Sushi

Among the plethora of dishes within the Japanese cuisine, sushi provides the clearest and most universally applicable example of the simultaneous mutability and impossibility of any cultural dish’s ‘authenticity’, not just due to consumer capitalism’s inability (and unwillingness) to maintain cultural heritages but also our collective need, as a society, to de/re/construct the concepts of ‘authenticity’ and cultural exchange in general. However, proper reconstruction is nearly if not wholly impossible under the constrictions of Western socioeconomic superstructures, epistemologies, and cultural imperialism (it is important to note that while much of the following argument and terminology can apply to most if not all of the colonial powers, the United States will be the primary focus). This paper sets out to use sushi to advance this discussion on ‘authenticity’ and provide an argument for reconfiguring ideas surrounding the term such that cultural simulation and assimilation are questioned, problematized, and challenged in order to encourage new processes of cultural exchange.

In Japanese cuisine, sushi represents one of the fermented foods that are highly valued crossculturally such as wine, cheese, and kimchi, prized for the advanced level of skill required to execute their proper fermentation. Traditional narezushi, believed to be the primary precursor to what is now most commonly referred to as sushi, involved fermenting fish and game in a mixture of salt and cooked rice. During the 1800s, however, Edo’s transformation into a large-scale urban city of Japanese modernity fostered the optimal clientele for Hanaya Yohei’s new creation, edomae (or nigiri)zushi, in which the rice is vinegared rather than fermented with the fish. Yohei revolutionized sushi by discovering that “... instead of just throwing out the rice, it could be tossed with a bit of vinegar, and a small sliver of fish could be placed on top, making a flavorful, bite-sized treat that was delicious, portable, and affordable for the masses.” (April 2018) This allowed for a more palatable, sweeter taste and faster cooking process, perfect for the fast-paced lifestyle of urbanites. However, the culture surrounding careful catching, tasting, and selecting of fish species in Tokyo Bay still persisted.

This creation was not arbitrary in the slightest, as sushi and the Japanese cuisine had been transforming for some time as well: they began eating three meals a day, boiling their rice, and using rice vinegar for fermentation. Thus, the creation of edomaezushi is socioculturally and sociohistorically situated in both Japan’s evolving eating culture and pace of life in urban areas. This exemplified an optimal balance between the continuation of cultural legacies- the historical, collective and communal process of carefully selecting fish- and the desire to meet economic demands for a fast food in the then capital. The belief that producing fast food necessitates deculturalization is a contemporary and historically inaccurate one, as well as a relatively new practice coupled with colonial paradigms for cultural imperialism. The term has become synonymous with capitalistic production to meet unnatural, unhealthy, inhumane levels of food production for waste and profit moreso than consumption, and this is the culture that is reflected in Western fast food sushi restaurants like “Seasons of Japan” and “Kyoto Express.” From the bread and wine of Roman antiquity to the falafels in the Levantine and Egyptian streets, fast food has and can exist both inside and outside capitalism. However, Yohei’s location in pre-capitalist Japan and sushi’s subsequent migration into Western capitalist markets are incredibly important influences on the dish’s perceived ‘authenticity’ outside its homeland.

‘Authentic’- for the purpose of this paper and within the context of how our hegemonically white, American society dictates cultural interaction- at its most simple, refers to the degree of faithfulness to which a dish or cuisine adheres to its cultural origin, according to the logic of the customer/consumer; at its most complex, it refers to an unattainable form of cultural exchange in which a dish/cuisine migrates out of its spatiotemporal origin and is reproduced with its complete sociocultural and sociohistorical legacies intact. Given that many cultural dishes, including sushi, were born out of an origin of local peoples sustainably maximizing the fruits of their land, unabridged replication is not just an unattainable goal but a historically disingenuous and culturally disrespectful one. The discovery of fermenting fish in the fields of China and vinegaring rice in the streets of Edo both represent various peoples sustainably utilizing their resources in their respective geographical contexts, but the contemporary methods for cultural exchange and interaction allow for neither the replication of the precapitalist relationships to goods and labor undergirding sushi’s origin nor the space for dialogue in (re)producing new cultures inspired by the goods, products, and information being exchanged/interacted with, rather than employing the mimesis and cultural imperialism established by colonialism. 

