Inquiry in television cooking shows

Purpose and inquiry on cooking shows

Purpose is a defining characteristic of communication. Whether written or spoken, language exists so that we may communicate or interact with one another. Exchanging meaningful messages, we use language to build social networks, foster cultural ties, develop economic relationships, and so on. As Lindfors (1999) proposes, inquiry is a function of language in which we turn to others for understanding. Two main purposes exist for inquiry: information-seeking and wondering, creating a continuum in which the language act of inquiry is shaped by its purpose. Information-seeking inquiry is goal driven, with the conversation ending or changing subjects when the inquirer learns what she wants to know, while wondering does not necessarily seek an answer, but rather desires exchange with another about possibilities. Linguistic markers shape these forms of inquiry, from the canonical interrogative (what, where, when, why) to tentative markers (perhaps, maybe, possibly, wonder).

Cooking shows feature a continuum of inquiry from information-seeking to wondering in the interaction between the show host and the viewers. Instructional in nature, cooking shows demonstrate information-seeking inquiry more obviously and frequently with each episode built around a certain dish, ingredient, or technique; nevertheless, wonder weaves in and out with musings by the host and viewer, whether live or virtual. The shared wonder results in a rich exchange where the expert and novice connect at a deeper level. Remembering past cooking failures or considering future dishes, chefs relinquish their expert role for a moment. They delightfully enter a world of possibilities, sharing the enthusiasm and curiosity for food initiated by the novice or viewer’s question. In close analyses of the cooking shows, we identify both forms of inquiry that characterize the language act of inquiry between the show host and viewers, creating an interactive dialogue, even when virtual.

Not limited by time and space, viewers e-mail, phone in, or send videos to cooking show hosts for help in their culinary conundrums. In Barefoot Contessa, Ina Garten gives recipes, menus, and serving ideas for ‘fool-proof’ cooking, baking, and entertaining. Filmed at her home in East Hampton, New York, she invites the viewers into her kitchen, an intimate and personal space. Seeking to connect with others, she sets aside an ‘Ask Ina’ section where she gives tips to viewers’ e-mailed questions while demonstrating her instructions:

Although the questions are virtual and asynchronous, Ina creates a dialogue with the viewer as she reads aloud the e-mail. Simulating a conversation, she takes a turn with interruptions (‘I do’ – agreeing in on the viewer’s praise of her roast chicken she makes for her husband), and affirmations to the viewer by thanking her for the question (‘I’m so glad you asked me that’), for the quality of her question (‘Kathe, that’s a great question’), and by using her name (‘Kathe’). Ina’s active listenership signals uptake, understanding, and agreement, supporting the inquiry in progress and letting the main speaker Kathe hold the floor until she has finished describing her problem about the burning vegetables (Goffman, 1974). Ina then takes her turn by connecting the distinct unit of the conversation to a larger dialogue by mentioning preceding inquiries from viewers, participating in Bakhtin’s (1986) notion of a dialogic chain in which conversational turns are individual discrete units yet connected to turns given before and after the utterance. Although the viewer is not physically present, the speaker senses her presence and carries out the expectations of a conversation. Ina reveals how the inquiry of the viewer is shared by other viewers (e.g. ‘A few people have asked me’), which creates a sense of community in the curiosity and pleasure in cooking.

Sharing her recipes, Ina creates a cultural narrative that allows her to reflect on her experiences as well as extend beyond her own kitchen and into the community. Describing her burnt dish experiences, Ina shares in her inquiry and what she discovered from it (e.g. have a pan that just fits the ingredients). She looks directly at the camera to engage the home audience. Noting the break in the traditional ‘aesthetic distance’ between performer and audience in her analysis of Emeril Live, Adema describes that the audience’s response is an essential part of food television’s success: ‘Emeril engages the studio and television audiences by talking to them, teasing them, posing rhetorical questions, and maintaining direct eye contact’ (p. 115). Emeril cultivates a personal relationship with his audience, who applaud and cheer in encouragement of his humor and jokes. While Ina can only imagine most of her audience, she makes eye contact with the viewer who relates perhaps most directly and intimately possible with her when she admits her own mistakes and apologizes for not making her recipes more ‘fool-proof’.

