions of hospitality stress the practice, the ‘reception and entertainment’. According to the Macquarie Dictionary, hospitality is ‘the reception and entertainment of guests or strangers with liberality and kindness’ (Macquarie Dictionary, 1981). The primary meaning given by the Oxford English Dictionary is ‘the art or practice of being hospitable; the reception or entertainment of guests, visitors or strangers, with liberality and goodwill’ (OED online, 2004). This nuance is echoed in Cavallar’s interpretation of hospitality in the context of international relations: hospitality is the offer or giving of welcome, protection or entertainment to strangers, visitors or guests (Cavallar, 2002). Such interpretations tend to emphasise, albeit implicitly, the role of the tangible components of hospitality — the foods and beverages, the beds and other accommodation facilities. Brotherton’s definition of hospitality reflects a different perspective. In his view, hospitality is ‘A contemporaneous human exchange, which is voluntarily entered into, and designed to enhance the mutual well-being of the parties concerned through the provision of accommodation, and/or food, and/or drink’ (Brotherton, 1999). This interpretation emphasises the exchange relationship, the process — giving and receiving, with the attendant benefits and obligations. The phrase ‘to enhance the mutual well-being of the parties concerned’ refers both to the happiness of the guest and the inherent reciprocity in the exchange. King arrived at a similar understanding after a review of recent literature, affirming that hospitality is a relationship between individuals, taking the roles of host and guest; and that this relationship may be either commercial, with the guest’s obligation limited to paying and behaving reasonably, or private (social), where guests have a social obligation to contribute to the relationship, and to reciprocate in some way. Hospitality, she
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
53
concluded, is a process involving a series of social rituals or courtesies, which define the status of the guest and the nature of the host–guest relationship (King, 1995). Both Brotherton’s and King’s interpretations are consistent with the general notion of hospitality proposed earlier, a transaction between host and guest. Zeldin takes the idea even further when he suggests that travel is also ‘the discovery of people: it is travail, it requires effort, and its reward is a transformation of both the visitor and the host’ (Zeldin, 1995). This ‘human exchange’ aspect of hospitality is increasingly recognised by tourism authorities. In France, for example, the French Government tourism organisation has developed, under the general banner Bienvenue en France, a 6-point charter with the slogan ‘Our first love is hospitality’ (‘Ici, nous avons la passion de l’accueil’). Apart from the promise to look after the environment, the focus of the charter is the host–guest relationship. According to the Maison de la France website, about 70,000 hotels, restaurants, cultural institutions and customs offices in France have pledged to make foreign visitors feel at home and safe in France by adopting the ‘welcome commitment’: • • • • • •
We look after our environment. We treat everyone like personal guests. We do everything in our power to understand and anticipate everyone’s expectations. We want every contact to be something special. We make clear, accurate information available to everyone. We invest in the resources and methods needed to make the hospitality unforgettable (La Passion de l’Accueil, 2004).
The charters for other French tourism and hospitality associations similarly place great emphasis on the personal nature of the host–guest relationship. The Gîtes de France organisation, which offers rental accommodation as well as bed-and-breakfast options, promises intending guests that they ‘will be welcomed as friends of the family’ when they spend one or more nights in private homes (farmhouses, traditional stone houses or ‘mas’, mansions and châteaux) (Gîtes de France, 2004). Fermes auberges (farm restaurants), which belong to and are accredited by the organisation Bienvenue à la Ferme, engage to offer guests ‘a simple, natural and warm welcome, [taking] care to satisfy the natural curiosity of clients through discussion and printed materials’ (Bienvenue à la Ferme, 1994). L’Accueil Paysan, a similar association of farmers providing meals and accommodation in a rural setting, specifies in its 9-point charter that the farmer offering hospitality should do so with the aim of introducing the guests to his way of life and his environment with a view to promoting understanding and mutual respect. (‘Le paysan pratiquant cet accueil est désireux de faire connaître son métier et son environnement (contact avec les animaux, connaissance des plantes, du rythme des saisons). Là est la spécificité de son accueil. L’accueil se fait dans un souci d’échanges et de respect mutuels. Cet accueil se veut accessible à toutes les couches socials.’) (Accueil Paysan, 2002). For all these associations, the human side of hospitality is at least as important as the material components, the provision of food, beverages and accommodation. In prioritising the experience of the visit and the personal welcome, they are promoting the characteristics of private or traditional hospitality, where host and guest are more like equals rather than those of commercial hospitality. This reversion to a more traditional form of hospitality is made quite explicit by the Fédération Nationale des Gîtes de France, which effectively
54
Barbara Santich
eschews the standard commercial exchange: ‘Our aim is to afford holidaymakers the freedom and choice that ordinary travel cannot provide. Quite apart from being an art of holidaymaking, Gîtes de France offers what money can’t buy: authenticity, hospitality, friendship, and the chance to experience the joys and pleasures of the French way of life first hand. It is the ideal way to explore France and its rich and varied scenery, and get to know its people’ (Gîtes de France, 2004). Clearly, the tangibles of food, drink and accommodation cannot be ignored. Brotherton’s definition of hospitality, while emphasising the human exchange, also recognises ‘the provision of accommodation, and/or food, and/or drink’ as essential components of hospitality (Brotherton, 1999). The advantage of his definition, and other contemporary understandings, is that hospitality is not seen as merely the supply of goods and services in return for financial gain.
Successful Hospitality Successful hospitality is not therefore measured in terms of profit. Returning to BrillatSavarin, being responsible for a guest’s happiness means understanding the guest’s requirements, knowing not only what is appropriate, but how it should be offered. King concurs that successful hospitality depends on knowing what would give great pleasure to the guest and delivering it generously and flawlessly in order to enhance guest satisfaction. She emphasises that hospitality ‘requires a thorough understanding of what will please the guest’ and that ‘When guests are paying for hospitality, generosity is what they are willing to pay for, or in other words, value’ (King, 1995). This final nuance — for there are limits on the ability to be generous — is echoed in Lashley’s conclusion that effective hospitality ‘requires the guest to feel that the host is being hospitable through feelings of generosity, a desire to please, and a genuine regard for the guest as an individual’ (Lashley, 2000). These qualities in the host constitute what Telfer describes as ‘hospitableness’, when the host’s motives ‘are those in which concern for the guests’ pleasure and welfare, for its own sake, is predominant’ (Telfer, 2000). What will please the guest relates not only to the quality and quantity of the accommodation, food and beverages, but also to the intangibles associated with the human exchange. Grimod de la Reynière demonstrated a thorough understanding of the quality of ‘hospitableness’ in his Manuel des Amphitryons (1808), written to provide the nouveaux riches of post-revolutionary France with an understanding of ‘le grand art du savoir vivre’ that had been brought to perfection in France over three centuries only to be lost with the heads that tumbled from the guillotine. While most of the book was occupied by advice on what to serve, how to choose the best ingredients, how to carve, how to select and serve wines, Grimod also paid attention to the host–guest relationship — inviting and receiving guests, table etiquette. Summarising the role of the host, he wrote that the host had an obligation to provide an excellent meal, served promptly, elegantly and gracefully and accompanied by choice wines, and to look after his guests in such a way that each of them believed, on leaving, that he or she had been the principal focus of the host’s attention (Grimod de la Reynière, 1808). In a commercial context, the same concept of ‘hospitableness’ applies but with qualification, because commercial hospitality involves a financial transaction; according to Telfer, the commercial host shows concern for the guests’ pleasure
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
55
and welfare and, in addition, because he is not primarily motivated by maximising profit, charges a reasonable, rather than an extortionate, price (Telfer, 2000). Grimod’s readers should have become perfect hosts, knowing what would give great pleasure to their guests, particularly in terms of food and beverages. In this sense his book is a compendium of gastronomic advice within a general context of hospitality. It demonstrates further that understanding what will please a guest and how to please a guest pertain not only to hospitality, but also to gastronomy. Though neither are solely concerned with the material substance of food and beverages, these are nonetheless central elements in both gastronomy and hospitality, whether the guest is sharing the host’s food and drink at the same table, as in the Accueil Paysan formula, or eating a meal based on farm produce, as at a ferme auberge, or savouring the exquisite art of a three-star chef in an elegant restaurant. As Browner has noted, ‘eating, and hospitality in general, is communion’ (Browner, 2003). In addition, the reciprocity inherent in hospitality requires not only that hosts understand what would please guests, but also understand what they can offer and how it would best satisfy the guests; ultimately, this means reaching a kind of compromise between what guests want and what hosts can offer. As Cohen and Avieli point out, local food needs to be transformed to some extent to become acceptable (Cohen & Avieli, 2004). Particularly in the areas of hospitality that are concerned with ‘the provision of food and/or drink’, however, an understanding of food and drink in general, and of the history, culture and traditions of the particular foods and drinks available to guests, is vital to success, further underlining the affinity between hospitality and gastronomy.
