Konstantin emails me a question:
Hey Tyler! You said you tried coffee just once, at a coffee ceremony in an Ethiopian village, as coffee probably originates in Ethiopia.
What else would you try (or do) only due to its provenance?
What else have you tried or done only due to its provenance?
I used to always try the local foodstuffs, no matter what the expected quality, for instance that terrible fermented dish in Iceland. I guess I have stopped doing this? (“I’ll just have the beef rendang, please!” No monkey brains either. I do however make a point of trying new dishes I think I will enjoy.) In the case of coffee, I felt it would be rude to refuse. Plus after all these years I was curious what coffee tasted like.
More generally, I am a fan of consumption experiences tied to what Konstantin calls provenance. If you are in Japan at the right time of year, it makes sense to walk up Mount Fuji. The fact that the mountain has a special status in Japanese lore makes the experience more valuable, even if you don’t believe in Japanese lore per se. It is one way of “connecting” yourself to Japan, and seeing how that connection feels.
When I was younger, I took a cable car in San Francisco, even though I didn’t find the experience an intrinsically valuable one. Frankly, it bored me, but I also don’t regret doing it. Think of the underlying model as “trying to approach a native culture from as many different angles as possible.” You also should try the angles they put forward as focal. Even though those angles may not in fact be the most relevant or focal ones. How important are cable cars for understanding San Francisco? I am not sure, but if they are irrelevant that too is an angle you might try on for size. And then take off. When you are done, you can always walk over to the local bookstore.
The post When does provenance justify a consumption experience? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
Comments
Post a Comment