FROM COMMENSALITY TO COMMONALITY: HOW FOOD CAN UNITE US ALL The Influence of Culinary Citizen Diplomacy on the Process of Peacebuilding from Below Assessed through the Analysis of Three Case-Studies

(1)

Lenneke Kraak

From Commensality to Commonality

FROM COMMENSALITY TO COMMONALITY: HOW FOOD CAN UNITE US ALL

The Influence of Culinary Citizen Diplomacy on the Process of Peacebuilding from Below Assessed through the Analysis of Three Case-Studies

MA Thesis in European Studies

Graduate School for Humanities Universiteit van Amsterdam

Student: Lenneke Kraak

Student number: 10632182

Main Supervisor: Alex Drace-Francis

Second Supervisor: Yolanda Rodríguez Pérez

July 2018

(2)

Lenneke Kraak

Acknowledgements

Of course, this thesis could not have been completed without the unconditional help and guidance of a number of people. First of all, I would like to thank Alex Drace-Francis for taking the supervision of my thesis at the last minute and for providing me with useful feedback throughout the process. Secondly, I am grateful to my family, for being extremely patient and tolerating. Special thanks go out to my aunt, Mariette, for being an amazing advisor and counselor from the very beginning.

Lastly, my sincere gratitude goes out to the people who made this research possible: Niki Psarias, for being so open to all of my questions and for giving extensive explanation about her work. Kamal Mouzawak, for being so kind to share his intelligent insights on the topic with me. And Akudo McGee for being so extremely big-hearted and friendly to reach out to all her friends in Pittsburgh thus providing me with enough feedback.

(3)

Lenneke Kraak

Abstract

In a world where more and more cultures cross paths, and possibly result in the emergence of conflicts, many approaches and theories have been passed and implemented that sought to mediate in these conflicts somehow. The field of conflict resolution and peacebuilding is therefore very extensive. More recently however, scholars have found that in order to achieve sustainable peace, implementing peace on the ground, or at grassroots level, is likely to be more successful then forcing regulations upon a community by means of an official, higher level. This study applies this idea of ‘peacebuilding from below’ to the field of culinary diplomacy, which can be classed under the heading of both public and cultural diplomacy. It argues that the concepts of food, cuisine and the act of commensality, fit perfectly within this framework, as they provide a comfortable atmosphere which allows people to be open for discussion, cultural exchange and even friendship. In this way culinary diplomacy on citizen level could provide a suitable setting for moving towards peacebuilding between conflicting communities on grassroots level. This thesis investigates this assumption on the basis of three case-studies, which are compared on the basis of the Most Similar and Most Different Systems Design approach, from the field of comparative politics. In response to this comparison, it will be possible to detect aspects within the analysed cases that are essential for creating a successful culinary citizen project.

Keywords: Culinary diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, Contact Theory, peacebuilding, commensality, conflict solving.

(4)

Lenneke Kraak

1. Introduction

Borders. Natural borders, political borders, geometric borders, relict borders or perceived borders. Not always can a border be regarded to as a clearly defined boundary, but more often as an area between two whether or not conflicting communities. Besides a geographic boundary between political entities or legal jurisdictions, a border can also exist between two groups of people living within the same space. Such ‘perceived’ borders have become inextricably linked to relationships within our society and play an essential role in many violent and non-violent conflicts that take place nowadays.

The number of such conflicts is expanding all over the world, partly due to increased migration through improved infrastructure and mobility and deterioration of the living conditions in existing conflict areas, forcing people to flee their country. In this way, cities, where these people seek their refuge, become busier causing different cultures to get into contact, which makes the differences between these cultures to become more visible, in some cases leading to misunderstandings, malevolent prejudices and even violence.

Governments, scholars, non-governmental organisations and other institutions have been searching for ways to move towards constructive intervention and peacebuilding between these conflicting communities by implementing peace agreements. However, in the past two decades more scholar-practitioners have come to understand the importance of the empowerment of communities that face conflict, which is needed to build peace from below.1

This revision of thought by scholars from the field of conflict resolution and peacebuilding has led firstly to the recognition that when conflict is entrenched in a culture or economy, it is much less likely to be open to one-dimensional intervention from outside or ‘above’, than initially was expected. Secondly, it has induced the understanding that the notions of formal agreements and implementation need to be substantiated by structures for and awareness about sustainable peace processes on the ground and by local non-governmental actors and local knowledge.2

Thus, there seems to be need for a medium that implements structures that lead to the reduction of prejudices and misunderstanding within conflicting cultures, whether violent or non-violent, from below and which is represented within communities and by local actors.

Several studies already have proven the effectiveness of public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy, being ways to appeal to the people instead of to governments. Public diplomacy

1_{O. Ramsbotham, T. Woodhouse and H. Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution, 2}nd_{ed., Cambridge: Polity}

Press (2005): 215.

(7)

Lenneke Kraak

can be regarded to as the overarching concept and intended to indirectly influence governments by focussing on the people, and cultural diplomacy as a means to achieve this through the exchange of cultural aspects, such as values ideas or traditions, in order to strengthen relationships and cooperation within the community. 34

This study examines one of the ways in which these forms of diplomacy can be carried out and functions as a medium in the way in it is discussed above, namely by means of food, food culture and cuisine. It is argued that by bringing people together to cook or share a meal, cross-cultural understanding and cooperation between communities can be promoted. Food is always present and a very tangible concept, but less understood as a means of bringing citizens around the table to work towards a form of peacebuilding, that could not be accomplished by constructive implementations by the elite. This approach is what multiple scholars have ben referring to as culinary diplomacy, a recent developed term for the use of food as a tool of public diplomacy. This study will expand on the already laid foundation of culinary citizen diplomacy within the field of public diplomacy.

The concept of using food and cuisine to achieve certain diplomatic goals is an ancient one, as old as diplomacy itself. However, culinary diplomacy, in any form, is a relatively new and untested field of research. Though, since the early 2000’s its popularity and scope are increasing and spreading all over the world and as this research will prove, food, cuisine and the act of commensality are important parts of a community’s identity and thus intrinsically essential in creating cross-cultural understanding between conflicting communities. They pave the way for creating mutual understanding and respect for the other’s values and culture, by introducing each other to their own kitchen and food habits. In this way it is made possible to move towards the process of ‘building peace from below’, as delineated by Ramsbotham et all, which assumes that conflict resolution works through the cooperation within conflicting communities themselves.

This study argues that the use of food and cuisine fits perfectly within the framework of this approach, through the application of the Contact Theory of Gorden W. Allport, which is based on the notion that when effective communication between groups is sparked, prejudices and hostility towards the other are likely to be reduced.5_{The concept of food, whether by}

thinking about it, cooking together or eating together, can be considered a way to remove the barriers to communication, as it is a vital part of life and an ancient way to connect people.

3_{What is Cultural Diplomacy?}_{http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_culturaldiplomacy}_{, last}

accessed at 12 May 2018.

4_{G.R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, New York: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf (1995): 182.} 5_{Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 1954).}

(8)

Lenneke Kraak

Sitting at the table together, talking with the chefs, learning about food and food culture is a way to learn about the humanize a conflict, and can be regarded to as the ‘third pillar of culinary diplomacy’ or culinary citizen diplomacy, according to public diplomacy scholar Samuel Chapple-Sokol.6_{This study will therefore try to answer the question to what extent}

culinary citizen diplomacy can be a useful tool in the process of peacebuilding from below within non-violent conflicting communities, by creating cross-cultural understanding and reduced prejudices, with the aim of improving interactions and contact, based on Allport’s theory, and cooperation through the act of commensality.

Due to the growth in popularity of the concept since the early 2000’s, a number of projects has been initiated that apply a form of culinary citizen diplomacy. This research will analyse three of these projects and measure their relative success in order to further demarcate the field of culinary citizen diplomacy and answer the research question posed above. In order to narrow down the scope, the underlying theoretical foundations of this research will be reviewed in chapter 2 and 3. Subsequently, the case-studies will be discussed in chapter 5.

The three case-studies will be assessed using the comparative method through the framework of a combination of the Most Similar and Most Different System Design approach, which will be outlined in chapter 4. This approach utilizes five aspects of culinary citizen diplomacy and indicates their presence or absence in the cases, which will provide this study with a structured overview of the characteristics that are contributing to the success of the case-studies and eventually the concept of culinary citizen diplomacy. Chapter 6 will then analyse the results of the application of this method and chapter 7 will provide a synthesis of these results.

By investigating the best way to apply culinary citizen diplomacy, this research forms a basis for later studies that seek to utilize the theory of culinary citizen diplomacy in conflicted areas by using food as a tool for reconciliation.

6_{S. Chapple-Sokol, ‘A New Structure for Culinary Diplomacy’,}

http://culinarydiplomacy.com/blog/2016/08/28/a-new-structure-for-culinary-diplomacy/, last accessed May 20, 2018.

(9)

Lenneke Kraak

2. Theoretical Framework

The concept of culinary diplomacy is as old as society is. Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even proclaimed that ‘food is the oldest form of diplomacy’.7_{However, the theory}

that underlies this concept is relatively young as it only has been studied as a phenomenon since the early 2000’s. In this chapter, multiple aspects within the field of diplomacy will be assessed, as they form the basis of the theory behind this study, and will be placed in the broader context of diplomacy, in order to fully comprehend these aspects.

2.1 Tracks of Diplomacy

The Cambridge Dictionary defines the term diplomacy as ‘the management of relationships between countries’.8_{However, more recently, scholars have delineated multiple levels of}

diplomacy, that don’t solely include state to state interaction and can be applied separately or combined in what is called ‘multitrack diplomacy’.9 Several institutes apply a process of

international peace-making that looks at a synthesis of efforts by different actors, such as governments, institutions, communities and individuals, to achieve a common goal. Examples of these institutes are the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy (IMTD).

The first utilizes a framework consisting of three tracks, whilst the latter mentions even eight tracks of diplomacy. Both the USIP and the IMTD distinguish the to this research essential citizen-to-citizen diplomacy as one of the tracks of diplomacy. The first defines this third category as ‘People-to-people diplomacy undertaken by individuals and private groups to encourage interaction and understanding between hostile communities and involving awareness raising and empowerment within these communities’.10_{The second one describes}

its fourth ‘private-citizen-track’ as ‘peacemaking through personal involvement’, implying activities such as exchange programs, private voluntary organizations and interest-groups, carried out by individuals and aimed at creating space for development and peace.11

This chapter will clarify and reason from the approach as specified by the USIP and its third track of diplomacy, that is focussed on citizen-to-citizen diplomacy as a tool for building peace from below.

7_{Braden Ruddy, ‘Hearts, Minds, and Stomachs: Gastrodiplomacy and the Potential of National Cuisine in}

Changing Public Perception of National Image’, Public Diplomacy Magazine, 2 March 2014: 4.

8_{Cambridge Dictionary definition,}_{https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/diplomacy}_. 9_{Tracks or Diplomacy,}_{https://www.usip.org/glossary/tracks-diplomacy}_{, last accessed May 16, 2018.} 10_Ibid.

11_{What is Multi-Track Diplomacy?}_{http://imtd.org/about/what-is-multi-track-diplomacy/}_{, last accessed at May}

(10)

Lenneke Kraak

According to the USIP, the first track of diplomacy covers official discussions involving high-level political and military leaders and focusses on cease-fires, peace talks, treaties and other agreements.12_{This term is most frequently used when discussing international relations.}

Track 2 encompasses the unofficial dialogue and problem-solving activities, aimed at informing the official processes.13_{Academics, religious leaders, NGO’s and other influential}

civil society actors are the central players in this track. Often these actors are able to reach a larger public and interact more freely than their official counterparts, due to reduced accountability. A combination of the first two tracks, where official and unofficial actors cooperate in resolving conflicts or peacebuilding processes, is sometimes called track 1.5.

The third and last track, following the USIP, is focussed at grassroots levels and involves, among other things, organizing meetings and conferences and generating media exposure in order to encourage interaction and understanding between hostile communities and raise awareness about their issues within and outside these communities.14

Hence, track 3 is in line with the underlying theory of this study, that is focused on laying the groundwork for solving conflicts by creating mutual understanding and contact between conflicting communities ‘from below’ by means of food and the act of commensality. On the other hand, track 1 and 2, as specified by the USIP framework for multi-track diplomacy, are aimed at the wider sense of conflict solving, by implementing policy or actions ‘from above’.

2.2 Definitions and Concepts

The approach applied in this research is based on concepts and theories from the field of diplomacy as well as conflict resolution. Below the first will be assessed, focusing specifically on public diplomacy, which in turn encompasses cultural and culinary diplomacy. Setting out these concepts and theories that underlie the field of culinary diplomacy is necessary in order to understand the approach as a whole and to give a clear definition of the concept of culinary diplomacy, as applied throughout this research.

The comprising form of diplomacy that this study applies, is called public diplomacy. Public diplomacy is a process through which governments or national leaders seek to influence foreign governments by appealing to the people, in this way indirectly affecting their government. An important, more confining component of this process is cultural

12_{Tracks of Diplomacy,}_{https://www.usip.org/glossary/tracks-diplomacy}_{, last accessed May 16, 2018.} 13_Ibid.

(11)

Lenneke Kraak

diplomacy. It applies a nation’s cultural capital to appeal to a foreign nation’s populace.15_Both

public and cultural diplomacy fit into the context of soft power, a concept, defined by Joseph Nye, that reasons from a nation’s ability to attract and co-opt, rather than obtain what they want by using means of force. These concepts will be elucidated in paragraph 2.3.

Under the heading of public and cultural diplomacy then falls the concept of culinary

diplomacy, as it relies on a cultural source: food and cuisine and the act of commensality.16

Within culinary diplomacy we distinguish in turn the concepts of private and public culinary diplomacy, explained through a multi-track framework, which will be explained in paragraph 2.4.

2.3 Cultural Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy and Soft Power

The concept of culinary diplomacy, as delineated by public diplomacy scholar Samuel Chapple-Sokol, is partly based on a set of concepts and theories from the field of cultural and public diplomacy and embedded in the framework of soft power. In order to obtain an accurate picture of the field of culinary diplomacy, an outline of these concepts and theories will be given below.

2.3.1 Cultural Diplomacy

Food and cuisine are both important aspects of a nation’s cultural heritage, as will be illustrated in chapter 3.2. As cultural diplomacy historically has meant a country’s policy to facilitate the export of examples of culture, the concept of culinary diplomacy therefore is intrinsic to the field of cultural diplomacy.17_{Cultural diplomacy can be best described as a}

course of actions, which is based on and utilize the exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of culture or identity in order to strengthen relationships, enhance socio-cultural cooperation and promote national interest.18

This interpretation is substantiated by political scientist M.C. Cummings, who defined the concept of cultural diplomacy as the ‘exchange of ideas, information, art and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples in order to foster mutual understanding’.19_{As can}

be deducted from this, food and cuisine can both be seen as examples of these aspects of

15_{Samuel Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy: Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds’, The Hague Journal} of Diplomacy, nr.8 (2013): 168.

17_{Nicholas J. Cull, ‘Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories’, The Annals of the American Academy, no. 1}

(2008): 33.

18_{What is Cultural Diplomacy?}_{http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_culturaldiplomacy}_{, last}

accessed at 12 May 2018.

19_{Milton C. Cummings, ‘Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey’, Cultural} Diplomacy Research Series, Washington, D.C: Americans for the Arts (2003):1.

(12)

Lenneke Kraak

culture and identity and therefore are part of cultural diplomacy. Cultural and media historian Nicholas Cull argues in one of his works on the concept that cultural diplomacy is the effort of actors, largely national governments, to influence international relations by using national cultural aspects to create publicity and knowledge about their own nation.20

However, cultural diplomacy can also be applied at grassroots level, as is investigated by Sarah Imani, a researcher who is attached to the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. She argues that high profile cultural diplomacy, as explained above, and grassroots methods, can effectively supplement each other for a better understanding of the so called ‘other’ and in this way move towards building peace and eventually solving conflict.21

Imani’s finding, is what this this research is also trying to examine, applying a more specific approach within cultural diplomacy, namely culinary diplomacy, using three grassroots projects aimed at creating mutual understanding between conflicting communities. This is also substantiated by chef Mark Tafoya who argues in his article on food and diplomacy that ‘When we try a new dish that comes from another land, we have a visceral experience of foreignness brought into our bodies, which begins the process of familiarization which can lead to great understanding of our shared tastes and values.’22

The concept ‘familiarization’ is what seems to be the inextricably linked to the theory behind cultural, and with it also culinary, diplomacy. Transmitting national culture creates understanding, respect and appreciation for the ‘other’ culture, whether that being political values or cuisine, on official or grassroots level.

2.3.2 Public Diplomacy

Cultural diplomacy in turn is part of the field of public diplomacy. The term public diplomacy is relatively new. It was first applied in 1965 to ‘the process by which international actors seek to accomplish the goals of their foreign policy by engaging with foreign publics’.23_The

components of the process however, are as old as diplomacy itself.

Public diplomacy is intended to ‘indirectly exert influence on foreign government by appealing to the people over the heads of those governments’, as stated by diplomacy theorist G. R. Berridge.24_{It focusses mainly on government-to-citizen efforts to accomplish certain}

20_{Cull, ‘Public Diplomacy’: 33.}

21_{Sarah Imani, ‘Cultural Diplomacy from Below: Bridging the Gap Between the Turkish and German}

Communities in Rendsburg’, http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-studies/Cultural_Diplomacy_From_Below_.pdf: 6.

22_{Mark Tafoya, ‘Diplomacy of the Dish: Cultural Understanding through Taste’, in: Fritz Allhoff and Dave}

Monroe (eds), Food and Philosophy, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell (2007): 264.

23_{Cull, ‘Public Diplomacy’: 31.}

(13)

Lenneke Kraak

goals, but when focussed on the cultural diplomacy component, it can be split up into official and unofficial or informal levels. The first is relying on a nation’s soft power, a theory that will be briefly explained in the next paragraph. The latter aims at the level on which culinary diplomacy takes place. The emphasis is here on citizen-to-citizen diplomacy and takes place behind closed doors. The act of commensality is an important part and applicable example of private public diplomacy. The concept of private culinary diplomacy forms the basis of the theory behind this research, as this is the branch of public diplomacy where concepts of food and cuisine can be best applied.

2.3.3 Soft Power

This research concentrates on culinary citizen diplomacy, which is based on the unofficial level of public and cultural diplomacy and will therefore not actively apply Nye’s theory of soft power. However, in order to obtain a complete overview of the theory behind culinary citizen diplomacy, it is vital to briefly assess this concept.

In order to go beyond traditional diplomacy, the official level of both public and cultural diplomacy is embedded in and reasons from a ‘soft power’ framework, to reach the general public. This framework is defined by Joseph Nye as: ‘The ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.’25_{The theory assumes that governments}

can rely on the appeal of friendlier aspects of a country such as political ideals and cultural topics like music, art and food, instead of military excursions, economic motives and political decisions.26_{For this reason, food and cuisine are perfect examples of this soft power within a}

nation. Soft power rejects the approach that seeks to forcibly, with military or economic tools, influence or even change the interest of a foreign actor. Instead, it aims to affect a nation’s interests in and attitude towards certain policies or cultural aspects through attraction and appeal, with food being its oldest form, being a tool to persuade and flatter.27

2.4 Delineating the Field of Culinary Diplomacy

Although they both have a different view on the concept, public diplomacy scholars Paul Rockower and Sam Chapple-Sokol have introduced and popularized the concept of culinary diplomacy from 2010 on. Rockower utilized the term ‘Gastrodiplomacy’ to indicate the

25_{Joseph S. Nye, ‘Soft Power and American Foreign Policy, Political Science Quarterly, no. 2 (2004): 256.} 26_{Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy: 168.}

27_{Marian Burros, ‘Diplomacy Travels on Its Stomach, Too’, The New York Times, 2 July 2012,}

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/dining/secretary-of-state-transforms-the-diplomatic-

menu.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fmarian-burros&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&con tentPlacement=7&pgtype=collection, last accessed at 14 May 2018.

