IN A PREVIOUSLY posted interview by James Kalb, the mathematician and architectural theorist Nikos Salingaros makes interesting comments about the distinction between science and technology. Salingaros argues that we live in an unscientific age.

He writes: 

Our educated world remains ignorant about the distinction between science and technology, unfortunately. Science helps us understand the universe and ourselves. Technology applies scientific results to master processes that we can manipulate so as to better our lives.

To the degree that technology denies human nature, it is unscientific.

Salingaros’ point is made in connection with contemporary architecture and its dehumanizing qualities. Architects have denied the need for complexity in our visual environment. He writes:

Modernism, in my view, was a massive but unscientific application to shape the world into an industrial dream image. It was unscientific because no thought was ever given to discovering how human beings interact with their environment. or whether we need certain specific geometrical features just like we need nourishment and air, or to understanding how human beings interact with each other to create a city.

In an essay by Salingaros to be published at this website on Sept. 5th, and which he sent to me, he examines the issue of “monotonous repetition” in architecture. He writes, “Monotonous repetition disturbs us because it is unnatural; and is so because it fails to share geometrical features common in natural complex structures.”

Some architects have rebelled against monotonous repetition by introducing randomness into building facades. This is not a solution.”The overall effect is one of imbalance, irrationality, and lack of purpose,” he writes. Human beings seek “coherent complexity” in their environment because it is present in nature. 

All of this provides much food for thought. I am intrigued by Salingaros’ points and would like to understand them more.

But all of this also provides much thought for food. At least it does to me.

Without delving into the mathematical relations Salingaros discusses or attempting to find analogies to these in our need for proportion and irregularity in the food we consume, I found that Salingaros’ general points about the pursuit of the industrial at the expense of the human, and about the need for “coherent complexity,” reminded me of the points I have made here about the industrialization of food. Commercial-grade pizza is the culinary equivalent of massive rectilinear buildings. Industrial food and modern architecture create horizons of monotonous repetition.

Cuisine, like architecture, serves an aesthetic purpose and creates a social environment, affecting intimacy and connection. It is misleading to call these aesthetic and social aspects of food simply “pleasures” as that suggests they are unnecessary and extraneous. The aesthetic and social dimensions of food are closely bound up with nutrition.  When we buy food in a personal way, for instance from purveyors and producers that live nearby, or grow food ourselves, we create a network of living relationships. But we also create more aesthetically satisfying food. Freshness and a lack of packaging affect the taste of food. They also affect its nutritional value.

While we can eat hurried or out of cardboard boxes for some of our meals, we cannot always eat this way and remain satisfied or healthy. If a person ate a diet of power bars and salad every day for two weeks, his nutritional needs would probably be met. But the monotony of this diet would affect his sense of well-being. Any conversation he might exchange over power bars would be dispiriting.

We require “coherent complexity.” Americans are fat and unhealthy because they are unsatisfied. The depersonalized, industrial food they consume, and the decline of the meal ritual, has affected health. Nutritional gimmicks cooked up by food scientists will not solve the problem. Traditional habits of food preparation and distribution are essential to health and social order.

And these depend on traditional sex roles.

One of my disappointments with the writer Michael Pollan, who makes similar points in his books, is that he does not emphatically draw the connection between feminism and the decline of food. “Coherent complexity” can be created by expensive, professional chefs or in homes.

By way of example, I’d like to offer a recipe. Like a room in a house of pleasing dimensions, this recipe creates something that gives a sense of overall well-being. It is not difficult to make.

This recipe for an exceptional Italian focaccia made with potato is adapted from the cookbook author Carol Field by Roy Finamore, author of One Potato, Two Potato. I have made some small changes of my own to Finamore’s and Field’s recipes. While it is easier to make this with a stand mixer with a dough hook, it can be made with hand kneading. Just make sure your hands are very wet before kneading it directly in the bowl and do not add much flour before you turn it out onto a floured board. (Almost all cookbooks on the subject say you cannot make wet Italian doughs by hand. This is baloney. I made them by hand for years before I obtained my first stand mixer as a gift this year. And besides, peasants in Italy did not possess stand mixers!!)

This is a substance that will never be recreated by Domino’s. The irregularity that is created by slow rising and personal handling is what distinguishes yeasted products from those in most stores and bakeries. I made this with potatoes I bought while driving through upstate New York and with oregano from my garden.   

Focaccia alla Pugliese

1 pound white or all-purpose potatoes
1 teaspoon dry yeast
2 1/2 teaspoons coarse salt
4-4 3/4 cups all-purpose flour
2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
Two tablespoons or more chopped fresh oregano
Coarse salt for sprinkling

Boil the potatoes in water just to cover until they are tender. Drain, reserving 1 cup of cooking water.

Cool potatoes to lukewarm. Mash well with the reserved water.

Dissolve yeast in quarter cup of warm water in a large bowl, preferably the bowl of a stand mixer with a paddle attachment and dough hook. Let sit until creamy, about five or 10 minutes.

Add the potatoes and salt. Mix with paddle attachment. Change to the dough hook and add flour one cup at a time. Knead at medium speed for seven minutes once all flour is added.

The dough will be sticky. If kneading manually, wet hands and then knead. Shape the dough into a ball on floured surface, adding enough flour to make it manageable.

Return the dough to the clean and oiled bowl. Cover with plastic wrap or damp towel and let rise until doubled, for one to two hours or more.

Oil two 9- or 10-inch cake pans with olive oil. Turn the dough out onto floured surface and divide. Shape each half into a round and place in pans. Push the dough to the edges of the pan with oiled hands. Let dough rest for 15 minutes. Stretch the dough to the edges of pan again and dimple with your knuckles.

Cover and let rise for another 45 to 50 minutes.

Preheat oven to 425 about 20 minutes before baking.Brush the tops of the dough with more olive oil and sprinkle with oregano and plenty of coarse salt. Let the dough sit until fully risen.

Place the focacce on the lowest rack of the oven or on a baking stone. Immediately lower oven temperature to 375 degrees. Bake until golden and the edges separate from the sides of the pan, about 30 to 35 minutes.

Cool for ten minutes before serving.   

Please follow and like us: