#intergenerational joy

[sillybillybillysilly]

singing along to a song from when your parents were young and seeing their eyes light up and ask "you know that song?" with surprise and joy is so beautiful to me. The intergenerational connection I feel is just AAAH <3 even though it's a small thing. I love small joys of human bonding, especially different generations because it's often unexpected!

[ecclecticmx]

You know, as much as I largely hate many of the historical catalysts, most American dialects are these beautiful mish-mashes of immigrant/migrant languages and this also changes per US region and sometimes I think about how my mom uses specific Nigerian colloquialisms and I was 7 the first time my dad said " That's Good stuff, Maynard!"

[thetwilightroadtonightfall]

watched Elemental today <- is asian

[renmorris]

I love Stan's relationship with the kids so much.

GF emphasizes a lot of very real trauma in Stan's past. Everything from child abuse, homelessness, drug abuse, and survival sex work. And the way that meshes with Mabel being this truly genuine depiction of a weird little girl creates something that is very unique to the series.

It's really touching how Mabel just being Mabel heals Stan's inner child and the way he naturally clicks with her. The weird and creative little boy he used to be, before his father's abuse and toxic masculinity beat that joy and optimism out of him.

It's just damn good. It's a really beautiful depiction of an intergenerational relationship. And I haven’t really seen anything else quite like it. Because there’s also Dipper.

There’s this wall between Stan and Dipper that goes beyond his similarities with Ford and its gender.

Dipper is a boy and Stan clearly doesn’t really know how to handle that. He was taught that boys are raised in a very specific way. And like we see how Stan really struggles with his past, the way he talks about the boxing lessons in particular.

Masculinity is so deeply entwined with Stan's pain and it’s something he can’t easily unravel. How is he supposed to be able to criticize his father for 'toughing him up' when he feels like punching things is one of the only things he’s good at? It's fucking sad.

[not-so-rosyyy]

everyone's talking about the America Ferrera monologue and yes it was cool and all (she ate that delivery and she deserves her flowers!) but really the most powerful part of the film is the Ruth x Barbie scene in the final act with that Billie Eilish song in the background. THAT was what moved me. and my friends. and the sweet old lady behind me who was watching with her husband (overheard her say it was the first time in 3 years they went to the cinema!). and the mom of two boys and one girl beside us who kept apologizing to me because one of her sons almost blinded me with his phone's flashlight just before the movie started. and the full row of high school girls below us who were trying so hard to hide their sniffling from each other.

it was just after the last part of the credits rolled in that I realized how meta that experience was. watching an entire sequence that celebrates the joys of girlhood and womanhood along with this intergenerational group of women, mostly strangers to me but to whom I shared an unspoken bond with just because we're all the same gender trying not to lose who we are, discovering all the various things we're made for, and rejoicing in all the unique sorrows and triumphs of being a woman in a world that makes it difficult for us to just...BE.

I didn't think I came out of the theatre with an abrupt raging desire to crush the patriarchy asap, nor did it suddenly embolden me with radical ideas of feminism. but I could feel all of those women who watched it with me walk out of there with a certain power, one that the film reminded us we've always had. to simply...exist. unapologetically. as we are. without the need for permission from anyone but ourselves.

[scientia-rex]

I will say, I have really enjoyed hearing all the stories about intergenerational friendships on my post. People being like "yep that's Old Man Bob at the corner store, he's ancient (26) but he helped me survive middle school!" or "I share this highly specific special interest with people in their 70s and we love talking about it and this gives me joy," like, this is why I side-eye so hard when people pull that "there's no good reason for minors and adults to talk" like sir have you seen steam engines? I just watched a documentary about a steam engine restoration where the very intense man who loves steam engines was clearly deeply personally proud of the steam engine obsessed 12 year old who showed up and begged to help restore the steam engine, and that little autistic kid is going to be so much better off having a probably autistic adult friend who also passionately loves steam engines and will not only talk steam engines but teach him everything about them. I have had 4th graders engage me in conversation about my shirts (generally ones with cats on them).

We live in a society. We have interests beyond sex. Most of us spend actually a very small amount of our lives on sex, compared to all our other interests. We have so much to share and learn from each other about, and recognizing and calling out creep behavior is infinitely more useful than thinking there's some kind of creep-proof way we can divvy up humans, because the whole point of abusers is that they pretend that's not what they are, often well enough that their abusive behavior is invisible to most people. So we need kids to know what abusive behavior looks like, and we need them to have people in their lives they can talk to about that, and ideally we need to inoculate them ahead of time so they know when the creep behavior starts happening that that's what it is and tell adults who believe them and respond appropriately so they don't come to harm.

[whenmemorydies]

You love taking care of people: Fine Dining in the Time of Late Stage Capitalism

CW: this post discusses toxic and abusive workplaces and makes brief mention of institutional child abuse and intergenerational trauma. I might also talk about global systems collapse, for shits and giggles. Also this is another long one. You know the drill. Lets have a cuppa. Also this is my last minute submission to Sydcarmy Week 2024 and the theme of “you love taking care of people”. Enjoy!

I have a confession to make to The Bear fandom:

The food is my least favourite part of this show.

Its not that its not interesting. It definitely is. I'm a home cook and for the most part, I enjoy cooking (when I can do it at my leisure and not like most mothers, while balancing the mental load). I just find all the other aspects of the show much more fascinating.

In fact, I think this show about a bunch of cooks in commercial kitchens is so popular not so much because of its take up of cooking but its unflinching and loving interrogation of grief and trauma, including the kinds that get passed down through families.

The truth is, I've also never been overly excited about the world of "fine dining." I grew up in a large, Tamil family and so our meals were big, shared and not necessarily conducive to the minimalist plating preferred in exclusive, "gourmet" spaces:

Photograph is mine, delicious Jaffna Tamil spread is the handiwork of my great aunt (Kunchi Ammamma or “little maternal grandmother”), arguably the best cook in our sprawling, extended family.

As tumultous as family life could get, I often experienced meals (that, lets be real, were almost always prepared by the women in my family) with my loved ones as a happy experience. I mean we also had our share of blow ups at the kitchen table but what was always consistent was the love and care that went into the food that we were given to eat. It was woven into the rich and complex flavours that made up the curries, varais, and sambals we had on our plates (and that even now, make me salivate just thinking about). It was spread throughout the warm, coconut-y rotis and steaming rice and puttu we ate with our hands and used to mop up all that spicy, flavourful goodness.

And if there's one question I heard more than any other from older family members growing up, it was "ni sappittiya?" ("have you eaten?"). More than "how are you?" and definitely more than "I love you." As with many Global South cultures, for Tamil folks, food is used for nourishment but also as a primary means of conveying deep care. Obviously Tamil people don't have the monopoly on using food to show their affection (or even the monopoly on using food to replace actually saying the words "I love you" lmao). Food has been found to increase interpersonal closeness and can also contribute to emotional regulation. Feeding a child is one of the first means of bonding between parents and children. Food also plays a big role in the course of romantic love: as a basis for first dates and future time spent with a partner, and of course also as an aphrodisiac.

As Cesar Chavez, Mexican-American civil rights activist, labor organiser and co-founder of the National Farm Workers Association (which later became the United Farm Workers union) said,

The people who give you their food, give you their heart.

You love taking care of people

Conveying care and love through food is a theme that comes up repeatedly in The Bear. Recall 1x02 Hands and the phone conversation with Nat and Carmy:

Natalie: Chefs always say a big part of the job is taking care of people, right?

Carmen: Yeah, yeah. No I guess.

Also recall an almost identical bit of dialogue between Carmy and Sydney, under the world's most famous table that had absolutely nothing wrong with it in 2x09 Omelette:

Carmen: You love taking care of people.

Sydney: Yeah I guess.

Here's some further mirroring between Sydney and Carmy about giving people joy through food. Recall again the phone call between Carmy and Nat in 1x02 Hands:

Natalie: When did the breathing problem start?

Carmen: I think maybe sometime in New York. I was throwing up every day before work.

[...] Chef was a piece of shit.

Natalie: Then why'd you stay there?

Carmen: People loved the food. It felt good.

Also recall the conversation between Sydney and Marcus in 1x08 Braciole:

Sydney: I want to cook for people and make them happy, and give them the best bacon on Earth.

Be gentle with each other, so that you can fight stronger together: seasons 1-2 of The Bear

As rough and tumble as The Beef was, the clear throughline in season 1 (when The Beef was in operation) was the importance of the relationships and care between the show's characters. This was also the case in season 2 where the majority of the season was spent in the context of renovations and training prior to the opening of The Bear (in that season's last episode).

In season 1, we had Carmy leading the crew at The Beef by being patient, clearly explaining technique and positively reinforcing his staff's work.

Above left: Carmy walking the BOH crew through making Donna Berzatto's Lemon Chicken Piccata in 1x05 Sheridan. Above right: Carmy encouraging the crew to keep up their current pace in 1x06 Ceres.

We saw him working with Sydney, supportively encouraging the team to go further, to push themselves. We even saw Carmy at ease enough to talk about Mikey and his mother while at work. We had a Carmy showing us how integrated he can be.

Above: Carmy and Tina in 1x05 Sheridan

Heck, we even had a Carmy who wanted to get a compost installed at The Beef for processing food so that it didn't go to waste. Recall this golden bit of dialogue between him and Sweeps in 1x01 System:

Carmen: Eh yo Gary, you set up a compost for me today, Chef?

Sweeps: After I do my thing in the place.

Carmen: That's very clear. Thank you.

We had a Carmy who had time. Recall the below scene in 1x02 Hands before Sydney gives Carmy her draft business plan for The Beef (that she drafted on her own initiative and time to support his family's struggling business. If this man doesn't hurry up and fight for her in s4 istg...):

Sydney: Hey you got time?

Carmen: Always. What's up?

Similarly, we had Carmen in the first episode of season 2 making time to talk to a clearly distraught Richie:

Richie: Yo you ever think about purpose?

Carmen: I love you, but I do not have time for this, alright? *starts to walk up the stairs out of the basement*

Richie: *Nods, looks dejected, sniffs*

Carmen: I have time for this. *comes back down the stairs and sits with Richie*

Most pointedly in season 1 we had the conversation between Sydney and Carmy in 1x03 Brigade which lays the blueprint for their joint vision for the restaurant and which should have acted as a touchstone for both of them in season 3:

Sydney: You know, I think this place could be so different from all the other places we've been at. But in order for that to be true, we need to run things different.