Hospitality and Gastronomy A great deal of research has been undertaken with the aim of improving understandings of guest requirements and what would contribute to increased guest satisfaction, although this depends very much on the characteristics of the individual guest and the particular context. For example, a study of restaurants in Spain found that customers rated the quality of the food as the most important attribute (which would influence their decision to return to a restaurant), followed by quality of service, cost/value of the meal and place/ambience (Soriano, 2002). Both quality of food and quality of service are largely subjective and difficult to quantify; given its significance, however, much attention has been devoted to assessments of service quality. According to Winsted, the most important contributor service quality is what she calls ‘concern’, which incorporates empathy, assurance, responsiveness, authenticity, perceived competence, listening and dedication (Winsted, 2000). This emphasises the ‘human exchange’ nature of hospitality, since these qualities — empathy, friendliness, enthusiasm, courtesy, a genuine personal interest in guests — are the kinds of qualities normally associated with personal relationships rather than commercial transactions. As noted earlier, a greater emphasis on the personal relationship is evident in recent hospitality initiatives, such as the fermes auberges network in France. While such establishments are still part of the hospitality industry — defined by Brotherton as ‘commercial organisations that specialise in providing accommodation and/or, food and/or, drink’ (Brotherton, 1999) — and while the food, drink and accommodation are supplied as part of a commercial transaction, the focus of such hospitality is the complete experience rather
56
Barbara Santich
than just the quality and value-for-money of the food or of the accommodation. This might be partly a result of the hospitality experience being considered an ancillary operation, certainly not the primary role of a farm. It allows for guests to be welcomed more as friends, as though the hospitality were offered in a private or social context; different standards apply, and both host and guest have different expectations. In such hospitality ventures the hosts are effectively giving of themselves, giving guests the experience of participating in another culture and relating to people and places with a strong sense of their own identity. This is the essence of cultural tourism, an increasingly significant facet of tourism in general. Rather than simply supplying goods and services, the hosts are offering a unique and an authentic experience. The ferme auberge charter obliges the farm to provide meals which reflect local gastronomic traditions and which are substantially based on the farm’s own products in a warm and welcoming room which similarly respects local architecture and interiors, sympathetically furnished and possibly displaying examples of local crafts (Bienvenue à la Ferme, 1994). Accueil Paysan places similar emphasis on the authenticity of the experience. Winsted points out the importance in service industries of authenticity, which she defines as the genuineness and naturalness of the host (Winsted, 2000). These qualities — genuiness, naturalness — also exemplify the ‘gastronomic aesthetic’ proposed by Miele and Murdoch in the course of their examination of food preparation and consumption practices in restaurants (more particularly, in Italy). Accepting that aestheticisation is a process profoundly reshaping the modern world in which everyday practices, including eating, dressing and entertaining, are ‘increasingly underpinned by aesthetic considerations’, the authors identify two main forms relating to restaurants, which they name the ‘aesthetic of entertainment’ and the ‘gastronomic aesthetic’ (Miele & Murdoch, 2002). They suggest that the ‘aesthetic of entertainment’, in which food quality is subservient to the restaurant experience, is the consequence of the incorporation of the food service sector into the leisure industry, such that restaurants (or ‘sites for food consumption’) are now found in theatres, art galleries, shopping centres and sports stadiums; eating out becomes no longer an activity pursued for itself but rather is associated with other leisure pursuits. Further, they argue that the pervasiveness of this trend, which Miele and Murdoch see as one aspect of the ‘detraditionalisation’ of food, has coincided with a marginalisation of the ‘gastronomic aesthetic’ but at the same time has contributed to its revival. The ‘gastronomic aesthetic’, on the other hand, values freshness, seasonality, typicality, terroir — precisely those aspects increasingly displaced by the standardisation associated with the ‘aesthetic of entertainment’ but valued by those who seek to experience authentic local cuisines. The restaurant described as illustrating the ‘gastronomic aesthetic’, the Bagnoli restaurant in Tuscany, features the typical cuisine of the region, relies on locally produced materials, and offers an ambience of relaxed conviviality. It is also, according to the authors, embedded in the local area, with strong ties to local socio-economic institutions, which further enhance its authenticity (Miele & Murdoch, 2002). The fermes auberges and Accueil Paysan farms in France also epitomise the ‘gastronomic aesthetic’. While there is no indication that the ‘gastronomic aesthetic’ will seriously challenge the dominant ‘aesthetic of entertainment’, there is no reason why both will not continue to coexist in the hospitality industry. This means that it will be increasingly important that the host — or the ‘culinary broker’, who may be a waiter, guide, local friend or host who can explain a restaurant’s menu, the ordering of a meal and how it should be eaten (Cohen & Avieli, 2004) — possess a thorough knowledge of the gastronomic resources available to
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
57
him — not only what is produced, but how they are produced — and of the social, cultural and historical relevance of these resources, in order to satisfy guests’ desires for a meaningful and an authentic experience characterised by the human exchange involved. The study of gastronomy will therefore become an increasingly valid complement to other studies undertaken in the field of hospitality. For example, in the Graduate Program in Gastronomy at the University of Adelaide, the three core courses (Principles of Gastronomy; Food & Drink in Contemporary Western Society; and Gastronomy & Communication) sequentially introduce students to the theoretical foundations of gastronomy, challenge them to apply this theoretical understanding in a contemporary context and encourage them to express that understanding, whether in academic assignments or in more vocationally related tasks such as restaurant reviews. Students become aware of and appreciate the norms in their own and other cultures (for example, what is considered ‘good food’) and learn how such rules and norms originated and evolved, how they relate to peoples’ beliefs and values, and how they reflect climate and geography, agriculture and industry, commerce and trade. They also study how these norms might be changing, and how they are applied, in an increasingly globalised world. They develop an understanding of cuisine as a part of culture (cuisine is to ingredients what language is to words), and study how and why cuisines evolve and change. They recognise that foods are given and therefore carry particular meanings, and that these meanings can vary from one culture to another. In summary, they have a thorough grounding in the history and culture of food and drink. The final component of the Master of Arts award is a dissertation where students have the opportunity to apply the knowledge they have acquired to a research project on a topic of their choice. It is here that the relevance of the study of gastronomy to hospitality becomes most obvious. One student, for example, is investigating traditional Kenyan foods and dishes with a view to developing a more authentic Kenyan cuisine for the benefit of both the inhabitants of the country and visitors to Kenya. Another student is studying ‘soul food’ restaurants in Harlem, and their potential for gastronomic tourism, while in Thailand a student is looking at the role of hotels in gastronomic tourism and Thai culinary identity. Some students have chosen to research recent food history in Miami, Florida (Cuban influences) and Tucson, Arizona (indigenous plants) and its relationship to contemporary culinary identity. Australian students’ research topics include the Italian influences on Australian coffee culture, characteristics of regional cuisines in Australia, and the factors influencing dining decisions and food choices in contemporary Australia. Such projects, while manifestly in the domain of gastronomy, also have clear implications for hospitality (and tourism) in that they relate to the understanding of both what would give pleasure to guests and how these requirements might best be satisfied by the host with the resources available; they thus have significant potential to enhance host–guest relationships.