(14)

Lenneke Kraak

process, while Chapple-Sokol exerts the term ‘Culinary Diplomacy’ to mark the same. In 2011, Rockower published an article in the Taiwanese Journal Issues & Studies in which he stated that about Gastrodiplomacy that ‘it is predicated on the notion that the easiest way to win hearts and minds is through the stomach.’28

In his article ‘Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds’, published in The Hague Journal

of Diplomacy, Chapple-Sokol builds on Rockower’s theory and designates the process

‘Culinary Diplomacy’ and defines it as ‘the use of food and cuisine as an instrument to create cross-cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation.’29

Both of the definitions compass the concept of culinary diplomacy in a way that touches upon the studied subject, however the first will be utilized here as the more extensive elaboration of the concept of culinary diplomacy provided by Chapple Sokol, is vital for this research. The concept of culinary diplomacy as defined by Chapple-Sokol settles very well into the frameworks of as well cultural and public diplomacy and Nye’s soft power theory. This is because this framework applies cultural aspects of society, such as food and cuisine, which appeals to both the governmental layers, as it is tangible from below, in the popular regions.

Rockower directs his study at gastrodiplomacy being the use of a country’s culinary delights as a means to conduct public diplomacy and to raise nation brand awareness, whereas Chapple-Sokol applies the term public diplomacy as being useful as an instrument of conflict resolution, relying on the Contact Hypothesis theory, from Gordon W. Allport.30

As this research seeks to demonstrate the role of culinary diplomacy in projects aimed at building peace from below, Chapple-Sokol’s interpretation of the concept is therefore best applicable, and will therefore be at the core of this study. Chapple-Sokol classifies the theory of culinary diplomacy into three pillars, in this way providing a structured overview which makes the dense matter more comprehensive. The focus in this study thus will be on the specific citizen-to-citizen form of private culinary diplomacy, which Chapple-Sokol simplifies into the third pillar ‘Citizen Culinary Diplomacy, as this model can be best employed when investigating ways to build peace and move towards conflict resolution between communities through sharing ideas about food and cuisine.

28_{Paul S. Rockower, ‘Projecting Taiwan: Taiwan's Public Diplomacy Outreach’, Issues & Studies, no. 1 (2011):}

108.

29_{Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy’: 161.}

30_{Samuel Chapple-Sokol, ‘War and Peas: Culinary Conflict Resolution as Citizen Diplomacy’, Public} Diplomacy Magazine, 2 March 2014: 1.

(15)

Lenneke Kraak

As multiple scholars have defined and investigated the field of culinary diplomacy, chapter 3 will briefly delineate the three most popular approaches, emphasizing culinary citizen diplomacy, in order to outline the theory. Chapter 3 will also elucidate that private culinary diplomacy is focussed on achieving diplomatic goals through commensality and takes place in an intimate or personal setting.31_{Since the act of commensality is one of the core concepts}

in this research, the next paragraph will review this more extensively.

2.5 Commensality

Commensality can be defined as the act or practice of eating at the same table or “fellowship at table”.32_{The word derives from the Medieval Latin word commensalis, made up of com-}

together and mensa- table. The act of commensality is, according to Chapple-Sokol, vital to diplomatic discussion. Regarding the distinction between public and private culinary diplomacy, he argues that while public dialogue and large conferences can lead to making decisions, the best negotiation often happens in a private setting, over a meal or drink.33

Food is an important indicator in this practice, as it can be applied as a tool to persuade or convince the guest at the dinner table and promote positive impressions of person hosting the dinner. According to food columnist for the New York Times, Marian Burros, advertising cuisines, ceremonies and values is an often-overlooked tool of diplomacy, as it can cultivate a stronger cultural understanding between two groups than a simple business meeting would, and it creates a setting in which formal diplomacy can be enhanced.34

Many of the studies regarding commensality, focus on state dinners or banquets organised by and for religious or political leaders and purposes. However, little attention is paid to the act of commensality in everyday life, while especially this can influence the formation of and thinking about personal and national identities, partly due to the fact that eating and drinking at the same table is a fundamental social activity, which creates and cements relationships.35_{Artist Micheal Rakowitz, created the project ‘Enemy Kitchen’ in 2007}

with the goal to open up dialogue in the US around the war in Iraq by inviting students and adults to cook recipes from his Jewish-Iraqi mother and subsequently eat them together. He refers to the act of commensality as the practice of cooking and eating together and values it

31_{Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy’: 162.} 32_{https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Commensality}_. 33_{Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy: 162.}

34_{Marian Burros, ‘Diplomacy Travels on Its Stomach, Too’, The New York Times, 2 July 2012,}

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/dining/secretary-of-state-transforms-the-diplomatic-menu, last accessed at 14 May 2018.

35_{S. Kerner, C. Chou and M. Warmind, Commensality: From Everyday Food to Feast, New York: Bloomsbury}

(16)

Lenneke Kraak

as ‘a public act that enlists an audience as vital collaborator in the production of meaning’.36

Although commensality has both a public as the private aspect, this research focusses mainly on the latter, as the case-studies that form the basis of this paper, take place in an informal, citizen-to-citizen atmosphere.

The next paragraph will focus on three for this research vital aspects from the field of conflict resolution, namely the Contact Hypothesis, ‘peacebuilding from below’ and nation-branding.

2.6 Conflict Resolution

Besides the ideas behind public, cultural and culinary diplomacy, some theories from the field of conflict resolution are key in this research. Therefore, in addition to the study of diplomacy as a whole, aspects from this field will be addressed below, in order to improve understanding of the context of the issue examined. Specifically, attention will be paid to the Contact Hypothesis, a psychological facet from this field, and the concept of ‘peacebuilding from below’, which focusses on the grassroots levels of conflict solving: “ordinary” people and agents such as grassroots organisations (GRO’s), community-based organisations (CBO’s) and activists. As this study seeks to investigate the influence of food and commensality on the process of ‘peacebuilding from below’ relying on the Contact Theory, this chapter will discuss these concepts separately in order be able to make informed assumptions throughout the process.

2.6.1 Contact hypothesis/Intergroup Contact Theory

As explained in the previous paragraph, commensality plays an important role in creating mutual understanding between two conflicting parties and in this way sets the table for moving towards building peace between them. Chapple-Sokol argues in his article ‘War and Peas: Culinary Conflict Resolution as Citizen Diplomacy’, that the soft power goal of culinary diplomacy is for commensality to create commonality.37_{However, in order to get to the core}

of the issue, American psychologist Gordon W. Allport argues, it is essential to think beyond the value of sitting around the table and to ‘reach below the surface’ to assure that the contact actually is effective.38_{The theory that underlies this thought is a more psychological aspect in}

the field of conflict resolution: the intergroup contact hypothesis or contact theory. In 1954 Allport

36_{Winn, Steven. “Michael Rakowitz's Enemy Kitchen Breaks Down Cultural Barriers.” SFGate: San Francisco}

Chronicle 27 December 2007. Web. 7 June 2010.

