中西飲食文化差异
[ 2006-04-05 21:07:58 pm | 作者: liangkuai ]
中西飲食文化差异
Lines and Circles, West and East
NOTHING IN THE WORLD IS ABSOLUTE. Everything is relative, cultural difference being no exception. Culture, as the total pattern of human behavior and its products, oversteps geographical limits and historical conditions in many ways, and it is characterized by its strong penetrativeness and fusibility.
The advancement of the globalized economy and the rapidity and ease of modern communication, transportation, and mass media have resulted in an ever increasing exchange between cultures, unprecedented in scale, scope, and speed. Consequently, an increase in universality and a reduction in difference between cultures is an inevitable trend. It is no surprise to see phenomena characteristic of one culture existing in another. As a result, some people even fear that the world will become a dull place when all the different nationalities behave exactly alike.
Nevertheless, the “cultural sediment” formed through long-range accumulation is not to be easily removed, and the cultural tradition handed down from generation to generation shows great consistency and continuity. The cultures of different regions and nations still have their own distinctive peculiarities, and therefore significance still needs to be attached to the study of the individualities of different cultures against the background of their universality.
By and large, linearity and circularity can be used to indicate the major difference between Western and Chinese cultures. “Western culture” here is a general term, putting aside its interior regional diversities in order to contrast it with Chinese culture. A circle is a round enclosure. A line is a narrow continuous mark. The contrast between the linearity of Western culture and the circularity of Chinese culture embodies itself in such aspects as worldview, core value, outlook on time, and mode of thinking.
Worldview: Linear Division and Circular Enclosure
A line divides an area while a circle encloses one. As far as worldviews are concerned, Western linearity is displayed in the general belief that the Universe is divided into two opposites with a clear-cut demarcation line drawn between the two: man and nature, subject and object, mind and matter, the divine and the secular. Chinese circularity manifests itself in the prevailing viewpoint of combining the two opposites and enclosing them. Although opposites are acknowledged in both cultures, Western culture emphasizes their coexistence and opposition, whereas Chinese culture stresses their interdependence and integration.
The linear nature of the Western worldview can be traced back to such ancient Greek philosophers as Thales, Heracleitus, Plato, and Aristotle. They all advocate dividing the world into two opposing parts: element and soul, reality and reason, matter and form. Their theories laid the foundation for the further development of the one-dividing-into-two view adopted by Western culture. Archimedes said more than two thousand years ago, “Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the earth.” A proverb says, “Nature is conquered by obeying her.” Conquering or obeying, human beings in the West consider Nature as their opposite.
Christianity holds that God creates human beings and human beings sin against God. Throughout the Bible the theme of the redemption of mankind is developed. There exists a clear division between God and humanity. Later hypotheses like those of Descartes and Hegel consolidated the theoretical basis though they introduced different notions, such as matter and mind and real object and absolute spirit. The dividing worldview is the starting point of Western culture’s exploring and transforming Nature and explains the rapid development of science and technology in the West.
The circular Chinese worldview originates from the notion of Tao in the proposition “Tao consists of Yin and Yang” in the Book of Changes (about 600 BC). Lao-tzu, who lived about 500 years before Christ, further enunciated the concept of Tao in chapter 42 of his Tao Te Ching: “Tao gave birth to the One; the One gave birth successively to two things, three things, up to ten thousand. These ten thousand creatures cannot turn their backs to the shade (Yin) without having the sun (Yang) on their bellies, and it is on this blending of the breaths (both Yin and Yang) that their harmony depends” (Arthur Maley’s translation). It is obviously the One, the blending, and the harmony that are emphasized in the explanation of Tao.
Two centuries after Lao-tzu, Chuang-tzu (369 –286 BC) used orderly philosophic discussion rather than poetic intuition to clarify the concept of Tao. He believed in “the One reality which is all men, gods, and things: complete, all-embracing, and the whole; it is an all-embracing unity from which nothing can be separated” (Gardener Murphy’s translation). When it comes to the relationship between humanity and Nature, he proposes that “the perfect man has no self because he has transcended the finite and identified himself with the universe.” Thus the concept that human beings are part of Nature is rooted in the minds of the Chinese people. Dong Zhongshu (179 –104 BC), a philosopher of the West Han dynasty, again developed the Oneness worldview. He assumed that “the energy of heaven and earth is a unified one. It consists of Yin and Yang and manifests itself in four seasons and five elements.”
