Wednesday, January 29, 2014

The Public Intellectual: Michael Pollan

           “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”
            Printed in just this manner, above and apart from the text of his article printed on January 28, 2007 in the New York Times, these seven words transformed from epigram to scripture as the commandments of a gastronomical revolution led in large part by Michael Pollan
Though somewhat aptly caricaturized as a “liberal foodie intellectual,” in a 2006 New York Times book review of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan has done much more than pontificate on culinary culture as a voice for the political left, as the title might suggest. Moreover, Pollan doesn’t resort to the “pedestrian sort of whining about [an] apparent inability to exert any influence in the public square” that characterizes the careers of certain contributors to the supposed “decline” of the public intellectual. If this “decline” meant a lowering of “an aristocracy of experts” from superior ranks to the level of the everyman, instead of a diminishing sense of integrity or quality of thought in our intellectual leaders, I would say that, yes, Pollan is a part of the decline. Pollan defies the Public Intellectual persona; his knowledge is not founded on a sense of elitism, but fueled by endearing, hyper-curiosity and concern for the well being of the world and its inhabitants.
Mack argues that the role of the Public Intellectual can be “politically corrosive and historically dangerous” if it rests on “the assumption that common citizens are forever childlike and must be led by a class of experts.” Though Pollan does try to guide consumers on the decisions that they make in the marketplace, at times he mocks the very idea that the public should need expert help in the field in which he works: food. He blames the collective, clouding voices of scientists and journalists for convoluting the act of eating. In particular, Pollan speaks out against “nutritionism,” what he calls “a widely shared but unexamined assumption that the key to understanding food is the nutrient.”  Though the term was coined by Gyorgy Scrinis and has influenced marketing strategy in grocery stores for decades, it was Michael Pollan who inspired not only a national awareness of “nutritionism,” but also a debate about its validity as a dietary guide. Pollan sardonically argued “to enter a world in which you dine on unseen nutrients, you need lots of expert help." In this regard, rather than advocating for a particular type of action, Pollan is merely trying to show readers that good health comes from ignoring the advice of many of those who presume to dictate how it should be pursued.
If Pollan, as an intellectual, treats his audiences as children, it is only in the way that he assumes they are similarly curious and capable of learning. His tone is not one of condescension; his vernacular is meant to incite interest, not confusion. Supported by a Masters in English from Columbia University, rather than a formal education in science, Pollan is able to eloquently state and simplify complex concepts. When he does use jargon, it seems less as a means to assert authority, as it is to educate listeners. Though such terms might become ill-used buzzwords that briefly thrive on trending charts, they help to spread valuable ideas.
The fact that Pollan doesn’t have a history in scientific studies actually contributes to the unique persona that he has created. While he certainly has assumed a role as a public intellectual, the personality that he portrays is founded on a sense of naivety. He writes in the first person narrative style, but especially in his novels, he writes almost as a composite narrator. In an interview at the University of California, Davis, where he has spoken on numerous occasions, Pollan said “We are plural. I can write as a male… I can write as someone who lives in Berkeley, I can write as a gardener, a meat eater, any number of different people – so [the writer’s voice is] the most constructed thing in a piece of nonfiction.” By adopting this dynamic character, he’s able to connect with more people, closing the gap between the public and the intellectual. While Pollan admits, “I’m not quite as naïve as I pretend to be” when writing about certain issues, he asserts that he always writes from a position of “not wanting to talk down to [the] reader.” A sense of humility is also key for Pollan – he points out in several interviews that writing about the scientific aspect of his work and getting the facts right is “a source of anxiety”; he always confirms the accuracy of what he’s derived from his research with experts in the field.
For more than two decades, Michael Pollan has taken his pen to paper (or rather, fingertips to laptop keys, due to notoriously bad handwriting) to tell us about what takes place before we put fork to plate. His knowledge of the natural world ranges from plants to bees to cows, dirt and dirty politics, organic farms and laboratories, corporations and supermarkets and beyond. In 2006, his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma was named one of the ten best books by the New York Times, was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award and received the James Beard Award, among numerous other accolades. Several more acclaimed books followed, including a young reader’s edition of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, a manual and a manifesto for eaters, and his newest publication Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation. All the while, Pollan has continued to contribute articles to the New York Times, lecture at universities and on television, and appeared in the Academy Award nominated documentary, Food Inc. In 2010, TIME Magazine deemed Pollan one of the one hundred most influential people of the year. The reach of his influence has been greatly furthered by his strong social media presence, particularly on Twitter, where he has more than 350,000 followers and posts almost daily. Because he has embraced a variety of different media outlets, Pollan has built a fan base that includes a wide range of age groups, from millenials to hippies.
Of all that Michael Pollan has contributed to the public, it is undeniably his eyes wide-open, inquisitive nature that has had the most profound effect. Pollan inspires his followers to ask questions, to be aware and to care. As defined by Stephen Mack,
 the public intellectual function is criticism. And if intellectuals are in a better position to perform that function it’s not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. It is only because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment…
It is also, however, the obligation of every citizen in a democracy. Trained to it or not, all participants in self-government are duty-bound to prod, poke, and pester the powerful institutions that would shape their lives. And so if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy—and they do—it’s simply to keep the pot boiling. The measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about.
In accordance with Mack’s position, Michael Pollan focuses largely on criticizing American institutions and practices, without affectation of superiority. He strongly believes that everyone has a responsibility to consume consciously, but acknowledges that not everyone is willing to actively seek out answers. For this reason, Pollan does the work and he makes the information readily available – in essence, he “keep[s] the pot boiling” with ideas that are vital to the integrity of our nation.
As a public intellectual and professional pot-boiler, Pollan stimulates conversation on numerous subjects that incur heated feedback. While Pollan attempts to present his arguments as universally beneficial, his views undoubtedly fall to the left of the political spectrum. In particular, Pollan is often attacked for his position on genetically modified organisms – or rather, his inconsistent statements on the subject. A contributor to Forbes.com pieced together several interviews with Pollan that seemed to present contrasting beliefs in order to illuminate to the public “the sharp dichotomy between Pollan’s crafted image as intellectual diplomat and his actual actions as anti-GMO pit bull." This criticism, though harsh, isn’t wholly unjustified ­­– if Pollan wants to appear as an authority and influential leader on the matter of GMOs, he should clearly define his position. However, Pollan’s uncertainty in regards to GMO safety and how it might affect the future of the food industry represents the ambiguity of the whole debate – much of the information is biased or unpredictable. Pollan’s central goal of having genetically modified organisms labeled as such merely enables consumers to know a little more about what they’re buying. Those that support GMOs can continue to do so, but those that don’t have the right to choose. Furthermore, labeling GMOs would help to increase public awareness so that everyone can make their own decisions, instead of blindly allowing corporations to do so for them – a key component of Pollan’s stance as an activist.
Michael Pollan’s critics often denounce him as an idealist, some more politely than others. A writer for Grist expressed his belief that Pollan needed to be more realistic in regards to what consumers can feasibly afford, saying, “I have a hard time imagining people who are struggling to put food on the table rambling off to the farmers’ market on Saturday to fill cloth bags with the sort of fresh, local, organic produce so beloved by Pollan." On the other end of the spectrum, another Pollan opponent and writer for The American posted an article titled “The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against Agri-Intellectuals,” expressing the inability of farmers to follow Pollan’s lofty counsel. In truth, Pollan’s solutions to major food industry issues are generally expensive for the customer, the farmer, the vendor or all of the above, but it isn’t necessarily his duty to take a pragmatic approach to saving the world. As author and activist, he reveals to his readers what we should strive for and provides the informational building blocks to help us work towards his ideal.
Michael Pollan, like some sort of treasurer hunter, has dug deep into the dirt of the agricultural industry to extract nuggets of information and share his wealth with the masses. Buying and eating food had become a chore for Americans ­– on some matters, such as nutrition, people were bombarded with advice that often contradicted what they’d previously been informed; but in other cases, all information, such as where the food came from or what was actually in it, was mysteriously unavailable. Pollan took on the responsibility of answering these questions and revealed his findings to the public. What he discovered galvanized a nation and revolutionized the food industry. As a public intellectual, Pollan asked the smart questions and inspired the people to continue the conversation. The impact of his work as author and activist can be seen in restaurants, grocery stores and kitchens everywhere, but it is his devotion to living consciously that has most profoundly affected the lives of so many.

