The chef noted ironically, “We have a lot more of what people consider traditional Italian,” but also admitted, “we couldn’t skip the opportunity to put chicken parmesan on the menu.”
What Does “Traditional” Really Mean?Before we proceed, let’s clarify what we mean by traditional.
- Traditional refers to beliefs, customs, and practices handed down from generation to generation, often by word of mouth or continued practice.
- It implies adherence to customs, values, or styles that are long established and, sometimes, old-fashioned.
Similarly, the root of the word appropriate comes from the Latin ad propriare, meaning “to make one’s own.”
With these definitions in mind, I wonder: when looking at Italian menus — both in America and in Italy — are the dishes truly traditional? Or are they inspired? When chefs take liberties to “make a dish their own,” are they improving on tradition, or veering away from authenticity? And importantly, is that necessarily a good thing?
Tradition as a Living, Evolving Practice
It’s worth remembering that Italian cooking itself has always been dynamic. Italian cooks have adapted recipes since Roman times, incorporating ingredients like tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, and corn — all introduced to Europe from the Americas centuries ago. Tradition has never meant static or unchanging.
Take the example of Prosciutto e Melone. Its beauty lies in simplicity: the salty fat of the prosciutto balanced by the ripe sweetness of melon creates a harmonious dance of flavors — salty and sweet, acid and fat.
Where Does the Chef’s Dish Fit?
The chef’s version swaps prosciutto for culatello, adds lightly candied hazelnuts, figs, and basil, and dresses it with olive oil and a lightly sweet rosé vinegar.
Let’s consider these ingredients:
- Culatello is a close relative of prosciutto, differing only slightly in cut and aging.
- Hazelnuts predominantly come from Piedmont in Italy.
- Basil, while grown in many Mediterranean climates, is famously associated with Liguria (think pesto Genovese).
- Figs mainly hail from Southern Italy — Sicily, Calabria, Campania, and others.
- Prosciutto is traditionally from Emilia-Romagna and Friuli, but can also be found in the Marche and other regions.
The use of Texas cantaloupe, however, introduces a distinctly American element.
Is This Fusion Respectful or Confusing?
Does this dish risk become a “culinary bastard” — a confusing mix of flavors that struggle to balance sweet, fat, and acid? Or is it a respectful evolution — a food that reflects a reunified Italy, combining regional flavors into a single dish?
The chef insists the menu is “traditional,” yet the additions — candied nuts, figs, sweet vinegar — push the boundaries of what one might consider classically Italian. The dressing of oil and vinegar might even shift the dish toward something resembling a salad rather than a traditional antipasto.
Cultural Appropriation or Culinary Dialogue?
At its core, cultural appropriation is about making something “one’s own,” but it also carries questions about respect, authenticity, and power. When does borrowing from a culture become exploitation or misrepresentation?
This chef’s dish raises important questions:
- Is it an homage to Italian tradition, thoughtfully reimagined with local ingredients?
- Or is it an example of cultural appropriation — using Italian cultural symbols and flavors without full context or respect for their origin?
- Who decides what is “traditional,” and who benefits from this reinvention?
A “Dialogue of the Deaf”?
The French phrase dialogue de sourds — literally, a “dialogue of the deaf” — describes a situation where two parties talk past each other without understanding. This seems relevant here.
In culinary culture, appropriation risks becoming a one-way act: a culture’s dishes and symbols taken and transformed without meaningful exchange or respect, leading to misunderstandings and tensions.
Why Culinary Appropriation Is Not a Neutral Act
Some may argue that culinary appropriation is simply part of cultural exchange and evolution. Yet, it is crucial to recognize the deeper harms appropriation can cause. It often strips dishes of their cultural significance and context, reducing rich traditions to mere trends or exotic novelties. More troublingly, it can perpetuate power imbalances where dominant cultures profit from the foods of marginalized or colonized communities without acknowledging or respecting their origins.
In the case of this Italian-inspired dish, the casual blending of ingredients and reinvention under the guise of “traditional” risks erasing the authentic stories and histories embedded in those foods. It becomes less about respect and more about commercializing culture.
Thus, culinary appropriation is not a neutral or benign act. It can reinforce cultural misunderstandings and contribute to the commodification of heritage. This is why it demands critical scrutiny rather than celebration. Respectful culinary exchange requires more than just borrowing flavors — it requires deep engagement, acknowledgment, and responsibility.
Invention or Capitulation? The Battle for Authenticity
This dish and the chef’s approach exemplify the complex tension between tradition and innovation, cultural borrowing and appropriation. While culinary traditions are naturally evolving, appropriation crosses a line when it disregards the histories, meanings, and power dynamics tied to the food.
The chef’s dish prompts us to ask: Is this an informed and respectful homage, or does it simply repurpose a culture for profit and novelty? Without awareness and respect, such acts risk perpetuating cultural erasure rather than fostering genuine dialogue.
In the end, cultural respect in cuisine is not optional — it is essential. When borrowing from a culture’s food, chefs and diners alike must engage with humility, understanding, and responsibility to ensure that culinary exchange honors, rather than exploits, cultural heritage.
And we haven't even gotten to the wine part. Not yet.
