Exoticism Versus Globalization
A couple of days ago, I noticed while watching a Kylie Kwong cookery show, that she used the word “exotic” no less than four times in the space of ten minutes. She was discussing a certain Middle Eastern spice mix being used in a dish she was preparing for that episode.
What is exotic? The relevant definitions from dictionary.com include:
- of foreign origin or character; not native; introduced from abroad, but not fully naturalized or acclimatized
- strikingly unusual or strange in effect or appearance
Whereupon, the question arises: foreign, strange, not fully naturalized or unusual from whose perspective? Kylie’s shows, I imagine, are made primarily for a Western audience (Australia, U.S) to whom Middle Eastern cooking and its ingredients are likely to be strange and unusual. Hence, the use of the word, exotic.
However, with global movements and globalization, things aren’t quite so simple anymore. The U.S, for instance, is a community of immigrants, and new immigrants, including those from North Africa and the Middle East keep entering. Is harissa or tahini exotic to them?
People travel, meet new people, eat new foods. Global food chains and import businesses ensure that foods from one part of the world are well-stocked in another. Even if you don’t travel and are finicky about trying new foods when you do, television brings new experiences to your armchair.
Once upon a time, exotic and new were framed purely from the viewpoint of Western societies. This is a key thrust of the seminal work, Orientalism, by Edward Said:Â The Orient exists for the West, and is constructed by and in relation to the West. It is a mirror image of what is inferior and alien (”Other”) to the West.
What is worse, perhaps, Western views of what is different or exotic soon become the norm. For instance, I often see Indian clothing or practices like Mehndi being described in our magazines as ethnic. Again, the dictionary meaning of ethnic is pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like. Why would we apply this term when talking about our own cultural groups, i.e. setting them up against a ‘normal’ ‘other’? Besides, it doesn’t really describe the clothing in any way.
The question to be asked is, how will globalization and global movements impact exotification? If Kylie Kwong’s programmes are going to be popular in Australia and the US and India and in the Middle East - from whose perspective are ingredients going to be classified as exotic, or not?
It’s a well-known fact that he who pays the piper calls the tune. For generations, books, magazines, TV programmes, films - all of these transmitters of culture were made by and for the West. With large audiences now coming up in other parts of the world, will this change?
What People Say