I went to a Wesleyan church this Sunday in order to hear a friend preach and I ended up staying for their annual Chili Cook-off. On the way back from church I mentioned to Kristy that I'm not a huge chili fan, but that I love the recipe I have for "White Chili" (courtesy of Jennifer Lucrezio). This began a discussion as to what makes a chili different from a stew and what separates a stew from a soup.
We never really resolved the discussion (hence my reason for posting this) but here are a few thoughts/questions we had.
- Could there have once been a distinction implied in the language but as with most things in language (correct me if I'm wrong Diercks) it has become blurred over time.
- Does a chili necessarily have to be "red" or tomato based? If so then what is "White Chili?"
- Does a stew have to be thicker than a soup and runnier than chili?
- I think stew has bigger hunks of things than soup, but then there is the obvious contradiction of Potato soup.
So with these thoughts in mind here are some dictionary definitions from the Oxford American Dictionary on my computer:
Soup:
- a liquid dish, typically made by boiling meat, fish, or vegetables, etc., in stock or water
Stew:
- a dish of meat and vegetables cooked slowly in liquid in a closed dish or pan
Chili:
- a small hot-tasting pod of a variety of capsicum, used chopped (and often dried) in sauces, relishes, and spice powders. There are various forms with pods of differing size, color, and strength of flavor, such as cascabels and jalapeños.
I know the Chili definition doesn't really fit the discussion, but it's the only definition it would give me.
So the question: What is exactly entailed for something to be called chili, soup, or stew? And what, if any is the ontological difference that separates the three?
Thoughts are much appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The difference is this:
* One is good (Chilli)
* One is edible (Stew)
* One is girly (Soup)
I think that you are correct about the blurring of meaning of the words "soup" and "stew", with some recipes being on the seeming borderline of the two. Bouillabaisse is a good example of this, being called either a soup or a stew by people who could reliably be called experts.
As for chili, the recipe must conform to Mexican or Southwestern ingredients and recipes, which varied as they are still have some common themes: beans, beef, cumin, peppers (both hot and sweet), chili powder, etc. If it is missing too many of those ingredients it is probably more accurately called a stew.
Wow. Only you could mix food and philosophy.
I'm gonna go Platonic on this one. When I see certain dishes, they bring to mind the more perfect version of themselves; some dishes being closer to the form of the original than others. When I see beef stew, I am reminded more closely of the archetype Stew than when I see any other stew. When I see a dish somewhat spicy, comprised primarily of beans and meat, I am reminded of the archetypical Chili. And when I see something mostly liquidy, whether it was made in stock (chicken soup) or even some sort of cream base (chowder), I am reminded of the archetype for Soup.
How's that?
I have another puzzling question about the Ontology of food.
Does crunchy peanut butter offer the same value (i.e. cost/benefit ratio or flavor/satiety experience) as creamy peanut butter?
Discuss...
Dang Chuck, I didn't even think of Chowder.
Erik: I would tend to agree, but does chili need to have beef? I've had some good vegetarian chilis. And spicy? I have a recipe for White chili with the main ingredients being: chicken, white beans, zucchini and a little cayenne pepper. Should it rather be called a stew?
I guess the discussion could go on, but either way it was a discussion that caught my interest.
Ben, I'm impressed that our nonsensical ramblings have left us with such a response. I still don't think that your 'white chili' qualifies as chili....it's totally stew.
And to Isaac...when it comes to peanut butter, you gotta go crunchy.
Post a Comment