When I said I didn't think that the brigade was a good idea, you didn't listen. And its not that you told me that I had to. [...] But you just didn't really listen and if this is going to work the way that I think we both want it to work [...] I think we should probably try to listen to each other.

Carmen: Yeah. You're right.

Sydney: The reason I'm here and not working somewhere else, or for someone else, is 'cause I think I can stand out here. I can make a difference here. We could share ideas. I could implement things that make this place better. And I don't wanna be wasting my time, working on another line or tweezing herbs on a dish that I don't care about, or running brunch, God forbid.

Carmen: *nods vigorously*

In season 2 while The Beef undergoes its facelift into The Bear, some of the show's most beautiful moments were when characters displayed their faith and trust in one another. Recall 2x01 Beef where Sydney asks Tina to be her sous chef, or 2x02 Pasta where Sydney and Carmy send Tina and Ebra to culinary school (and Tina's unwavering belief in and support for a nervous Ebra once they get there), and 2x03 Sundae and 2x04 Honeydew where we see Carmy and Sydney send Marcus to Copenhagen to stage with Chef Luca and build up his skills as a pâtissier.

So what happened at The Bear?

Season 3 of the show has been the most divisive of the series, with its preceding two seasons being almost unanimously adored by fans and critics alike. There's been a lot of debate on here and elsewhere as to why this is the case. What appears to be a dominant line of reasoning in this regard is the shift in Carmy and his approach to running The Bear as a fine dining institution.

At The Bear, we have Carmy as an Executive Chef who's berating, hostile, and blaming everyone else for his emotional state ("You guys are fucking killing me"). We have a Carmy who has taken "every second counts" to a point so minute that he has given up smoking because of the time away from the kitchen that it will cost him. We have a Carmy who has no patience for his team, almost all of whom have no experience working in fine dining before the opening night of The Bear. We see how out of sync Carmy and Sydney are ("Been off"). We have a Carmy who is reverting to patterns of behaviour that have been modelled for him by two of his abusers: his mother, Donna Berzatto and his previous boss, Chef David Fields, Executive Chef at Empire.

Perhaps second only to Donna and her stand in Claire, Chef David Fields' toxic legacy haunts season 3 of The Bear.

This is nowhere more clear than in the sheer wasting of food and money in season 3 epitomised by Carmy's insistence on changing the The Bear's menu every day (to quote Tina: "Every day, Joffrey Ballet?!") and his repeated throwing out of dishes he deemed "not perfect."

The waste did not go unnoticed by other characters on the show. Recall Natalie telling Carmy off in 3x03 Doors:

Natalie: The menu cost is out of control.

Carmen: Nat, figure it out.

Natalie: Oh. Oh. Figure it out? Wow.

Carmen: Figure it out.

Natalie: Why don't you fucking figure it out?

Carmen: I'm trying to use less shit.

Natalie: Okay, well, whatever you're doing, the R&D [research & development] of that, its fucking us.

Carmen: Well, we're using the best shit.

Natalie: Duh. Duh. Well, duh.

Carmen: Duh? Don't duh. No duh. [lmao this dialogue]

Natalie: Don't buy fucking crazy shit and then use it once, Carm. It's so wasteful. Duh! Duh, duh. Fucking duh, bro.

In episode 3x05 Children, Uncle Jimmy commissions The Computer to come in and run analytics on The Bear in an effort to get its costs under control (LOL at his assessment below, scrawled on the back of the dodgiest looking pie chart I've ever seen):

Computer: This sample is based on the month and a half we've been operating and does not take into account any funds spent previously on build, friends and family budget, other assorted fuckery.

Carmen: I mean, there hasn't been that much fuckery.

Cicero: Oh neph. You specialise in the fucking fuckery, bro.

Uncle Jimmy had plenty to say about Carmy's use of the former's funds (which Jimmy has duly invested in The Bear to support his nephew) including Carmy's decision to spend $11,268.00 on Orwellian butter (aka Dystopian Butter from the Fucking Rare Transylvanian Five-Titted Goat, lmao).

Even Carmy was under no delusions about how wasteful he was being this season. Recall his discussion with Sydney in 3x05 Children:

Sydney: You know what we should be doing?

Carmen: Produce vendor. You don't have to say it.

Sydney: Okay, I didn't say it then. I didn't say anything. Do you want me to say something?

Carmen: That I'm jamming us up 'cause we have a new menu every day and the economics aren't great?

Sydney: Well, I'm an accomplice, so...

Note: the language in this small bit of dialogue struck me as being off. Why does Sydney needs Carmy's permission to say anything? Its like she knows that he knows the constantly changing menu and exorbitant expenses are an issue but doesn't want to say anything until Carmy brings it up first. @yannaryartside has a great break down drawing the analogy between Sydney's "accomplice" confession here with Molly Ringwald's (sorry I dunno what her character's name was) confession about facilitating her partner's substance abuse, during an Al-Anon meeting in 1x03 Brigade.

We have Carmy repeating harmful patterns of behaviour at work that he has picked up from his personal life (for example, from his mother) but also from his professional experience.

The world of fine dining that both Carmy and Sydney came to The Beef from was marked, by their own admission, with "complete and utter psychopaths" who screamed, pushed and yelled at their staff (recall Sydney's disclosure to Carmy at the end of 1x05 Sheridan) or "fucking assholes" (in the case of Chef David Fields), who made their staff "very, probably mentally ill." Sadly, this aspect of The Bear is not fiction. @moodyeucalyptus pointed out in this post that both Carmy and David Fields appear to have elements of their characters based off of real life fine dining wunderkind Chef Charlie Trotter: a Chicago-based chef known to be brilliant but who mistreated his staff so badly that he had two class actions brought against him (one by FOH staff, and another by BOH staff led by James Beard Award winner Beverly Kim).

There are other stories about the grinding nature of the fine dining industry which we'll get into below. We'll also look at a few stories of chefs who are leading a renaissance away from the "toxic, hierarchical shit show" that has historically plagued fine dining and who Joanna Calo and Chris Storer may have front of mind as they take us through Carmy and Sydney's journey together in season 4 (because as tempting as Shapiro's offer is, we know Sydney isn’t leaving Carmy). But first, we need to go further back in time to look at how the fine dining industry itself has created the conditions for a chef like season 3 Carmy to exist in the first place. Lets look at the system, baby (to quote Tina in 1x01).

The Bear's culinary ancestry: Chef David Fields and the Fine Dining Industry

I should say that I did not want to go too far into history with this post. After Carmen, Natalie, and the Berzattos, I was committed to trying to write shorter meta (/snort). But I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about the origins of fine dining, and before that, the rise of Europe as the base of "haute cuisine" (which itself is directly tied to its history of colonialism and...Empire *badumbum* @freedelusionshere has made the point that The Bear writers have given Chef David's restaurant the name Empire purposefully and they're not wrong). All of this informs the current state of fine dining today.

Though France is often credited as the place where restaurants began (in the 1700s), its been established that folks were eating in communal restaurant settings all over the world, including in China about 700-600 years earlier. The origins of western fine dining (the tradition that Carmy and Sydney have trained within) however, are synonymous with French cuisine and the efforts of Georges Escoffier (who Carmy name drops in 1x03 Brigade).

The French Brigade

Escoffier was responsible for developing the French Brigade system of organising kitchen staff which is still used today in many restaurants worldwide, including at The Bear. The French Brigade was based on Escoffier's own military experience in the Franco Prussian War and was set up to identify roles in the kitchen and increase efficiency and consistency so that restaurants could scale their work to serve larger numbers of customers.

The thing with anything based on structures found in the military is that its going to replicate hierarchy (a chain of command is central to the running of military operations). In fact, much of 1x03 Brigade is spent with Sydney resisting what she identifies as the imposition of a "toxic hierarchical shitshow".

Mariya Moore-Russell, the first Black woman in the world to get a Michelin star (who also happens to be from Chicago) talks at length here about the benefits of the French Brigade for systematising commercial kitchens but also how easily it can get corrupted if the wrong people are in the kitchen. She says in those circumstances, the Brigade can quickly perpetuate, racism, sexism, perfectionism and "all of the isms." My fav quote from the video? When Russell talks about the French standardisation of cooking adopted by most kitchens in fine dining industry (at 23:39):

They were like okay, how do we take what Grandma does, what Mama does and make it you know efficient and consistent but also just extremely stressful for everybody involved? (lmao)

Note: Moore-Russell has a series of videos on YouTube about her experiences in fine dining which are very illuminating. She's also such an engaging storyteller. For example, watch "My path through the restaurant industry".

Service à la française to service à la russe

In addition to the French Brigade, another development in the history of western fine dining was the shift in styles of food service from service à la française to service à la russe. Service à la française ('service in the French style') involved serving all the dishes for a meal at once, allowing patrons to serve themselves. Think something akin to buffet style. See below for table layout using service in the French style from 1775:

Source: Wikipedia.

To me, service in the French style looks kind of similar to how my Tamil family lays out our meals (as can be seen in the first picture of this meta, minus the pheasant, moonshine and roasted woodcocks...lol). This style of service also looks a whole lot like "family style" dining which can be described as: "when food is brought to the table on large platters or serving dishes rather than being individually plated. Guests then serve themselves from the dishes which are passed around the table." In fact, service in the French style or family style dining is how many cultures serve and eat their food, both in the home and in restaurant settings (whether they use these terms to describe that layout is another matter).

I also seem to recall a couple of soulmates Jeffreys deciding to open a family-style restaurant in 1x08 Braciole (which @bootlegramdomneess has also pointed out in her post here).

In the 19th century, service in the French style became replaced in European restaurants by service à la russe ('service in the Russian style'). This style of service is what Western fine dining and haute cuisine restaurants utilise to this day. It involves bringing courses to the dining table in sequence, one after the other. Courses are portioned and plated before being brought to the diner by service staff.

In the case of Western fine dining, Escoffier shaped haute cuisine ('high cooking') through the use of his French Brigade system and the implementation of service in the Russian style. Haute cuisine has undergone shifts and changes since the 19th century including with the nouvelle cuisine movement in the 1960s which was marked by a focus on fresh produce, paired-back menus and a focus on invention. Haute cuisine of today has been described as a fusion: employing elements of nouvelle cuisine and more elaborate techniques and processes from Escoffier's system.

