Culture identity and belonging in the culinary underbelly

Description
Drawing on social anthropology this paper aims to focus on the role of culture in identity
formation through an examination of the results of research into the culture of the chef – culture manifest
in what has been referred to as the ‘‘culinary underbelly’’.

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Culture, identity, and belonging in the “culinary underbelly”
Catherine Palmer J ohn Cooper Peter Burns
Article information:
To cite this document:
Catherine Palmer J ohn Cooper Peter Burns, (2010),"Culture, identity, and belonging in the “culinary underbelly”", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 311 - 326
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081497
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:11 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 76 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3454 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
J .D. Pratten, (2003),"What makes a great chef?", British Food J ournal, Vol. 105 Iss 7 pp. 454-459 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700310497255
R. Murray-Gibbons, C. Gibbons, (2007),"Occupational stress in the chef profession", International J ournal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 32-42http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110710724143
J .D. Pratten, (2003),"The training and retention of chefs", International J ournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 Iss 4 pp.
237-242http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110310475702
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Special section paper
Culture, identity, and belonging in the
‘‘culinary underbelly’’
Catherine Palmer, John Cooper and Peter Burns
Abstract
Purpose – Drawing on social anthropology this paper aims to focus on the role of culture in identity
formation through an examination of the results of research into the culture of the chef – culture manifest
in what has been referred to as the ‘‘culinary underbelly’’.
Design/methodology/approach – In-depth interviews were conducted with head chefs of
Michelin-starred restaurants and celebrity chefs with the aim of exploring the social and cultural
processes underpinning the formation of chef identity.
Findings – These illustrate what it feels like to belong on the basis of such signifying structures as
language, community, and kinship. Being a chef is more than just a job, it is sacred work involving
sacri?ce and pain leaving a physical imprint on the individual in the form of burns, cuts and scalds. Such
marks are the physical manifestation of chef culture.
Research limitations/implications – The ?ndings are not generalizable to all chefs. Further research
should focus on issues of gender and ethnicity, and on chefs working in different types of establishment
and at different levels/status to those interviewed here.
Originality/value – The ?ndings and the analysis provide valuable insights into chef identity. This
analysis is important because the signi?cance of concepts such as culture and identity for
understanding speci?c job roles is still under explored within a hospitality context. Managers need to be
able to understand and work with the cultural dynamics inherent in job roles because these impinge on
key issues such as recruitment, retention and team building of all staff, not just chefs.
Keywords Culture, Work identity, Family, Human resource management
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Any discussion of identity needs to acknowledge the complex and often competing
contradictions inherent in the concept (Hall, 1996). Such a caveat is necessary because
identity may be de?ned in different ways based on culture, history, political af?liation or
religion and in relation to such as age, gender or sexual orientation. Understandings of
identity then depend on the perspective of the individual or group concerned and the
context in which the concept is being examined (Bauman, 2004; Jenkins, 2004; Robins,
1996). From a theoretical perspective the notion of identity has generated much discussion
and debate linked to a variety of approaches and disciplines, for example psychoanalysis,
literary criticism and theory, lesbian and gay studies, sociology, anthropology and
psychology (Bendle, 2002; Elliott, 2001; Erikson, 1980; Giddens, 2001). However, identity is
more than a set of theoretical propositions it is above all a lived experience for the individual
concerned (Palmer, 1998). Such a distinction is important because this discussion focuses
on the experience of identity rather than theoretical examinations of the concept of identity
DOI 10.1108/17506181011081497 VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010, pp. 311-326, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 311
Catherine Palmer is based
University of Brighton,
Eastbourne, UK.
John Cooper is based at
University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, UK. Peter Burns
is based at the University of
Brighton, Eastbourne, UK.
Recieved: December 2006
Revised: May 2007
Accepted: August 2007
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
per se. In particular, it is concerned with the ways in which the cultural dynamics or markers
of identity communicate the basis on which belonging and identity are conferred.
Thecontext for thediscussionistheworldof workandthewaysinwhichidentityisshapedbyan
individual’s particular work role. The work-identity relationship is a fundamental part of an
individual’sself-imageasSaunders(1981a) arguesthequestion‘‘whoamI?’’ ismost frequently
understoodinterms of occupational roles andtheworkingenvironment. Giventhecentrality of
worktomanypeople’slivesit isappropriatetoexaminetherelationshipbetweenworkrolesand
identitymorecloselywhat Ulin(2002, p. 707) referstoas‘‘. . .thecultural articulationof workand
identity . . . ’’. Whilemanystudiesexaminethework-identityrelationship(Becker, 1951; DuGay,
1996; Mars and Nicod, 1984; Paoline, 2003; Salzinger, 2002; Spradley and Mann, 1975; Ulin,
2002; Wallman, 1979) limitedresearchisavailableonthisrelationshipwithinhospitalitystudies,
especially in terms of the role of culture in identity formation.
A focus on the job of chef is instructive in this respect because of what Fine (1996a) refers to
as the ambiguous nature of cooking, ambiguous in terms of the status and meaning of the
job within society. Cooking as a job can mean different things and its status varies according
to the type of cooking involved, for example school meals or restaurant cuisine. Even the job
title is a symbolically charged nomenclature; chef denotes a higher status than cook for
instance. Whereas between chefs ‘‘cook’’ is not a derogatory term but rather one of praise, a
compliment:
The highest compliment for a chef is when another chef calls that he’s a good cook. It would be an
insult for a civilian to say ‘‘oh, are you the cook’’? To a chef that would be a terrible insult, but if
another chef says about you behind your back, ‘‘dude, that guys a really great cook’’. That would
be the highest praise. That means you can actually do it (Chef F).
Popular interest in the world of the chef has grown considerably in recent years, as
evidenced by the plethora of television programs dedicated to the preparation of food. The
world of professional chefs and their kitchens remained largely secluded until the
emergence of the phenomenon of celebrity chefs whose open kitchens revealed the
previously secret ‘‘backstage’’ (Goffman, 1959) of professional cooking. While this
media-generated interest has been accompanied by fascinating biographical accounts of
being a chef (Bourdain, 2001; Ramsay, 2006; White, 2006; Wright, 2006) and of the
restaurant business (Parkinson and Green, 2001) it has not translated into a signi?cant body
of academic literature on and studies of chefs. In 1997 Wood commented that remarkably
little methodical analysis had been carried out on the work of chefs or on chef identity. While
this point is still valid studies have been undertaken that impinge directly or indirectly on the
world of the chef for example Ferguson’s (1998) examination of the culinary tradition and the
evolution of culinary discourse. Other related studies include those by Bowey (1976),
Cameron (2001, 2004), Cameron et al. (1999), Chivers (1972, 1973), Gabriel (1988), Johns
and Menzel (1999), Pratten (2003a, b), Murray-Gibbons and Gibbons (2007), Saunders
(1981a, b) and the earliest investigations by Whyte (1948, 1949). Likewise, research on
chefs and identity has been carried out in North America by Fine (1987, 1996a, b) and is
signi?cant in terms of the sociological structures inherent in what Fine (1996a) refers to as
the ‘‘occupational rhetorics’’ of work and identity. These studies notwithstanding, this
research focuses on a signi?cant but under researched ‘‘group’’ of chefs, namely
Michelin-starred and celebrity chefs. Such individuals are both interesting and important
because their visibility and status enables them to in?uence wider understandings of what
being a chef means.