Conclusion When hospitality is seen as the provision of food and drink and accommodation, the emphasis falls naturally on the material aspects, the things provided. This chapter adopts a different perspective, accepting that while the provision of food and/or drink and/or accommodation are an essential part, hospitality is essentially a transaction between host and guest. It represents a human exchange, and has always been characterised by
58
Barbara Santich
fundamental and elemental features: a concern for the pleasure and welfare of the guest, and reciprocity in terms of both benefit and obligation. Gastronomy, too, is often seen in basic terms of food and drink, and in particular, the consumption of high-quality food and drink in a restaurant setting. Again, this chapter proposes a different interpretation, arguing that gastronomy relates more to a comprehensive understanding of food and drink which, when shared with others, enhances their enjoyment of eating and drinking. This interpretation allows gastronomy to extend its compass to all consumption, from the simplest cabbage to the rarest caviar, rather than focusing on exclusively restaurant or expensive fare. The affinities between hospitality and gastronomy are obvious, not only because food and drink are central elements in both but because food and drink are the means of communication and therefore serve to promote the human exchange (Douglas, 1982). As allies then, it is logical that hospitality studies should incorporate aspects of gastronomy, just as the study of gastronomy should draw attention to its relevance to hospitality.
References Accueil Paysan. L’Accueil Paysan: Sa Charte (©2002 Accueil Paysan). Available: http://www.accueil-paysan.com/charte.htm (Accessed: 2004, November 24). ATHENS 2004. (2004a). Catering: 12 million Olympic meals, 400,000 meals per day! Available:http://www.athens2004.com/athens2004/page/legacy?lang=en&cid=2d1a470429149f0 0VgnVCMServer28130b0aRCRD (Accessed: 2004, December 6). ATHENS 2004. (2004b). Legacy. Available: http://www.athens2004.com/en/Legacy (Accessed: 2004, December 6). Bienvenue à la Ferme (1994). Charte des Fermes Auberges “Bienvenue à la Ferme”, 15 June. Brillat-Savarin, J.-A. (1865). Physiologie du Goût (390pp.). [First published 1826.] Paris: Charpentier. Brillat-Savarin, J.-A. (1994). Physiology of taste. [Translation by Anne Drayton of Physiologie du Goût.] London: Penguin, 379 pp. Brotherton, B. (1999). Towards a definitive view of the nature of hospitality and hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(4), 165–173. Browner, J. (2003). The Duchess who wouldn’t sit down : An informal history of hospitality (198pp.). New York: Bloomsbury. Catholic Encyclopedia. Rule of St. Benedict (2003, November 3 – last update). Available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02436a.htm (Accessed: 2004, November 13). Cavallar, G. (2002). The rights of strangers : Theories of international hospitality, the global community, and political justice since Vitoria (421pp.). Aldershot: Ashgate. Cohen, E., & Avieli, N. (2004). Food in tourism: Attraction and impediment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 755–778. Douglas, M. (1982). Food studied as a system of communication. In: M. Douglas (Ed.), In the active voice (pp. 82–104). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Ferguson, P. (1998). A cultural field in the making: Gastronomy in 19th-century France. American Journal of Sociology, 104(3), 597–641. Fieldhouse, P. (1986) Food & nutrition: Customs & culture (233pp.). London: Croom Helm. Garval, M. (2001). Grimod de la Reynière’s Almanach des Gourmands: Exploring the gastronomic new world of postrevolutionary France. In: L. R. Schehr, & A. S. Weiss (Eds), French food on the table, on the page, and in French Culture (262pp.). New York: Routledge.
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
59
Gillespie, C. (2001). European gastronomy into the 21st century (207pp.). Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann. Gîtes de France. About Gîtes de France. Available: http://www.gites-de-france.fr/eng/index.htm (Accessed: 2004, November 24). Glare, P. G. W. (Ed.). (1973). Oxford Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Grimod de la Reynière, A. B. L. (1983). Manuel des Amphitryons: Présentation de Misette Godard (292pp.). [First published 1808.] Paris: a.m.métailié. King, C. A. (1995). What is hospitality? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(3/4), 219–234. La Passion de l’Accueil (Copyright Maison de la France 2002-2004). Available: http://uk.franceguide.com/bienvenue_gp/mieuxvousaccueillir.asp?idc=13335&z1=O6w6hcyQ (Accessed: 2004, November 20). Lashley, C. (2000). Towards a theoretical understanding. In: C. Lashley, & A. Morrison, (Eds), In search of hospitality (pp. 1–17). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Liddell, H. G., & Scott, R. (1983). Greek–English lexicon (9th ed.) [First published 1843 and reprinted 1983.] Oxford: Clarendon Press. Macquarie Dictionary. (1981). Macquarie Library, St Leonards NSW, 2049pp. Mennell, S. (1985). All manners of food: Eating and taste in England and France from the middle ages to the present (380 pp.). Oxford: Blackwell. Miele, M., & Murdoch, J. (2002). The practical aesthetics of traditional cuisines: Slow food in Tuscany. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(4), 312–328. Minchin, E. (1987). Food fiction and food fact in Homer’s Iliad. Petits Propos Culinaires, 25, 42–49. OED Online. Welcome to OED Online, (Copyright © Oxford University Press 2004). Available: http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl (Accessed: 2004, November 16). Ory, P. (1997). Gastronomy. In: L. D. Kritzman, (Ed.), Realms of memory, vol. 2 of the construction of the French past (pp. 443–467). New York: Columbia University Press. Richards, G. (2002). Gastronomy: an essential ingredient in tourism production and consumption? In: A.-M. Hjalager, & G. Richards (Eds), Tourism and Gastronomy (p. 238). London and New York: Routledge. Santich, B. (1996a). Looking for flavour (249pp.). Adelaide: Wakefield Press. Santich, B. (1996b). Sustaining Gastronomy. In: B. Santich, J. Hillier, & C. Kerry, (Eds), Proceedings of the 8th symposium of Australian gastronomy: Sustaining gastronomy, 28–30 September 1994, Adelaide (pp. 1–2). Sardo, P. (2003). Dinners for ecogastronomes. Slow Ark, 4, 142–143. Shyrock, A. (2004). The new Jordanian hospitality: house, host and guest in the culture of public display. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 46, 35–62. Slow Food. Our philosophy. Available: http://www.slowfood.com/eng/sf_cose/sf_cose_filosofia.lasso (Accessed: 2004, December 7). Soriano, D. R. (2002). Customers’ expectations factors in restaurants. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 19(8/9), 1055–1067. Telfer, E. (2000). The philosophy of hospitableness. In: C. Lashley, & A. Morrison (Eds), In search of hospitality (pp. 38–55). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Wilkins, J., & Hill, S. (1994). Archestratus: The life of luxury (110pp.). Totnes, Devon: Prospect Books. Winsted, K. F. (2000). Service behaviors that lead to satisfied customers. European Journal of Marketing, 34(3/4), 399–417. Zeldin, T. (1995). An intimate history of humanity (488pp.). London: Minerva.