To my mind, service à la russe involves a lot more people (definitely more wait staff) to have it deployed effectively. When you have more people, you have more room for error (like all those dropped dishes in season 3). Family style service or service à la française allows people to serve themselves. It encourages sharing. Personally, I prefer the latter. Also can we talk about how small the portion sizes are in haute cuisine? lmao. I get it, its art. You need a gigantic plate for a small piece of hamachi because thats the canvas. Some (read: me, lmao) might also say its big ol' waste to wash a plate that size for food that takes up maybe a 1/5 of its surface area. Can we also talk about the concept of "chargers" (which the Computer rightfully rips into Carm and Sydney for in 3x05 Children) - why do you need a table setting that no one's gonna use? I'm sure there's other aspects to haute cuisine that make no fucking sense but honestly this meta is gigantic enough as it is so I'll stop there lol.

Anyway, notably it is service à la russe and food that would be described as haute cuisine that we see at The Bear. Family style is nowhere to be seen in season 3.

Colonialism, Empire and the rise of Western food cultures

A fact that is often left out of discussions about why the French and other European countries developed such globally renowned food cultures as well as their staggering wealth and status as "first world countries" (particularly in the period between the 1600s to the 19th century) was that at around the same time, these nation states were expanding their own empires by colonising other parts of the world with the express purpose of acquiring ingredients (and other resources) that they did not have access to in Europe. A brief and non-exhaustive list of examples below:

Europe's demand for flavour was so great in the 1600s that the Dutch traded Manhattan to the British in order to secure the Indonesian island of Banda Run which, at the time, was the world's only source of nutmeg. When they first arrived in the Banda Islands, the Dutch killed and enslaved much of the Bandanese population, taking control of the island's local nutmeg plantations. This violence would come to be known locally as The Banda Massacres.

It was the hunt for a direct trade route with India for black pepper that Christopher Columbus used to pitch his voyage to the King and Queen of Spain and which ultimately led him to the Americas. Columbus' arrival precipitated the colonisation of the Americas, which resulted in enslavement, disease and outright genocide, decimating First Nations populations throughout North and South America.

The colonisation of the Americas would also lead to the exporting of various foods that have come to be staples in European cooking. For example, the tomato - the key ingredient in many Italian (and Italian American) dishes - orginated in South and Central America and was brought to Europe via Spanish colonists.

The British set up their infamously brutal East India Company (EIC) to control the Indian subcontinent and the trade of various resources including precious metals, opium, textiles (silks and cotton), spices (such as cinnamon, black pepper, nutmeg, cloves, mace) and other food items (like salt, sugar, coffee and tea). The EIC would later be supplanted by the British Raj in Britain's stranglehold on India and after almost 200 years of imperialism and economic fraud, it has been estimated that the British drained India of nearly $45 trillion. I can't even begin to fathom an amount of money that large but the British could, and that theft powered much of the empire during its height.

The influence of Indian ingredients and cuisine spread throughout the British empire, including back to Britain itself. In fact, through colonisation and empire, Indian influences appear in various global cuisines (including other European cuisines as well as in the Caribbean).

Indeed the British's impact on food globally included its colonisation of Australia and New Zealand. These two colonial outposts essentially became gigantic cattle and sheep runs for the British who facilitated the wholesale theft of land - and in the case of Australia, did so without even bothering to enter into treaties with First Nations people - in order to run livestock that was then exported to feed Britain.

In order to satisfy its sweet tooth, France operated huge sugar plantations on the backs of the labour of enslaved Africans, particularly in Haiti (known at the time as Saint-Domingue). In the late 1700s, Haiti was responsible for exporting 40% of all the sugar consumed in Europe. The human cost of this was high and brutally violent. Eventually in 1803, after many armed revolts, enslaved African-descent people kicked the French out of the country after over a hundred years of heinous exploitation (thereby creating the first Black republic in the world). The French were so economically dependent on the colony for its production of coffee and sugar that when Haiti got its independence, France decided to punish the new republic for the loss of future income on Haitian exports, demanding 150 million francs in gold as compensation. The French sent warships to enforce this cruel debt. All in all, Haiti spent approximately $21 billion paying off France for the freedom that its people had already lost their lives and shed their own blood for. The debt (which involved the fledgling republic taking out exorbitant loans and fundraising amongst its citizens) was not paid off until 1947: 122 years after it was initially enforced. The French even charged Haiti interest.

Were it not for its vicious history of slavery and its century-long extortion of its former colony, I'm pretty sure France wouldn't have had the quantities of a certain key ingredient necessary to develop its worldwide reputation for pastries and desserts. I mean, you try making a crème brûlée, an eclair, a tarte tatin, a sweet galette, a mille-feuille, a madeleine, a crepe...without sugar.

This history deeply informs fine dining today. For centuries, Europe underdeveloped much of the world (borrowing Walter Rodney's turn of phrase) through colonialism and imperialist extraction. It then used those spoils and excess wealth to, among other things, develop its own food cultures and then self-proclaim itself as the cutting edge of the culinary world. To be clear, you can only faff about in a kitchen and create fancy sugar palaces and 10-course meals if you have the means and resources to do so. Haute cuisine is a product of wealth and resources, accumulated over time. Europe's colonial history also dictates which cuisines are recognised via awards like the Michelin star system. Hell, it dictates why you have the French (Michelin is a French tire company) dictating what constitutes "good" food in the first place. If you want to read more about this topic, this essay on Medium provides a good overview of the sad, racist state of affairs over at the Michelin Guide.

Where Europeans colonised and settled, this same lens was applied. This is why you have the undervaluing of Indigenous cuisine and ingredients in Australia, a situation which has only recently begun to shift. The colonisation of Australia actively involved the lying about Aboriginal foodways in Britain's attempt to falsely claim that Aboriginal peoples were nomadic hunter gatherers who did not use their land. Its why the history of how enslaved Africans brought their food cultures with them through the Door of No Return and transformed American cuisine, is not more widely known. Its why so few chefs of colour have been recognised for Michelin stars globally.

Empire and The Bear

Season 3 of The Bear pays clear homage to the impact of European empire on the world of fine dining in a few ways. The most obvious is the fact that Chef David's restaurant is literally called "Empire" lol. Another example and one of the most visually striking to me occurs in 3x01 Tomorrow. First, recall Chef David Fields' outright theft of Carmy's dish (I think we've established that you can't get more empire than the theft of food, yes?). Can we talk about how not only did Fields steal Carmy's dish but also, turned it into the most beige meal we've seen on The Bear to date, bar that single sprig of dill fighting for its life?

Carmy's penultimate plate (the final version being The Best Meal That Sydney Ever Had™):

Chef David Fields' dick measuring exercise version:

Carm was not a fan:

Can we talk about how the original plate featured the colours of the Italian flag (green, white and red) - emblematic of Carmy's cultural heritage and what is certainly one of the single biggest influences in his culinary journey (the dish also features fish, just like the main course in La Vigilia, the Feast of the Seven Fishes) - but after Fields was done with it, that shit was practically three shades of mayonnaise?

Can we talk about how Carmy's version of the dish almost certainly had a varied and dynamic flavour profile while Fields' looks just how I imagine it tasted like: whatever flavour meh is. The dish literally has no acid from what I can see (ingredients: paupiette of hamachi, fennel soubise, potato chip and dill). And I *know* a balanced dish has salt, fat, acid and heat (cos Chef Samin Nusrat told me).

Can we also talk about how Fields hates the most commonly traded of spices? The one that Columbus was looking for when he landed at what is now the Bahamas. The one that was an integral part of the East India Company's business plan rort to fuck India and South East Asia more generally?

Carmen: He hates black pepper for some reason I'll never understand. (from 3x10 Forever)

White folks in Europe were so hungry for spices to liven up their food that they invaded large swathes of the rest of the world to get the stuff. And yet, here we have Chef Fields, disliking Europe's gateway spice: the one that the Romans (Carmy's ancestors) had been trading with the East for centuries prior to Europe’s imperial frenzy, and which now makes up 20% of the world's spice trade.

Is the man so dedicated to meh that he couldn’t even bring himself to embrace pepper? Used to be one of the best chefs in the world, is right Chef Luca.

On top of dubious taste (I'm not a food critic but no one can tell me that hamachi and fennel soubise dish tasted anything other than fucked lmao. idc idc), Chef Fields is also one of the clear antagonists in The Bear. Along with Donna Berzatto, he is one of Carmy's two primary abusers. His impact on Carmy was never as clear on the show as it was in season 3. Lets take a closer look at that impact below:

Culinary ancestry and intergenerational trauma

Both Donna and David are ancestors of a kind to Carmy. Donna is clearly a biological ancestor in that she's Carmy's birth mother. I've argued here that David Fields is a culinary ancestor to Carmy. For ease of reference, I'll include my explanation of what I mean when I say "culinary ancestry", from that earlier meta, here:

Most folks understand ancestry to refer to our family or genetic lineage. When I was in university, I learned about intellectual ancestors or genealogy: where one can trace your intellectual lineage - the thinkers and creators that have shaped your understanding of the world and/or your chosen profession. I think its useful to take this concept and apply it to The Bear to help understand what the show is saying about legacy. I wouldn't limit the concept to "intellectual" ancestry though. It might be more helpful to talk about culinary ancestors in this context because the process of creating food - crafting dishes - isn't solely an intellectual exercise. It engages our intellect yes, but also each of our senses, our memories (recall that chocolate banana from 2x10 The Bear), and the need to nurture and be nurtured. Culinary Ancestors Carmy's culinary ancestors are varied given his work history. We know he's cooked under some of the best chefs in the culinary world of The Bear, including: Daniel Boulud (of Daniel), René Redzepi (of NOMA), Thomas Keller (of The French Laundry), David Field (a sociopathic Joel McHale, of Eleven Madison Park Empire), and Andrea Terry (a sublime Olivia Colman, of Ever). I'd also include here Mikey, Donna and Natalie Berzatto. I'd include cousins Richie Jeremovich and Michelle Berzatto as well. These are the home and line cooks Carm grew up with, watched in his mother's kitchen and at The Beef. He took his lessons - the good and the bad, learnt voluntarily and involuntarily - from all of these people, incorporated them into his working self and transmuted them into his food.

NOTE: In "Ancestors and The Bear" and in other meta I've written, I've incorrectly noted that Chef David Fields was the EC at Eleven Madison Park (instead of Empire). This was due to the fact that up until 3x10 Forever, we are not told the name of the restaurant that Fields and Carmy worked at together. In the draft script for the pilot, the restaurant is identified as EMP (Eleven Madison Park) by Sugar (see p 23 of that script), however this appears to have changed to "Empire" during the course of the show's development.