Despite such studies as those mentioned above little is still known about the cultural
processes that perpetuate a sense of identity and belonging among chefs, processes that
operate to construct and reinforce what being a chef means to the individual. As Geertz
(1973, p. 385) states all to often we ‘‘. . . see people through a screen of occupational
categories – as not just practicing this vocation or that, but as almost physically infused with
the quality of being a postman, teamster, politician or salesman’’. This physical infusion
leads to what Glasser (1988) refers to in her ethnography of soup kitchens as proper kitchen
behaviour. The research discussed here was designed to explore the ways in which the
physical infusion of chef identity takes place. In other words how a chef learns proper chef
behaviour, learns how to be a chef culturally rather than technically.
PAGE 312
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
A focus on culture locates the research within an anthropological framework since
anthropology is concerned with understanding the world through the social and cultural
structures that individuals use to organize, guide and give meaning to their lives: structures
such as work, play, kinship, ritual and faith (Delaney, 2004; Herzfeld, 2001; Moore and
Sanders, 2006). Through these structures fundamental concepts such as family, belonging,
identity and community are all constructed and explored by individuals and groups as they
experience the world around them (Barth, 1969; Cohen, 1982a, 1985; Okely, 1983; Van
Maanen, 1974). So, work and the particular job undertaken helps to frame the way in which
people think and feel about what being in the world actually means, their identity. Before
examining the results of the research it is necessary to consider the ways in which identity
can be said to in?uence and be in?uenced by the world of work.
Work and identity formation
Occupational identity consists of both visible and invisible components. Visible aspects
such as remuneration, conditions, routines and tasks operate alongside invisible or internal
aspects such as the unwritten rules, norms, values, attitudes and beliefs that psychologically
connect or bind individuals to particular occupational groups (see Paoline, 2003; Van
Maanen, 1974). It is these latter aspects that are of interest here and a key factor in
understanding these is the external image of the particular occupation. In this regard,
Saunders (1981a) argues that societal and cultural expectations lead individuals to have an
occupation and to incorporate the values and perspectives of the occupation into a sense of
identity. How a society views particular occupations has a bearing on whether the individual
considers the identity conferred by their occupation in a positive or negative light. Research
into low-grade occupations by Saunders (1981a) demonstrates that if an occupation is
stigmatized by society as being low status, as being less ‘‘valuable’’ or important than other
types of occupation then this can cause individuals to suffer low self-esteem and self-worth.
Wildes (2005) comes to similar conclusions in her research on restaurant workers namely
that stigma consciousness among those workers concerned about the way in which society
views their particular occupation means that they are more likely to leave the industry and
less inclined to recommend the industry to others.
It is not only the external environment that affects identity formation as individuals contribute
to the construction of identity through social interaction (Goffman, 1959). The workplace
involves myriad opportunities for interaction not only of a social nature but also as a form of
socialization inducting the worker as to the ‘‘correct’’ way to behave. What was referred to
earlier as proper kitchen behaviour. Goffman (1959) illustrates the role of the individual in
identity construction through a dramaturgical lexicon that de?nes interaction as a
performance that is in?uenced by the environment (the audience) and employed by
individuals (the actors) to provide others with particular impressions. There are interesting
parallels between a theatre and a professional kitchen where chefs as individual actors
perform their various tasks with differing degrees of ?air and attachment to the craft of
cooking (see Bourdain, 2001).
In performing the role of chef belonging is established by communicating the
characteristics, values and attitudes associated with being a chef to the rest of the group.
As Glasser’s (1988, p. 4) soup kitchen research reveals belonging is communicated by the
daily rituals associated with particular roles ‘‘ . . . guests and in part by the staff, who enact
the numerous rituals of daily soup kitchen life, including . . . announcing the menu, serving
the meal, and socializing within the dining room. . . ’’. Via such rituals ‘‘new guests are
enculturated and learn proper soup kitchen behaviour’’. The rituals associated with the
communication of chef identity are of concern here, rituals that manifest themselves in the
way chefs talk about being a chef. As Cohen argues in his discussion of the symbolic
construction of community:
Instead of asking, ‘‘What does it look like to us? What are its theoretical implications?’’ we ask,
‘‘what does it appear to mean to its members?’’ Rather than describing analytically the formof the
structure from an external vantage point, we are attempting to penetrate the structure, to look
outwards from its core (Cohen, 1985, p. 20 original emphasis).
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 313
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
The process of identity formation through work can be understood by analyzing the cultural
aspects of occupational groups. Drawing on the work of Paoline (2003) and Van Maanen
(1974) on police culture, occupational culture/s are characterized by shared attitudes,
values and norms arising from the range of tasks and problems confronting members of a
group in work situations. These attitudes and norms are then developed within the group and
communicated to new members through a process of socialization (Paoline, 2003).
Socialization, the means by which people learn the ‘‘know how’’ of acceptable behaviour
(Wolcott, 1999) aims to produce individuals that as Geertz has noted are physically infused
with the cultural particularities of the group into which they are being socialized. A good
illustration of this is provided by Van Maanen’s ethnography of the occupational milieu of the
American police service in terms of what makes patrolmen a distinct culture with a de?ned
sense of identity. Van Maanen explored the socialization process associated with the
patrolmen’s enrolment in the urban police department, a process that begins with the
initiation rituals passed on through the police academy followed by the gradual learning of
the group’s shared perspectives and standards once the new recruit is out on the streets.
According to Van Maanen, the police academy experience stands symbolically as the
recruits’ ritual introduction to what it means to be a patrolman.
Mars and Nicod (1984) have undertaken similar research to that of Van Maanen. Focusing on
waiters in a hospitality context they argue that ‘‘the occupational world of waiters is a world of
rites and rituals, of status passages, of minutely divided hierarchies, of closely guarded and
secret knowledge that can never be understood from the customers’ side of the green baize
door’’ (Mars and Nicod, p. x). Mars and Nicod’s investigation entailed Nicod going behind
‘‘the green baize door’’ and working as a waiter at ?ve different hotels. In this way they were
able to identify the main components of the waiters’ occupational culture, the distinctive
value and belief system and the processes through which new recruits were introduced to
the occupational frame of reference. In terms of this discussion the world of the chef is
accessed through talking to chefs about what it means to be a chef, about the ‘‘secret
knowledge’’ and the ways in which it may be employed to denote belonging and identity.
The world of the chef
I want to tell you about the dark recesses of the restaurant underbelly . . . because I ?nd it all quite
comfortable, like a nice warm bath. I can move around easily in this life. I speak the language
(Bourdain, 2001, p. 3).
George Orwell’s (2003 [1933]) autobiographical novel Down and Out in Paris and London
provides a fascinating literary attempt to go behind the scenes at various culinary
establishments and to describe the social status of the chef. The work he describes is
characterized on the basis of long shifts, low wages, intense heat, ?lth and a total lack of
sanitation, characteristics that connect with Bourdain’s (2001) morecontemporary depictions
of kitchen life. The social standing of chefs has risen signi?cantly since the days of Orwell and
particularly since the emergence of nouvelle cuisine and the democratization of gastronomy
(Ladenis, 1997). The image of the chef has shifted from that of ‘‘a simple, humble person,
someone with little ambition, a plodding, shuf?ing body who did the dirty work’’, to that of an
artist or star performing for an audience (Ladenis, 1997, p. 194).