A number of Chinese expressions mirror the idea of identifying human beings with Nature rather than separating them. Here are some examples:
Nature affects human affairs and human behavior finds response in Nature (Tian ren ganying).
The law of Nature and the feelings of humanity are in unison (Tian li ren qing).
Nature accords with human wishes (Tian cong ren yuan).
Nature is angry and people are resentful (Tian nu ren yuan).
Nature’s will brings about human affinity (Tian yi ren yuan).
Nature and humankind turn to one. (Tian yu ren gui).
The Chinese character “tian” is translated as “Nature” in the above expressions, although “tian” carries a wider sense than the English word. “Tian” (Nature) and “ren” (human) always react to and comply with each other. They can never be separated. The Oneness worldview also finds expression in Chinese poems:
Flowers smile on the happy occasion.
Birds sing with the joyful congregation.
(Wang Wei)
Trees sway in a mournful gale.
Waves surge like hill and dale.
(Cao Zhi)
Catkins scattered by wind, my motherland is being disintegrated.
Rain striking duckweed, I sink against the tide, broken-hearted.
(Wen Tianxiang)
As the above lines show, things in Nature like flowers, birds, trees, waves, wind, and rain all respond to such human feelings as happiness, sadness, anger, and sorrow. Humanity and Nature blend into a harmonious identity.
Core Value: Linear Individuality and Circular Integrity
A line is a point moving continuously onward, whereas a circle is a centripetal ring. In terms of core value, Western linearity is embodied in the priority given to developing individual potentialities, realizing individual objectives, and seeking individual interests; Chinese circularity is embodied in the importance attached to harmonizing community relationships, actualizing community objectives, and safeguarding community interests.
For most Westerners, individualism is undoubtedly a positive core value. In fact, the social systems of various Western nations, and especially the United States, are based on “rugged individualism,” as described by Herbert Hoover in 1928. The pursuit of individual rights and interests is considered utterly legitimate. Self-actualization and the maximal realization of individual potential are supreme aims in life. It is fully justified for individuals to protect their private interests when they are in conflict with those of the community or the state. Weight is given to the individual rather than to the community, as Margaret Thatcher said in a speech in 1987: “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women.” Westerners prefer to discipline themselves rather than be disciplined by others. They take pride in their independence and their right to make their own decisions. They go their own way, not caring much about what others might think about their doings.
In Western culture, an individual is like an independent point, moving forward continuously in a self-chosen direction, forming a line of self-fulfillment. If different people’s lines run parallel, they will each smoothly attain their own aims in life. As one American professor put it: “You are selfish and I am selfish, but you don’t stand in my way and I don’t stand in your way. We are both selfish, and we are both happy.”
However, if two lines intersect, the stronger line must cut off the other one in order to keep moving on itself, thus conforming to the law of the survival of the fittest. Guided by linear competition-oriented value, everyone seeks independence and self-reliance, and everyone feels insecure and makes unremitting efforts. The linear road of an individual’s life is made and extended by the individual’s own feet, and success is achieved through individual effort.
Chinese culture, on the other hand, takes circular integrity as the basis of its value. An individual is incorporated into the integrity of the whole. The center of the circle represents the community’s interests and serves as the common objective of all its individual members. The individual exists in the community and finds the meaning of his existence through it. An individual in isolation has no meaningful existence.
More than two thousand years ago, Confucius advocated that “a public spirit should rule everything under the sun and a gentleman should put others’ interests above his own.” An ancient Chinese would consider it the primary aim in life “to cultivate his own moral character, put family affairs in order, administer state affairs well, and pacify the whole world.” It is evident that the interests of the small circle (family), the intermediate circle (state), and the large circle (world) come above one’s own, and one has to cultivate one’s own moral character and to exert oneself in order to achieve the goal of serving the community’s interests. A couplet from a Ming dynasty academy of classical learning says, “The sounds of wind, rain, and reading each come into my ears; the affairs of family, state, and world are all kept in my mind.” Fan Zhongyan, a Song dynasty poet, expressed his desire “to show concern over state affairs before others and enjoy comforts after them.”
