The issue of authenticity, and what is considered “authentic” is thoroughly questioned in Diamond Grill, leading us to ponder: “Who gets to decide what is authentic?” 

In an article about Americanized Chinese food and authenticity, Shun Lu and Gary Alan Fine write, “People define authenticity in association with their social experiences” (543). In other words, the criteria for what is “authentic” varies depending on the individual and their past experiences.

As the Canadian-born daughter to Chinese immigrants, what I consider to be authentic Chinese food are shaped by my experiences of meals prepared by my mom, or going to restaurants in Chinatown and Richmond with my family. The smells and the flavours that I experienced growing up form my idea of authentic Chinese food. As a result, I’m often very picky about eating Chinese food, because I want it to be “real”.

However, I have to say that apart from my culinary preferences, very little about me is what might be considered “authentically” Chinese. Whenever I get asked “Where are you from?” or “What are you?” I answer “Canada” or “Canadian”. Sometimes I get the follow-up question, “No, but, where are you really from?” I certainly feel attached to my Canadian identity, but I’m still often perceived as Chinese or at least Chinese-Canadian.

In Diamond Grill, Fred Jr. struggles with negotiating between where he feels he belongs, and where others perceive him to belong. Lu and Fine also point to the idea of perception in their article, where they state that “Many customers [at Chinese restaurants] desire the “illusion of authenticity“”, however, “while holding to an illusion of continuity, modification and change are crucial for obtaining culinary acceptance” (541).

The claim by Lu and Fine that customers desire the “illusion of authenticity” regardless of whether the food actually originates from China emphasizes the importance of perception with regards to Chinese cuisine. Lu and Fine also point to the negotiation of traditional Chinese cuisine with Western (in their case American) tastes. Similarly, in Diamond Grill, Fred Jr. has to negotiate his own sense of self and identity with the perception that others have of him.

By questioning what is authenticity, who gets to decide what is authentic, and why we need to decide if something authentic at all, Fred Wah demonstrates that the notion of “authenticity” is not cut and dry after all.

Works Cited 

Lu, Shun and Gary Alan Fine. “The Presentation of Ethnic Authenticity: Chinese Food as a Social Accomplishment”. The Sociological Quarterly. 36.3 (1995). 535-553.

After watching “Filter Bubble”, Eli Pariser’s Ted Talk on the increasingly personalized and filtered nature of the Internet, I found myself on the website for The Filter Bubble, Pariser’s book on the topic. A blog post on the site by Julia Kamin from June 1, 2011 discusses a dating app called StreetSpark, where “love seekers on the site can plug into their Facebook, Foursquare and Twitter accounts to discover potential lovers with similar tweets, profiles and cafe haunts”.

This post caught my eye because it reminded me of the plot of a movie that was recently released: Her, set in the “near future”, about a socially awkward man who falls in love with his Operating System. While I haven’t had the chance to watch the film itself, I did watch a mini-documentary about the film, exploring the question “What is love in the modern world?”

Her: Love in the Modern World

The documentary features a scene from the movie where the main character, played by Joaquin Phoenix, goes on a date with Olivia Wilde’s character, whom he has been set up with by his operating system. On their date, Wilde’s character makes the comment that their bartender is supposed to be incredible, and Phoenix’s character responds with a remark about a mixology class that she took, something that he had known by looking her up on the Internet. Instead of being horrified, Wilde’s character says, “That’s so cute. You’re so romantic”.

This scene is significant because it speaks to how technology has dramatically altered the way people interact and connect with each other; as meeting and connecting with people online becomes more and more normal. While this documentary focuses on the ways that technology has and continues to change the way people approach romantic love, it also rings true for our discussions of personal narratives. Another quote from the documentary that I think is interesting is author and psychologist Esther Perel’s comment that “[Technology] may modify the way we go about meeting our basic human needs, but they don’t change our fundamental human needs”. Technology has caused the way that we interact with one another to evolve, but it hasn’t changed the “fundamental human need” to have connections. Technology has allowed the diary to survive and evolve into its current needs, but there’s still the underlying need to express oneself.

We don’t know how technology will influence and evolve the way that we connect and express ourselves; whether we move towards a culture like the one depicted in Her, or if we combat personalization and our “filter bubble” remains to be seen.