Further insights into the world of the chef can be found in Mullan’s (1998) Off the Menu, a
collection of conversations with chefs on a number of issues such as their reasons for
becoming a chef and their cooking philosophy. Many of the accounts from contemporary
chefs highlight the importance of the kitchen environment in terms of understanding chef
identity. This environment resembles a highly organized, rigidly hierarchical, tightly knit
community where individuals are expected to learn and abide by the rules and behavioural
norms of the group (see Wood, 1997). The New York chef Anthony Bourdain, in his book
Kitchen Con?dential, illustrates the sense of communal solidarity that exists among chefs:
If I need a favor at four o’clock in the morning, whether it’s a quick loan, a shoulder to cry on, a
sleeping pill, bail money, or just someone to pick me up in a car in a bad neighborhood in the
driving rain, I’m de?nitely not calling up a fellow writer. I’m calling my sous-chef, or a former
sous-chef, or my saucier, someone I work with or have worked with over the last twenty-plus
years. (Bourdain, 2001, p. 3 original emphasis)
PAGE 314
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
For Bourdain, chefs share a peculiar world-view together with unusual customs, rituals and
practices that de?ne themas a tribe. Bourdain presents a harsh portrait of chef culture where
new recruits are treated as ‘‘cattle’’ (Bourdain, 2001, p. 293), denied a personality, and
where verbal insults about an individual’s personal circumstances, sexuality and physical
appearance are commonplace. The Culinary Institute of America (CIA), the equivalent of
Van Maanen’s Police Academy is where many American chefs receive formal training in the
technical and cultural aspects of being a chef. The food writer Michael Ruhlman (1997,
2001) provides fascinating accounts of the way in which the CIA technically and emotionally
transforms its students from outsiders to insiders, from non-chefs to chefs. As a student of
the CIA in 1975 Bourdain illustrates its role in preparing the students for life on the ‘‘outside’’,
‘‘anyone who couldn’t take Chef Bagna’s ranting was not going to make it in the outside
world. . . ’’ (Bourdain, 2001, p. 40 original emphasis). Such examples underpin Bourdain’s
(2001, p. 3) description of the chef’s world as ‘‘. . .a culture whose centuries-old militaristic
hierarchy and ethos of ‘rum, buggery and the lash’ make for a mix of unwavering order and
nerve-shattering chaos’’.
For A.A. Gill, a culture and food critic who has worked in the type of kitchens described by
Bourdain ‘‘no other business would dare to treat its workers as they are treated in a
restaurant kitchen’’ (quoted in Hennessy, 2000, p. 67). However, as Hennessy (2000, p. 67)
notes it is chefs themselves who perpetuate the system through an obsession described as
being akin to a religious ‘‘calling’’, ‘‘any suggested amelioration to the madness of the
normal kitchen tends to be opposed by the inmates themselves’’.
The Scottish chef Gordon Ramsay describes the rules and norms of chef life as ‘‘the
knowledge’’. Speci?cally he states ‘‘. . . this job is the pits when you’re learning. You have to
bow down and stay focused until the knowledge is tucked away . . . The weak disappear off
the face of the earth’’ (quoted in Duncan, 2001, p. 10). Ramsay’s concept of the knowledge
is important, as it points to the systematic transference of culture, identity and belonging
between group members. To belong is to have gained access to the knowledge, to earn the
right to be called chef.
The research method
Qualitative research was conducted through in-depth interviews with 15 chefs comprising
celebrity chefs and Michelin-starred head chefs from the Great Britain and Ireland Michelin
Hotels and Restaurants Guide 2004 (see Table I). A letter requesting participation in the
research was sent to all ninety-one chefs in mainland England holding Michelin stars at
establishments named in the guide. The term ‘‘celebrity’’ is applied to those chefs who have
a media pro?le generated by activities such as presenting televised food programs, writing
newspaper columns, publishing books, or whose views are sought by the media due to their
Table I Details of the chefs interviewed
Respondent’s name Restaurant/location
Sat Bains Restaurant Sat Bains, England
Claude Bosi Hibiscus, England
Anthony Bourdain Brasserie Les Halles, USA
Tessa Bramley The Old Vicarage, England
John Campbell The Vineyard at Stockcross, England
Richard Corrigan Richard Corrigan at Lindsay House, England
Stephen Crane Ockenden Manor, England
David Everitt-Matthias Le Champignon Sauvage, England
Marc Fosh Read’s, Spain
Andre Garrett Orrery, England
Rose Gray The River Cafe´ , England
Richard Guest The Castle, England
Prue Leith Leith’s School of Food and Wine, England
Richard Phillips Thackerays, England
Antony Worrall Thompson Notting Grill, England
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 315
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
activities in the industry; this category of chef was contacted by letter and telephone and
three agreed to be interviewed. Of all the chefs interviewed three were female and 12 were
male. A total of 11 face-to-face interviews were conducted with chefs located in England and
four telephone interviews with chefs based in England, Spain and North America. The
face-to-face interviews lasted between 50 minutes and four hours and the telephone
interviews from 30 minutes to three hours spread over two conversations. All the participants
agreed to their names and businesses being identi?ed, to the tape recording of the
interviews and to the use of the data collected for academic purposes. However, anonymity
has been maintained in terms of the attribution of speci?c comments to individual chefs.
Due to their public visibility and the level of skill and experience within the industry,
Michelin-starred chefs and celebrity chefs are informative cases capable of producing
interesting insights into the culture of the profession. While Michelin-starred chefs may be a
small group within the restaurant sector they are highly in?uential, playing a key role in ‘‘trend
setting, image building and in setting standards for the industry as a whole’’ (Surlemont and
Johnson, 2005, p. 578). As chefs they have a wide range of experience, including both
hotels and restaurants of varying sizes. Such a group collectively shares similar knowledge,
training and experience and as head chefs they employ people as part of the kitchen
brigade and therefore play an important part in the training and socialization of other chefs.
Celebrity chefs are an important group because their media-generated visibility provides
them with opportunities to communicate attitudes and opinions to a wide, general audience.
The interviews focused on what being a chef means to the individual and were in-depth in
the sense meant by Wengraf (2001, p. 6) when he states ‘‘to go into something in-depth is to
get a sense of how the apparently straightforward is actually more complicated, of how the
‘surface appearances’ may be quite misleading about ‘depth realities’’’. The interview
method is particularly useful for exploring the subjective meanings that chefs ascribe to
social situations, in other words how chefs experience, shape and give meaning to their
world. The interviews were structured around set themes linked to the issues identi?ed by
the literature review and the speci?c questions were designed to explore these themes (see
Table II). A conversational interview strategy was employed in line with that adopted by
ethnographers to encourage the interviewees to think about what being a chef means (Flick,
2006, pp. 166-7; Kemp and Ellen, 1984). As Hammersely and Atkinson (1995, p. 152)
illustrate ethnographers do not ‘‘ . . . seek to establish a ?xed sequence in which relevant
topics are covered; they adopt a more ?exible approach, allowing the discussion to ?ow in a
way that seems natural’’.
