The Problem with ‘Microwave Meal’ Politics
The following article is an excerpt from a long form essay that will be published at a later date.
The tragic killing of George Floyd in police custody on May 25th, 2020 sent ripples throughout the global fabric of racial justice. In the days following, Bon Appetit, the internet’s darling food publication, posted this image to their Instagram account to demonstrate their solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.
The political power of food was notably championed in the mainstream by the late great chef and writer Anthony Bourdain. At first glance, BA’s response truly appeared as a genuine, heartfelt reaction to the historically charged and glaring cancer in American racial politics. But the events that would follow in the coming weeks would come to represent a larger, yet clandestine, lurking beast beneath the surface of dramatic political performances.
And so began Bon Appetit’s ‘infamous reckoning’. The NYC based food publication drew significant public and internal criticism in light of its alleged toxic workplace culture, stained by racial inequality and discrimination. In response to the PR nightmare, BA voiced a commitment to its readers that it would do better to address “racial and political issues”. Their approach? Impose a compensation of outcome. Replace a majority of their Caucasian YouTube hosts with POC’s to demonstrate that they’ve changed. Yet, glaring issues remain.
Despite its harmless appearance, those who are culturally bankrupt thrive upon situations like this. They clamor for favor from honeymoon-empowered groups in a desperate attempt to grab some stake among the rapidly evolving conversation. Our attempts to become more inclusive shouldn’t only involve putting the boot on the other foot. We rush the process and become content with the convenience of ‘microwaved’ diversity, which is a commitment that is largely rhetorical.
Microwaved versus Authentic representation
In our moments of weakness (depending how wasted you are), the ‘quick meals’ refrigerator section in that dingy convenience store can look enticing. How is it possible to regret a decision you haven’t yet made? You say to yourself, “this is pretty gross,” and devour the half-nuked soggy burrito anyway.
‘Microwave Meal’ politics is a cutesy term that I’m coining for the purpose of this article. Its similar to the idea of tokenism, but it highlights some more thematically relevant considerations of the idea and touches on the problem of ‘pop’ politics and virtue signalling.
Artificially flavored, packaged neatly and conveniently for the masses; while it bears some crude resemblance to the dish in question, it is nothing more than a cheap and easy imitation of the real thing. It may be dressed up to pass the eye test, but there is little to be done that can mask its lack of flavor and texture. Institutions and figures alike have leveraged this tool to quickly perform the ‘good’ pose in the public eye. Intentionally or otherwise, this is a sad truth.
Over a year removed from the incident, BA’s response ultimately falls pretty flat and remains inauthentic. It reflects a much broader issue: groups who are either deliberately or unconsciously leveraging sympathetic appeals such as the murder of an African-American man for social capital gain.
I want to highlight this clear distinction between the deeply flavorful diversity found in the authentic world of cuisine versus the ironically ‘Microwaved’ version deployed by BA. Its a bit ironic, since the food publication prides itself on presenting dishes how they should be: as themselves. There is no better ‘action’ than reframing the way we think and our ability to have serious discussions, beyond rinsing the proverbial plate and calling it clean.
The ideas discussed here are briefly explored. I will expand upon more of these ideas in future follow-up articles. I find that there is a lot that food can teach us about the social politics frontier.