It has been a widely accepted motto that “everyone has a share of responsibility for the fate of his country.” In present-day China, prioritizing community interests remains the mainstream value, in spite of the importation of different values from other cultures. Jean Brick, as an outsider who has come inside for some time, has observed the circular group-oriented Chinese value with keen cross-cultural awareness. She says in her book China, “Private interests are vested in the group, that is in the family or in the community, and not in the individual. True self-fulfillment for the individual lies in fulfilling social responsibilities to the greatest extent possible. In fact, the establishment of harmonious social relations is seen as an absolute necessity, without which any development is impossible.”
Outlook on Time: Linear Extension and Circular Rotation
A line extends and a circle rotates. Western culture looks upon time as the extension of a line going ceaselessly forward and never returning, and therefore holds the future in high regard and plans for it. In contrast Chinese culture thinks of time as the rotation of a circle, going repeatedly round and round, day in and day out, and thus cherishes and reveres the past.
The linear outlook on time finds reflection in many Western literary works. Men of letters compare time to “the devourer of everything” (Ovid, 15 AD), “the subtle thief of youth” (Milton, 1645), and a “winged chariot hurrying near” (Marvel, 1681). Shakespeare in 1601 described time as “most brisk and giddy-paced.” As Jia Yuxin says, “Time is viewed in Western culture as an unceasing one-way movement. It means marching, flowing, and flying. It resembles the river, the waterfall, and the torrent.” Edward T. Hall points out that nobody in the Western world can escape the iron-handed control of unidirectional time. The linear view of time is also evidenced in such proverbs as “Time lost is never found again” and “Time and tide wait for no man.”
As time is regarded as something moving on in one direction and never coming back, Westerners have a strong sense of the shortage of time, which quickens their pace of life and makes them habitually look ahead, having their eyes on the future. People are used to writing in their calendars what is to be done in the future and focus much of their attention on planning for it. They tend to defy authorities and enjoy blazing new trails rather than following the beaten track. It might be said that the linear view encourages bold exploration and promotes scientific creation.
The Chinese circular outlook on time is also revealed in literary writings and proverbs. The flight of time is compared in classical writings to the movement of a shuttle (suo), which flits back and forth in a weaving loom. Qu Yuan (about 270 BC), a patriotic poet of the Warring States Period, writes in his masterpiece The Lament, “The sun alternates with the moon; autumn returns after spring soon.” Time is looked upon not as a never returning, one-way movement, but as a back-and-forth rotation like the endless cycle of the seasons. It is true that time goes quickly, but it comes back soon as the sun and moon do. The circular view results in a sense of the abundance of time and thus doing things in an unhurried manner.
People believe that loss can be made up for as time rotates. This belief is expressed in a line from The Biography of Feng Yi written in the East Han dynasty, “What is lost at sunrise can be regained at sunset.” Although people also sigh over “time waiting for no one” (Tao Yuanming, Jin dynasty) and feel “regret for the negligent loss of time” (Han Yu, Tang dynasty), yet they expect “the favor of the time cycle and the change from bad to good luck.” The unhurried and leisurely manner is so appreciated that advice is given and farewell remarks are made by frequently using the phrases “go (eat, play, watch, discuss, do something) slowly” or “take your time.” The road sign “slow down, look around, and then cross” can be found at crossroads everywhere in China.
The view of time as a cycle often directs people’s attention to the past. People keep diaries to record what has been done in the past instead of listing what is to be done in the future. They tend to look back, value past experience, respect authorities, and follow established practice. Confucius advises people “to engage in introspection every day on three points.” He means that everyone should constantly reflect on his own past behavior and try to find out whether he has done anything unfaithful and dishonest or has shunned his studies. It might be surmised that the circular view motivates self-examination and contributes to social stability.
Mode of Thinking: Linear Dissection and Circular Synthesis
With regard to modes of thinking, people nurtured in Western culture tend to dissect things into parts and analyze their relationships. On the other hand, people brought up in Chinese culture are likely to synthesize parts and examine the whole. Linear dissection contributes to the development of logical thinking by abstract reasoning, whereas circular synthesis helps a person to think in terms of images and to gain intuitive insight.