The ?ndings from the interviews require a framework within which they can be analyzed as
Wolcott (1999, p. 69) comments ‘‘a question such as ‘What is going on here?’ can only be
addressed when ?eshed out with enough detail to answer the related question, ‘In terms of
Table II Interview themes
Theme Sub-theme
Image of chefs Internal and external image of the occupation and of chefs
Media in?uences – celebrity chefs
Cooking traditions/evolution of cooking
Being a chef Self image, attitudes and values
Personal background
Skill acquisition/training/recruitment issues
Gender
Michelin star system
The working environment Organization and structure
Leadership and management
Control mechanisms
Language, clothing and equipment
Relationships between chefs, chefs and non-chefs, chefs and other
key workers
Social life Non-work time
PAGE 316
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
what?’’’ In this respect the data was analyzed both within and against the literature
concerned with meaning making through culture, primarily but not exclusively that of
anthropology. Concepts from the literature were employed to make sense of the data
generated ‘‘. . .to use the data to think with. One looks to see whether any interesting patterns
can be identi?ed; whether anything stands out as surprising or puzzling; how the data relate
to. . .of?cial accounts or previous theory’’ (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995, p. 210).
Billig’s examination of family discussions of the British Monarchy provides a useful illustration
of the process of analysis adopted here. Billig’s (1992, p. 19) aim was ‘‘. . . to reconstruct
patterns of common-sense thinking. . . ’’ by searching for the underlying themes revealed by
the conversations rather than searching for divisions between respondents. The following
analysis is organized around the key themes and issues emerging from the interviews with
chefs. Given the volume of data generated it is not possible to include everything so what
follows is necessarily a selection of conversational excerpts employed to illustrate these
themes. However, the focus here is identity as lived experience identity as it is constructed
and understood by individuals as they think through what it means to be a chef. Hence detail
and depth are integral to the interpretive process. The range of chef voices included and the
length of some excerpts are therefore essential to the analysis for it is through such richly
detailed re?ection that the cultural dynamics underpinning the formation of chef identity are
made visible.
Results, analysis and discussion
Being a chef
One of the ways in which identity is formed is in relation to the other that which is different and
in this respect the media and society at large (in particular non-chefs) comprise the chefs’
‘‘signi?cant other’’ (Mead, 1934). Several interviewees discussed how the image of the chef
has changed over recent years from that of an occupation of last resort, to one in which
respect is based on individual skill, reputation and the emergence of new forms of cuisine
such as nouvelle cuisine. However, one interviewee states that in England respect for the
work of a chef and the occupation’s status as a skilled profession is markedly worse than in
other European countries such as France, Italy and Spain. This is interesting as it illustrates
the fact that attitudes to the role and function of food, cooking and eating in society are
culturally determined:
I think in France they’re very much almost revered as good as doctors and lawyers and that . . .
You still are very much respected; you’re not frowned upon, looked down upon. Here [England],
it’s like oh you’re second rate, dropout. There’s still that stigma involved where oh he’s obviously
not very clever. . . (Chef H).
When I ?rst got into catering, only queers and thick people, that’s how it was said, went into
catering but now it’s totally different, people treat you with respect, oh, you run a Michelin starred
restaurant. And I think it will become a more and more respectable career. . . (Chef L).
It feels a lot better now than it did when I started. I mean my grandmother was horri?ed. It was
considered to be a very down market profession when I started in the seventies and she said,
‘‘oh, you can’t possibly do that’’. . .not many public schoolboys went into a chef?ng career that’s
for sure. . . But that’s all changed now because of television . . . because of the nouvelle cuisine
era when restaurants got more recognition, chefs got more recognition . . . it is considered quite
respectable now (Chef O).
Respect for the profession is, not surprisingly perhaps linked to the type of establishment in
which a particular chef works. Hence, those restaurants where the level of skill is deemed to
be high are considered more worthy of respect than those where the skill level is deemed to
be low. Such judgments are not con?ned to the wider non-chef society since chefs
categorize themselves based on where they work and external measures of success such
as the number of Michelin stars awarded, ‘‘. . .there’s still some of that kudos and
snobbishness. If you said I work at the Harvester, they’ll automatically categorize, oh he’s a
grill chef or something like that, but when you start saying I’m a chef. . .I’m up there, they go
oh, wow’’ (chef H). Chefs are not the only profession to base their self-assessment on
attributes such as skill, work location and external recognition. However, this quote
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 317
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
highlights the existence of what are referred to here as internal mechanisms – internal to
chefs that is – for regulating the basis on which self-worth, self-identity are to be formed.
Such mechanisms, even if informally applied are important in terms of legitimating identity, in
effect earning the right to be called chef.
Validating mechanisms are evident in the ways in which the interviewees respond to the
phenomenon of the celebrity chef, with one in particular denigrated as being ‘‘ . . . not a great
cook at all. He’s a showman and an entertainer and that’s what he gets paid to do. . . ’’ (chef
D). Whereas, the media chefs deemed worthy of respect were such as Gordon Ramsay,
whose television program, Hell’s Kitchen, is felt to be more representative of the stress and
pressure as well as the prestige involved in the work of the chef (chefs J and O). The prestige
and sense of superiority gained from being a chef is based on the chef’s ability to do
something out of the ordinary, something that not everyone can do. This ability has
implications for social mobility and self-esteem. Doing something out of the ordinary can
enable an individual to alter the way s/he is perceived by both self and other in relation to a
society’s notion of what constitutes a worthwhile and hence proper job:
. . . you know your place in the food chain; you feel a sense of superiority over your social and
economic betters. And also because of the showbusiness aspect of cooking chefs do something
that other people can’t. It’s a place where working class people can sort of lord it over society
(Chef F).
In talking about being a chef, words such as vocation, passion and dedication are used by
the chefs ‘‘. . .it’s not a job, you couldn’t look at this as a job, my God!’’ (chef C). Likewise, a
certain type of mindset is required, and to become a top chef, drive, focus and determination
is necessary such that ‘‘you have to be completely mad. . .completely barmy’’ (chef G) to put
up with the hours and the pain ‘‘there’s too much sacri?ce to be just a job’’ (chef I). A chef is
described as a unique individual and as displaying the mood swings, volatility and creativity
associated with being an artist, the ‘‘. . .kind of person who’s got, if you like, a wayward
streak’’ (chef E). Such a self-image leads to a feeling of empowerment and superiority ‘‘. . .in
the kitchen you can determine your actual worth on a minute by minute basis . . . ’’ (chef F).
The cultural dynamics at play here illustrate the fact that chef identity has a physical as well
as a psychological dimension to it. Being a chef involves physical pain, not just in terms of
long working hours in hot tight spaces but in terms of the burns, cuts, scars and scalds that
are part and parcel of every working day. Such physical demands in?uence the
psychological mindset that supports the individual in becoming and remaining a chef. The
physical and psychological dynamics of a particular activity have been shown to be crucial
to understanding self and group identity in other studies, for example Lewis’ (2001) work on
climbers and that of Stranger (1999) on surfers. Lewis (2001, p. 75) talks about the
‘‘disciplinary stigmata’’ of being a climber about ‘‘ . . . the cuts and abrasions, the freezing
cold and suntraps, the taut muscles and creaky joints . . . ’’ (Lewis (2001, p. 74) that identi?es
the individual as a climber. A chef’s disciplinary stigmata symbolize the path taken to acquire
the knowledge. Such marks physically communicate the existence of a shared
understanding of what being a chef actually entails. For the chefs interviewed here the
combination of these dynamics – physical, cultural, and psychological – supports their
feelings of superiority and status, supports the view that the occupation of chef is more than
just a job it is sacred work.