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies Barbara Santich
Introduction As the host nation for the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Greece accepted responsibility for the thousands of visitors welcomed into the country. ATHENS 2004, the committee which organised the event, provided safe and comfortable accommodation to athletes and team officials, and ensured that high-quality food was available to every individual according to individual preferences and requirements — from halal and kosher to particular foods for those with iodine intolerance (ATHENS 2004, 2004a). It took seriously, if metaphorically, the duties of host as succinctly expressed by Brillat-Savarin: ‘To invite someone is to take responsibility for ensuring his happiness for so long as he is beneath your roof’ (‘Convier quelqu’un, c’est se charger de son bonheur pendant tout le temps qu’il est sous notre toit’) (Brillat-Savarin, 1865). Brillat-Savarin is, of course, better known as the Father of Gastronomy, though this title might well be contested by one of his contemporaries, Grimod de la Reynière. Grimod was writing in the very early years of the nineteenth century, whereas Brillat-Savarin’s classic, Physiologie du Goût, ou Meditations de Gastronomie Transcendante, with its significant chapter on gastronomy, was published in December 1825 (with a publishing imprint of 1826). In this chapter, Brillat-Savarin outlined the scope and relevance of gastronomy and even proposed an ‘Academy of Gastronomes’, hypothesising that in the near future gastronomy would have ‘its own academicians, universities, professors and prizes’; Grimod, however, had already anticipated such a possibility some 17 years earlier, writing in his Manuel des Amphitryons that the vogue for ‘la science gastronomique’ was such that it would not be surprising to see a Chair of Gastronomy established in French colleges in the near future (Brillat-Savarin, 1994; Grimod de la Reynière, 1983). Both men viewed gastronomy as a science, a branch of study which is shaped ‘first by the combination of methods learned from experience, and later by the discovery of principles deduced from the combination of those methods’ (Brillat-Savarin, 1994). Most current dictionary definitions of gastronomy still emphasise the ‘science’ aspect,
Hospitality: A Social Lens Copyright © 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISBN: 0-08-045093-8
48
Barbara Santich
defining gastronomy in terms of the art and/or science of good or delicate eating. While it might be possible to translate art and science as skill and knowledge and thereby demonstrate a continuity and consistency with the early nineteenth-century understanding, most contemporary interpretations of gastronomy seem considerably narrower than that of Brillat-Savarin, who considered gastronomy to pertain to a range of disciplines including natural history, physics, chemistry, cookery, commerce and political economy (Brillat-Savarin, 1994). Further, in proposing that the aim of gastronomy should be to give guidance ‘to all who seek, provide or prepare substances which may be turned into food’, with the aim of ensuring the preservation of man by the best possible nourishment, Brillat-Savarin demonstrated that his understanding accorded with the etymological origins of the term, which derives from two ancient Greek words: gaster [the stomach and, by extension, the digestive system] ⫹ nomos [rule or regulation] (Brillat-Savarin, 1994). Thus gastronomy can be seen as relating to rules associated with eating — what, where, when, why, how and with whom. The ‘science’ of gastronomy enables the elucidation and understanding of these rules, which in turn serve as the basis for the guidance. Significantly, Brillat-Savarin’s understanding of gastronomy is also consistent with the intentions of Archestratus, possibly the first person to use the word. (Archestratus was a Sicilian Greek who lived in the fourth century BC and who wrote probably the earliest food and wine guide to the Mediterranean region — what was best to eat and drink and where to find it; Gastronomia is one of several putative titles to this book) (Wilkins & Hill, 1994).
Contemporary Gastronomy and the Study of Gastronomy A concise definition of ‘gastronomy’ is notoriously elusive. The interpretations given in a recent text, European Gastronomy into the 21st Century, echo the standard dictionary definitions: ‘the art, or science, of good eating’, ‘the enjoyment of food and beverages’, ‘the enjoyment of good food, and good beverage, in good company’ (Gillespie, 2001). These stock interpretations coincide with popular perceptions that position gastronomy as an interest of, or somehow restricted to, a certain elite, and that place gastronomy at the opposite end of the scale to everyday eating. A recent article in a popular French magazine described how to transform ‘cuisine’ into ‘gastronomie’, thus implying that gastronomy is in some way special or superior, either by the cost or quality of the ingredients, by the preparation methods or techniques or by the care and time devoted to the finished dish. (Ironically, the idea of transforming an ordinary dish or meal into a special one also implies sleight-of-hand tricks specifically designed to deceive the eater.) Such ‘elitist’ interpretations tend to associate gastronomy almost exclusively with restaurants and restaurant cuisine. Thus in European Gastronomy into the 21st Century, Gillespie’s list of contributors to the development of modern cuisine and gastronomy consists solely of chefs; almost all are owner-chefs of restaurants, almost all Michelin-starred, and all are authors of books describing and promoting their individual culinary style. When Gillespie adds that gastronomy is ‘also an examination of the terms “good food” and “good wine” (or other beverages), and “in whose terms”’, the ‘terms’ suggested relate specifically to restaurant situations (Gillespie, 2001). While this narrow interpretation might seem
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
49
appropriate in the context of restaurants and commercial hospitality, it is inadequate to represent the potential depth and breadth of gastronomy. In Brillat-Savarin’s interpretation, gastronomy is ‘the reasoned understanding of everything that concerns us insofar as we sustain ourselves’ (La gastronomie est la connaissance raisonnée de tout ce qui a rapport à l’homme, en tant qu’il se nourrit) (Santich, 1996a, 1996b; Brillat-Savarin, 1865). Accepting gastronomy as the ‘reasoned understanding’, it follows that choosing and preparing foods, eating and drinking, must be accompanied by intellectual activity, by reflections on our choices, our eating and drinking, a conscious response or analysis. This understanding is implicit in Richards’ definition of gastronomy as ‘the reflexive cooking, preparation, presentation and eating of food’ (Richards, 2002, p. 17). It is significant that Brillat-Savarin does not specifically refer to food and drink in his definition of gastronomy, but rather to everything that relates to our nourishment (‘... insofar as we sustain ourselves’). To sustain ourselves, however, both physically and spiritually, we must eat and drink. Thus the focus of gastronomy is not so much food and drink per se, or even meals, but our eating of food, our drinking of beverages — in other words, consumption. To the extent that this is a convivial rather than a solitary activity, gastronomy therefore extends to sociability and communication. While gastronomy necessarily refers to food and drink, what is more important is their place in human societies and how human societies produce, prepare, classify and value food and drink — in other words, the norms, explicit or implicit, which are understood and accepted by the culture in which they originate and which apply to such concepts as mealtimes and contents of meals, to the values associated with foods, to the ways foods are produced and to food and beverage partnerings. Ferguson has proposed that gastronomy be considered a ‘cultural field’ which includes not only the ‘culinary products’, but also an understanding of the ‘practices and products, values and behaviour, rules and norms, institutions and ideas that are attendant upon the preparation and consumption of food’ in a particular social setting (Ferguson, 1998). This underlines the importance of the cultural context, including the beliefs and values which shape what is deemed edible, when certain foods are eaten and in what form, in what setting, by whom, for what reason. With this understanding of gastronomy, the scope of the study of gastronomy therefore extends to the study of the production and preparation of food and drink and how, where, when and why they are consumed. This is the knowledge required by, and assumed of, the gastronome (in Mennell’s (1985) sense of the term), which in his or her writing contributes to a wider understanding of food and drink, of customs and tastes. It necessarily implicates the philosophies, beliefs and values influencing gastronomic practices. These in turn relate to the social, cultural and historical aspects of food and eating, encompassing study of cuisines, restaurants and dining, food and wine matching, tourism and gastronomic writing. Extrapolating from Brillat-Savarin’s understanding of gastronomy and all that pertains to it, the study of gastronomy today relates to ‘the production of food, and the means by which foods are produced; the political economy of food; the treatment of foods, their storage and transport and processing; their preparation and cooking; meals and manners; the chemistry of food, digestion, and the physiological effects of food; food choices and customs and traditions’ (Santich, 1996a, 1996b). Gillespie’s focus on the material aspects of food and its preparation, typically in a restaurant context, not only places unreasonable limits on the domain of gastronomy but overlooks the crucial roles of the critic, the guide, the adviser, roles which were pioneered in the