Show host chefs also share inquiry with fellow professionals. In an episode on Bobby Flay Fit Week, a seven-part web exclusive series, Bobby Flay, a noted celebrity chef and restaurant owner, has guest chef and cookbook writer Katie Lee help make oatmeal pancakes and fried eggs with ricotta and spinach. Watching her cook, Bobby comments,

In this excerpt, both wonder and information-seeking inquiry surfaces. Bobby’s initial query about the pancakes is more of a musing, open-ended question that remains unanswered. The second sequence about the use of olive oil or butter is more informational and is answered collaboratively.

The participant cooking the food helps the viewer solve her or his inquiry through being shown how to cook the dish. The visual aspect of demonstration is particularly critical in cooking as there is constant evaluation of the ingredients as they transform in size, color, and texture. In her analysis of recipes from community cookbooks, Cotter (1997) notes the potential for diverged understandings between writer and reader about the desired identity of an ingredient:

Because of the subjective nature of evaluation clauses, the reader’s own background knowledge or shared or divergent assumptions potently mingle with the narrative evaluation, allowing unconscious judgments to be formed – about herself, her community and her place in the world. (p. 63)

Evaluative clauses in description (e.g. looks like X or Y) or action (e.g. beat until X) reveal culturally shared knowledge about scalar measurements and familiarity with the genre of cooking. Food cooking shows help to reduce potential misunderstanding with close-up shots of the food being cooked. Ina even explicitly acknowledges in another episode her preference to show a viewer how to cut a chocolate cake rather than to describe it. Yet demonstration is not enough as inquiry must also engage the participant. That is, ‘sitting on the sidelines is not enough: she must engage’ (Lindfors, 1999: 49). Cooking is a natural site for demonstration and engagement as there are multiple opportunities for participants to be involved, whether in the food preparation (e.g. chopping, washing, stirring) or cooking (e.g. sautéing, grilling).

Informational and wondering forms of inquiry can surface during the tasting moments on cooking shows. Using Bakhtin’s (1986) utterance as a defining communication unit, exchanges in conversation are not characterized in a grammatical sense, but by the speaker’s turn in the dialogue. Utterances can be multiple sentences to short phrases to gustatory expressions to silence, all a type of language act, ending when there is a change of speakers. In an exchange on Giada at Home, we see a silent form of inquiry surface during a lunch prepared and shared between Italian–American chef/hostess Giada de Laurentiis and her guest Apollonia Poilâne. ¹ Before her guest arrives, Giada makes a creamy potato vichyssoise soup but adds Italian flavors with arugula:

As the ladies share lunch together, Giada anticipates her guest’s inquiry and shares the secret ingredient (arugula). Apollonia smiles and immediately seems relieved that her curiosity is answered. The surface form of her expression of ‘wondering’ should not be confused with the deeper meaning of inquiry. Perhaps, the guest is being polite and that ‘I wonder’ is not always a sign of wondering, or true inquiry the search for understanding. Apollonia’s politeness and respect for Giada stop her from asking about the arugula. But, once knowing, she is able to express her appreciation and recognition of the dish’s distinctively Italian ingredient with a joke about ‘those little green Italian spots’. Indeed, inquiry may not be found in other surface forms either, such as the interrogative form with yes/no questions or wh-questions (i.e. who, what, where, why, when). As Lindfors (1999) notes, inquiry acts are not defined by form, but rather serve the function of expressing one’s curiosity, connecting with others, and developing a better sense of self and community.