37_{Samuel Chapple-Sokol, ‘War and Peas: Culinary Conflict Resolution as Citizen Diplomacy’, Public} Diplomacy Magazine, March 2014, http://www.publicdiplomacymagazine.com/warandpeas/.

(17)

Lenneke Kraak

laid the foundations for this theory, through which he explains how relationships evolve and change as a result of intergroup contact.39_{In order to attain positive effects of intergroup}

contact, Allport asserted that it was essential for a contact situation to meet some criteria, of which the following are the key conditions: equal status, intergroup cooperation, common goals and the support of authorities, law or custom.

Source: Everett, ‘Intergroup Contact Theory: Past, Present, and Future’40

Figure 1 Conditions for successful intergroup contact.

This theory implies that contact between people, parties or communities is ‘a crucial aspect in the process of reducing prejudice and promoting a more tolerant and integrated society’.41

When intergroup or interpersonal contact answers at least to some extent to these requirements, many scholars argue it is one of the most effective ways to reduce prejudice between groups members. As contact between conflicting groups or persons has been shown to be essential to reduce prejudice, promote equal status and create mutual understanding of cultures and values between groups, Allport’s ideas about intergroup contact are key to theory underlying this research. An analysis of several studies regarding this concept, has proved that not only specific contact that meets the abovementioned requirements, but contact in general can contribute to reducing prejudices within communities.42

A very well applicable medium to enhance this theory is food, as this brings people, whether on public or private level (eg. individual civilians and officials), in contact while being in an intimate and comfortable setting. Not only the pleasant setting of sharing food is

39_Ibid.

40_{Jim A. C. Everett, ‘Intergroup Contact Theory: Past, Present, and Future’, in: Diana Onu (ed.), The Inquisitive} Mind, no. 2 (2013), http://www.in-mind.org/article/intergroup-contact-theory-past-present-and-future.

41_{Allport, The Nature of Prejudice:}

42_{Thomas F. Pettigrew and Linda R. Tropp, ‘A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory’, Journal of} Personality and Social Psychology, no. 5 (2006): 767.

(18)

Lenneke Kraak

significant, consumption of food is also inextricably linked with and part of society and everyday life. Therefore, the act of contact through food, or ‘culinary contact’ as Chapple-Sokol names it, is a vital starting point in order to move towards a form of peacebuilding from below, which will be explained below.

2.6.2 Peacebuilding from Below

This paragraph elaborates on the concept of peacebuilding from below, being a form of peacebuilding that is implemented at the roots of society, instead of being imposed by higher authorities or ‘from above.’ Peacebuilding itself can be explained as a form of conflict resolution encompassing actions taken to prevent violent conflict by transforming relationships, interactions and governing structures. 43_{The concept of peacebuilding from}

below involves several approaches that are implemented over an extensive time period and aims to change the social structures underlying conflict and the attitudes of the parties involved. 44

In chapter 9 of their extensive work on contemporary conflict resolution, Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall dedicate a considerably large part on the concept of peacebuilding from below. They state that increasingly more scholars are rethinking the dynamics and processed of post-conflict peacebuilding, coming to the conclusion that ‘effective and sustainable peace-making processes must be based not merely on the manipulation of peace agreements made by elites, but more importantly on the empowerment of communities…’.45

In this book

on contemporary conflict resolution they assess the key concepts,

developments, successes and failures in the field and main challenges in the second

decade of the twenty-first century.

The authors assert that applying a peacebuilding from below approach can alter the way in which a conflict is viewed.46_{They argue that normally}

the people within the conflict are seen as the problem, with the outsiders providing the solution to the conflict. However, in the perspective of peacebuilding from below, the solutions are derived and built from local resources, with non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and more specifically GRO’s and CBO’s, being the decisive actors in this approach.47

43_{L. A. Fast, & R. C., Neufeldt, ‘Envisioning Success: Building Blocks for Strategic and Comprehensive}

Peacebuilding Impact Evaluation’, Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, no. 2 (2005):24.

44_{N. Ropers, Peaceful Intervention: Structures, Processes and Strategies for the Constructive Resolution of} Ethnopolitical Conflicts, Berlin: Berghof Forschungszentrum für konstruktive Konfliktbearbeitung (1995): 35. 45_{O. Ramsbotham, T. Woodhouse and H. Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution, 2}nd_{ed., Cambridge: Polity}

Press (2005): 215.

46_{Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 222.} 47_{Ramsbotham, Woudhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 222-223.}

(19)

Lenneke Kraak

The authors start the chapter with the assumption that peace-making processes, in order to be effective and sustainable, must be based on the empowerment of communities affected by conflict, instead of merely on the manipulation of peace agreements made by elites.48_They

argue that this process of peacebuilding from below has led as well to a change in perception within the field of conflict resolution and as to a clearer understanding of three aspects within the field: 1) the recognition that it is much harder to reach by violence affected cultures or economies through constructed intervention than originally assumed.49_{2) the importance of}

the idea that formal agents, such as governments, need to be underpinned by understandings and structures on the ground, that take away the violence and sustain peace.50_{3) the}

importance of local actors and the non-governmental sector and the links with local knowledge and wisdom.

Two scholar-practitioners within the field of conflict resolution and specifically peacebuilding, Adam Curle and John Paul Lederach, have contributed to the emergence of this change in perception of the peacebuilding approach. The first did an extensive research in the 1990’s on the Serb-Croat war, from which he eventually concluded that ‘since conflict resolution by outside bodies and individuals has so far proved ineffective … it is essential to consider the peace-making potential within the conflicting communities themselves.’51

The approach Curle advises is compatible with the concept of soft power, as the original idea of active mediation, for example by official actors, as an outsider intervention process needs to be transformed into a more context-sensitive, empowering approach, which emancipates people of goodwill in conflict-affected communities.52_{This approach is}

substantiated by Lederach, who calls it ‘indigenous empowerment’. This suggests that, in order to transform a conflict, human and cultural resources from within the setting must be respected and promoted and involves ‘A new set of lenses through which we do not primarily ‘see’ the setting and the people as the ‘problem’ and the outsider as the ‘answer’.’ 53

Furthermore, Lederach argues that its more effective understand the long-term goal of transformation as validating and to build on people and resources within the setting.

Both Curle and Lederach have based their ideas about the alteration in the approach of peacebuilding on their practical experiences and on the fact that they criticized the lack of significance and sensitivity given to local cultures within conflicted communities. This

48_{Ramsbotham, Woudhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 215.} 49_Ibid.