Analytical thinking prevails in Western culture. People are good at classifying things and arranging them systematically. Encyclopedic works appeared long ago and taxonomy was advanced early. Animals, plants, and objects are clearly divided, subdivided, and further divided according to their similarities, differences, and relationships. If you glance at the title, subtitles, and topic sentences of each paragraph of an article, you instantly know its content. When a speech is made, the audience can easily get the message by following the cohesive connectors signaling time relationships, like “first,” “second,” “next,” and “finally” and so on, and words signaling logical relationships, such as “because,” “however,” “actually,” and “supposing.”
Experimental analysis has long been used as the major method of scientific research. Doctors of Western medicine treat their patients by examining parts of the body through tests and X rays before making a diagnosis. Linear dissection is related to abstraction. Qian Xuesen says, “Abstractive thinking seems to be linear or branch-like.” Westerners are relatively stronger in making use of concepts for logical judgment and reasoning. Abstraction is synonymous with precision and clarity, and that may help to explain why more theoretical works on science and technology have been produced in the West.
The synthetic mode of thinking holds sway in Chinese culture. People are accustomed to observing and judging things as an enclosed whole. Analysis is not rejected, but synthesis predominates. There was no encyclopedia of the Western kind in ancient China. Leishu, a kind of reference book that comes closest to an encyclopedia, is a set of political, social, and ethical data dealt with in a circular way with “emperor” as the center. It does not take into account the essential nature of the included items and their fundamental differences. When writing an article, a classical writer would attach great importance to the unity and harmony of the whole piece, giving much attention to the correspondence between introduction and conclusion and the natural transition from one point to another, rather than the clear-cut division between different sections.