This sense of superiority is enhanced by the growth of the media chef, by the newspapers,
magazines, television and radio programs dedicated to food, cooking and the personalities
that serve to endorse or validate being a chef. To some of the interviewees, media
representations add a touch of glamour or gloss in a positive sense such that ‘‘. . .nowpeople
view it as a very interesting and exciting job and one that one aspires to’’ (chef K). Other
views point to the falseness of the media generated image, to a blurring of the boundaries
between ‘‘reality’’ and entertainment (chef D) and to the media reinforcement of
stereotypical images of chefs as violent and aggressive. ‘‘It’s dif?cult because they [the
general public] have so many different points of view now because we’re all over the telly
and magazines, we’re either very artistic and very aggressive, or we’re drunken slobs’’ (chef
L). Such a view illustrates the dif?culties encountered when focusing a microscope (in this
case the television camera) onto a tiny part of a complex organism. As the line between
PAGE 318
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
‘‘reality’’ and entertainment is blurred myths develop as to what being a chef means, ‘‘. . .they
miss out the middle bit on TV, they miss out the years of experience and things like that’’ (chef
L). Similarly, television programs show ‘‘. . .the rest of us or the younger boys coming up that
oh, if you want to be a three star chef you’re going to have to be fucking tough’’ (chef C).
‘‘Us’’ and ‘‘them’’
The largely unspoken other in the above quotes is the outside world, the general public the
non-chef, all of whom look into and onto the world of the chef through the window provided
by the media. The outside world is important because it provides a boundary through and
against which identity can be constructed, maintained and understood by the members of a
particular group (Barth, 1969; Okely, 1983; Salaman, 1974). However, the term boundary as
discussed here is not meant to imply a clearly de?ned and distinct segment of a much larger
whole but rather to refer to a state of mind, to a way of thinking about and understanding the
relationship between self, culture and identity. This use of the term builds on Barth’s (2000)
re?ections on his own work whereby boundary is seen more as an analytical concept than a
discrete bounded entity.
Moreover, chefs are more than just a group of people, they are a ‘‘community’’ of common
minded individuals in the sense meant by Cohen (1985, p. 12) who de?nes a community as a
group of people with something in common with each other, which distinguishes them from
other groups, ‘‘‘community’ thus seems to imply simultaneously both similarity and
difference’’. Similarity and difference are most marked at the boundary between the chef
community and the non-chef community or outside world. The internal validating
mechanisms referred to earlier illustrate how membership of the chef community is based
on a shared understanding of the criteria for membership. As Barth (1969, p. 15) argues ‘‘the
identi?cation of another person as a fellow member . . . implies a sharing of criteria for
evaluation and judgment. It thus entails the assumption that the two are fundamentally
‘playing the same game’. . .’’.
It is clear from the interviews that the chefs not only see themselves as a community but that
this community is very different from and largely misunderstood by the rest of society ‘‘we
get bitter about people on the other side of things. . .I call them the nine-to-?vers because
that’s how I look at them’’ (chef L). Similarly:
It [the outside world] doesn’t exist. We live in our own world. The world important to a chef is totally
different than Joe Bloggs’. People have no comprehension about what we do, or what we go
through and we almost divorce ourselves from society because society doesn’t understand what
we do. Not that society alienates us; we tend to probably want to alienate society, because . . .
they’re quite dismissive of what we do and how we get there. . . (Chef D).
Chefs are very suspicious of the outside world because it’s beyond their control. It’s ?lled with
uncertainty, capriciousness, people with whomthey have little understanding; we see so little of it,
so I think fear, apprehension, uncertainty, suspicion, envy, curiosity, that’s what we think of the
outside world (Chef F).
These views are interesting because they indicate that for some chefs their sense of
communal togetherness provides them with a kind of security blanket with which to protect
themselves froma world in which they feel slightly out of step, in which they do not quite ?t in.
To be a chef is to be on the periphery, on the margins of society. Peripherality in this instance
is a state of mind supporting a state of being and according to Cohen (1982b) it is at the
edge, at the periphery that individuals become consciously aware of belonging to a culture.
Understanding where the boundary lies between ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘them’’ between ‘‘our’’ world and
‘‘their’’ world is important for establishing a sense of belonging, for consciously recognizing
similarity and difference.
Belonging and bonding
The psychological boundaries of the chef community are constructed by the nature of the
work and the routines and tasks associated with being a chef. A working environment that
spills over into the social arena due to the long and mostly unsocial working hours reinforces
belonging:
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 319
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Chefs do stick together like a breed, they’re a bit like wild animals really; they stay in their packs.
They’re not good mixers . . . They do lead quite a loud and rebellious life. . .in the kitchen but once
they’re outside you’ll ?nd they clam up and they haven’t developed the art of conversation very
well. . .it’s very hard for chefs, the social side of things . . . (Chef O).
The nature of the work de?nes the world-view, the value system of the whole community.
Belonging is thus established on the basis of a shared history, a shared culture and the
disciplinary stigmata referred to earlier, the cuts, abrasions and burns acquired along the
way are markers of belonging that identify group members both to themselves and to
each other. This shared history involves ‘‘. . .your own language, you have a shared history
in terminology, you all came up pretty much through the same system, you all endured
the same kind of gauntlet of hazing’’ (chef F). The language of belonging includes both
the technical terminology of cooking and the ways in which chefs talk to each other
before, during and after service. The friendly banter, teasing and mockery, the jokes and
insults that go on in the kitchen between the members of the brigade are described by
the interviewees as part of the routine of the chef’s working day. While largely
characteristic of a community dominated by ‘‘. . .young men in a hot kitchen, passionate
about what they do . . . ’’ (chef E) kitchen banter serves several functions. It is a means of
letting off steam, a way of initiating new recruits or motivating existing members of the
team; it is also used for discipline and control. Nevertheless, whatever the function of
language there is mutual understanding between chefs as to how the circumstances of its
use are to be interpreted and mutual compliance as to the role and value of such banter
in the training and socialization of chefs:
. . . the restaurant manager came in and said to the sous chef ‘‘oh, you French cunt’’ and the ‘‘c’’
word in most other walks of life is not really acceptable, but straightaway it’s ‘‘oi, its Mr Cunt to
you’’. . . If you’d have said that to someone in the street it’s ?ghting talk, in the kitchen it just means
nothing, nothing at all. It’s kitchen banter (Chef B).
What people fail to see is that a lot of that is fairly affectionate bollocking, that’s the way we talk.
. . .You don’t maintain the loyalty of people, needlessly, uselessly and gratuitously bullying them,
there has to be some kind of mutual complicity there. There’s a willingness to endure that kind of
talking, that kind of communication, it’s not taken as seriously or as personally (Chef F).
While the prevailing view maybe that bullying and violence is a thing of the past ‘‘there’s very
few kitchens left like that now. . .It’s not normal to be physically aggressive with people all the
time at work in a nasty way’’ (chef L) this does not mean that violence and bullying do not
exist. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that such problems continue precisely
because of the cultural characteristics of the job and the gender of the individual (Johns and
Menzel, 1999; Pyke, 2002) and as a result contribute to stress levels among chefs
(Murray-Gibbons and Gibbons, 2007).