50_{Ramsbotham, Woudhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 216.}

51_{A. Curle, ‘New Challenges for Citizen Peacemaking’, Medicine and War, no. 2 (1994): 96.} 52_{Ramsbotham, Woudhouse and Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: 218.}

53_{John Paul Lederach, Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, New York: Syracuse}

(20)

Lenneke Kraak

negligence caused in many of the researched communities miscomprehension and distrust towards ‘western’ outsider mediators. Lederach therefore argues that, in order for a long-term strategy to be sustainable, outsiders need to support and nurture rather than displace resources and address all the levels of the population. He describes these levels of population as a triangle, with at the top military and political leaders, in the middle regional leaders (within politics, religion, business, health-care and education) and at the bottom, the grassroots level, the common people.54

What can be deducted from as well Lederach as Curle and from the work of Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall, is that it is essential to combine and coordinate between these levels of population, in order for conflict resolution and peacebuilding to be effective and viable. In this approach, solutions mainly emanate from local resources, such as NGO’s, GRO’s and CBO’s, instead from outside the conflicted community, however the outsiders still play a (reoriented) role. In line with this is also Judith Large’s research on many examples of local-level cross-community peacebuilding work in Eastern Croatia. She argues that these small-scale initiatives, taking place inside the conflicted communities, might seem to be ineffective and unnecessary in the eyes of outsiders, but are certainly not on the inside.55

Thereby, the authors argue that, through building peace from below, an approach is taken which tends to attract people to a certain cause instead of forcing them. This process is what Nye has labelled as ‘soft power’.

Exactly this approach is called ‘peacebuilding from below’ and is what underlies the core of this study. Food culture, cuisine and commensality may seem far-fetched tools to move towards peacebuilding between conflicting communities, but it does create a commonality, which in turn has the ability to make a first move towards bridging gaps.

Source: Lederach, Building Peace, 1997.

Figure 2 Triangle of actors within the framework of

peacebuilding

54_{John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, Washington D.C.: US}

Institute of Peace Press (1997).

(21)

Lenneke Kraak

3. Approaches: Food as a Tool for Public Diplomacy

As already mentioned, the theory of culinary diplomacy has been popularized from the beginning of the 2000’s on. As a consequence, the number of projects, aimed at building peace between conflicting communities, using food and cuisine as a tool for creating familiarity and mutual understanding, is also increasing. However, there has been a lot of debate ever since about the name of this research field. Many terms, such as “gastrodiplomacy”, “food diplomacy”, “gastronomic diplomacy,” and “diplomatic gastronomy” have passed, all implying more or less the same process. Therefore, before giving three examples of this type of projects in chapter 5 this section will briefly elaborate on the nature of and distinction between the names of and perspectives on the different approaches within the field of culinary diplomacy, in order to demarcate the approach applied in this study.

To ensure absolute clarity in this research, a distinction must first be made regarding the applied concept of culinary diplomacy. As Chapple-Sokol notes in his main article on culinary diplomacy, its discrepancy with food diplomacy must be designated. Food diplomacy involves ‘using food aid as a tool of public outreach to reduce global hunger’ and therefore lies outside the culinary diplomacy-domain, as it is applied as a developmental tool as well as diplomatic.56

Secondly, the concept of culinary diplomacy, as applied in this research, must be distinguished from other models in order to apply it as well as possible to the case studies. Therefore, this chapter will briefly review the most common applied models of ‘Gastrodiplomacy’, ‘Diplomatic Gastronomy’ and ‘Culinary Diplomacy’, in order to demarcate the field and ensure a clear understanding of the matter. Finally, the end of this chapter will assess the negative effect that food can have on a conflict situation, to obtain a thorough and objective view of these approaches.

3.1 Diplomatic Gastronomy

This form culinary diplomacy happens on a higher level than the concept of citizen-to-citizen diplomacy, which is the centre of this study, and is focussed at the intersection of gastronomy, anthropology and diplomacy and the influence that gastronomy, cuisine and food have on diplomatic and political affairs.

The idea of diplomatic gastronomy was first mentioned by Linda Morgan in her article ‘Diplomatic Gastronomy: Style and Power at the Table’, in which she drew on ideas of

(22)

Lenneke Kraak

Cypriot professor Costas Consantinou’s work from 1996. This book, named On the Way to

Diplomacy, includes a whole chapter called ‘Gastronomic Diplomacy: Commensality,

Communion, Communication’, describing the connections between food and diplomacy in ancient Greece and in the Bible.57_{In this chapter Constantinou argues that ‘if we are to}

understand gastronomy simply as a natural or personal activity, or only as a socialising device, we run the risk of leaving unexamined the political implications of it’, thus laying the foundation for further research regarding the essential role food plays in diplomatic relations, attributing an important role to the concept of commensality.58_{Morgan elaborates on}

Constantinou by re-framing his ideas into the concept of ‘diplomatic gastronomy’, which indicates the act of ‘diplomatic dining in which individuals representing sovereign political interests share a meal under the auspices of certain protocol’, in other words, the use of food and dining for diplomatic pursuits.59

A second aspect of diplomatic gastronomy works through the notion of

non-logocentrism, a concept also introduced by Constantinou, which implies the use of non-verbal

communication. This in turn is derived from Raymond Cohen’s work Theatre of Power, from 1987, in which he defines non-verbal communication as having two aspects: ‘the deliberate transfer of information by non-verbal means from one state to another and from the state-leadership to its population on an international issue’. 60

An example of this first non-verbal transfer could be a state banquet or shared meal between diplomatic officials, in which attention is paid to culinary specialties of the home country and personal preferences of the guest. The second transfer of information is exemplified by a culinary outreach program, implemented by a government, of which the most famous is the Global Thai program, an initiative set up in 2002 and aimed to boost the number of Thai restaurants around the world in order to persuade more people to visit Thailand, but also to strengthen relations with other countries.61

Thus, gastrodiplomacy encompasses the way food can positively influence political decision-making by creating a comfortable and friendly atmosphere, as well at government-government, as government-citizen level, but not at the citizen-to-citizen level, which is

57_{Costas Constantinou, On the Way to Diplomacy, Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press}

(1996): 126.

58_Ibid.

59_{Linda Morgan, ‘Diplomatic Gastronomy: Style and Power at the Table’, Food and Foodways, no. 2 (2012):}

146-166,

60_{Raymond Cohen, Theatre of Power: The Art of Diplomatic Signalling, London: Longman (1987): 19.} 61_{Author unknown, ‘Thailand’s Gastrodiplomacy’, The Economist, February 2002,}

(23)

Lenneke Kraak

central in this study. The second approach discussed in this chapter utilizes food as a tool for public diplomacy on government to citizen level and is explained below.

3.2 Gastronomic Diplomacy (Gastrodiplomacy)

Although gastrodiplomacy and culinary diplomacy are often used interchangeably, it is vital to this research to distinct them from each other in order to explain which definition is being applied here. According to Paul Rockower, the term gastrodiplomacy has emerged as a way for countries to use their unique culinary histories to promote themselves on the global stage.62

Rockower sees gastrodiplomacy, being a form of public diplomacy, as a tool ’to communicate culture through food to the broader foreign public’ and also as a way to ‘engage people-to-people connections through the act of breaking bread.63_{According to Rockower,}

gastrodiplomacy is a public diplomacy pursuit, which has a visible impact on our daily lives. He states that: ‘gastro diplomacy is to culinary diplomacy what public diplomacy is to diplomacy. It is the act of winning hearts and minds through stomach.64

Following this line of thought, examples of gastrodiplomacy would be an initiative to bring a country’s nationals and immigrants together to enjoy a dinner, but also ordering in foreign food.65_{As gastrodiplomacy exists at the intersection of food and foreign policy,}

Rockower argues, it uses a country’s culinary delights to convey public diplomacy and promote national awareness, in this way combining cultural diplomacy, soft power, culinary diplomacy and nation-branding.66

Sam Chapple-Sokol however, has a different interpretation of the concept. According to him, culinary diplomacy as well as gastrodiplomacy falls under the categorization of culinary diplomacy, but a distinction can be made between public and private culinary diplomacy, with the latter alluding to Rockower’s definition of gastrodiplomacy. Where Rockower utilizes gastrodiplomacy and culinary diplomacy, Chapple-Sokol uses respectively the terms public and private culinary diplomacy to indicate the difference between these two aspects.

62_{Rockower, Paul, ‘The Gastrodiplomacy Cookbook’, The Huffington Post, September 2010, last accessed May}

18, 2018.

63_{Rockower, ‘Setting the Table for Diplomacy, The Huffington Post, September 2012,}

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rockower/setting-the-table-for-dip_b_1904521.html, last accessed May 18, 2018.

64

_{Paul S. Rockower, Recipes for Gastrodiplomacy, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, no. 3 (2012):}

235-237.

65_{Valerie Gecowets, ‘Culinary Diplomacy vs. Gastrodiplomacy’,}

http://www.conflictcuisine.com/culinary-diplomacy-vs-gastrodiplomacy/, last accessed at May 18, 2018. 66_{Rockower, ‘Recipes for Gastrodiplomacy’: 243.}

(24)

Lenneke Kraak

Thus, Rockower applies the term gastrodiplomacy to the process of individual exchange of food culture between people, which Chapple-Sokol denominates culinary diplomacy. To the term gastrodiplomacy on the other side, Chapple-Sokol allocates the engagement of government-to-foreign public, a sub-component of public diplomacy, which is aimed at building a nation’s soft power, promoting trade and tourism and encouraging cultural exchange.67_{This model is what he has labelled as the second pillar of culinary diplomacy and}

has become popularized in the last fifteen years.

As Chapple-Sokol makes a distinction between private and public culinary diplomacy, instead of respectively culinary diplomacy and gastrodiplomacy, he provides a more structured and extensive overview of the concept of culinary diplomacy than Rockower does. Therefore, this study will utilize Chapple-Sokol’s framework of the theories behind culinary diplomacy and thus also refer to the term gastrodiplomacy as government-to-foreign public engagement. The concept of culinary diplomacy, which is central to this research will be explained below.

3.3 Culinary Diplomacy

Lastly the overarching concept of culinary diplomacy, as it will be applied throughout the rest of this study, will be examined. As highlighted above, many interpretations of the ideas behind culinary diplomacy, gastrodiplomacy, diplomatic gastronomy and all their underlying and related aspects exist. In order to ensure clarity, it is important to utilize the same definitions and approaches for the whole of this study.

The concept of culinary diplomacy is widely known and used to create awareness and enhance a country’s image and status in the world. The United States were the first to establish a of Diplomatic Culinary Partnership, an initiative of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, elevating ‘the role of culinary engagement in America’s formal and public diplomacy efforts’.68_{This exemplifies that nations utilize food as a tool to promote cultures, ideas,}

identities and values.

Although the concept of culinary diplomacy is applied at a large scale, it comprises many divergent structures and shapes. For example, Rockower differentiates culinary diplomacy from gastrodiplomacy by arguing that the latter refers to a tool of public diplomacy

67_{Samuel Chapple-Sokol, ‘A New Structure for Culinary Diplomacy’,}

http://culinarydiplomacy.com/blog/2016/08/28/a-new-structure-for-culinary-diplomacy/, last accessed at May 19, 2018.

68_{Mary Beth Albright, Culinary Diplomacy is on America’s Menu, National Geographic, April 2015,}

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2015/04/25/culinary-diplomacy-is-on-americas-menu/, last accessed May 20, 2018.

(25)

Lenneke Kraak

while the first serves as a means to further diplomatic protocol through cuisine.69_{He refers to}

culinary diplomacy as ‘the use of cuisine as a medium to enhance formal diplomacy in official diplomatic functions such as visits by heads-of-state, ambassadors and other dignitaries’ and distinguishes it from the above explained gastrodiplomacy, which would be focused on the broader foreign public and people-to-people connections.70

As mentioned above, Chapple-Sokol on the other hand, divides the concept into two facets: public and private culinary diplomacy.71_{The first one, he argues, is part of cultural}

diplomacy, which in turn is covered by public diplomacy. Examples of public culinary diplomacy are programmes that national governments initiate to put themselves on the world map, such as the above-mentioned Global Thai plan. Private culinary diplomacy on the other hand, is focussed on achieving diplomatic goals through commensality, the act of eating and drinking at the same table and takes place in a more intimate or personal setting.72_{He finally}

defines the overarching concept as ‘the use of food and cuisine as instruments to create cross-cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation’.73

In August 2016 Chapple-Sokol revised and restructured this thought about culinary diplomacy, dividing it into three pillars, however retaining the definition originally signed to the term. This revised overview will form the basis for this study and will be elucidated below. The three pillars that form together the overarching term culinary diplomacy, are all already existing concepts. However, they have been reconsidered and adjusted to new research that was done within the field. The first pillar is called Track 1 Culinary Diplomacy and is almost equal to the above-mentioned concepts of private culinary diplomacy (Chapple-Sokol) and culinary diplomacy (Rockower). This pillar is the widely known and described in scholarly literature. According to Chapple-Sokol, ‘it involves formal interaction between governments officials, either behind closed doors or in public’.74_{Examples of this formal interaction could}

be state banquets, lunch meetings or different kinds of (culinary) entertainment during diplomatic affairs.

The second pillar is the one that Chapple-Sokol refers to as gastrodiplomacy, which differs from the definition that Rockower assigns to this and indicates government-to-foreign

69_{Rockower, ‘Recipes for Gastrodiplomacy’: 240.} 70_Ibid.

71_{Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy’: 162.} 72_Ibid.

73_Ibid.

74_{S. Chapple-Sokol, ‘A New Structure for Culinary Diplomacy’,}

http://culinarydiplomacy.com/blog/2016/08/28/a-new-structure-for-culinary-diplomacy/, last accessed May 20, 2018.