A doctor of Chinese medicine diagnoses a patient’s disease by first looking at the patient’s complexion and tongue for its coating, feeling the pulse and eliciting complaints, in order to form a correct judgment of the patient’s general physical condition. The Chinese doctor tries to get at the root of the trouble and effect a permanent cure rather than apply a palliative remedy. Incidentally, Chinese people eat an apple by peeling it around and reserving the whole before biting, whereas Westerners tend to divide the apple into parts.
The synthetic mode of thinking is closely associated with intuition and thinking in terms of images, and it is synonymous with implicitness and fuzziness. As Rudolf Fleisch puts it, the Chinese “formed the habit of expressing ideas by metaphors, similes and allegories, in short, by every known device for making a thing plain by comparing it with something else.” An apprentice learns cooking not by following recipes with precise quantitative descriptions, but by intuitively acquiring his master’s technique after repeated imitations. A Chinese painter seeks close resemblance in spirit instead of accurate likeness in appearance. A Buddhist monk rarely makes or attends religious speeches with clear-cut viewpoints about virtues and vices, but he practices transcendental meditation and seeks intuitive insight. In fact, intuitive feeling and fuzzy beauty are held in great esteem in almost all forms of Chinese art, such as poetry, drama, and painting. As Shen Xiaolong says, “This is a circular dialectic mode of thinking with a strong plastic, flexible, and stochastic nature.”
Conclusion
The linearity-versus-circularity diffe
营养与美味
由于中西哲学思想的不同，西方人于饮食重科学，重科学即讲求营养，故西方饮食以营养为最高准则，进食有如为一生物的机器添加燃料，特别讲求食物的营养成分，蛋白质、脂肪、碳水化合物、维生素及各类无机元素的含量是否搭配合宜，卡路里的供给是否恰到好处，以及这些营养成分是否能为进食者充分吸收，有无其他副作用。这些问题都是烹调中的大学问，而菜肴的色、香、味如何，则是次一等的要求。即或在西方首屈一指的饮食大国——法国，其饮食文化虽然在很多方面与我们近似，但一接触到营养问题，双方便拉开了距离。
中国五味调和的烹调术旨在追求美味，其加工过程中的热油炸和长时间的文火攻，都会使菜肴的营养成分被破坏。法国烹调虽亦追求美味，但同时总不忘“营养”这一大前提，一味舍营养而求美味是他们所不取的。尤其是20世纪60年代出现的现代烹调思潮，特别强调养生、减肥，从而追求清淡少油，强调采用新鲜原料，强调在烹调过程中保持原有的营养成分和原有的味道，所以蔬菜基本上都是生吃。所以说西方饮食之重营养是带有普遍性的。