Cooking shows demonstrate both types of inquiry, informational in nature but also full of wonder. Chefs and viewers alike seek each other’s help to understand how to cook better and explore different ingredient combinations. No matter what level of experience, the kitchen may provide a safe space for self-expression. Cooking can be a form of communication when people connect through the dish in its preparation and consumption, resulting in a message full of meaning and expression. Ina and Kathe, Bobby and Katie, and Apollonia and Giada provide such examples of inquiry-filled exchanges. Inquiries on food television range from spoken to unspoken, question to statement, and direct to virtual, as well as vary in topics from cooking techniques and ingredients to entertaining to supporting the community. While food television could simply serve as pleasure watching, viewers can take an active participation by contacting the host or, more immediately, by cooking. Barthes (1979) describes the activity of reading with the reader as a ‘coauthor’ of the text who gives it meaning and completion. Extending Barthes’ metaphor, Bower (1997) suggests that readers of cookbooks respond by cooking or by imagining a world of cooking and eating. Looking at digital versions of the traditional recipe, Fleitz (2010) recognizes how food blogs are multimodal open texts that invite reader interaction with the comment/response feature.

We propose to extend further the metaphor of co-authoring to food television viewers. Participants co-construct the show by imagining the dish, its tastes and smells, through the descriptions of the food by the hosts and the visual stimulation of the television. The ultimate response to the fantasized eating and cooking experience is cooking in one’s own kitchen. The culinary expression completes the language act of inquiry, yet invites further wonder and interaction with others in the kitchen.

Inquiry and expression on cooking shows

Expression describes the message and attitudes conveyed through an understood medium (language). While we build a shared understanding of words with others in order to communicate, in each incidence we speak, we produce unique expressions. Both Vygotsky (1986) and Bakhtin (1981) distinguish between these repeatable and unrepeatable aspects of language, with meaning socially constructed and sense individually created. Examining inquiry in cooking shows, we see a shared understanding about both language and the world, yet individuality emerges with each individual bringing his own understanding or sense about the world. Within the prescriptive nature of recipes, we make a unique cake each time as a result of individual cooking styles. Likewise, when we speak, we use shared meanings and structures of language but create novel expressions. It is in this tension between the fixed/dynamic, repeatable/unrepeatable, shared/unique, meaning/sense, that inquiry emerges and the entities become connected (Lindfors, 1999: 96).

Although cooking shows are a form of entertainment and provide instruction about cooking, they are not just about food; they are also about the expression, the presentation, and the representation of food. Ketchum (2005) illustrates how the Food Network creates fantasies centered on food by highlighting consumer goods. Comparing the network to other entertainment television channels, she writes,

Like early Music Television (MTV), where the programming was actually advertising for recording artists, Food Network programs highlight cooks and their associated products and other food commodities. Instead of records, people can buy books and host-endorsed food-related products. (p. 218)

The Food Network offers a lifestyle image that can be consumed. As De Solier (2005) points out, television cooking shows emphasize the esthetics of food more than its function to feed; the discourse emphasizes the visual style and presentation of cooking, spreading to domestic cooking.

Instead of seeing cooking shows as a source of fleeting pleasure, we see it as a site where the viewer witnesses long-term personal development and growth. The viewer watches as the presence of the cooking show host unfolds into the food, transforming the dish into a vehicle of expression. Like language and words, food is a product of individual ingredients brought together. Hopefully the viewer is inspired to also experience the rewards of cooking. Even when following the recipe, the dish changes with each cook; as a result, ‘Cooking, like no other activity, reveals the lack of power and authority people have over food and language’ (McDougall, 1997: cited in Bower, 1997: 106). The recipe owner or cooking show host has little ‘authority’ over the recipe, relinquishing control to the reader or viewer who is given the opportunity to create his or her own highly personal creation. In 30 Minute Meals, show host Rachael Ray develops a ‘new’ dish from co-worker Leslie’s signature ham salad:

Ms. Leslie does not share the secret in her dish, which forces Rachael to create her own recipe. ² A recipe is never entirely new as it is based on methods and recipes of the past, reflecting the sense of community and tradition behind the dish. Nor does the recipe ever get old as making a recipe involves changing, combining, or adding ingredients that are available or at the whim of the chef. The language used in describing the dish and in the interactions with the audience reveals personal and cultural beliefs.