Discipline is needed as a way of maintaining order amidst the chaos of service and as a
means by which the cultural particularities of the chef’s world are reinforced. In this respect,
humour, praise and professional pride are considered to be the most common forms of
discipline in a modern kitchen ‘‘. . .they obviously have enough respect for me. . .I just have to
turn around and sort of raise my eyebrow and that’s enough, they feel guilty enough
themselves’’ (chef A). Similarly:
Sometimes we have to call up the old substitution and say ‘‘right, off you go’’ . . . if things are going
bad we’ll kind of embarrass them, make a joke of it and say we’re going to have to bring on the old
substitution soon. Because that’s the ultimate embarrassment, being booted-off a section in the
middle of service because you can’t do it. It’s professional pride, that’s the most important thing,
that doesn’t want to happen to them (Chef B).
Order, authority and control are also evident in the hierarchical nature of the kitchen
environment and there are clear parallels here with organizations such as the army and the
police. Although there may be more ?exibility in the kitchen hierarchy now than there once
was it retains a key role in the transference and reinforcement of chef culture and identity. To
be part of the hierarchy, to accept its rules and regulations is to belong to be accepted as
part of the team of chefs:
PAGE 320
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
When I started it was very much an army sort of mentality. You had your individual sections. First
year apprentices that were really the lowest of the lows then and you spoke when you were
spoken to. . . .You had your squaddies, your privates, which were your ?rst, second, third year
apprentices/commis and then you had your corporals which were your sort of chef de parties,
your sergeants, which were sort of sous chefs really, right up to the head chef and it was
extremely structured (Chef A).
It’s very regimental, very regimental. There’s the hierarchy. You’ve got the head chef in there, he
sort of calls the shots and he’ll sort of say what’s got to be done, when it’s got to be done. There’s
no answering back, whether you agree or disagree the chef is always right and it’s ‘‘yes chef’’ and
that’s end of conversation. You might go out and punch the fridge and might think ‘‘Christ! I know
I’mright in this instance’’ but it doesn’t matter, whatever the chef says it’s ‘‘yes’’, ‘‘no’’, end of chat.
You’ve got that role call, you’ve got to be sharp, you’ve got to look smart in the morning, because
you are dealing with foods hygiene is a big thing, you come in prim and proper, shaven. You’ll get
told when you can go on a break, you’ll ask when you can go to the toilet, you do this, and you do
that. And when service starts nothing happens, you’re ?xed to the ?oor and you do service and
you get on with it until afterwards. It is very regimental (Chef N).
The structural organization of the kitchen environment is a signi?cant part of the training
process undergone by new recruits. Training is important not just for learning speci?c
cooking skills and techniques it is also important for inculcating individuals into the
community of chefs, what one chef referred to as ‘‘. . .helping themto grow into being a chef’’
(chef J). Thus, to survive, to endure the training is yet another means by which belonging and
identity is conferred as the following quotes illustrate:
You do realize that it’s your training I guess, that up until twenty-?ve [years old] you’ll do long hours
and not get huge amounts of money for it. They accept it because that’s what you have to go
through to get there, to get to be the best I guess, or one of the best, in one of the best restaurants
in the country (Chef N).
It is going to be hard but you’ve got to be committed. Look at it like a lawyer would, training for ten
years to become a barrister or whatever. Put aside ten years to learn your craft and then all of a
sudden you’ll be able to then work on to a level where you’re pushing yourself and you know
there’s going to be a goal (Chef H).
Part of this training may involve what can be termed initiation rites, jokes at the expense of
the young trainee and examples include being asked to chop ?our, to ?llet whitebait or being
sent down to the store for ‘‘a long wait’’, a Bombay duck or chicken lips. ‘‘I think you do it as
sort of tradition to say you’ve done it, I think, to say that they’ve had their training’’ (chef N).
According to Geertz (1973) such rites or rituals serve to reinforce the social ties, the bonds
between individuals. They reveal the mechanisms by which the social structure of a group is
strengthened and perpetuated, as a result of a shared understanding as to the role and
value of the ritual in the bonding process:
We’re using valuable time to train people and we need to weed out the ones who aren’t going to
make it early, otherwise we’re all wasting our time, time that we don’t have, this is a hard business.
So there is de?nitely a sort of almost unconscious group effort to probe a new employee, just to
push thema little and to see whether they’re going to freak out, start crying, go spastic, quit, fail or
crack under the pressure. It’s not gratuitous cruelty, because once you’ve endured a couple of
weeks and it’s clear you can make it, this is a very welcoming world . . . There’s an intense
camaraderie there, it’s a very welcoming dysfunctional family environment; people want to be in
it . . . . There is nothing more satisfying than have somebody do well (Chef F).
Kinship ties
The above quote is interesting because of the familial kinship ties associated with being a
chef. Once accepted, the individual joins a group with strong ties between its members
based on the shared history, language and traditions discussed earlier. This shared
experience and understanding of the means by which the title chef is earned, conferred and
reinforced creates a powerful bond between members. The importance of the team and the
underlying camaraderie that exists within the brigade is illustrated by the fact that chefs have
to rely on each other to get the job done. Although individual skill is a necessity it is teamwork
that dictates success or failure on a daily basis. Hence chefs tend to develop strong
relationships and are keenly aware of the importance of their role and place in the team. A
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 321
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
few interviewees related stories about how chefs and members of the brigade would rather
carry on working during service, even if they had an injury, so as not to let the team down.
They rarely go sick for the very same reason. Such interdependence and mutual support is
illustrated by the following comments:
These guys in here would do anything for me, anything. And I would do anything for them. We will
protect each other right to the end. It’s like going into battle almost . . . The camaraderie is second
to none. (Chef D)
It’s a mutual respect and trust in the people you work with . . . it’s a close knit community, they’re all
in the same boat, they’re all working hard to achieve something. . .they’re all working long hours
. . . they’re all doing that together (Chef N).
There is this underlying team culture and I guess you get that in a football team, in a cricket team,
in any team . . . if they do something to harm the team, the team will turn on them and bring them
back into the fold or discard them . . . I think the nice thing about a kitchen is that there is this
almost family feel, in fact I would say it’s not almost, it is family (Chef E).
The kinship ties that bind individuals together are illustrated by the strong work ethic and
team spirit described above. Recognition of such ties contributes towards a sense of group
solidarity and loyalty, which according to the chefs can transcend time and place such that a
chef can always rely on his/her former brigade in the event of a crisis. The links between
kitchen culture and the team spirit generated in a sporting environment were mentioned by
several of the chefs. Links were also made between the work of the chef and performing in
the musical or theatrical sense. All such representational metaphors reinforce the idea of the
kitchen as a stage peopled by actors engaged in putting on a show. Indeed, Goffman’s
(1959) notion of selfhood de?ned on the basis of social interaction as performance is well
illustrated by the following comments:
Curtain up, alone on the stage, and you’re there to perform for your audience, the customers . . .
Before the curtain goes up you’ve got the preparations which could be akin to learning the words,
learning the dish . . . delivering the performance . . . actors get their acclaim we get ours (Chef A).
One of the reasons that chefs are a sort of culture of their own is that what happens in the kitchen
is . . . often compared to a football match. There’s a slow build up, everybody is quite relaxed and
then for an hour or something right in the middle of service it’s incredibly high tension . . . it’s also a
bit like a ballet. Everybody in the different departments are moving like parts of a machine . . . and
there’s a real feeling of being part of a corps de ballet . . . all working together like magic . . . almost
without thinking, and then, of course you achieve it brilliantly, let’s say, and then there’s this terri?c
feeling of elation, a fantastic buzz and that’s, I think, when people are automatically bonded
(Chef M).