Friday, January 24, 2014

A Woman's Place is in the Kitchen – and the Office of the CEO

2013 was a year chockfull of firsts for females:

Janet Yellen became the first woman chair of the Federal Reserve in its 100-year history. Michelle Howard was confirmed as the Navy’s first female admiral, the highest rank of any woman serving since its creation 238 years ago. Inga Beale was appointed CEO at Lloyd’s of London, a first in its 325 years of operation.

These professional advancements would’ve been shocking merely decades ago – but not quite as shocking as the one place where woman today are struggling to gain positions of leadership: the kitchen.

As 2013 came to a close, TIME Magazine published a list of the year’s “Gods of Food.” 13 divine beings of the culinary realm were chosen, but not a single female chef was featured.
The appalling lack of women on this list and accompanying “chef family tree” (a info-graphic of influential figures) was underscored by an interview featured on Eater National with Time section editor Howard Chua-Eoan.

Why are there no female chefs on the chef family tree?
Well I think it reflects one very harsh reality of the current chefs' world, which unfortunately has been true for years: it's still a boys club. There are of course very good and terrific female chefs: Carme Ruscalleda, Elena Arzak, April [Bloomfield] of course, Anita Lo of course, and of course Alice [Waters]. But it's very strange, the network of women, as Anita herself has been saying for so many years now, isn't as strong as the network of men.
And when you look at this chart it's very clear. It's all men because men still take care of themselves. The women really need someone — if not men, themselves actually — to sort of take care of each other. The thing about the women I named, they are all spectacularly good chefs. But they also had to force their way to where they are now, they are almost their own creations. It's unfortunate, the women who are there are very good, but very few of them actually benefitted from the boys club, as you can see from the chart.

Contrary to Chua-Eoan’s opinion and the sparse coverage of female chefs in the media, women are working up the ranks in the world of cuisine. The percentage of female graduates at the Culinary Institute of America is up to 36% in 2012 from 21% a decade before. In restaurant kitchens, men still outnumber the women, but more females are moving into leadership roles – the restaurant Marea, in New York, recently promoted Lauren DeSteno to chef de cuisine, a position in which she presides over 4 male sous-chefs and 20 other cooks.

DeSteno serves as a role model for young women aspiring to don the pleated white cap and disproves Chua-Eoan’s belief that a woman needs to be taken care of. A word of advice to young female chefs: keep forcing your way through that kitchen door and don’t be afraid to wield some sharp knives.