Food provides a serving platter in which a culture can express tradition and values. Words influence one’s perception and categorization of foods, such as ‘good’ food versus ‘bad’ food. But individuals can challenge these shared meanings attached to food by providing their own interpretation. In Essential Ingredients, Kelsey Nixon creatively balances the conventional, stable notions of ‘junk food’ with her healthier ‘Banana Split Funnel Cake’:

Her demonstration expresses her musings (‘I have an idea’) about how to make a funnel cake, a ‘junk food’, better by adding ‘fresh strawberries’. Her emphasis on healthy food differs from TV cooking shows in Hong Kong, where ‘taste’ is a focus above healthy eating and balanced diets (Lai-Yeung and So, 2010). Kelsey negotiates the socially shared meaning of funnel cake as bad food by compensating with some fruit, with her inquiry leading her to bend the rules of what is permissible to eat. The cook becomes an inquirer when trying out a new approach to see what if …, Without the shared understanding with her viewers, the act of inquiry would be impossible. Her recipe becomes an invitation to the audience to consider her stance, or the inquiry’s own way of turning to others and sharing ideas (Lindfors, 1999: 106). It is in the demonstration of the creative dish that engages the emergent inquirer, the viewer, on how to play with different combinations of foods and flavors to create unforgettable dishes.

Cooking shows convey information about food, but also they record the history and values of food, the cook, and society. Like Kelsey, Melissa D’Arabian (Ten Dollar Dinners) challenges the conventional, accepted notions of ‘bad’ or packaged foods with ‘good’ foods by cooking bananas with orange juice as a topping for Eggo waffles. She also relies on the shared meaning with her viewers for them to understand the origin and innovation of her dish. Along with their familiarity, instant foods like Eggo waffles are alluring because they are time-savers and money-savers, much like their original appeal when convenience foods boomed in the 1950s and 1960s (Inness, 2006: Ch. 1). During this transition, women were allowed to develop personal interests, but with a caveat: ‘Mother had more time for her pursuits, as long as she did not shirk any of her home responsibilities. Her children and husband still were her first priority’ (Inness, 2006: 32). Much like their predecessors, women today feel compelled to prioritize the family first and bear the responsibility for their health through their cooking, with many of the female chef’s inquiry and cooking style a reflection of the past.

Cooking show hosts encourage viewers to experiment not only with ready-made foods, but also with new, ethnic ingredients. Learning from demonstration, viewers can fully realize their inquiry by engaging in the cooking process. The Food Network encourages home viewers to participate, even having guests cook on the show as a way to encourage viewers to cook, regardless of professional training. On Grill It! with Bobby Flay, 13 selected viewers known for their grilling mastery were invited to grill alongside Bobby. In each episode, the guest grills his best recipe with a main ingredient unknown to Bobby, who creates a recipe on the spot. In an episode about baby back ribs, the guest explores connecting the familiar (barbecue) with unfamiliar ingredients, using sriracha, a spicy Thai sauce:

After introducing the dish, the guest continues with his discourse on other Asian ingredients (Chinese five spice, star anise, ginger, etc.) and gives tips on how to balance the flavors. The advice ensures the viewer a successful attempt of preparing the dish. With each incorporation of a new ingredient or experimentation of a cooking method, we gain confidence while expanding our abilities to participate in the discourse of cooking. While Americans still find satisfaction in consistent, conservative food such as meat-and-potatoes, there is a rising interest for new foods. In response to this ambivalence, which Kittler (2012) coins as the ‘American paradox’, cultural foods are often modified and adapted to American tastes with American ingredients (p. 25). The metaphor of the American paradox, in culinary terms, extends to that of the world of inquiry. Indeed, inquiry arises in what we know, and the more we know, the more we are capable of extending our knowledge (Lindfors, 1999: 92). Combining familiar ingredients and cooking methods with new ones, we are able to extend our culinary knowledge and taste through inquiry.

