When Steve Farrelly casually mentioned this in week five’s lecture,
I laughed.
[2]
Not because it’s a funny thought to entertain.
But because even though my family don’t think about Salmon.
We know what it represents.
Salmon represents food inequality.
It’s too expensive to casually buy. By associating food quality to types of people, this all the more emphasises the food inequalities within society, further maintained by families with food insecurities who’ve internalised it as a personal, instead of a systemic issue. Not only does this inequality need to be challenged but so should this mindset.
Salmon represents cultural differences.
Food customs are essential in defining and maintaining one’s culture. Cultural food customs can be seen by the Pacific Island and Maori consumption of Ota [Tongan translation for raw fish] and Titi fish. Michael Stevens (2006) comments on how the significance of Titi to Kai Tahu, is maintained rather to continue cultural customs as opposed for its taste [1]. Salmon isn’t a traditional dish for these cultures, but rather a symbol of wealth in a capitalist system, hence, popular dishes are a reflection of its societal context.
Salmon represents connections.
Ota is typically made for large gatherings because of the accessibility to raw fish and coconut cream in the islands. By shaping our cultural identities, food creates opportunities for human connection and security. South Auckland is my home, because of the communal spaces, food customs, and general understandings that only we share.
So, what is Salmon to my family in South Auckland?
Simply put, it’s a fancy dinner, an odd coloured fish and an excuse to say hello.
References:
[1] Stevens, Michael J. 2006. Kāi Tahu me te Hopu Tītī ki Rakiura: An Exception to the ‘Colonial Rule’? The Journal of Pacific History 41(3):273-291.
[2] Mark Noll. (2010). Aluminum large salmon-Pacific Northwest Coast design [Online image]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/natureartstudios/5126681483/in/photostream/
This is a really interesting take on the content of Mr Farrelly’s presentation – and I wholeheartedly agree.
Salmon appears to many as high food, only those that can afford it can consume it. However, it is difficult to understand why one might want salmon over other types of fish, or meals for that matter.
Other than one’s own taste for foods it appears to many that salmon is superior to many other meals due to the value it is imbued with via a high price, good marketing and semi-exclusive consumer base. Similar to opera or oysters, it doesn’t seem there is inherent value in such experiences or food (relative to other offerings) – but we still associate both with a higher culture experience.
Maybe where people see an expensive dish or classy meal, others might see simply food.