Through the lens of culinary ancestry, there is a clear connection between Carmy's wasteful R&D and menu choices in season 3 with the "lessons" he received under the tutelage of Chef David at Empire. For example, and as discussed above, the refusal to serve any dish that isn't viewed as "perfect" led to extreme amounts of waste at both The Bear and at Empire.

Additionally, Chef David focused on "subtraction" (recall his writing "SUBTRACT" on green tape and sticking it to the expo of Empire in 3x01 Tomorrow) and never repeating ingredients in the dishes that came out of Empire. Instinctually, these two strategies appear to me to be techniques to create needless scarcity. They're attempts at repression in and of themselves. Carmy adopts these philosophies and tries to implement them at The Bear as well. They manifest in his unilaterally overhauling the original menu at The Bear (without Syd's input) as well as his insistence that the menu change every day.

Minimalistic subtraction of elements was also a characteristic of Escoffier's approach to cooking which would be taken even further with the nouvelle cuisine movement in France. That movement focused on minimalistic dishes with fewer seasonings and sauces. Chef David Fields is clearly rooted in the French school of fine dining in this approach.

Subtraction also shows up in the show in a more dire way: in the cutting off of relationships and the whittling away of self.

I recently come across a promo still for The Bear. It features Carmy as the CDC of Empire, plating a dish. I've seen the image before but I never noticed the writing on the wall next to Carmy before. It reads:

"Its only after we've lost everything we're free to do anything"

This quote also appears in the 1999 David Fincher film, Fight Club (which itself is based on the book by the same name by Chuck Palahniuk):

Left: Carmen Berzatto, CDC at Empire in The Bear; right: Tyler Durden, general nihilistic fuckwit in Fight Club, also preaching the gospel of David [Fields].

This ethos, written on the wall and haunting the kitchen at Empire is emblematic of how Chef David operates. It reads like a fucked Psalm, giving a poetic shimmer to Field's abuse. Chef David tears down his staff, verbally degrading them to the point that he has the gall to whisper "you should be dead" to them. (OK. Can we...for a minute...imagine being a manager and that being your management style? Telling your best performing staff that they should be dead? Excuse me, mon cheri? A literal devil).

Chef David literally strips his staff of their dignity and their connections to the outside world. He makes them lose their sense of self and claims its all to make them better chefs. He tells Carmen in 3x10 Forever:

Chef David: So you got rid of all the bullshit, and you concentrated, and you got focused, and you got great. You got excellent.

The parallels between Carmy's experience at Empire - and even in the Berzatto household - and the critique of performative violent masculinity that Fight Club was trying to get across are worth pointing out. In Fight Club, white men beat each other up to try and assert control over a perceived loss of power. At Empire, Chef Fields consistently berates and degrades Carmy, clearly threatened by his CDC's talent. Similarly we have Richie complaining about having to take orders from "toddler" Carmy, saying "I was a baby too once, Syd. Nobody gave a fuck" in 1x02 (which could have been the origin story of any one of the men who joined Brad Pitt/Edward Norton to carry out "Project Mayhem" lmao. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the dudes on Reddit fawning over Richie circa seasons 1-2 also watch Fight Club as if it was some sort of aspirational manifesto and not the satire that Fincher intended it to be).

Chef Fields is meant to be representative of a toxicity found in the restaurant industry globally. There have been numerous reports of the physical and psychological violence meted out against kitchen staff by those higher up in the brigade.

Additionally the structure of the French Brigade system is such that those at the bottom - stages - are often expected to work for free. While unpaid internships are common in various lines of work, those industries start to run into trouble when large amounts of their products and services depend on unpaid labour. In fact, darling of The Bear, René Redzepi of Noma faced criticism of his restaurant's unpaid internship program. The internship program was rife with stories of ridiculous working conditions. Redzepi finally began paying interns in 2022 but then announced that Noma would shut down regular service at the end of 2024 due to being unable to afford its staff (at one point, unpaid stages made up almost half of Noma's staff).

The fact that entry into the world of fine dining means people need to work for free as a stage automatically eliminates this as an option for folks who cannot afford to volunteer in order to gain work experience. This would disproportionately impact on certain communities, particularly communities of colour whose members may not have access to sufficient wealth that would allow them to work for free. This is clearly illustrated in The Bear where we see that Carmy has the safety nets and access in place that allow him to stage at various fine dining institutions and gain much sought after experience (e.g. his family's ownership of The Beef and his ability to work there, his cousin Michelle's restaurants in NYC and his access to those spaces). Sydney, Tina, Marcus and even Richie have very different entries into the world of restaurants and fine dining.

The issue of sexual abuse and harassment in the restaurant industry is also very subtly broached in The Bear (though it is more heavily implied in the draft script for 1x01), particularly in 1x07 The Review with Richie accusing Sydney of giving a food critic head in order to get a positive review for her risotto (season 1 Richie was genuinely the worst). But the issue is huge, with more sexual harassment claims filed in the US in the restaurant industry than any other field of work.

Even scrubbing floors by hand and cleaning with a toothbrush, while ensuring sparkling kitchens, have also historically been used as a means of punishment, particularly in institutional settings. During Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, there were numerous reports of children in care homes being forced to scrub floors with toothbrushes as a means of physical punishment and control. (CW: the above link discusses accounts of institutional child sexual abuse).

Given the above, its clear to see that the industry - the system - facilitates a whole lot of shit that its workers are subjected to. So when Chef Adam Shapiro catches Sydney as she leaves the train station in 2x04 Violet and asks her how she's doing, her response is telling:

Sydney: It's been a long month [at The Bear].

Chef Adam: Ah. That bad?

Sydney: No, just-- Restaurants.

Chef Adam: Yeah. Right? Why do we do this to ourselves?

Sydney: 'Cause we're crazy.

Chef Adam: Yeah. What was this month's crazy?

Sydney: Um. The kind that's inherited.

Chef Adam: *Nods emphatically* Understood.

This Financial Times article on the dark side of restaurant culture in Copenhagen, sums things up perfectly:

“We always had this joke, an explanation for why things are so horrible: shit falls down,” [Chef Levi] Luna told [the author Imogen West-Knights], with a cold laugh. In the kitchen, the head chef gets mad at the sous-chef, who gets mad at the person below him, a chef-de-partie, who then takes it out on a stagiaire. Then one day, the sous-chef is the head chef, and he has learnt how a head chef behaves: badly. It should give a sense of the strength of feeling I encountered about how damaging this system is that several people independently described it as being like children who are abused going on to commit abuse as adults. This is the dark flipside of the restaurant-as-family metaphor.

Challenging the status quo @ The Bear

By the end of season 3, Carmy appears to recognise that subtraction in his life is not going to bring him happiness. In fact, in 1x08 Braciole, he identified subtraction - specifically, the cutting out of people from his life - as the reason his life got quiet as he grew more isolated. In 3x10 Forever, when he finally confronts Chef David, Carmy laments the psychic and physical impact of Fields' abuse as well as the isolation it engendered. Fields, psychopath that he is, remained unfazed:

Carmen: You gave me ulcers, and panic attacks, and-and nightmares. You--You know that, right? Do you-- Do you understand that?

Chef David: Yeah, I gave you confidence, and leadership, and ability. It fucking worked.

Carmen: My life stopped.

Chef David: That's the point, right?

Additionally, its worth pointing out that despite all the focus on precision, minimalism and (quite frankly) rage being put into the impeccably plated dishes of The Bear, it's the messy, juicy, multi-ingredient filled Italian beef sandwiches that remain the site's best seller. Indeed, in 3x05 Children, Nat tells Carmy that the sandwich window is the only thing at The Bear making any money. So much for subtraction.

We also see Carmy resisting a total acquiescence to Chef David's approach to running a kitchen early on in season 3. His non-negotiables read in the hindsight of the entirety of the series like his attempt at integrating the lessons he’s learned from various kitchens. It’s why the list says “no repeat ingredients” AND “vibrant collaboration”. We know that vibrant collaboration had to come from someone else’s kitchen cos Fields certainly wasn’t collaborating with anyone. That asshole was out there dictating like a fascist.

Additionally, while Carmy has realised the dangers of the fine dining industry by the end of season 3 (and not for the first time - recall in 2x01 The Beef when he called the Michelin star system "a trap"), and while Sydney grapples with her role as an "accomplice" to Carmy's season 3 bullshit, their protégés Tina and Marcus continue to keep the flame of genuine care, collaboration and inspiration alive. This is most clearly seen during the conversation Tina and Marcus have in 3x09 Apologies where they discuss Marcus' mother and his memories of her as well as brainstorm ideas for Tina's cauliflower, brussel sprouts and horseradish dish (please for the love of gad, give us more Tina, Marcus and Ebra next season).

Challenging the status quo in the real world

There are also actual chefs in the real world who appear to be doing something different with their work: embracing their own food cultures that have historically been locked out of the world of fine dining and also trying to run their kitchens in more egalitarian ways.

Above clockwise from top left: Chefs Tim Flores and Genie Kwon of Kasama, Chef Adejoké Bakare of Chishuru, Chef Asma Khan of Darjeeling Express and Chef Mariya Moore-Russell formerly of Kumiko and Kikkō.

The first, most obvious example of this for The Bear fans is Kasama, (shout out to @currymanganese and @thoughtfulchaos773 for introducing me to the above linked, short doco) the Filipino American restaurant founded and run by Chefs Tim Flores and Genie Kwon (who also happen to be married) in Chicago. Kasama is also where Carmy and Syd were meant to have their palate cleansing "reset" in 2x03 Sundae and where Sydney may have also been hit on by fellow Coach K fan, Kasama bae (shout out to @sydcarmyfan for verbalising what I squee-ed about on first watch of this episode lmao).

Both Flores and Kwon come from fine dining backgrounds but appear to challenge some of that industry's basic tenets, including the messianic role of the EC as top of Escoffier's brigade food chain. Flores openly states that his cooking is an ode to his Filipino mother who regularly taste tests his food. In the Nick Cavalier doco linked above, Flores states "if [his mother Lolly Flores] eats [the food] and there's no reference to her dish at all, I'm not doing the right thing." Flores and Kwon also operate Kasama using a hybrid model (that I think would send regimental Escoffier into a tailspin) where they offer fast and casual service featuring Kwon's baked goods during the day and offer a Filipino tasting menu led by Flores for dinner service only. Kasama was awarded a Michelin star in 2023, the first Filipino restaurant in the world to achieve that title. It also took home a James Beard Award that same year.

Note: if you haven't already, have a read of this interview of Tim Flores and Genie Kwon conducted by the Michelin Guide. ISTG Storer and Calo have read this and lifted whole paragraphs for The Bear's script. An excerpt that stood out to me, in particular:

The two first met at Bib Gourmand restaurant GT Fish & Oyster, also in Chicago. "He was leaving as I was starting. So we didn't overlap for very long. But I actually went to eat at the restaurant that he was working at afterwards, and I had one of the best experiences of my life at a tasting menu. And after that we started talking and hanging out, and eventually started dating," recalls Kwon about how she and Flores first met.

Sounds a lot like a couple of Jeffs we know, yes?

Also check out Chef Adejoké Bakare, who in 2024, became only the second Black woman to get a Michelin star in the world (the first being Chicagoan Mariya Moore-Russell who announced in 2020 that she was taking a break from her career for her mental and physical wellbeing and who also...is married to a chef lol). Bakare's restaurant, Chishuru in London, specialises in West African cuisine rooted in Bakare's Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa cultures. Bakare, like Genie Kwon, has a background in biological sciences. She also began her career as a home cook, then ran a fish and chip cart while studying at university in Nigeria. Once she moved to the UK, she ran a supper club and later won the opportunity to run a short term pop up restaurant. During the ceremony where she got her Michelin star, Bakare noted "[i]t did feel rather odd at last night's ceremony that 90% of the room was white middle-aged men. But the passion I see among young women in the industry is such that I'm confident things will change."

Take also Chef Asma Khan, who got her start in the industry as a home cook and then began running supper clubs out of her house in the UK. She then opened up the Darjeeling Express with a group of South Asian women she had met when they were all fairly recent arrivals in the UK, none of whom had formal culinary training. To this day, her kitchen remains fully staffed and run by women.

In this TEDx Talk about her work, Khan says:

"I wanted to cook but I actually wanted to feed people. This gave me the greatest pleasure. I felt at my most powerful when I was able to serve someone something I had cooked. In some ways it was my way of showing affection and love, and being able to give them something that took them home."

Sounds familiar yes? Like a couple of Jeffreys in season 1 of a certain show?

About the systemic sexism in the industry, Khan says:

"But at that time, in England, anywhere in the West, everywhere you looked it was male chefs you saw that was on television [...] in the media. It was always about men who were cooking kitchens. The greatest irony of it all is that [...] in every South Asian home you go to, you will invariably find a woman [cooking] but in every South Asian restaurant you go to, not just in India but in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, almost everywhere in the world, you will usually find a man cooking in the kitchen. And it was a desire for me that I wanted to cook but there was no road or route in front of me."

Khan elaborates further on the skewed and gendered manner in which elite fine dining operates, in this article:

“There is no public hanging [in her restaurant]. Male chefs have made cooking into a combat sport. I think it’s a reaction to the idea that cooking is feminine: I’m not the dinner lady! I’m not your grandmother! Sorry, but if you’re constantly screaming at staff it means you’ve trained them badly.”

Khan is describing the hyper-competitive nature of fine dining (and her suspicion that in a highly gendered industry that is populated by majority men, that there is a need to perform a hypermasculinity in order to put distance between themselves and the historically feminine-gendered roots of the act of cooking) and how Khan wanted no part of it, for herself, her staff or her patrons. In this Guardian article, Khan points her attention directly at the toxic work cultures of many fine dining institutions:

Khan sees herself as a vital heckler on the sidelines of the industry, rather than part of its elite club of star chefs. She is especially scathing of a macho restaurant culture that has allowed workplace bullying and abuse to become normalised – and of those who enable it.

“My deep concern during the pandemic is seeing very prominent people with considerable wealth remove the entire workforce without a safety net.” A surge of restaurant and pub workers were reported to be sleeping rough in central London in April, a fact Khan can’t shake. “It is so shameful, my heart bleeds for the industry, it is immoral. I don’t want restaurants to be ranked by Michelin stars for the fluff and edible herbs they put on a plate. I want to know how they treat their people, they should be ranked on that. Where there is bullying and racism, where there is sexual harassment, where staff don’t feel safe, people should boycott those restaurants. I don’t want to see them prosper.”

Honestly, after reading some of the horror stories about work place practices in the restaurant industry, I'm with Khan. I'm also with Flores, Kwon, Bakare and Moore-Russell. I reckon Storer and Calo are also with these folks too and that we're going to see a shift in season 4 of The Bear that reflects the larger industrial change in the world of fine dining that chefs like these are heralding.

The death of fine dining

Above: Carmy's phone in 3x05 Children

Like @freedelusionshere says here, I don't think its a suprise that season 3 ended with Ever's funeral. The fine dining of Empire and even Ever is dead. How can it not be given the way its been largely running to date, as discussed above? How can it not be when we are living in a time of severe food insecurity precipitated by runaway consumerism and the twin existential threats of global climate and extinction crises. How can anyone in good conscience justify charging exorbitant amounts of money on a plate that is not going to fill patron's bellies while there are communities worldwide who do not have enough food to feed their children? When some communities, even in so-called "first world" countries like America and Australia cannot access clean drinking water?

Truly, the argument for fine dining posited by Will Guidara in 3x10 Forever made me (and I'm sure many others) actually cringe.

There's nobility in this. [...] We can give them the grace, if only for a few hours, to forget about their most difficult moments. Like, we can make the world a nicer place. All of us in this room. We have this opportunity, perhaps even a responsibility, to create our own little magical worlds in a world that is increasingly in need of a little more magic.

There *is* nobility in nurturing people, in feeding them. But in a time of the multiple and rolling, global existential crises, where particular communities are being targeted not just for marginalisation but whole scale eradication, this is not a time for more "magic"; particularly when those "little magical worlds" are reserved for the select few who can afford them. We don't need more holes to bury our heads in. We need real spaces of care that are accessible, kind (read: not nice, but kind. there is a big difference) and nurturing. And those spaces need to be those things not just for the patrons who visit them but also for the staff who work there.

There is also literally no time for escapism, at least not of the kind that late stage capitalism promotes and as described by Guidara in 3x10. We are living at a time where food systems are said to make up one third of all greenhouse gas emissions, pushing the climate crisis further to the point of no return. What's the point of making magic worlds to escape an actual world on the brink? And while your magic-making contributes to the brink getting closer? Its like putting lipstick on a pig.

Indeed some have posited that it was the British Empire's remaking of the world to feed Britain (which we've looked at briefly above) that has been the single biggest contributor to the current environmental crises facing our planet. The Bear acknowledges the issue as well. Recall 2x04 Violet when Tina visits Jerry at the farmers' market and his explanation for why he has so little produce to sell:

Jerry: There's fewer and fewer moths to grow vegetables now, and 'cause of that, there's fewer and fewer farms. Used to be you could come down here, buy everything you needed for a full menu. All in one spot. Whatever grows together, goes together.

The reason there are fewer months to grow vegetables is because of climate change which has impacted on everything to season length, groundwater and rainfall levels (as the two main sources for global farming irrigation) and increased periods of drought and heatwave.

So whats next for The Bear?

Season 3 put us through the ringer with Carmy replicating toxic practices in his restaurant that are rife in the industry at large. Yes, Carmy also has mental health issues and is a survivor of multiple sources of trauma. We know this. I've talked about this at length here and here. But he's also a guy who's running his own business with folks who are dependent on their place of work for their livelihoods. As such, he, Nat and Uncle Jimmy (as co-owners of The Bear) have responsibilities to their staff.

As EC at The Bear who is directly responsible for managing BOH, Carmy has a choice to make about whether he "blows his trauma through" (shout out to Dr Resmaa Menakem and his book My Grandmother's Hands) the bodies of those closest to him, including the crew at The Bear. Just as parents have to work on themselves so that they don't replicate harmful patterns of behaviour in raising their children, so too do we all in our daily relationships, including where many of us adults spend most of our waking lives: at work.

Like Richie observed, Carmy is not integrated in season 3 but neither is the industry in which he's working. A menu that constantly changes, wasteful food practices, a food production and agricultural industry that contributes to a third of global greenhouse gas emissions leading to increased global warming. These things are absolutely not integrated. In many ways, Carmy's mental state in season 3 - anxious, agitated, exhausted, is a reflection of the times. Given all of the above, Carmy's "I'm so fucking sick of this" in 3x09 Apologies hits me harder in the chest. Yes Carmy, you should be. Now go do something about it.

Having looked at the career trajectories of a few talented, conscientious chefs in the course of writing this meta, I think its pretty clear that the old way of running restaurants a la Chef David Fields is over. As we sit at the precipice of climate disaster, watching multiple genocides unfolding at once, during a time of massive food insecurity, who the hell has time to be suffering in the way Chef David made his employees feel in the course of making food that is meant to nourish people? What fucking cognitive dissonance is required to continue on THAT kind of a path?

Come season 4, I reckon we are going to see a massive shift in the trajectory of The Bear. This will be precipitated by multiple things (like the review Carmy got at the end of 3x10 and whatever the fuck Uncle Jimmy is up to with that box and those golf clubs lol) but most significantly, by a realisation on Carmy's part that his version of Michelin mode IS NOT IT.

I reckon Carmy and Sydney are going to continue to work together but they'll go back to the original plan they made with one another in 1x08 Braciole. They're going to go back to family style. They're going to treat their staff better (after Carmy apologises lol). They're going to shift from wasteful, haute cuisine to sustainable food practices that support producers and the planet more broadly. They're going to leave Chef David Fields' scare tactic of subtraction behind and lean into using more pepper.

Above: Sydney's notebook as she workshops a recipe at home in 1x08 Braciole.

Tagging: @moodyeucalyptus @currymanganese @hwere @freedelusionshere @thoughtfulchaos773 @ambeauty @brokenwinebox @devisrina @espumado @fresaton @kdbleu @vacationship @birdiebats @bootlegramdomneess @mitocamdria @tvfantic87 @angelica4equity @anxietycroissant @turbulenthandholding @yannaryartside @afrofairysblog @ciaomarie

cos you may be interested but as always, I'd love to chat to whoever wants to about this stuff!

[s-soulwriter]

Happy prompts (writing)

And now that i posted some dark prompts,here are some more happy and fluff ones, since we all need a bit of comfort sometimes.

In a world where dreams have the power to come true, a young artist discovers their ability to bring joy to others by turning their imaginative drawings into real-life wonders.

A retired astronaut, who once explored the vastness of space, decides to share their love for the cosmos with a group of enthusiastic kids, sparking an intergenerational bond and inspiring the next generation of explorers.