The nature of inquiry is universal, but how each community demonstrates and engages its participants is culturally specific (Lindfors, 1999). Language and cooking are important mediums through which particular attitudes and behaviors are conveyed. While wonder is innate, since we strive to understand the world we live in by our very nature as humans, inquiry is not the same for everyone. We propose that preferred types of inquiry emerge in the kitchen more than others, depending on gender, historical influences, and socio-cultural contexts. Noting the connection between gender roles and cooking, Fine (2009) researches that women dominate in the home kitchen, but men in the professional arena: ‘Although women bear the primary responsibility for cooking for the family, in institutional spaces and modest establishments, cooking that involves creativity and high-volume service, or at prestigious dining places, is typically defined as a job for men’ (p. 241). In the competitive settings of higher status restaurants, male chefs are pushed to their maximum capabilities. Rewarded for innovative dishes, professional male chefs constantly seek to break tradition; famous ones include Ferran Adría of Barcelona and his ‘molecular gastronomy’, such as culinary foam in which he uses liquid nitrogen, and Alton Brown’s (Good Eats) science-based solutions such as a home-made food dehydrator out of box fans and air filter screens. Another arena which is exclusive to male celebrity chefs is cruise lines, who market celebrity chefs as a way to enhance the cruise fine dining experience and cruise brand (Morgan and Edwards, 2011). Given more opportunities, men express more daring and extreme inquiry versus women who express desire to preserve traditions and family history.

Social contexts, such as marketing and advertisements, influence expected gender-specific forms of inquiry. Marketing firms capitalize on the stereotype of masculinity associated with powerful engines and tools, targeting men to buy expensive kitchen equipment, from grills to blenders to high-end knives (Julier and Lindenfeld, 2005). Male cooks express their thrill at the power of the kitchen machinery, with one male guest on an episode of Bobby’s even exclaiming, ‘you’ve got a powerful blender there, man!’ as Bobby whips up a mango yogurt smoothie spiked with white rum. Powerful kitchen tools correlate to masculinity and help justify men’s presence in the home kitchen. Even kitchen blenders, traditionally associated with women and their baking, are masculine as seen with Alton Brown (Good Eats), who has an extra-large red Kitchen Aid mixer with yellow-orange flames. While men have historically dominated the professional culinary field as restaurant chefs, the growing interest of amateur male cooks in the home has questioned the dichotomy in the cooking roles. The cooking culture and marketing trends reveal traces of traditional gender roles with gender-associated tools and ingredients.

Viewers (both male and female) are more knowledgeable in the culinary domain than ever before with the proliferation of food media. Cooking television shows are a combination of education and entertainment. According to De Solier (2005), TV cooking shows offer two forms of culinary knowledge: the practical knowledge of cookery skills and the taste knowledge of food preferences. She refers to Bourdieu’s (1984) class distinction model that claims that a person’s class is determined by the volume and type of capital they possess. As Bourdieu articulates succinctly, ‘Taste classifies’. In other words, an individual’s taste in goods and practices reflects class status. Watching TV cooking shows, viewers accumulate culinary knowledge and align their food taste to the ideological food preferences of society. De Solier’s analysis of Australian TV cooking shows reveals a historical shift from middle-class suburban female viewers to a greater variety of viewers in terms of profession, gender, age, and national identity. American TV cooking channels, likewise, have experienced a growth in number and type of cooking shows that target different taste cultures. The Cooking Channel was created in 2010 by Scripps Networks in response to viewers’ demand for ‘more of everything’ (Stelter, 2010).