50
Barbara Santich
nineteenth century by Grimod de la Reynière and Brillat-Savarin. A number of contemporary writers on the history of gastronomy explicitly differentiate the gastronomer (who wields a pen) from the chef (who wields a pan) (Ferguson, 1998; Ory, 1997). According to Mennell, ‘a gastronome is generally understood to be a person who not only cultivates his own “refined taste for the pleasures of the table” but also, by writing about it, helps to cultivate other people’s too. The gastronome is more than a gourmet — he is also a theorist and propagandist about culinary taste’ (Mennell, 1985). As Archestratus told his readers what was best to eat where in the Mediterranean, when it was best and how it was best prepared, so too does the modern gastronome who shares his or her knowledge, experiences and judgements. And by sharing this understanding, they enhance the pleasure of the experience for others. In this context it is significant that the pioneers of modern gastronomy, Grimod de la Reynière and Brillat-Savarin, both took pains to distinguish the discriminating gourmand from the greedy, intemperate glutton. Grimod viewed the gourmand as ‘a gustatory veteran who, through years of application, has evolved an extraordinarily sensitive, discerning palate’ (Garval, 2001). According to Brillat-Savarin, a gourmand is someone who enjoys the pleasures of taste, and gourmandism, ‘an impassioned, reasoned, and habitual preference for everything which gratifies the organ of taste’, is a virtue, ‘the enemy of excess’ (Brillat-Savarin, 1994). This emphasis on pleasure makes gourmandism a necessary associate of gastronomy. Brillat-Savarin believed that some knowledge of gastronomy is essential for everyone, since it tends to increase the sum total of pleasure, which is our birthright (‘Les connaissances gastronomiques sont nécessaires à tous les hommes, puisqu’elles tendent à augmenter la somme du plaisir qui leur est destinée’) (Brillat-Savarin, 1865, 1994). The Slow Food movement taken the pleasure aspect one stage further with its concept of ‘eco-gastronomy’, described as the pursuit of culinary pleasure with particular attention to environmental issues and the defence of biodiversity, arguing that a gastronome who eats and enjoys the products of the land cannot be insensitive to environmental concerns, to economic problems on a world scale, or to the profound changes which have affected the rural world all over the planet (Sardo, 2003). One of the principal achievements of these two nineteenth-century trailblazers was to make gastronomy respectable, seeing it as an intelligent and entirely proper interest in food, drink and taste. To some extent, they also set the stage for the development of gastronomic tourism, tourism wholly or partly motivated by an interest in food and drink. In addition, their attention to the ‘happiness of guests’ also implicated gastronomy in hospitality.
Hospitality One might assume from Brillat-Savarin’s aphorism that hospitality is all about the happiness of others, about putting oneself at the service of others, and this is generally consistent with the earliest forms of hospitality. Nevertheless, emphasising the welfare and happiness of others gives a very simplistic understanding of hospitality, for almost always it brought some benefit — whether incidental or consciously sought. Even in ancient Greece, where hospitality was a sacred duty and a symbol of cultural identity (as it is in present-day Jordan, for example; (Shyrock, 2004), ensuring the happiness of others — or, in material terms, offering them food, drink and shelter — was not wholly disinterested because hosts
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
51
expected that they, in their turn, would be the recipients of equal hospitality. The social obligation of hospitality to strangers continued in the early Christian period, when strangers or guests were considered to be potential angels or God himself in disguise, and therefore even more deserving of hospitality. Guests in monasteries — and these included strangers as well as fellow monks — were to be received as Christ himself according to the sixth-century rule of St. Benedict, which established a series of protocols and conventions for the operations of monasteries. At the same time, however, there was a quid pro quo involved; this offering of hospitality was seen as a way of enhancing one’s chances of receiving hospitality in the hereafter (Catholic Encyclopedia, 2004). Hospitality, then, was never completely altruistic; the possibility of hidden or future benefit to the host was not far below the surface. Even Greece in 2004 was anticipating rewards from its hosting of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The long-term benefits, both tangible and intangible, included renewed civic pride and ‘re-invigorated public life throughout Greece’. In addition, ‘Athens and the surrounding region will have overhauled and upgraded every major sector of the economy’ (ATHENS 2004b, 2004a). On the other hand, nor was hospitality completely one-sided, as ‘ensuring the happiness of others’ might suggest. Almost always, hospitality implied a reciprocal relationship which imposed certain obligations on the guest. Browner suggests that the AngloEuropean world has adopted not only the Latin word, but also the Latin concept of hospitality rather than the ancient Greek concept (Browner, 2003). ‘Hospitalitas’ in Latin means the entertainment of guests, or hospitableness (Glare, 1973); it is derived from the word ‘hospes’, meaning either host or guest — guest in the sense of visitor or friend, someone with whom the host has some ties and not necessarily a complete stranger. In ancient Greek, hospitality is translated as ‘xenia’, derived from ‘xenos’, meaning host or guest but more particularly a stranger, wanderer, refugee, foreigner (Liddell & Scott, 1983). On the basis of this, Browner hypothesises that the Greek concept of hospitality was based on the primacy of the guest (the obligation towards strangers), whereas the Latin concept which we have inherited is based on the primacy of the host. ‘In the West, it is the role of the host that matters, for he is the lord of strangers’ (Browner, 2003). Nevertheless, in using the same word for both host and guest, both cultures imply that one is both host and guest, that in life people can move between the roles, host on one occasion and guest on another. This emphasises the notion of reciprocity in hospitality (which is also exemplified, in a more extreme way, by the custom of potlatch, or display feasts, among North American Indians) (Fieldhouse, 1986). The ethic of Homeric hospitality meant that the guest had an obligation to offer the same services in return, whether to the host or to another stranger. An additional, more immediate, obligation on the guest required that, after satisfying his hunger and thirst in a shared meal, he act as an attentive and sympathetic listener, or entertain in turn by telling his own story (Minchin, 1987). It is customary to differentiate early hospitality (private, traditional) from modern hospitality (predominantly commercial). According to the Slow Food movement, the reciprocity of traditional hospitality has been replaced by ‘an asymmetric relationship between a theoretically authoritative role and a fatally passive one’ (Slow Food, 2004). Historian Theodore Zeldin also makes a distinction between traditional and modern hospitality, theorising that the decline of hospitality in England dates from the sixteenth century when hosts lost direct touch with their guests and the free hospitality (offered by
52
Barbara Santich
monasteries and private homes) began to be superseded by the hospitality industry; ‘as soon as distress was dealt with impersonally by officials, hospitality was never the same again’ (Zeldin, 1995). Further, it is assumed that the two forms are mutually exclusive. Where private or traditional hospitality was typically — or ostensibly — between equals, with reciprocity conceived as the return of a similar service, in commercial hospitality the host–guest relationship is seen as biased, with reciprocity converted to payment for goods and services received, the host receiving a direct financial reward. According to Lashley, ‘commercial hospitality provision depends on a reciprocity based on money exchange’ (Lashley, 2000). Yet as this brief survey of the notion of early hospitality demonstrates, three basic and underpinning characteristics have persisted and are still relevant in the present day: hospitality is concerned with the happiness of the guest, benefits (actual or potential) are derived by the host, and obligations are imposed on the guest. Despite differences in detail — in the nature of the benefits and obligations, in the balance of power within the host–guest relationship — there is remarkable consistency in the theoretical nature of hospitality. The forms might have changed, but not the essence. Understanding the basic underlying characteristics opens a way to see hospitality as a kind of interchange, a transaction between host and guest subtended by a mutual understanding of the principles, norms and rules involved. ‘A wider understanding of hospitality suggests firstly that hospitality is essentially a relationship based on host and guest’ (Lashley, 2000).