Conclusions
It is clear from the above that in order to become and remain a chef an individual has to learn
the cultural particularities of what being a chef actually means. This discussion has focused
on some of the mechanisms or social processes by which these cultural particularities are
conferred; mechanisms that enable the systematic transference of culture and community
between group members. Chefs are moreover, a community of common descent in that they
share a history, a tradition, a language of speaking and a language of being that bind
members together in the face of what some regard as a hostile world with little understanding
of what goes on behind the kitchen door. This is not to say that everyone agrees with the
values, attitudes and behaviour of all members of the community, as clearly they will not (see
Pyke, 2002) belonging is not about uniformity but about a generality of feeling where that
which binds the group together is of greater signi?cance than that which separates them.
Moreover, the chef voices reveal how identity is constructed through and by the act of
thinking about being a chef as Cohen (1985) argues culture can be found in the depths of
thinking, rather than in the surface appearance of doing. However, the importance of doing
should not be underestimated for in doing the job of chef the individual physically
communicates his or her identity as a chef and hence membership of the community of
chefs.
PAGE 322
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
The world of the chef is largely a closed world due to the working environment and the nature
of the job, and as such the individual has to be a particular type of person to both survive and
thrive in this world. Chef culture is the glue that binds members together it is the means by
which members recognize themselves and others as belonging to the same tribe. Indeed,
one chef refers to cooking as a magic act, and that ‘‘. . .it should remain a magic act. . .I think
our tribal practices should be our own’’ (chef F). In describing the community in such terms a
clear distinction is being made between chefs and non-chefs. Being a chef involves being
given permission to learn the secrets of the tribe, to learn the knowledge. The acquisition and
practice of these secrets, this magic denotes membership and belonging with clear
similarities to the way a magician is inducted into the Magic Circle of magicians. However,
like a magician chefs are on the outside of society because they are able to accomplish
something other people cannot do. Their skill sets them apart and their conditions of work
ensure that integration with the rest of society is dif?cult if not impossible in some cases ‘‘I
mean . . . holding down a relationship is very tough . . . ’’ (chef O).
Such a position of out-sidedness locates chefs as people on the margin, as people on the
periphery of society and as Shields (1991) notes in relation to places and spaces cultural
marginality occurs through a complex process of social activity linked to how people live
their lives. The long hours, the hard work, the close knit communal ties, the structures of
training and discipline are what keep chefs on the margin both in physical terms through the
tendency to self-socialize, and mentally as a way of thinking about the self in relation to the
other; to see the self as a species set apart as a tribe with a distinctive way of being. Social
and cultural marginality does not have to be seen as a disadvantage since it brings with it a
supportive ethos that looks out for group members, offers a helping hand when necessary,
?lls in for an ill colleague when required. The tightly structured hierarchically organized life of
the chef perpetuates the cultural experience of being a chef. As Cohen (1982b, p. 9)
illustrates, in marginal communities ‘‘people see whatever speci?c thing they are doing,
whatever activity they may be engaged in, as somehow addressing the whole complex of
their life’’. Hence being a chef is not just a job, it is a vocation, a calling; it is sacred work. A
‘‘true’’ chef in the sense understood by the individuals interviewed never stops being a chef,
just as an artist never stops being an artist or an actor stops being an actor. The work ethic
and the disciplinary stigmata, the marks of cultural difference cannot be erased. The family
maybe dysfunctional but it is the only one who understands. ‘‘Who else will love us? Who will
know us? Who will recognize us? Who will treat us as equals? Who can we talk to other than
our own kind?’’ (chef F). Such is the culture of the chef.
Implications and further research
The research ?ndings contribute to understanding in what is an under-researched area of
hospitality studies, that of the role of culture in workplace identity formation. The ?ndings and
the anthropological insights they provide are signi?cant because they highlight some of the
ways in which chef identity is constructed and maintained. Being a chef is about more than
the acquisition of technical skills and competencies it is above all about culture, about
belonging and about identity. Managers need to be able to understand and work with the
cultural dynamics inherent in job roles because they impinge on key management concerns
such as recruitment, retention and team building of all staff not just chefs. Questions such as
why do some teams work better than others? Why do some individual’s ‘‘?t’’ and not others?
How can individuals and work groups with a high degree of skill, artistry and individualism
best be managed? Is ‘‘managed’’ even the right word to use? Howdoes an understanding of
culture help to address issues such as workplace stress, absenteeismand retention of staff?
Further research should build on these ?ndings to address such questions. In addition,
widening the focus of this research to encompass different groups of chefs and speci?cally
issues of gender and ethnicity would add much to the understanding of the role of culture in
the formation of chef identity.
References
Barth, F. (1969), ‘‘Introduction’’, in Barth, F. (Ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social
Organization of Culture Difference, Allen & Unwin, London, pp. 9-38.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 323
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Barth, F. (2000), ‘ ‘Boundaries and connections’’, in Cohen, A.P. (Ed.), Signifying Identities:
Anthropological Perspectives on Boundaries and Contested Values, Routledge, London, pp. 17-36.
Bauman, Z. (2004), Identity: Conversations with Benedetto Vecchi, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Becker, H.S. (1951), ‘‘The professional dance musician and his audience’’, American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 57, pp. 136-44.
Bendle, M.F. (2002), ‘‘The crisis of ‘identity’ in high modernity’’, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 53,
pp. 1-18.
Billig, M. (1992), Talking of the Royal Family, Routledge, London.
Bourdain, A. (2001), Kitchen Con?dential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly, Bloomsbury, London.
Bowey, A.M. (1976), The Sociology of Organizations, Hodder and Stoughton, London.
Cameron, D.S. (2001), ‘‘Chefs and occupational culture in a hotel chain: a grid-group analysis’’, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3, pp. 103-14.
Cameron, D.S. (2004), ‘‘Organizational and occupational commitment: exploring chefs from a cultural
perspective’’, PhD thesis, University of Surrey, Guildford.
Cameron, D.S., Gore, J., Desombre, T. and Riley, M.J. (1999), ‘‘An examination of the reciprocal affects
of occupation culture and organization culture: the case of chefs in hotels’’, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 18, pp. 225-34.
Chivers, T.S. (1972), ‘‘Chefs and cooks’’, PhD thesis, University of London, London.
Chivers, T.S. (1973), ‘‘The proletarianisation of a service worker’’, Sociological Review, Vol. 21,
pp. 633-56.
Cohen, A.P. (Ed.) (1982a), Belonging. Identity and Social Organization in British Rural Cultures,
Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Cohen, A.P. (1982b), ‘‘Belonging: the experience of culture’’, in Cohen, A.P. (Ed.), Belonging. Identity
and Social Organization in British Rural Cultures, Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 1-17.
Cohen, A.P. (1985), The Symbolic Construction of Community, Routledge, London.
Delaney, C. (2004), Investigating Culture. An Experiential Introduction to Anthropology, Blackwell,
Oxford.
Du Gay, P. (1996), ‘‘Organizing identity. Entrepreneurial governance and public management’’,
in Hall, S. and du Gay, P. (Eds), Questions of Cultural Identity, Sage, London, pp. 151-69.
Duncan, A. (2001), ‘‘Andrew Duncan meets Gordon Ramsay’’, Radio Times, 10-16 February, pp. 8-12.
Elliott, A. (2001), Concepts of the Self, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Erikson, E.H. (1980), Identity and the Life Cycle, Norton, New York, NY.