As a central part of the act of inquiry, participants share constant, agreed-upon meanings of a cooking dish while they also contribute their own background knowledge and wonder. As Lindfors describes, ‘it is an act equally social and personal’ (p. 96). Show hosts rely on viewers’ understanding of what makes up traditional dishes or combinations, such as popcorn or crab salad roll that is then made luxuriously into truffle oil popcorn and lobster salad rolls (Ina Garten). Our understanding of these meanings enhances our participation in society. According to Vygotsky (1986), our knowledge (or understanding) draws upon both the ‘meaning’ (the fixed and stable) and the ‘sense’ (the dynamic and changing) (pp. 244–245). Thus, in acts of inquiry, we express our present knowledge of food, such as ‘junk food’ and ‘organic’ along with its fixed, conventional societal values, but also we extend beyond it with each new food preparation and consumption building the semantic layering.

Participants and inquiry on cooking shows

In the dialogue dance on cooking shows, participants negotiate meaning and turn-taking. Speaker and listener jostle to maintain their uniqueness but desire for togetherness, resulting in a ‘double bind’ (Tannen, 1984). In this dichotomy of affiliation/autonomy, we want to connect with others while maintaining independence. Dialogue reflects this contradiction in the roles of speaking and listening which, according to Bakhtin (1986), become so inseparable that they are done simultaneously:

When a speaker is creating an utterance, … from the very beginning, the utterance is constructed while taking into account possible responsive reactions, for whose sake, in essence it is actually created … the role of the others for whom the utterance is constructed is extremely great … From the very beginning, the speaker expects a response from them, an active responsive understanding. The entire utterance is constructed, as it were, in anticipation of encountering this response. (pp. 94–95)

Speaking and listening are acts not done by separate participants in a conversation, but by each participant concurrently. The speaker anticipates what the listener wants from the start of the dialogue. Cooking show hosts are simultaneously speakers and listeners as they are attuned to their audience, whether on or off screen. The speaker exists because of the listener’s presence, changing the course of the conversation in anticipation of the response.

During this constant negotiation, participants pull one another in one direction or another. Cooking show hosts use their experience built through past expressions of inquiry and relate what tips the viewer needs, yet the viewer has the power to change the course of the conversation by asking about ingredients or the cooking method. Even the food on the show itself may influence the chef, with the sound of cooking and food consumption shaping the discussion during cooking. For example, Ellie Krieger (Healthy Appetite) changes her discourse during her sandwich-making when bread slices pop up from the toaster oven:

Ellie addresses the toast, acutely tuned in to the response of her responder/food. Like a third conversation partner, the additional sounds around cooking and eating are capable of changing the course of the dialogue, such as onomatopoeic cooking sounds – sizzle, drip, crackle, crunch, and nonverbal gustatory expressions: ‘mmm’. Examining the expression of gustatory pleasure, Wiggins (2002) claims that ‘the social nature of eating- interacting with friends over dinner and offering and accepting food, for example, … is fundamental and inseparable. Likewise, pleasure can be regarded as a social phenomenon that is bound up with interaction and communication’ (p. 312). As food is social, we relate to others through sharing and eating food and express (dis)pleasure during eating. Acts of inquiry arise in different forms from silence to utterances such as ‘mmm’ to descriptions of the bodily experience like ‘hot’ or ‘creamy’. Responding to the gustatory tokens, participants support each other in the inquiry event, be it food related or not. Valuing other’s unique tastes and ideas (e.g. ‘that’s a great idea’ by Ina Garten), cooking show hosts demonstrate and nudge their viewers toward inquiry about food.