An elderly couple finds a forgotten box of love letters they wrote to each other during their youth. As they revisit those tender moments, they decide to recreate their first date, reliving the magic of their long-lasting romance.

A small town rallies together to restore a neglected park, turning it into a vibrant community space filled with gardens, art installations, and a sense of togetherness that transforms the entire neighborhood.

A young girl discovers a magical book that transports her into the stories it contains. Along the way, she befriends characters from different tales, learning valuable lessons about empathy, friendship, and courage.

In a world where animals can communicate with humans, a mismatched group of creatures embarks on a quest to bring joy to a lonely girl who recently moved to their neighborhood.

A struggling musician receives an unexpected opportunity to perform on a big stage, thanks to the support of a diverse group of friends who believe in their talent and help make their dreams come true.

A time-traveling grandmother shares heartwarming stories with her grandchildren about her own youth, creating a bond that spans generations and teaches valuable lessons about love, resilience, and family.

A town organizes a surprise celebration for a beloved teacher who is retiring after decades of dedicated service. Former students return to express their gratitude, sharing how the teacher positively influenced their lives.

A scientist invents a device that allows people to experience the happiest moments of their lives in vivid detail. As communities come together to share their joyful memories, the world becomes a more compassionate and understanding place.

[postitforward]

Hey folks! 👋

It’s another year of Holiday Blues, and we are well into winter now. This must mean we are into our third week of Flex Friday 💪 

No one understands the bountiful benefits of exercise for mind, body, and soul better than Tiffany Curtis 💫She is the founder of Indwell Collaborative, a community gathering space for social healing. With over 13 years of experience facilitating programs for social change, and as the daughter of Liberian immigrants, she has visions for intergenerational healing, which is contextualized by living through years of compounding grief from familial loss. She is bringing those skills and experiences to you this winter with her unique program designed to help and heal. ❤️‍🩹

For this third week in the series, the theme is simple but powerful: it’s THE IN-BETWEEN. We will continue by completing an important exercise. Together, we meet to explore what it feels like to live within both and learn to hold space for all dualities: for joy and sadness, for pain and peace. Who do we become when all senses are affirmed? Join us as we try to answer this important question and many more like it. 

🧘 Flex Fridays: Indwell Collaborative: THE IN-BETWEEN. 12/15 at 1pm EST 🧘

[writing-with-sophia]

How to write an elderly main character?

I'm back! Because school is quite busy and I'm about to take exams, I don't have time to post new articles. I wonder if anyone remembers me. (probably not, lol)

There are many novels that feature elderly as main characters, for example, "The Hundred-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared" by Jonas Jonasson or "Our Souls at Night" by Kent Haruf. Today, I'll show you a few tips for writing this type of character.

When writing an elderly main character, it's important to approach the portrayal with sensitivity, authenticity, and a nuanced understanding of the aging process. Here are some tips to consider when developing an elderly main character:

Characterization: Create a well-rounded character with depth and complexity. Consider their personality traits, background, life experiences, and values. Remember that elderly individuals, like people of any age, can have diverse personalities and interests. Give your character hobbies, interests, and passions that reflect their individuality and bring richness to their life. Older adults can have a wide range of hobbies, such as gardening, art, music, or storytelling, which can add depth to their character.

Realism: Research and understand the aging process. Gain insights into the physical, cognitive, and emotional changes that commonly occur in older adults. This will help you create a realistic portrayal of your elderly character and avoid stereotypes or misconceptions.

Language and Dialogue: Reflect the character's age and life experience in their language and dialogue. Consider the vocabulary, speech patterns, and cultural references that may align with their generation. However, be cautious not to overuse stereotypes or make assumptions about their language abilities.

Challenges and Strengths: Portray the challenges and strengths that come with aging. Depict the character's struggles with age-related issues such as health concerns, memory loss, or changes in mobility. These changes can impact how your character interacts with the world and inform their daily routines and challenges. Also, highlight their resilience, wisdom, and life experience as sources of strength.

Relationships and Interactions: Explore the character's relationships with people of different ages, including family members, friends, and younger individuals. Show how their interactions and perspectives may differ from those of younger characters, while also highlighting the potential for intergenerational connections. This can involve exploring intergenerational conflicts, mentorship, or the passing down of wisdom and traditions.

Avoid Ageism: Be mindful of ageist stereotypes or biases and avoid perpetuating them in your portrayal. Treat the character with respect and dignity, highlighting their agency, autonomy, and ongoing personal growth.

Emotional Depth: Explore the character's emotional landscape, including their joys, fears, regrets, and aspirations. Show their emotional growth and the ways in which they navigate and adapt to life's challenges.

Seek Input: Consider seeking input or feedback from older adults or conducting research to gain firsthand insights into their experiences. This can help ensure an authentic portrayal and avoid generalizations or assumptions.

Life History: Develop a backstory for your character that encompasses their life experiences, significant events, and milestones. Consider how their past has shaped them and influenced their perspectives, values, and motivations.

Cultural Context: Take into account the cultural and historical context in which your character grew up and lived their life. Different generations may have distinct cultural references, societal expectations, or historical events that have influenced their worldview.

Social Roles: Explore the roles your character has played throughout their life, such as parent, grandparent, spouse, or professional. Consider how these roles may have evolved over time and how they perceive their identity in relation to these roles.

Please remember that every character is unique, and individual differences should be considered when writing an elderly main character. Approach the portrayal with empathy, respect, and a commitment to representing the complexity and richness of older individuals' lives.

If you want to read more posts about writing, please click here and give me a follow!

[hiseyeisonthesparrow]

hi!

im lds too. I mean kinda. my family got shunned by our ward and then stake and its caused a lot of shakiness in my faith. I want to believe and go back but it's so hard when I share my experiences with others and they mitigate my pain and excuse the actions of the men who caused this. Any tips?

Thank you so much for sharing your story with me!

This is going to sound like the opposite of what you are expecting or wanting to hear, but when everyone else in the world seems to have turned their back on you, the most important thing you can do is build your relationship with God and Christ themselves. Sometimes the only people who will fully understand you is the one who created you (God) and the one who felt all the pain and hurt and misery you have experienced, are experiencing, and will ever experience (Jesus).

Going back to the basics of the Gospel has been really important for me -- instead of challenging my faith by trying to understand complex social issues with strong emotions behind them [stuff like queer membership, race in the priesthood, abortion, et cetera], finding things that I know I can believe and trust is important, even if it's as silly or simple as "I believe that some celestial force out there loves me because I was able to buy my favorite shirt before it sold out forever" or "I believe that being in the temple makes me feel peaceful" rather than things I still can't say with confidence like "I know the church is true" or "I believe the nuclear family unit is eternal".

When Covid struck, I was attending a ward in Utah. We kind of absolutely hated it -- after attending multi-cultural, multilanguage wards our whole life, the sudden plainness and overpopulation of Utah wards was so strange to us. Suddenly, lockdowns happened. Church was online and sacrament meetings were held from our home. The year or two we spent doing "home church" -- a weekly Zoom call with our extended family where our cousins would take turns giving talks, and my deacon brother would pass homemade bread to us -- was one of the most spiritually strengthening experience of my life. After Covid restrictions ended, we couldn't go back to our old ward -- none of them would wear masks, and my youngest brother couldn't get vaccinated. We ended up moving our records to a Portuguese branch half an hour north, and it was one of the best decisions we've ever made.

I don't know what your family situation is like. I am not going to pretend like The Power of Christ Can Heal All Intergenerational Trauma. While Christ did help me learn to love my parents and understand their perspective, it did not take away the fact that they did not support me through my most difficult times. But I will say this: if there is anything you can do to possibly come closer to your family, do it. This is a hard experience for all of you, I can imagine. If there is a way you can strengthen each others' testimonies, it will be unimaginably helpful. Finding others who understand the hardships you are going through is one of the best ways to get through it, and it's really convenient if those people have a) known you your whole life, and b) live with you. It may not work. They may never support you or understand your pain. But try.

Instead of turning to hate those who have hurt you, make an effort to focus your energy on the things of the Gospel that make you feel joy. Making death threats to Dallin H. Oaks will never be as helpful as being a good example for those around you, or learning to love Christ's gospel. It will be one of the hardest things you will ever do. But to quote Yoda, "Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering" -- for all parties involved. Allow yourself time to grieve, to be angry, to feel hurt. But simultaneously let those feelings be washed away in time by the healing power of the atonement.

If you ever feel alone or unloved by Christ or far from salvation, you are wrong. There are armies here and on the other side of the veil to bring you back to Him. Some of the strongest testimonies I've ever encountered have been here on Tumblr, by people with backgrounds similar to mine. We are here to help you. That's what being Christ's disciple entails -- helping others. Queerstake and Tumblrstake are here for you. I am here for you. Christ is here for you. Reach out with questions about your faith -- we love to answer them.

(Also if there's an opportunity to sneak into another ward or stake's church services, do it. You don't owe anyone an explanation of who you are or why you're there)

Thank you so much for your ask! I hope I answered the question well enough -- if anyone else has anything they think would be helpful, please share it!!

[lineycantdance]

For all the people clamoring for a book/movie/prequel about Haymitch's Games, why is there virtually ZERO fanart of the 2nd Quarter Quell? Young Haymitch who was canonically a baddie? Maysilee Donner, the OG owner of the Mockingjay pin whose death Katniss explicitly compares to Rue's? Where y'all at?

Suzanne dedicates 3-4 pages in ch 14 of CF to describing Haymitch's Games. We know what the arena was like, how most of the tributes died (bloodbath killed 18, volcanic eruption killed 12), we know how Haymitch outlasted 47 other tributes, we know how he won and why the Capitol was unhappy with his victory.

PLEASE the fact that the arena was designed to look picturesque and enticing but every temptation, from the flowers and fruit, to the butterflies and even the water itself, was toxic like some kind of twisted Garden of Eden???? Gotta hand it to the Gamemakers, that's so scrumptiously evil!

Also, I'm sorry to bring this back to my girlie Maysilee, but the fact that she wasn't killed by another tribute but by flamingo mutts minutes after she broke off her alliance with Haymitch and just as soon as he figured out the force field... Ohhh the Gamemakers did her so dirty!

Honestly, for a character with connections to many established characters in the trilogy, (she was Madge's aunt, Katniss's mom's best friend, AND Haymitch's ally) and who is the originator of an object which was both a testament to the intergenerational dynamics in the series and whose symbolic significance is central to the entire HG franchise, we know very little about Maysilee.