Contemporary Understanding of Hospitality Dictionary definitions of hospitality stress the practice, the ‘reception and entertainment’. According to the Macquarie Dictionary, hospitality is ‘the reception and entertainment of guests or strangers with liberality and kindness’ (Macquarie Dictionary, 1981). The primary meaning given by the Oxford English Dictionary is ‘the art or practice of being hospitable; the reception or entertainment of guests, visitors or strangers, with liberality and goodwill’ (OED online, 2004). This nuance is echoed in Cavallar’s interpretation of hospitality in the context of international relations: hospitality is the offer or giving of welcome, protection or entertainment to strangers, visitors or guests (Cavallar, 2002). Such interpretations tend to emphasise, albeit implicitly, the role of the tangible components of hospitality — the foods and beverages, the beds and other accommodation facilities. Brotherton’s definition of hospitality reflects a different perspective. In his view, hospitality is ‘A contemporaneous human exchange, which is voluntarily entered into, and designed to enhance the mutual well-being of the parties concerned through the provision of accommodation, and/or food, and/or drink’ (Brotherton, 1999). This interpretation emphasises the exchange relationship, the process — giving and receiving, with the attendant benefits and obligations. The phrase ‘to enhance the mutual well-being of the parties concerned’ refers both to the happiness of the guest and the inherent reciprocity in the exchange. King arrived at a similar understanding after a review of recent literature, affirming that hospitality is a relationship between individuals, taking the roles of host and guest; and that this relationship may be either commercial, with the guest’s obligation limited to paying and behaving reasonably, or private (social), where guests have a social obligation to contribute to the relationship, and to reciprocate in some way. Hospitality, she
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
53
concluded, is a process involving a series of social rituals or courtesies, which define the status of the guest and the nature of the host–guest relationship (King, 1995). Both Brotherton’s and King’s interpretations are consistent with the general notion of hospitality proposed earlier, a transaction between host and guest. Zeldin takes the idea even further when he suggests that travel is also ‘the discovery of people: it is travail, it requires effort, and its reward is a transformation of both the visitor and the host’ (Zeldin, 1995). This ‘human exchange’ aspect of hospitality is increasingly recognised by tourism authorities. In France, for example, the French Government tourism organisation has developed, under the general banner Bienvenue en France, a 6-point charter with the slogan ‘Our first love is hospitality’ (‘Ici, nous avons la passion de l’accueil’). Apart from the promise to look after the environment, the focus of the charter is the host–guest relationship. According to the Maison de la France website, about 70,000 hotels, restaurants, cultural institutions and customs offices in France have pledged to make foreign visitors feel at home and safe in France by adopting the ‘welcome commitment’: • • • • • •
We look after our environment. We treat everyone like personal guests. We do everything in our power to understand and anticipate everyone’s expectations. We want every contact to be something special. We make clear, accurate information available to everyone. We invest in the resources and methods needed to make the hospitality unforgettable (La Passion de l’Accueil, 2004).
The charters for other French tourism and hospitality associations similarly place great emphasis on the personal nature of the host–guest relationship. The Gîtes de France organisation, which offers rental accommodation as well as bed-and-breakfast options, promises intending guests that they ‘will be welcomed as friends of the family’ when they spend one or more nights in private homes (farmhouses, traditional stone houses or ‘mas’, mansions and châteaux) (Gîtes de France, 2004). Fermes auberges (farm restaurants), which belong to and are accredited by the organisation Bienvenue à la Ferme, engage to offer guests ‘a simple, natural and warm welcome, [taking] care to satisfy the natural curiosity of clients through discussion and printed materials’ (Bienvenue à la Ferme, 1994). L’Accueil Paysan, a similar association of farmers providing meals and accommodation in a rural setting, specifies in its 9-point charter that the farmer offering hospitality should do so with the aim of introducing the guests to his way of life and his environment with a view to promoting understanding and mutual respect. (‘Le paysan pratiquant cet accueil est désireux de faire connaître son métier et son environnement (contact avec les animaux, connaissance des plantes, du rythme des saisons). Là est la spécificité de son accueil. L’accueil se fait dans un souci d’échanges et de respect mutuels. Cet accueil se veut accessible à toutes les couches socials.’) (Accueil Paysan, 2002). For all these associations, the human side of hospitality is at least as important as the material components, the provision of food, beverages and accommodation. In prioritising the experience of the visit and the personal welcome, they are promoting the characteristics of private or traditional hospitality, where host and guest are more like equals rather than those of commercial hospitality. This reversion to a more traditional form of hospitality is made quite explicit by the Fédération Nationale des Gîtes de France, which effectively
54
Barbara Santich
eschews the standard commercial exchange: ‘Our aim is to afford holidaymakers the freedom and choice that ordinary travel cannot provide. Quite apart from being an art of holidaymaking, Gîtes de France offers what money can’t buy: authenticity, hospitality, friendship, and the chance to experience the joys and pleasures of the French way of life first hand. It is the ideal way to explore France and its rich and varied scenery, and get to know its people’ (Gîtes de France, 2004). Clearly, the tangibles of food, drink and accommodation cannot be ignored. Brotherton’s definition of hospitality, while emphasising the human exchange, also recognises ‘the provision of accommodation, and/or food, and/or drink’ as essential components of hospitality (Brotherton, 1999). The advantage of his definition, and other contemporary understandings, is that hospitality is not seen as merely the supply of goods and services in return for financial gain.
Successful Hospitality Successful hospitality is not therefore measured in terms of profit. Returning to BrillatSavarin, being responsible for a guest’s happiness means understanding the guest’s requirements, knowing not only what is appropriate, but how it should be offered. King concurs that successful hospitality depends on knowing what would give great pleasure to the guest and delivering it generously and flawlessly in order to enhance guest satisfaction. She emphasises that hospitality ‘requires a thorough understanding of what will please the guest’ and that ‘When guests are paying for hospitality, generosity is what they are willing to pay for, or in other words, value’ (King, 1995). This final nuance — for there are limits on the ability to be generous — is echoed in Lashley’s conclusion that effective hospitality ‘requires the guest to feel that the host is being hospitable through feelings of generosity, a desire to please, and a genuine regard for the guest as an individual’ (Lashley, 2000). These qualities in the host constitute what Telfer describes as ‘hospitableness’, when the host’s motives ‘are those in which concern for the guests’ pleasure and welfare, for its own sake, is predominant’ (Telfer, 2000). What will please the guest relates not only to the quality and quantity of the accommodation, food and beverages, but also to the intangibles associated with the human exchange. Grimod de la Reynière demonstrated a thorough understanding of the quality of ‘hospitableness’ in his Manuel des Amphitryons (1808), written to provide the nouveaux riches of post-revolutionary France with an understanding of ‘le grand art du savoir vivre’ that had been brought to perfection in France over three centuries only to be lost with the heads that tumbled from the guillotine. While most of the book was occupied by advice on what to serve, how to choose the best ingredients, how to carve, how to select and serve wines, Grimod also paid attention to the host–guest relationship — inviting and receiving guests, table etiquette. Summarising the role of the host, he wrote that the host had an obligation to provide an excellent meal, served promptly, elegantly and gracefully and accompanied by choice wines, and to look after his guests in such a way that each of them believed, on leaving, that he or she had been the principal focus of the host’s attention (Grimod de la Reynière, 1808). In a commercial context, the same concept of ‘hospitableness’ applies but with qualification, because commercial hospitality involves a financial transaction; according to Telfer, the commercial host shows concern for the guests’ pleasure
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
55
and welfare and, in addition, because he is not primarily motivated by maximising profit, charges a reasonable, rather than an extortionate, price (Telfer, 2000). Grimod’s readers should have become perfect hosts, knowing what would give great pleasure to their guests, particularly in terms of food and beverages. In this sense his book is a compendium of gastronomic advice within a general context of hospitality. It demonstrates further that understanding what will please a guest and how to please a guest pertain not only to hospitality, but also to gastronomy. Though neither are solely concerned with the material substance of food and beverages, these are nonetheless central elements in both gastronomy and hospitality, whether the guest is sharing the host’s food and drink at the same table, as in the Accueil Paysan formula, or eating a meal based on farm produce, as at a ferme auberge, or savouring the exquisite art of a three-star chef in an elegant restaurant. As Browner has noted, ‘eating, and hospitality in general, is communion’ (Browner, 2003). In addition, the reciprocity inherent in hospitality requires not only that hosts understand what would please guests, but also understand what they can offer and how it would best satisfy the guests; ultimately, this means reaching a kind of compromise between what guests want and what hosts can offer. As Cohen and Avieli point out, local food needs to be transformed to some extent to become acceptable (Cohen & Avieli, 2004). Particularly in the areas of hospitality that are concerned with ‘the provision of food and/or drink’, however, an understanding of food and drink in general, and of the history, culture and traditions of the particular foods and drinks available to guests, is vital to success, further underlining the affinity between hospitality and gastronomy.