Ways to successfully interact and inquire are to observe politeness rules. In their inquiries, show hosts and viewers alike take into account their partner and work toward mitigating their imposition. Both vie for each other’s time and attention. Examining the complexities of politeness, Brown and Levinson (1987) expand on Goffman’s (1982) notion of ‘face’ or one’s social self-image that is projected and protected, either through negative politeness or positive politeness. Cooking show hosts and guests are constantly observing politeness strategies, such as viewers echoing or imitating hosts as a sign of admiration (‘now, how easy is that?’ – guest on Ina Garten’s show; ‘I’m going to crunchify my burger’ – guest on Bobby Flay’s show), or referring to the host as ‘the master’. Guests recognize the expertise and authority of the show host and often express ‘thanks’ for being on the show, complimenting their cooking (‘the best roast chicken ever’), and even giving gifts, often in elaborate or extraordinary quantities (e.g. an oversized pure chocolate cupcake filled with truffles on Ina Garten’s show). Echoing hosts’ signature sayings establishes in-group identity, a strategy used by viewers to gain approval by the show host.

Giving suggestions or making a request to another person requires extra work in maintaining politeness. In each request, there is a potential to damage either the listener’s or the speaker’s face by acting in imposition to the other’s wants. During instruction, show hosts frequently use nondirective language as a way to mitigate the imposition. Examples include modals (‘you can add the eggs now’), hedges (‘I’m pretty sure’), minimizations (‘just a moment’), and inclusive language (‘let’s get going’). Promises such as ‘this is the best recipe’ and exclamations of ‘How fabulous!’ are further strategies used by the chef hosts to connect with viewers and persuade viewers in their inquiry of cooking.

Context for inquiry on cooking shows

Language does not exist in isolation, but comes to life in context where meaning resides. While the viewer watches the cooking show, many factors influence the experience, from the surround view or physical setting of the show – such as the kitchen, show host, the television set, and time of programming – to the weaving view, or what viewers and hosts bring together in the context (Cole, 1996). With each expression, understanding is met based on experiential, personal, emotional, and social experiences, with each of us bringing his or her own knowledge into the language event (Lindfors, 1999: 215–218). In cooking shows, the kitchen establishes the surround view with the physical context (kitchen set, program timing, food items, equipment, etc.), while the weave is the collaborative unrepeatable mix of all the ingredients, including the unique profile of each participant.

Surrounding the cooking context of inquiry is the broader, social context, with other institutions also promoting gendered ideology. For example, Spigel (2004) suggests that modern art museums in the postwar culture used the television as a medium for promoting the ‘highbrow’ male taste even in the feminine realm of domesticity (p. 361). Another cultural institution, the Food Network, transmits the message that men do not belong in the daily grind of the home kitchen despite being masters of the professional kitchen. Inness (2001) describes the relationship of men with cooking as the ‘male cooking mystique’: ‘if men chose to cook, they must make sure their masculinity isn’t diminished’ (pp. 18–19). In Jeff Mauro’s Sandwich King, he reminds viewers of his masculinity by not only squirting sriracha hot sauce from a bottle directly into his mouth, but also saying ‘I like mine (a coleslaw dressing) sweet, because I’m sweet. I’m cuddly, but I’m slightly edgy’. Giving a suggestive glance to the viewer, Mauro exudes female-directed sexual appeal and male-directed machismo. In this way, he appeals to viewers of both genders. Furthermore, male cooks prepare ‘manly’ food, such as gamey meat and spicy food, and cook for an occasion or special event that is a cause for applause (Inness, 2001: 18–19).

Finding similar results in her analysis of the Food Network, Swenson (2009) notes two major programming blocks, daytime and evening, which determined what kind of shows were shown:

Within daytime ‘in the kitchen’ programs, two themes were prominent in shows featuring men as hosts: cooking as way to flex professional muscles and cooking as leisurely entertainment. Conversely, female hosts tend to portray cooking as domestic work done for family and friends. During the evening ‘way more than cooking’ programs hosts construct cooking as competitive contest and cooking as a journey. (Italics in original, p. 41)

The time and setting of the show and the gender of the show host relate to what type of cooking is demonstrated: in the daytime, male hosts are shown as professionals or hobbyists and female as domestic cooks, while in the evening, shows are competitions or travel oriented. Consequently, the characteristics of participants and the surround view give rise to different types of inquiry.