One could most certainly argue that the cultural distinction between “Japanese” and “Japanese-American”- as both identities and identifiers- necessitates separate analyses for sushi in Japan vs. sushi in America. In this way, we can imagine the food and the people of a specific culture as analogous to each other as both products of that culture, in the sense that their various migrations and interactions with the products of other cultures can spawn new ones. Nevertheless, under global capitalism and the American/Western supercultural hegemony, cultures are constantly subsumed then bastardized and diluted into the “melting pot” in a process of cultural exchange that only exists to further capitalist expansion. We can look directly at another process of cultural exchange between Japan and the US for this- one that was contemporaneous with sushi’s introduction to America: KFC’s introduction to Japan. Following World War II and Oppenheimer’s devestating legacyp, KFC capitalized on Japan’s rising austerity and embrace of capitalism and neoliberal democracy- associated so closely with America and the West that Japanese interest in Western “culture” skyrocketed at the time- by creating “Kentucky for Christmas.” Neither the fact that less than 1% of the population of Japan was Christian in 1974 when the campaign began nor the fact fried chicken is not and never was a “traditional” American staple for Christmas feasts matters under capitalist expansion, because the intention behind this exchange between cultures is situated in the context of prioritizing profit over proper translation. The oxymoronic existence of a “secular Christmas” within Japan at the time already displays cultural exchange prioritizing capitalism over accuracy, but the introduction of “Kentucky for Christmas” is salt in the wound of cultural hegemony, further enmeshing the entanglement of cultural meaning to capitalism, which was pressuring the culture of a “Japanese Christmas” into losing all legibility outside of capitalist expansion when Takeshi Okawara- whether intentionally or not- attempted to incorporate KFC into the holiday. 

Yohei Matsuki of Sushi Ginza Onodera says, “I think the biggest difference between sushi in America and Japan is what people are looking for in sushi. American people want vibrant colors and highly decorated sushi. People in Japan think good sushi is simple—good sushi rice, and good tasting fish [emphasis added],” in agreement with Brandon Hayato Go of Hayato, “There is a wide range of personal tastes for consumers in both countries, but in general, I think Japanese consumers value simplicity and purity in sushi, whereas American consumers are more interested in seeing a novel approach to sushi with different sauces, cooked or seared fish, and non-traditional toppings [emphases added]. Of course this is a generalization, and there are consumers in both Japan and the U.S. who cover the gamut in terms of preferences.” Thus, we see how sushi is given different meanings, values, and currencies by different people, but Go’s concession that these cultural ascriptions are not universal- neither in Japan nor the US- means that this phenomenon is not just caused by colonial thinking or deculturalization, but simply because culture is fluid. What is purity or simplicity, other than an ascription governed by the very social constructs Preeti Mistry tweeted about? They are both/either connotative and/or definitive synonyms for authentic, with the interchangeability of their connotation/definition further exemplifying the arbitrariness of absolutes.

Rather than sushi raising the question of authenticity, it raises the question of why authenticity? It raises the question of why one must seek to achieve or observe unabridged replication in order to “appreciate” culture or for someone to express theirs. It is simply another system of capitalism and Western epistemology designed to create the social strata necessary for division of labor and absolute consumption. In the mid-1960s when Noritoshi Kanai opened Kawafuku in Los Angeles (the sushi establishment credited with ushering in the sushi craze in California) the menu was primarily choice local seafoods- some of which were not commonly eaten in Japan such as abalone- and meals were made-to-order and served over the counter like “authentic” sushi bars. Even here we see the consolidation of traditional cultural practices surrounding sushi and how it is served with the new context of different choice seafoods on the Los Angeles coast compared to those in Tokyo Bay. This exemplifies an unproblematic cultural exchange, one untainted by the continuous desire for production and expansion that governs capitalist production, and since (Western style) sushi’s sociohistory is embedded in Japan’s precapitalist-but-almost-capitalist industrial history of the Edo period, it will hold this capacity to question the intention of authenticity.