Hospitality and Gastronomy A great deal of research has been undertaken with the aim of improving understandings of guest requirements and what would contribute to increased guest satisfaction, although this depends very much on the characteristics of the individual guest and the particular context. For example, a study of restaurants in Spain found that customers rated the quality of the food as the most important attribute (which would influence their decision to return to a restaurant), followed by quality of service, cost/value of the meal and place/ambience (Soriano, 2002). Both quality of food and quality of service are largely subjective and difficult to quantify; given its significance, however, much attention has been devoted to assessments of service quality. According to Winsted, the most important contributor service quality is what she calls ‘concern’, which incorporates empathy, assurance, responsiveness, authenticity, perceived competence, listening and dedication (Winsted, 2000). This emphasises the ‘human exchange’ nature of hospitality, since these qualities — empathy, friendliness, enthusiasm, courtesy, a genuine personal interest in guests — are the kinds of qualities normally associated with personal relationships rather than commercial transactions. As noted earlier, a greater emphasis on the personal relationship is evident in recent hospitality initiatives, such as the fermes auberges network in France. While such establishments are still part of the hospitality industry — defined by Brotherton as ‘commercial organisations that specialise in providing accommodation and/or, food and/or, drink’ (Brotherton, 1999) — and while the food, drink and accommodation are supplied as part of a commercial transaction, the focus of such hospitality is the complete experience rather
56
Barbara Santich
than just the quality and value-for-money of the food or of the accommodation. This might be partly a result of the hospitality experience being considered an ancillary operation, certainly not the primary role of a farm. It allows for guests to be welcomed more as friends, as though the hospitality were offered in a private or social context; different standards apply, and both host and guest have different expectations. In such hospitality ventures the hosts are effectively giving of themselves, giving guests the experience of participating in another culture and relating to people and places with a strong sense of their own identity. This is the essence of cultural tourism, an increasingly significant facet of tourism in general. Rather than simply supplying goods and services, the hosts are offering a unique and an authentic experience. The ferme auberge charter obliges the farm to provide meals which reflect local gastronomic traditions and which are substantially based on the farm’s own products in a warm and welcoming room which similarly respects local architecture and interiors, sympathetically furnished and possibly displaying examples of local crafts (Bienvenue à la Ferme, 1994). Accueil Paysan places similar emphasis on the authenticity of the experience. Winsted points out the importance in service industries of authenticity, which she defines as the genuineness and naturalness of the host (Winsted, 2000). These qualities — genuiness, naturalness — also exemplify the ‘gastronomic aesthetic’ proposed by Miele and Murdoch in the course of their examination of food preparation and consumption practices in restaurants (more particularly, in Italy). Accepting that aestheticisation is a process profoundly reshaping the modern world in which everyday practices, including eating, dressing and entertaining, are ‘increasingly underpinned by aesthetic considerations’, the authors identify two main forms relating to restaurants, which they name the ‘aesthetic of entertainment’ and the ‘gastronomic aesthetic’ (Miele & Murdoch, 2002). They suggest that the ‘aesthetic of entertainment’, in which food quality is subservient to the restaurant experience, is the consequence of the incorporation of the food service sector into the leisure industry, such that restaurants (or ‘sites for food consumption’) are now found in theatres, art galleries, shopping centres and sports stadiums; eating out becomes no longer an activity pursued for itself but rather is associated with other leisure pursuits. Further, they argue that the pervasiveness of this trend, which Miele and Murdoch see as one aspect of the ‘detraditionalisation’ of food, has coincided with a marginalisation of the ‘gastronomic aesthetic’ but at the same time has contributed to its revival. The ‘gastronomic aesthetic’, on the other hand, values freshness, seasonality, typicality, terroir — precisely those aspects increasingly displaced by the standardisation associated with the ‘aesthetic of entertainment’ but valued by those who seek to experience authentic local cuisines. The restaurant described as illustrating the ‘gastronomic aesthetic’, the Bagnoli restaurant in Tuscany, features the typical cuisine of the region, relies on locally produced materials, and offers an ambience of relaxed conviviality. It is also, according to the authors, embedded in the local area, with strong ties to local socio-economic institutions, which further enhance its authenticity (Miele & Murdoch, 2002). The fermes auberges and Accueil Paysan farms in France also epitomise the ‘gastronomic aesthetic’. While there is no indication that the ‘gastronomic aesthetic’ will seriously challenge the dominant ‘aesthetic of entertainment’, there is no reason why both will not continue to coexist in the hospitality industry. This means that it will be increasingly important that the host — or the ‘culinary broker’, who may be a waiter, guide, local friend or host who can explain a restaurant’s menu, the ordering of a meal and how it should be eaten (Cohen & Avieli, 2004) — possess a thorough knowledge of the gastronomic resources available to
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
57
him — not only what is produced, but how they are produced — and of the social, cultural and historical relevance of these resources, in order to satisfy guests’ desires for a meaningful and an authentic experience characterised by the human exchange involved. The study of gastronomy will therefore become an increasingly valid complement to other studies undertaken in the field of hospitality. For example, in the Graduate Program in Gastronomy at the University of Adelaide, the three core courses (Principles of Gastronomy; Food & Drink in Contemporary Western Society; and Gastronomy & Communication) sequentially introduce students to the theoretical foundations of gastronomy, challenge them to apply this theoretical understanding in a contemporary context and encourage them to express that understanding, whether in academic assignments or in more vocationally related tasks such as restaurant reviews. Students become aware of and appreciate the norms in their own and other cultures (for example, what is considered ‘good food’) and learn how such rules and norms originated and evolved, how they relate to peoples’ beliefs and values, and how they reflect climate and geography, agriculture and industry, commerce and trade. They also study how these norms might be changing, and how they are applied, in an increasingly globalised world. They develop an understanding of cuisine as a part of culture (cuisine is to ingredients what language is to words), and study how and why cuisines evolve and change. They recognise that foods are given and therefore carry particular meanings, and that these meanings can vary from one culture to another. In summary, they have a thorough grounding in the history and culture of food and drink. The final component of the Master of Arts award is a dissertation where students have the opportunity to apply the knowledge they have acquired to a research project on a topic of their choice. It is here that the relevance of the study of gastronomy to hospitality becomes most obvious. One student, for example, is investigating traditional Kenyan foods and dishes with a view to developing a more authentic Kenyan cuisine for the benefit of both the inhabitants of the country and visitors to Kenya. Another student is studying ‘soul food’ restaurants in Harlem, and their potential for gastronomic tourism, while in Thailand a student is looking at the role of hotels in gastronomic tourism and Thai culinary identity. Some students have chosen to research recent food history in Miami, Florida (Cuban influences) and Tucson, Arizona (indigenous plants) and its relationship to contemporary culinary identity. Australian students’ research topics include the Italian influences on Australian coffee culture, characteristics of regional cuisines in Australia, and the factors influencing dining decisions and food choices in contemporary Australia. Such projects, while manifestly in the domain of gastronomy, also have clear implications for hospitality (and tourism) in that they relate to the understanding of both what would give pleasure to guests and how these requirements might best be satisfied by the host with the resources available; they thus have significant potential to enhance host–guest relationships.