As gender is an important aspect in participants, it is also a determining factor in the context and the expression of inquiry. As Swenson (2009) observes, ‘the most striking way in which the binary between the genders is maintained is through the absence of discussion by male hosts of cooking as everyday, family-centered labor’ (emphasis added, p. 50). Even in domestic-centered shows by Tyler Florence (Tyler’s Ultimate) and Michael Chiarello (Easy Entertaining with Michael Chiarello), topics in which inquiry arises are about creating the best dish ever or about entertaining for a large crowd. Chiarello, though a professional chef and restaurant owner, admits that his New Year’s resolution is to ‘double my efforts in cooking with and for my family’. His primary identity is a professional chef, not a home cook for his family. In contrast, many female hosts such as Rachael Ray (30-Minute Meals), Melissa d’Arabian (10 Dollar Dinners), Paula Deen (Home Cooking), and Sandra Lee (Money Saving Meals) address time-saving and economical solutions to daily food preparation. With mantras such as ‘waste not, want not’ (Paula Deen), female hosts offer creative solutions to doing more with less – less money, less time, fewer ingredients – while male hosts challenge themselves to make cooking fun and leisurely. The very titles of the shows suggest contrasting contexts and priorities that appear to be gender related.

The kitchen and equipment of the cooking show establish the surround view and help to define this gendered discourse. In male cooking shows, the context conveys messages of power and masculinity. For example, in Guy Fieri’s Big Bite, the kitchen suggests a ‘man’s cave’, with billiard tables, a red Viking refrigerator with a No. 5 and a racing stripe, a drum set, a large flat-screen television turned on with extreme sports shows, and so on. In contrast, female cooking shows feature home kitchens with flower decorations and bright lighting. Sandra Lee’s Semi-Homemade Cooking specializes in unique kitchen sets and tablescapes for each show (e.g. red window curtains and a red rose bouquet for Valentine’s, soft yellow tablecloth and lemon lace cookies for a baby shower). The tailored context provides a surround view of the cooking event, setting the tone and atmosphere of the cooking show. A foreshadow to the act of inquiry itself, the surrounding context prepares the participants who will weave in their own knowledge, expectations, and interests in the kitchen talk.

Recognizing the surrounding context of acts of inquiry helps us understand how we give meaning and make sense of wondering. We understand words by considering context, which includes the location and surroundings of the cooking event. The context of the language event helps to establish a recognizable set of expectations or genre, a concept developed by Halliday (1978), which captures the conventions understood by shared stylistic criteria. Establishing norms of interaction, genres provide recognizable codes between speakers/listeners and writers/readers. Recognizing these codes, we are able to communicate effectively by connecting particular instances of discourse with others we have previously experienced. We recognize the event of cooking by such codes determined by the context (kitchen), the activity (preparing and transforming ingredients), and the language, both its content and its style. Show hosts invite viewers to ask questions and cook alongside them, literally and metaphorically, suggesting that cooking is a collaborative act. ³ Both speaker and listener are active, doing, and probing while sharing inquiry (Lindfors, 1999). The joint and hands-on nature of the kitchen fosters an atmosphere of watching, learning, and doing.

The social dialogues springing from these food-related contexts help to develop an individual. The inner self or ‘inner speech’ is informed by social dialogue (Vygotsky, 1986). One develops her or his sense of self during the transition from ‘inter-mental/psychological’ processes to ‘intra-mental/psychological’ processes. This movement from outer to inner dialogue is fluid, with the self constantly negotiating her or his personal interpretation of the world with her or his outside experiences. Inquiry aids this act of self-exploration, and as Lindfors (1999) suggests, ‘The act of wondering may be the ultimate example of this inner/outer, back-and-forth movement’ and Lindfors also quotes Townsend (1991), who defines wondering as ‘the questions [social] we ask ourselves [inner]’ (p. 244). Inquiry nurtures the development of self and society with food-related contexts providing a fertile ground for dialogue.