Maysilee's family ran a sweet shop, she owned a pet canary (a songbird used to detect poisonous gas in coal mines) which was bequeathed to Katniss's mother after her death, and she had a twin sister who eventually married the Mayor but suffers from chronic pain, presumably because she remains devastated by her sister's death.

These details establish Maysilee as someone distinctly of the well-off merchant class of D12, and they evoke notions of frivolity, excess, and indulgence. Arguably so does the pin which is described as a family heirloom made of solid gold in the book. And yet, these details also speak to the simple joys in life that should be luxuriated.

Katniss's mother receiving the songbird foreshadows her falling in love with Katniss's father as well as his eventual death in the coal mines. Similar to the cakes in the Mellarks' bakery that Prim so admired, sweets represent joy, beauty, and pleasure, even if rare and fleeting.

Candy as both a source of temptation and pleasure, the canary as both a melodious songbird and detector of poison, plus the fact that the 2nd QQ arena was a poisonous paradise, I feel like these dualities had to be intentional! Maysilee's weapon of choice was poisonous darts. She was both beautiful and lethal.

I would like to imagine that Maysilee had something of a rebellious streak as the original owner of the Mockingjay pin. I would like to imagine that she probably had some important things to say given that the last thing the Gamemakers did to her was rob her of her voice.

Maysilee stuck her neck out for Haymitch and rescued him from a Career tribute before their alliance was formed. I would also like to imagine that, even though she died in the arena, her legacy lives on in the little and big acts of defiance exhibited by the other characters around her.

Her spirit lives on in Katniss's mom who moved from the merchant sector to the Seam to be with Katniss's father. In Madge who brings Gale her mother's medicine after he's whipped for hunting illegally. In Haymitch who becomes a key figure in the rebellion. And obviously in Katniss who risks her life for Prim, Rue, and Peeta.

We're all familiar with the origin story of the Mockingjay as a crossbreed between the mockingbird and a Capitol muttation—the Jabberjay which was intended to gather rebel intelligence but backfired. The Mockingjay thrived outside of the Capitol's control and thus became a symbol of anti-Capitol resistance.

It's called a MOCKINGjay because it made a mockery of the Capitol's failings. Sometimes mockingbirds are called nightingales but Suzanne intentionally used the former in the portmanteau of her fictional bird species because she literally spells things out with her naming conventions!

Thus, any character who acts in defiance of the Capitol's expectations or designs is akin to a Mockingjay. It's Haymitch avoiding other tributes as much as possible and only winning by exploiting the arena's forcefield—the D1 girl's axe backfires, and she's taken out by her own weapon. It's Katniss holding out the berries and refusing to win on the Gamemakers' terms, forcing their hand to let both her and Peeta live. It's Reaper using the Capitol flag for his makeshift morgue.

It's all the tributes who gave solace, comfort, dignity, and respect to other tributes in their deaths (this happens A LOT but notice that all the D12 Victors do this). It's Thresh sparing Katniss for taking care of Rue. It's Peeta playing with the intent of helping Katniss win. It's Mags volunteering for Annie, it's Finnick resuscitating Peeta, etc. It's anyone risking their life or livelihood for someone else's sake. It's care, compassion, and even love persisting in the most brutal of circumstances.

For me, taking risks to care for others is what flies in the face of the Capitol ideology that people are inherently prone to war, violence, and destruction. This is especially true when it happens in the Games which are premised upon an "every man for himself" and "kill or be killed" mentality.

For me, taking risks to care for other people is the power of the Mockingjay symbol. It's also the meaning of the Hanging Tree song; risking everything for the chance of love and true freedom, even unto death. And that kind of hope is what rebellions are built on.

I just think that the Mockingjay pin means so much!!! I didn't even mention how, when Katniss pins it on her green shirt, she associates it with the freedom of being in the woods. It reminds her of her father whose singing voice was so beautiful that the mockingjays stopped to listen. The pin grounds her and makes her feel like she's taking a piece of home, a piece of her father into the arena.

Also, the pin is what makes Rue want to trust Katniss! For Rue, music is the one thing she can't live without, and back in D11 she sings to mockingjays to communicate that the working day is done. Katniss offers to give the pin to Rue, but Rue says she likes seeing it on Katniss better.

Also, let's not forget that the pin is a parting gift from Madge, Katniss's friend who truly cherishes her. As with the crowd who offers her the three fingered salute which she attributes to D12's respect for her father or Prim's loveableness, Katniss has difficulty recognizing that people like Madge already respect, admire, and care for her in her own right for her tenacity and bravery.

Madge is very insistent about informing Katniss that she's allowed a district token and implores her to wear the pin into the arena. This is likely a way of honoring her aunt who presumably also wore the pin as her district token. If so, then it's likely that Haymitch would have recognized the pin which may have given him an extra push to do his utmost to save Katniss because it reminded him of the girl he couldn't save.

Anyway, I feel like the intricacies of the mockingjay pin, its original owner, and its connection to the 2nd QQ are a little underappreciated. Like, this isn't even getting into the everlark parallels that write themselves... Please, Haymitch and Maysilee paved the way. They were the blueprint.

Personally, although I'm just as intrigued about the 2nd QQ as the rest of y'all, I'm fine with it being left up to the readers' imagination. There have been some great fan interpretations both in the form of fanfiction as well as the fan film by mainstay pro: https://youtu.be/7mUjssn86h4?si=PNH1rblPBp1Us5pg

I just find it kind of strange that, given how much interest there seems to be around Haymitch's Games, there isn't that much fan content, discussion, or analyses about them. Please feel free to contribute any thoughts, corrections, or reactions to this post!

[asgardian--angels]

just rewatched steven universe future (and the movie) and I just gotta say.

I still have no idea why fandom was so upset about the show, why opinion turned against it, or anything. I didn't understand it then, I don't understand it now. I've enjoyed every single minute of that show, start to finish, all iterations. A show hasn't left me sobbing like that in a hell of a long time. It handles heavy, dark emotional topics with incredible finesse and heart in a way that all of us could learn from. It remains one of the most aesthetically beautiful animated series I've ever seen, and the soundtrack is so incredibly moving. I'll never get why shows with the most hopeful themes, like this one, end up with the nastiest 'fans' that harass creators and artists for making something that encourages us to be kind to each other. like, insert good omens meme i guess, yknow? but I will always love this series (the OG, the film, and Future). I'm glad I was never really involved with the fandom back when it was airing so I didn't have to hear any of the shit that people were tossing around. But knowing that this series basically got thrown to the wind after it was done airing - like, no one even talks about it anymore, as if there were some Game of Thrones effect WHEN THERE WASN'T - breaks my heart. It was so incredibly influential, for animation, for queer representation, for creativity in art, and for helping a lot of people feel seen and teaching us a better way to be towards our fellow human beings. I don't know who the fuck can be angry about this show, but whoever they are, I feel sorry for them that they have nothing better in their lives than to be senselessly cruel to people who are trying to make the world a kinder place.

anyone out there who hasn't watched Steven Universe before, and maybe was intimidated or put off by how it's talked about on here, please don't listen to that. It's one of the best made series, animated or not, in the modern age. It touches people of all ages. It inspires hope, and forgiveness, and working towards a better world. It has incredible character development, intergenerational trauma, dismantling colonialism, the horrors and fallout of war, xenobiology, troubled families, damaged people trying to grow and find new meaning, building community, nature vs nurture, perfectly done slow-burn plot arcs and reveals, and an art style that's so gorgeous you'll mourn the current state of the industry that stifles creativity like this. And it does all of this so profoundly and intelligently that it defies summary. Give it a try.

That's all I'll say. I never post about the show anymore bc I'm not a part of the fandom and I don't know how active it is on here anymore. But I've always cared deeply for Steven Universe and I always will. I hope outside of the insular bubble of toxic online fandom that it continues to have a steady mainstream following. Rebecca Sugar deserves accolades and a big thank you for bringing this show into the world. I'm sure she did not get a fraction of the praise she should have, and instead had to endure endless vitriol. The bar's always too high for some people who want something to be mad at, who want to blame and hate instead of supporting the few brave artists out there trying to make queer shows and pave the way for the future. The enemy of queer rep is so often queer fandom spaces themselves. Let's not let this life-changing show fade into obscurity if we can. It was groundbreaking in so many ways. It brought joy and hope to so many. I hope new people will continue to watch it and be uplifted by it, as I have all these years.

[lurkingshan]

Navigation Post

I've been getting more asks lately, so thought I should go ahead and put up a quick navigation post for my blog. A few things:

This blog is where I talk about Asian dramas. I don't really use it for other media, current events, personal stuff, or general interests. I filter a lot of that off my dash. Tumblr is my fandom happy space.

I watch a LOT of Asian dramas of all different types, and I'm usually working through an endless backlog of completed dramas along with some live watches of currently airing shows. My posts tend to have a heavy focus on queer Asian media, especially for live watching, but I watch everything.

I write a lot of meta, and because I am primarily interested in analyzing narrative storytelling, it is often critical even of shows I like. I tend to focus on writing more than other aspects of production, because that's what I'm most interested in.

I also love to recommend shows because sharing media with others I think will like it is one of my great joys in life.

This blog is mostly a lot of reblogged gifs and meta about shows I have watched. My original posts are tagged #shan shouts into the void but unfortunately I shout an awful lot so it won't be much use for sorting. You can search my blog by show tag or let me know if you're looking for commentary on something specific.

You can drop by to chat about a drama with me or ask for recommendations anytime; it is never a bother. If you're asking for a rec post, the more specific you are about what you want, the better your list will be.

Don't bother sending me hate anons when I criticize your favorite show, I will just roll my eyes and delete. Go touch grass instead!

Some quick links:

General Recommendation Posts

Intergenerational Trauma Challenge

Japanese BL Starter Pack

Japanese QL Corner

La Pluie Meta Round Up

Love in the Big City Book Club

The Ride or Die Drama Couples List

[annachum]

Female Rage in ASOIAF Universe

Cersei Lannister's is destructive, brutal and poisonous. She at first hides it with fake sweetness and diplomacy, yet capable of channeling her rage to widespread tyranny

Alicent Hightower's is toxic, destructive and poisonous. She internalized all her suffering and lashed out in the most brutal ways possible, and thus eventually destroyed herself

Helaena Targaryen's is filled with sorrow and grief. The death of Jahaerys plunged her into a madness rooted from overwhelming grief, and grief thus destroyed her

Sansa Stark's is more subtle and quiet on paper, yet she channels her rage to lead the Northerners to gain Northern Independence, and free herself from the shackles of intergenerational trauma

Margaery Tyrell's is also more subtle, often embellished with flowers and embroidery, and she channels her rage to try make a difference in Westeros.