Conclusion When hospitality is seen as the provision of food and drink and accommodation, the emphasis falls naturally on the material aspects, the things provided. This chapter adopts a different perspective, accepting that while the provision of food and/or drink and/or accommodation are an essential part, hospitality is essentially a transaction between host and guest. It represents a human exchange, and has always been characterised by
58
Barbara Santich
fundamental and elemental features: a concern for the pleasure and welfare of the guest, and reciprocity in terms of both benefit and obligation. Gastronomy, too, is often seen in basic terms of food and drink, and in particular, the consumption of high-quality food and drink in a restaurant setting. Again, this chapter proposes a different interpretation, arguing that gastronomy relates more to a comprehensive understanding of food and drink which, when shared with others, enhances their enjoyment of eating and drinking. This interpretation allows gastronomy to extend its compass to all consumption, from the simplest cabbage to the rarest caviar, rather than focusing on exclusively restaurant or expensive fare. The affinities between hospitality and gastronomy are obvious, not only because food and drink are central elements in both but because food and drink are the means of communication and therefore serve to promote the human exchange (Douglas, 1982). As allies then, it is logical that hospitality studies should incorporate aspects of gastronomy, just as the study of gastronomy should draw attention to its relevance to hospitality.
References Accueil Paysan. L’Accueil Paysan: Sa Charte (©2002 Accueil Paysan). Available: http://www.accueil-paysan.com/charte.htm (Accessed: 2004, November 24). ATHENS 2004. (2004a). Catering: 12 million Olympic meals, 400,000 meals per day! Available:http://www.athens2004.com/athens2004/page/legacy?lang=en&cid=2d1a470429149f0 0VgnVCMServer28130b0aRCRD (Accessed: 2004, December 6). ATHENS 2004. (2004b). Legacy. Available: http://www.athens2004.com/en/Legacy (Accessed: 2004, December 6). Bienvenue à la Ferme (1994). Charte des Fermes Auberges “Bienvenue à la Ferme”, 15 June. Brillat-Savarin, J.-A. (1865). Physiologie du Goût (390pp.). [First published 1826.] Paris: Charpentier. Brillat-Savarin, J.-A. (1994). Physiology of taste. [Translation by Anne Drayton of Physiologie du Goût.] London: Penguin, 379 pp. Brotherton, B. (1999). Towards a definitive view of the nature of hospitality and hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(4), 165–173. Browner, J. (2003). The Duchess who wouldn’t sit down : An informal history of hospitality (198pp.). New York: Bloomsbury. Catholic Encyclopedia. Rule of St. Benedict (2003, November 3 – last update). Available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02436a.htm (Accessed: 2004, November 13). Cavallar, G. (2002). The rights of strangers : Theories of international hospitality, the global community, and political justice since Vitoria (421pp.). Aldershot: Ashgate. Cohen, E., & Avieli, N. (2004). Food in tourism: Attraction and impediment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 755–778. Douglas, M. (1982). Food studied as a system of communication. In: M. Douglas (Ed.), In the active voice (pp. 82–104). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Ferguson, P. (1998). A cultural field in the making: Gastronomy in 19th-century France. American Journal of Sociology, 104(3), 597–641. Fieldhouse, P. (1986) Food & nutrition: Customs & culture (233pp.). London: Croom Helm. Garval, M. (2001). Grimod de la Reynière’s Almanach des Gourmands: Exploring the gastronomic new world of postrevolutionary France. In: L. R. Schehr, & A. S. Weiss (Eds), French food on the table, on the page, and in French Culture (262pp.). New York: Routledge.
Hospitality and Gastronomy: Natural Allies
59
Gillespie, C. (2001). European gastronomy into the 21st century (207pp.). Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann. Gîtes de France. About Gîtes de France. Available: http://www.gites-de-france.fr/eng/index.htm (Accessed: 2004, November 24). Glare, P. G. W. (Ed.). (1973). Oxford Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Grimod de la Reynière, A. B. L. (1983). Manuel des Amphitryons: Présentation de Misette Godard (292pp.). [First published 1808.] Paris: a.m.métailié. King, C. A. (1995). What is hospitality? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(3/4), 219–234. La Passion de l’Accueil (Copyright Maison de la France 2002-2004). Available: http://uk.franceguide.com/bienvenue_gp/mieuxvousaccueillir.asp?idc=13335&z1=O6w6hcyQ (Accessed: 2004, November 20). Lashley, C. (2000). Towards a theoretical understanding. In: C. Lashley, & A. Morrison, (Eds), In search of hospitality (pp. 1–17). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Liddell, H. G., & Scott, R. (1983). Greek–English lexicon (9th ed.) [First published 1843 and reprinted 1983.] Oxford: Clarendon Press. Macquarie Dictionary. (1981). Macquarie Library, St Leonards NSW, 2049pp. Mennell, S. (1985). All manners of food: Eating and taste in England and France from the middle ages to the present (380 pp.). Oxford: Blackwell. Miele, M., & Murdoch, J. (2002). The practical aesthetics of traditional cuisines: Slow food in Tuscany. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(4), 312–328. Minchin, E. (1987). Food fiction and food fact in Homer’s Iliad. Petits Propos Culinaires, 25, 42–49. OED Online. Welcome to OED Online, (Copyright © Oxford University Press 2004). Available: http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl (Accessed: 2004, November 16). Ory, P. (1997). Gastronomy. In: L. D. Kritzman, (Ed.), Realms of memory, vol. 2 of the construction of the French past (pp. 443–467). New York: Columbia University Press. Richards, G. (2002). Gastronomy: an essential ingredient in tourism production and consumption? In: A.-M. Hjalager, & G. Richards (Eds), Tourism and Gastronomy (p. 238). London and New York: Routledge. Santich, B. (1996a). Looking for flavour (249pp.). Adelaide: Wakefield Press. Santich, B. (1996b). Sustaining Gastronomy. In: B. Santich, J. Hillier, & C. Kerry, (Eds), Proceedings of the 8th symposium of Australian gastronomy: Sustaining gastronomy, 28–30 September 1994, Adelaide (pp. 1–2). Sardo, P. (2003). Dinners for ecogastronomes. Slow Ark, 4, 142–143. Shyrock, A. (2004). The new Jordanian hospitality: house, host and guest in the culture of public display. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 46, 35–62. Slow Food. Our philosophy. Available: http://www.slowfood.com/eng/sf_cose/sf_cose_filosofia.lasso (Accessed: 2004, December 7). Soriano, D. R. (2002). Customers’ expectations factors in restaurants. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 19(8/9), 1055–1067. Telfer, E. (2000). The philosophy of hospitableness. In: C. Lashley, & A. Morrison (Eds), In search of hospitality (pp. 38–55). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Wilkins, J., & Hill, S. (1994). Archestratus: The life of luxury (110pp.). Totnes, Devon: Prospect Books. Winsted, K. F. (2000). Service behaviors that lead to satisfied customers. European Journal of Marketing, 34(3/4), 399–417. Zeldin, T. (1995). An intimate history of humanity (488pp.). London: Minerva.