Food for Thought

The case for fusion food

By Kylie Heider

When we think of the experience of human culture, one of the first things we think of is food. Food, and the stories and memories associated with it, is central to the story of human life. It is an art form of versatility and spirit, able to capture a moment in time, a spark of joy or little epiphany.

In America, a nation bred from oppression and fueled by immigration, food is everything. For many immigrants, it is a lifeline of cultural preservation in a place where they are expected to assimilate. “Fusion” food is a result of this mix of a culinary environment. Dishes like burritos, kung pao chicken (and basically anything you can get from your typical Chinese-takeout place) and banh mi’s are among the fusion staples of American cuisine. But in many food circles, this fusion food is seen as a secondary to “authentic” cuisine. 

While there is inherent value in the continuation of traditional methods and dishes within a culture, it is also important to acknowledge that dishes that result from a hodgepodge of migration, oppression, and hardship are just as valuable to the history of a culture as the dishes “traditional” counterparts. Some may argue that fusion food is assimilation—that these are versions of foods that have been diluted to suit the taste of the white American patron.  And yes—fusion food does have the power to be culturally insensitive. When chefs—primarily white chefs—take credit for a dish or profit off kitschy recreations of culturally significant dishes, then, yes, fusion food can be problematic. 

However, for many more, fusion food is a delicious way of life. While this claim that fusion food is merely assimilation does hold some validity, it does not credit generations of immigrant chefs and cooks who have revolutionized the way we eat food in America.