Daenerys Targaryen's is amongst the most destructive of examples of female rage. She channels her rage to her descent to madness and tyranny, to the point it destroyed her.

Rhaenyra Targaryen's is a mixture of rage and grief. Her rage may seem more quiet on paper, yet her grievances are loud, as seen with her increasing number of mourning garments.

Aemma Arryn's is more subtle, yet filled with grief. With each miscarriage, Aemma becomes more entangled with her depression, and her daughter becomes a major source of a spark of joy in her life.

Elia Martell's is more chaotic and fiery. With Rhaegar abandoning her, Elia channels her sorrow and rage to get her and her kids flee to Dorne, and protect her family with whatever it takes

Lyanna Stark's is filled with bewilderment and grief. Having naively believed that she can have a happy life with Rhaegar, she is faced with harsh realities as she ran away with him, only for him to abandon her when SHE WAS 8 MONTHS PREGNANT. She had high hopes that her child will one day avenge her suffering, which he ( Jon Snow did )

Ellaria Sand's is fiery and destructive. She caused a widespread wave of destruction after the death of Oberyn Martell, which tragically inadvertently driven to Oberyn's daughters and her own Doom

Arya Stark's is snappy and fiery. In pursuit of justice for her family's suffering under the Lannisters, she channeled such rage to become a shieldmaiden and a chief executioner against Sansa's suffering

Catelyn Tully's is filled with grief and outrage. She had high hopes that her children will avenge her suffering, which Sansa, Arya and Bran eventually came to do.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Solidarity begins at home

I don’t need to be empowered by adults; I need them to stop having power over me.

—Lilah Joy Bergman, age 9

While friendship is made vapid by Empire, coupledom and the nuclear family become the container for all other forms of intimacy. As anti-racist, Indigenous, and autonomist feminists have shown, the nuclear family—where one generation of parents lives with one generation of children, separated from everyone else—is a recent invention of Empire.[62] It was (and is) a crucial institution for the privatization and enclosure of life. It is also central to the maintenance of a culture of authoritarianism, abuse, and neglect that underpins heteropatriarchy and white supremacy. It evolved as a way of reproducing wage-laboring men through the unpaid labor of women. Violence against women and children within the family was condoned as part of a civilizing process, and it became a conduit for intergenerational violence, and for the accumulation of white wealth and property through inheritance.

Through feminist struggle, some of the most brutal, state-sanctioned violences of the nuclear family (such as legalized rape and abuse) have been challenged, but it remains a site of isolation and violence, for children in particular. One of its most brutal effects is that it makes other forms of intimacy difficult or unthinkable for many of us. Through suburbs and apartments designed for a privatized existence, the nuclear family is even coded into the built environment.

At the same time, people are constantly inventing and recovering other kinds of belonging and intimacy. They are creatively collectivizing and communalizing life, sharing income, food, and housing in ways that break down privatization and segregation. As Silvia Federici writes,

We also have a return to more extended types of families, built not on blood ties but on friendship relations. This, I think, is a model to follow. We are obviously in a period of transition and a great deal of experimentation, but opening up the family – hetero or gay – to a broader community, breaking down the walls that increasingly isolated it and prevented it from confronting its problems in a collective way is the path we must take not to be suffocated by it, and instead strengthen our resistance to exploitation. The denuclearisation of the family is the path to the construction of communities of resistance.[63]

Many Indigenous people, people of color, and queer folks have never been invited into the structure of the nuclear family, and they have always made kin in other ways. Queer chosen families have created intimate, intergenerational webs of support, and these radical ties remain alive in spite of new forms of homonormative capture. As Dean Spade writes,

In the queer communities I’m in valuing friendship is a really big deal, often coming out of the fact that lots of us don’t have family support, and build deep supportive structures with other queers. We are interested in resisting the heteronormative family structure in which people are expected to form a dyad, marry, have kids, and get all their needs met within that family structure. A lot of us see that as unhealthy, as a new technology of post-industrial late capitalism that is connected to alienating people from community and training them to think in terms of individuality, to value the smaller unit of the nuclear family rather than the extended family.[64]

Similarly, bell hooks points to traditions of informal adoption in Black communities, in which people adopted and cared for children in ways that were communally recognized but never sanctioned by the state:

Let’s say you didn’t have any children and your neighbor had eight kids. You might negotiate with her to adopt a child, who would then come live with you, but there would never be any kind of formal adoption, yet everybody would recognize her as your “play daughter.” My community was unusual in that gay black men were also able to informally adopt children. And in this case there was a kinship structure in the community where people would go home and visit their folks if they wanted to, stay with them (or what have you), but they would also be able to stay with the person who was loving and parenting them.[65]

Leanne Simpson, writing on Indigenous nationhood, notes how resurgence entails displacing settler colonialism and the nuclear family with “big, beautiful, diverse, extended multiracial families of relatives and friends that care very deeply for each other.”[66] In many ways, these kinds of relationships make possible and sustain the creation of intergenerational forms of organizing that include kids and elders, and break down divides between public and private. Simpson spoke to the importance of this when we interviewed her:

How change happens matters to me, which is why I don’t spend much time lobbying the state. I believe in creating the change on the ground, and creating and living the alternatives. In my nation, children and Elders are critical, and it means we organize differently. You can’t invite kids to a twelve-hour, boring meeting and then get frustrated because they are bored or frustrated because they won’t stay with the childcare worker they’ve never met. You can’t invite the Elders to welcome people to the territory and then not speak to the issues. I think we actually need to do less organizing and more movement building. Right now, we have activists, not leaders. We have actions, not community. My kids are also fundamentally not interested in “the movement.” They are, however, fundamentally interested in doing things.[67]

These kinds of non-nuclear kinship networks have been sustained in the face of state terrorism and incarceration, residential and boarding schools, and Empire’s ongoing attempts to privatize and destroy non-nuclear kinship networks, extended families, and webs of relationships that include non-human kin. Nourishing and sustaining these communal forms of life throws into question some of the dominant ideas about what counts as political work, about separation of activism or organizing from everyday life. They challenge the segregation of kids from the rest of the world (and from organizing and politics in particular) and the ways that elders are isolated and intergenerational connections are lost.

Creating intergenerational webs of intimacy and support is a radical act in a world that has privatized child-rearing, housing, subsistence and decision-making. Challenging the nuclear family is not about a puritanical rejection of anything that resembles it; it is about creating alternatives to its hegemony, to the dismembering of social relations, to the spatial division of people through suburbanization, incarceration, schooling, dispossession, and displacement. This entails the proliferation of relationships that may or may not be based on blood but are built on care and love. The Latin American political theorist Raúl Zibechi argues that non-nuclear family and kinship networks are at the heart of Latin America’s most transformative and militant movements, including those of Indigenous peoples, peasant farmers, landless and homeless movements, piqueteros, and women’s and youth movements.[68] These collective forms of life are based in new forms of dwelling, subsistence, and resistance. At the same time, Zibechi is clear that these are “only tendencies, aspirations, or attempts in the midst of social struggles.”[69] Relationships of mutual support are not a destination but a continual process of struggle.

As people renew intergenerational relationships and bring their whole lives into struggle, new forms of politics emerge. In this context, Silvia Federici argues,

This is why the idea of creating “self-reproducing” movements has been so powerful. It means creating a certain social fabric and forms of co-operative reproduction that can give continuity and strength to our struggles, and a more solid base to our solidarity. We need to create forms of life in which political activism is not separated from the task of our daily reproduction, so that relations of trust and commitment can develop that today remain on the horizon. We need to put our lives in common with the lives of other people to have movements that are solid and do not rise up and then dissipate. Sharing reproduction, this is what began to happen within the Occupy Movement and what usually happens when a struggle reaches a moment of almost insurrectional power. For example, when a strike goes on for several months, people begin to put their lives in common because they have to mobilise all their resources not to be defeated.[70]

Federici here gets at the way in which care is not only a means of maintaining struggles, but a transformative part of struggle itself. While Empire works to privatize and individualize our daily lives, many movements are reproducing themselves more autonomously by collectivizing care: from cooking to cohabitation to learning to just being present with each other.

Friendship, kinship, and communalization have also been at the heart of working across the hierarchical divides of heteropatriarchy, white supremacy, colonization, ableism, ecocide, and other systems that have taught us to enact violence on each other and internalize oppressive ways of relating. To make kin across these divisions is a precarious and radical act. Everyone knows how difficult this can be, and how people fuck up, hurt each other, and blame each other. Those conscripted into oppressive roles can always fall back into old habits. In some cases, people are able to talk about all this in ways that are subtle, gentle, and more attuned to each other’s tendencies, triggers, and gifts, and genuine relations of support emerge. In the context of queer, anti-racist disability justice, Mia Mingus speaks to the centrality of strong relationships for undoing oppression:

Any kind of systematic change we want to make will require us to work together to do it. And we have to have relationships strong enough to hold us as we go up against something as powerful as the state, the medical industrial complex, the prison system, the gender binary system, the church, immigration system, the war machine, global capitalism. Because we’re going to mess up. Of that I am sure. We cannot, on the one hand have sharp analysis about how pervasive systems of oppression and violence are and then on the other hand, expect people to act like that’s not the world we exist in. Of course there are times we are going to do and say oppressive things, of course we are going to hurt each other, of course we are going to be violent, collude in violence or accept violence as normal. We must roll up our sleeves and start doing the hard work of learning how to work through conflict, pain and hurt as if our lives depended on it—because they do.[71]

Between the authors of this book, friendship has required us to negotiate divisions ingrained in our bodies by ageism, patriarchy, capitalism, and ableism. Sometimes these divisions get in the way of our capacity to connect in ways that are enabling and transformative. Patriarchy has socialized Nick, as a man, to be self-assured, (over)confident, rational, and individualistic. carla has been socialized to be submissive, caring, diffident, and to put others before herself. Even as we worked against some of these tendencies, carla ended up doing more emotional and caring labor for this project and Nick ended up doing more labor when it came to writing and editing. We have also been learning to challenge these divisions, always partially and inconsistently, through processes of mutual growth, support, and (un)learning. In part because of our very different life experiences, skill sets, and perspectives, our collaborative process has enabled us to produce something new together and made us both more capable in new ways. Neither of us could have written this book, or anything like it, alone.