平心而论，谈到营养问题也触及到中国饮食的最大弱点。尽管我们讲究食疗、食补、食养，重视以饮食来养生强身，但我们的烹调术却以追求美味为第一性要求，致使许多营养成分损失于加工过程中。近年来我国厨师参加世界烹调大赛，人家端上一个菜营养成分开列得一清二楚，我们则拿不出这份材料。经人提问，亦瞠目结舌不知所云，大大地吃了哑巴亏！
我们从来都是把追求美味奉为进食的首要目的。民间有句俗话：“民以食为天，食以味为先”。虽然人们在赞誉美食时，总爱说“色香味俱佳”，但那是由于我们感受色香味的感觉器官“眼、鼻、口”的上下排列顺序如此。人们内心之于“色、香、味”，从来都是“味”字“挂帅”的。
由于中国人极端重视味道，以至中国的某些菜仅仅是味道的载体，例如公认的名贵菜海参、鱼唇、鱼翅、熊掌、驼峰，其主要成分都是与廉价的肉皮相仿的动物胶，本身并无美味，全靠用鲜汤去喂它，喂饱了它，再用它来喂人。这不就是地地道道的味道载体了吗﹖
中国人重视味道，也反映在日常言谈之中，如家庭宴客，一俟主要菜肴端上台面，主人常自谦地说：“菜烧得不好，不一定合您的口味。”他绝不会说：“菜的营养价值不高，卡路里不够。”
西方烹调讲究营养而忽视味道，至少是不以味觉享受为首要目的。他们以冷饮佐餐，冰镇的冷酒还要再加冰块，而舌表面遍布的味觉神经一经冰镇，便大大丧失品味的灵敏度，渐至不能辨味；那带血的牛排与大白鱼、大白肉，生吃的蔬菜，白水煮豆子、煮土豆，虽有“味”而不入“道”，凡此种种都反映了西方人对味觉的忽视。他们拒绝使用味精，更足以证明此辈皆属不知味之人，非“知味观”之座上客也！
基于对营养的重视，西方人多生吃蔬菜，不仅西红柿、黄瓜、生菜生吃，就是洋白菜、洋葱、绿菜花（西兰花）也都生吃。因而他们的“沙拉”有如一盘兔饲料，使我们难以接受。现代中国人也讲营养保健，也知道青菜一经加热，维生素将被破坏，因而我们主张用旺火爆炒。这虽然也使维生素的含量下降，但不会完全损失，可味道却比兔饲料好吃得多。因而中国的现代烹调术旨在追求营养与味道兼顾下的最佳平衡，这当然也属于一种“中庸之道”。
机械性与趣味性
由于西方菜肴制作之规范化，烹调成为一种机械性的工作。肯德基老头炸鸡既要按方配料；油的温度，炸鸡的时间，也都要严格依规范行事，因而厨师的工作就成为一种极其单调的机械性工作，他有如自动化装配线上的一名工人，甚至可由一机器人来代行其职。再者，西方人进食的目的首在摄取营养，只要营养够标准，其他尽可宽容，因而今日土豆牛排，明日牛排土豆，厨师在食客一无苛求极其宽容的态度下，每日重复着机械性的工作，当然无趣味可言。
在中国，烹调是一种艺术，一如女作家三毛在《沙漠中的饭店》一文中说的：“我一向对做家事十分痛恨，但对煮菜却是十分有兴趣，几只洋葱，几片肉，一炒变出一个菜来，我很欣赏这种艺术。”做菜既是一门艺术，它便与其他艺术一样，体现着严密性与即兴性的统一，所以烹调在中国一直以极强烈的趣味性，甚至还带有一定的游戏性，吸引着以饮食为人生之至乐的中国人。
趣味的烹调在中国是有传统的，出土的汉画像《庖厨图》，就很像一个大杂技团演出的场面。杜甫《丽人行》中“弯刀缕切空纷纶”的诗句，提到的这种刀背上系了许多铃铛的刀，据说当年唐代的厨师可以用它一边切菜一边奏出丁冬的乐曲。可惜这种刀和操刀的技巧都已失传了。
涮羊肉以及与之相类似的四川麻辣火锅、广东海鲜火锅之所以广泛受人喜爱，一在其鲜嫩热，吃起来自在，二也在它把烹调的主要部分移到了餐桌上，让人们边吃边体验这趣味的烹调。又如西安的羊肉泡馍，硬邦邦的馍，要客人自己动手掰成碎块，似乎这要比厨师切碎的吃起来更香些。北京风味“烤肉季”的烤肉之所以令人失望，令人感叹今不如昔，也正在于它把自己动手改成了“君子动口不动手”。这一改，改得兴味索然，吃着那么不是味儿，这都是不懂得中国的趣味烹调，瞎指挥出的悲剧如此追求烹调中的乐趣，在西方厨师是绝对不为的。西方人的信条是“工作时工作，游戏时游戏”，从他们那种机械论的两分法看来，工作中的游戏是失职，游戏中工作是赔本的买卖，都是“吾不为也”而对于崇尚融会贯通的中国人来说，“工作中有游戏，游戏中有工作”，方是人间正道。
烹调一直为中国人视为极大的乐趣，并以从事这一工作为充实人生的积极表现。有道是“上有天堂，下有厨房”，烹调之于中国，简直与音乐、舞蹈、诗歌、绘画一样，拥有提高人生境界的伟大意义。
分别与和合
台湾国学大师钱穆先生在《现代中国学术论衡》一书的序言中说：“文化异，斯学术亦异。中国重和合，西方重分别。”此一文化特征，亦体现于中西饮食文化之中。西菜中除少数汤菜，如俄式红菜汤（罗宋汤），是以多种荤素原料集一锅而熬之外，正菜中鱼就是鱼，鸡就是鸡，蜗牛就是蜗牛，牡蛎就是牡蛎。所谓“土豆烧牛肉”，不过是烧好的牛肉佐以煮熟的土豆，绝非集土豆牛肉于一锅而烧之。即使是调味的作料，如番茄酱、芥末糊、柠檬汁、辣酱油，也都是现吃现加。以上种种都体现了“西方重分别”。
中国人一向以“和”与“合”为最美妙的境界，音乐上讲究“和乐”、“唱和”，医学上主张“身和”、“气和”。我们更希望国家政治实现“政通人和”。而我们称夫妇成婚为“合卺”，称美好的婚姻为“天作之合”；当我们表示崇敬之心时，更以双手“合十”为礼，而当一切美好的事物凑集在一起时，我们将其称誉为“珠联璧合”。
