The question of “What Thai Food” truly is sparks a fascinating debate, far beyond simply arguing about whether bamboo shoots belong in Tom Kha Gai or if dairy has a place in Tom Yum. This exploration delves into the heart of authenticity in Thai cuisine, challenging commonly held beliefs and prompting us to reconsider what we define as “real” Thai food.
Based on observation, some notions have been perpetuated. It’s difficult to find ways to support any of them.
The Myth of Royal Thai Cuisine
Is the meticulously prepared cuisine of the Thai royal court the pinnacle of authentic Thai food? This notion suggests that preserving ancient recipes from aristocratic households safeguards the “true essence” of Thai cuisine. Recreating these dishes, according to this viewpoint, is essential for experiencing Thai food at its finest, implying that modern Thai cuisine has become corrupted and needs restoration through rediscovering these obscure dishes.
While not entirely false, this view is incredibly narrow. The so-called “royal cuisine,” a concept even questioned by some culinary experts like Chef McDang, represents only a tiny fraction of the vast spectrum of Thai cuisine. It reflects the experiences of those within palaces and aristocratic circles, a world away from the reality of most Thais.
Can we truly claim that an elaborate fish salad served on lotus petals is inherently more “Thai” than a simple grilled river fish with chili paste and rice enjoyed in rural Thailand? Both are valid expressions of Thai culinary tradition, representing different social contexts and access to resources.
Furthermore, each aristocratic family possesses unique recipes and traditions. Which of these traditions best represents “royal cuisine,” let alone Thai cuisine as a whole? Is the current push to revive these near-extinct dishes because they never truly resonated with the general public in the first place?
The Limitations of Culinary Records
Another perspective insists that only recipes documented in historical texts can be considered authentic, dismissing everything else as hearsay. This approach relies heavily on written records to define and validate Thai cuisine.
However, relying solely on historical documents presents several issues. Ancient documents aren’t infallible; they can be biased, incomplete, or even deliberately manipulated. What was written down often reflected the lives and perspectives of the wealthy and powerful, neglecting the culinary practices of the majority.
Consider Lady Plian Pasakornwong, one of Thailand’s first cookbook authors, who featured recipes using imported canned salmon in her newsletter aimed at the elite. While her work provides valuable insight into the culinary preferences of the upper class, it doesn’t invalidate the countless unwritten recipes passed down through generations of ordinary Thai families.
Dismissing these oral traditions simply because they lack written documentation is dismissive and ignores the rich culinary heritage of the majority. To dismiss anecdotal evidence as illegitimate simply because people did not have the intellectual or financial means to transmit their stories in written/printed form borders on arrogance.
The “Fusion” Debate
The final, and perhaps most contentious, issue is the aversion to “fusion” cuisine. Many consider fusion to be the antithesis of authentic Thai food, a corruption of tradition. But what exactly is fusion?
Does it mean applying non-Thai techniques to Thai ingredients? Or using non-Thai ingredients in Thai dishes? If so, then virtually every Thai dish is, at some point in its history, a fusion. The introduction of chili peppers, tomatoes, and papaya by Europeans dramatically altered Thai cuisine. Would red or green curry, had they existed before this exchange, be considered fusion dishes?
Food is dynamic. Like language, it evolves over time. To condemn the use of new ingredients or techniques as “fusion” ignores the natural progression of culinary traditions. Which historical period represents Thai cuisine at its most authentic? When did it begin to decline? To label modern Thai food as “corrupted” is to ignore the potential for future generations to look back on this era with nostalgia.
Thai food is not a static entity frozen in time. It is a living, breathing cuisine constantly adapting to new influences and innovations.
In conclusion, defining “what Thai food” truly is remains a complex and multifaceted challenge. Dismissing any aspect of the cuisine based on rigid definitions of authenticity ignores the rich diversity and evolution of Thai culinary traditions. The ongoing dialogue is not just about ingredients or techniques, but about honoring the multifaceted history and dynamic nature of Thai food.