(26)

Lenneke Kraak

public engagement and can be considered a sub-component of public diplomacy.75_{With this}

form of diplomacy, nations seeks to spread its cultural treasures, such as cuisine, aiming to promote trade and tourism. These efforts fall under the heading of what Joseph Nye has labeled ‘soft power’. This pillar is not as well-established as the first one and has its roots in the work of the Thai government and later also in projects from the Peruvian, South Korean and Malaysian government, aimed at promoting their national cultural heritage in order to improve their position within international relations, and the initiation of US Diplomatic Culinary Partnership.

The third and last pillar comprises the part that is most essential for this research. It is an area of research that is relatively new to the field and has only come under the attention since the early 2000’s. This section of culinary diplomacy, which ‘involves any project or idea that for the most part engages non-state actors’ and unlike the previous, doesn’t have ‘the explicit goal of promoting a nation’s foreign affairs’, is called Citizen Culinary Diplomacy by Chapple-Sokol.76_{He defines this concept as ‘The use of food and cuisine as an instrument to}

create cross-cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation’.77

The interest in this field has grown over the past 10 years and gained specific attention with the establishment of the Conflict Café in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and other initiatives following the idea of combining immigration and cuisine.

This last pillar or culinary citizen diplomacy, as it is referred to from now on, is particularly significant for this study, as it is at the citizen level that food and cuisine can be best applied as a tool for conflict resolution and peacebuilding from below. This third approach is the least investigated method in the field of culinary diplomacy, partly due to the fact that is difficult to analyse the cases that apply this form as they are set below the surface, which makes their results intangible and hard to draw conclusions from. Therefore a few more scholarly insights will be discussed to give a more comprehensive overview of the matter.

According to Gordon Allport, intensive contact between groups can reduce the formation of stereotypes and replace fear of or hostility towards the other with a realistic view.78_{This underlies the theory of culinary citizen diplomacy in a way that it is vital that,}

due to food and commensality, a deeper and more sustainable form of intergroup relationship

75_Ibid.

76_Ibid.

77_{Samuel Chapple-Sokol, ‘Breaking Bread to Win Hearts and Minds’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, nr.8}

(2013), p. 161.

(27)

Lenneke Kraak

is established, that can counter prejudices and encourage cooperation.79_{This relationship is}

based on trust and common goals, which can be achieved by not just eating, but also cooking together. Allport’s Contact Hypothesis is key to this third pillar, as it is contact through food, by means of cooking and/or sharing a dinner, that brings people together in an intimate and comfortable setting, which in turn encourages them to seek mutual understanding and appreciation.80_{Allport asserts in his study on race and contact in the 1940’s and 1950’s that}

when there is more communication between communities, stereotypes, fear and hostility regarding the other are removed.81_{As explained above, food provides a tool for}

communication, and therefore Allport’s hypothesis is essential for understanding the theory behind this study.

Social psychologist Ifat Moaz substantiates this vision, arguing that in order for contact to improve intergroup relations as much as possible, a common goal must be envisioned.82

Thus, an indispensable aspect of this third pillar and therefore also for this research is that, in order to obtain results out of the application of culinary citizen diplomacy on a conflicted community, both groups must strive to cooperate and set common goals. In this way the probability of mutual and cross-cultural understanding will increase. Furthermore, this research will indicate that besides the presence of a common goal, the duration of the project, the development trust in the other participants and in the project, the role of food and the distance to the actual conflict area plays an essential role in the success of culinary citizen diplomacy. These indicators, that are essential for the theory of culinary citizen diplomacy to become effective and even successful, will be discussed in detail in chapter 6.

3.4 Taxonomy of Definitions

Of course, not every case or project falls exactly within the format of one of these pillars, but they provide a guidance to a clear and structured rendition of the matter discussed in this research. The aim of this chapter was to distinguish three approaches and their similarities and differences, in order to define and demarcate the research field of this study. In summary, the following can be deducted from this:

Diplomatic gastronomy refers to the use of food and dining for diplomatic pursuits and works

mainly through the notion of non-logocentrism (the use of non-verbal communication). With

79_{I. E., Padeanu, ‘Face to Face: The Role of Managed Intergroup Contact in Peacebuilding and Reconciliation’,} Queen’s University Review, Belfast: Queen’s University, no 1 (2014): 35.

80_{Chapple-Sokol, ‘War and Peas’.} 81_Allport,_{The Nature of Prejudice: 276.}

82_{Ifat Maoz, ‘Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of}

(28)

Lenneke Kraak

the term gastrodiplomacy is meant in this research the engagement of government-to-foreign public, aimed at building a nation’s soft power, promoting trade and tourism and encouraging cultural exchange.83_{It should be mentioned that this definition differs from the meaning}

Rockower assigned to it, which comprised the process of individual exchange of food culture between people.

The third approach, culinary diplomacy, with emphasis on culinary citizen diplomacy, is key to this research and has many interpretations. Rockower and Chapple-Sokol have defined the most prominent ones, with the first referring to the use of cuisine as a tool to amplify diplomacy on an official level. The latter defines it as ‘the use of food and cuisine as an instrument to create cross-cultural understanding in the hopes of improving interactions and cooperation’.84_{As mentioned above, this study applies the second definition of the}

approach, as it fits in a more structured overview of the different forms of culinary diplomacy delineated by Chapple-Sokol. The three approaches discussed here all apply three concepts that are important for them to be successful. However, each approach utilizes these concepts in a different way.

The first concept, personal interaction is applied to the greatest extent by culinary (citizen) diplomacy and in a lower degree by diplomatic gastronomy. Gastrodiplomacy builds largely on interaction between groups, but not at all on the personal variant. Secondly, the three approaches all exert food as a tool for communication, although on another level. Diplomatic gastronomy is being used as a ‘non-logocentric form of communication’, which means that the approach does not use words to communicate intentions, but non-verbal tools like seating arrangements or menu’s. Gastrodiplomacy applies the method, but on a more elementary scale, while culinary (citizen) diplomacy on the other hand is for the most part based on the concept of commonality as a tool for communication. Finally, the use of common

goals or shared incentives is especially present at and also part of the core of culinary

diplomacy, where extensive and sustained contact and cooperation towards shared goals is required. Gastrodiplomacy also uses incentives or goals, but these are mainly economical and rewarded to the participants individually.85_{Diplomatic gastronomy however, doesn’t apply}

explicit incentives as it is focussed on representing the interests of the own group or promoting the interests of this group.

83_{Samuel Chapple-Sokol, ‘A New Structure for Culinary Diplomacy’,}

http://culinarydiplomacy.com/blog/2016/08/28/a-new-structure-for-culinary-diplomacy/, last accessed at May 19, 2018.

84_{Chapple-Sokol, ‘Culinary Diplomacy’:162.} 85_{Padeanu, ‘Face to Face’:35.}

FROM COMMENSALITY TO COMMONALITY: HOW FOOD CAN UNITE US ALL The Influence of Culinary Citizen Diplomacy on the Process of Peacebuilding from Below Assessed through the Analysis of Three Case-Studies

Lenneke Kraak