Ferguson, P.P. (1988), ‘‘A cultural ?eld in the making: gastronomy in 19th-century France’’, American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104 No. 3, pp. 597-641.
Fine, G.A. (1987), ‘‘Working cooks: the dynamics of professional kitchens’’, Current Research on Work
and Occupations, Vol. 4, pp. 141-58.
Fine, G.A. (1996a), ‘‘Justifying work: occupational rhetorics as resources in restaurant kitchens’’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 90-115.
Fine, G.A. (1996b), Kitchens: The Culture of Restaurant Work, University of California Press, Berkeley,
CA.
Flick, U. (2006), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., Sage, London.
Gabriel, Y. (1988), Working Lives in Catering, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Giddens, A. (2001), Sociology, 4th ed., Polity Press, Cambridge.
Glasser, I. (1988), More than Bread: Ethnography of a Soup Kitchen, University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa, AL.
Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Doubleday, New York, NY.
PAGE 324
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Hall, S. (1996), ‘‘Introduction. Who needs ‘identity’?’’, in Hall, S. and du Gay, P. (Eds), Questions of
Cultural Identity, Sage, London, pp. 1-17.
Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995), Ethnography. Principles in Practice, 2nd ed., Routledge,
London.
Hennessy, C. (2000), Marco: The Making of Marco Pierre White, Sharpest Chef in History, Ebury, London.
Herzfeld, M. (2001), Anthropology. Theoretical Practice in Culture and Society, Blackwell, Oxford.
Jenkins, R. (2004), Social Identity, 2nd ed., Routledge, London.
Johns, N. and Menzel, P.J. (1999), ‘‘‘If you can’t stand the heat!’. . . Kitchen violence and culinary art’’,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 18, pp. 99-109.
Kemp, J.H. and Ellen, R.F. (1984), ‘‘Informal interviewing’’, in Ellen, R.F. (Ed.), Ethnographic Research:
A Guide to General Conduct, Research Methods in Social Anthropology 1, Academic Press, London,
pp. 229-36.
Ladenis, N. (1997), My Gastronomy, rev. ed., Macmillan, London.
Lewis, N. (2001), ‘‘The climbing body, nature and the experience of modernity’’, in Macnaghten, P. and
Urry, J. (Eds), Bodies of Nature, Sage, London, pp. 58-80.
Mars, G. and Nicod, M. (1984), The World of Waiters, Allen & Unwin, London.
Mead, G.H. (1934), Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Moore, H.L. and Sanders, T. (2006), ‘‘Anthropology and epistemology’’, in Moore, H.L. and Sanders, T.
(Eds), Anthropology in Theory. Issues in Epistemology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1-21.
Mullan, B. (1998), Off the Menu. Conversational Chefs, Aidai, London.
Murray-Gibbons, R. and Gibbons, C. (2007), ‘‘Occupational stress in the chef profession’’, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 19, pp. 32-42.
Okely, J. (1983), The Traveller-gypsies, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Orwell, G. (2003[1933]), Down and out in Paris and London, centenary ed., Penguin, London.
Palmer, C. (1998), ‘‘Fromtheory to practice: experiencing the nation in everyday life’’, Journal of Material
Culture, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 175-99.
Paoline, E.A. (2003), ‘‘Taking stock: toward a richer understanding of police culture’’, Journal of Criminal
Justice, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 199-214.
Parkinson, A. and Green, J. (2001), Cutting it Fine; Inside the Restaurant Business, Jonathan Cape,
London.
Pratten, J.D. (2003a), ‘‘The training and retention of chefs’’, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 237-42.
Pratten, J.D. (2003b), ‘‘What makes a great chef?’’, British Food Journal, Vol. 105 No. 7, pp. 454-9.
Pyke, N. (2002), ‘‘Cook gives celebrity chefs a roasting: if you can’t stand the heat. . .’’, The Guardian,
11 October, p. 5.
Ramsay, G. (2006), Humble Pie, HarperCollins, London.
Robins, K. (1996), ‘‘Interrupting Identities. Turkey/Europe’’, in Hall, S. and du Gay, P. (Eds), Questions of
Cultural Identity, Sage, London, pp. 61-86.
Ruhlman, M. (1997), The Making of a Chef: Mastering Heat at the Culinary Institute of America, Henry
Holt & Company, New York, NY.
Ruhlman, M. (2001), The Soul of a Chef: The Journey toward Perfection, Penguin, London.
Salaman, G. (1974), Community and Occupation: An Exploration of Work-leisure Relationships,
Cambridge University Press, London.
Salzinger, L. (2002), ‘‘Manufacturing sexual subjects: ‘harassment’, desire and discipline on a
maquiladora shop?oor’’, in Taylor, S. (Ed.), Ethnographic Research: A Reader, Sage, London,
pp. 115-37.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 325
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Saunders, K.C. (1981a), Social Stigma of Occupations: The Lower Grade Worker in Service
Organizations, Gower, Farnborough.
Saunders, K.C. (1981b), ‘‘The in?uence of the menu structure on social relations in the kitchen’’,
Hospitality, June, pp. 14-18.
Shields, R. (1991), Places on the Margin. Alternative Geographies of Modernity, Routledge, London.
Spradley, J.P. and Mann, B.J. (1975), The Cocktail Waitress: Woman’s Work in a Man’s World, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Stranger, M. (1999), ‘‘The aesthetics of risk. A study of sur?ng’’, International Reviewfor the Sociology of
Sport, Vol. 34, pp. 265-76.
Surlemont, B. and Johnson, C. (2005), ‘‘The role of guides in artistic industries: the special case of the
‘‘star system’’ in the haute-cuisine sector’’, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 577-90.
Ulin, R.C. (2002), ‘‘Work as cultural production: labour and self-identity among Southwest French
wine-growers’’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.), Vol. 8, pp. 691-712.
Van Maanen, J. (1974), ‘‘Working the street: a developmental view of police behaviour’’, in Jacob, H.
(Ed.), The Potential for Reform of Criminal Justice, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 83-130.
Wallman, S. (Ed.) (1979), Ethnicity at Work, Macmillan, London.
Wengraf, T. (2001), Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage, London.
White, M.P. (2006), White Slave, Orion, London.
Whyte, W.F. (1948), Human Relations in the Restaurant Industry, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Whyte, W.F. (1949), ‘‘The social structure of the restaurant’’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 54,
pp. 302-10.
Wildes, V.J. (2005), ‘‘Stigma in food service work: howit affects restaurant servers’ intention to stay in the
business or recommend a job to another’’, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 213-33.
Wolcott, H.F. (1999), Ethnography: A Way of Seeing, Altamira Press, London.
Wood, R.C. (1997), Working in Hotels and Catering, 2nd ed., International Thomson Business Press,
London.
Wright, S. (2006), Tough Cookies: Tales of Obsession, Toil and Tenacity from Britain’s Culinary
Heavyweights, Pro?le Books, London.
Corresponding author
Catherine Palmer can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 326
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Thomas Thurnell-Read. 2014. Craft, tangibility and affect at work in the microbrewery. Emotion, Space and Society 13, 46-54.
[CrossRef]
2. Richard N.S. Robinson, David J. Solnet, Noreen Breakey. 2014. A phenomenological approach to hospitality management
research: Chefs’ occupational commitment. International Journal of Hospitality Management 43, 65-75. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
1
1

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)

doc_222362369.pdf