中国烹调的核心是“五味调和”即《文子·上德篇》所称之“水火相憎，鼎鬲其间，五味以和”。《吕氏春秋·本味篇》称赞“五味以和”是“鼎中之变，精妙微纤，口弗能言，志弗能喻”。
中国的“五味调和论”是由“本味论”、“气味阴阳论”、“时序论”、“适口论”所组成。就是说，要在重视烹调原料自然之味的基础上进行“五味调和”，要用阴阳五行的基本规律指导这一调和，调和要合乎时序，又要注意时令，调和的最终结果要味美适口。所以中国菜几乎每个菜都要用两种以上的原料和多种调料来调和烹制。即或是家常菜，一般也是荤素搭配来调和烹制的，如韭黄炒肉丝、肉片炒蒜苗、腐竹焖肉、芹菜炒豆腐干……而此等原料若西厨烹制，则奶汁肉丝外加白水煮韭黄，或炸猪排佐以清水煮蒜苗，中国食客见如此中菜西做，自然是“哭不得笑不得”而那地道的西菜，更是一块牛排佐以两枚土豆、三片番茄、四叶生菜，彼此虽共处一盘之中，但却“各自为政”，互不干扰。只待食至腹中，方能调和一起。
中国人把做菜称之为“烹调”，这意味着我们历来将烹与调合为一体。西方原来有烹无调，现在虽说也有了调，但仍属前后分立的两道工序。
在食仪上，西方奉行分餐制。首先是各点各的菜，想吃什么点什么，这也表现了西方对个性的尊重。及至上菜后，人各一盘各吃各的，各自随意添加调料，一道菜吃完后再吃第二道菜，前后两道菜绝不混吃。中餐则一桌人团团围坐合吃一桌菜，冷拼热炒沙锅火锅摆满桌面，就餐者东吃一嘴西吃一嘴，几道菜同时下肚，这都与西餐的食仪截然不同，都体现了“分别”与“和合”的中西文化的根本差异。
规范与随意
西方人于饮食强调科学与营养，故烹调的全过程都严格按照科学规范行事，牛排的味道从纽约到旧金山毫无二致，牛排的配菜也只是番茄、土豆、生菜有限的几种。再者，规范化的烹调要求调料的添加量精确到克，烹调时间精确到秒。此外1995年第一期《海外文摘》刊载的《吃在荷兰》一文中还描述了“荷兰人家的厨房备有天平、液体量杯、定时器、刻度锅，调料架上排着整齐大小划一的几十种调味料瓶，就像个化学试验室。”
中国的烹调与之截然不同，不仅各大菜系都有自己的风味与特色，就是同一菜系的同一个菜，其所用的配菜与各种调料的匹配，也会依厨师的个人特点有所不同。就是同一厨师做同一个菜，虽有其一己之成法，但也会依不同季节、不同场合，用餐人的不同身份，加以调整（如冬季味浓郁，夏季味清淡，婚宴须色彩鲜艳，丧宴忌红色；穷汉杀馋应浓油厚汁，老饕会餐宜新鲜别致）。此外还会因厨师自己临场情绪的变化，做出某种即兴的发挥。因此，中国烹调不仅不讲求精确到秒与克的规范化，而且还特别强调随意性。
对食品加工的随意性，首先导致了中国菜谱篇幅的一再扩大：原料的多样，刀工的多样，调料的多样，烹调方法的多样，再加以交叉组合，一种原料便可做成数种以至十数种、数十种菜肴。譬如最常用的原料鸡，到了粤菜大厨师手中，做出数十道以至上百道菜式都不在话下。其他原料也是如此。因而在盛产某种原料的地方，常常能以这一种原料做出成桌的酒席，如北京的“全鸭席”，延边的“全狗席”，广东的“全鱼席”、“全蚝席”，长沙李和胜的“全牛席”，北京一些清真饭馆的“全羊席”以及北京砂锅居的“全猪席”，比比皆体现了中国烹调的随意性派生出琳琅满目的菜式。
台灣張起鈞教授著有《烹調原理》一書，他在序言中說﹕“古語說‘飲食男女人之大欲存焉’，若以這個標准來論，西方文化（特別是近代美國式的文化）可說是男女文化，而中國則是一种飲食文化。”從宏觀而言，這一判斷是有道理的。因文化傳統的緣故，西方人的人生傾向明顯偏于男女關系，人生大量的時間及精力投注于這一方面，這在漢民族是難以理解的。因為漢民族對于男女關系理解的褊狹，僅僅把它看作是單純的性關系，而在傳統文化中把性隱蔽化、神秘化，性被蒙上一層濃厚的羞恥和倫理色彩，對于現實的性，便只能接受生理的理解，視為淫邪。“男女之大防”，將男女關系与性關系等同起來，所以對性的認識也是膚淺的。而且這一切都還只能“盡在不言中”，說出來便有悖禮教，認為道德淪喪了。由于對性的回避、排斥，中國人把人生精力傾泄導向于飲食，這樣，不僅導致了烹調藝術的高度發展，而且賦予飲食以丰富的文化內涵。
雖然飲食文化在西方不夠發達，不能典型地反映其文化的特點，但這种不發達本身也是一种文化發展的結果，所以對中西飲食文化的具体比較仍有意義。
兩种不同的飲食观念
誰也不會否認，西方是一种理性飲食觀念，不論食物的色、香、味、形如何，而營養一定要得到保証，講究一天要攝取多少熱量、維生素、蛋白質等等。即便口味千篇一律，甚至比起中國的美味佳肴來，簡直單調得如同嚼蜡，但理智告訴他﹕一定要吃下去，因為有營養。說得不好听，就像給机器加油一樣。
這一飲食觀念同西方整個哲學体系是相适應的。形而上學是西方哲學的主要特點。西方哲學所研究的對象為事物之理，事物之理常為形上學理，形上學理互相連貫，便結成形上哲學。這一哲學給西方文化帶來生机，使之在自然科學上、心理學上、方法論上實現了突飛猛進的發展。但在另一些方面，這种哲學主張大大地起了阻礙作用，如飲食文化，就不可避免地落后了，到處打上了方法論中的形
而上學痕跡。在宴席上，可以講究餐具，講究用料，講究服務，講究菜之原料的形、色方面的搭配﹔但不管怎么豪華高檔，從洛杉磯到紐約，牛排都只有一种味道，毫無藝術可言。而且作為菜肴，雞就是雞，牛排就是牛排，縱然有搭配，那也是在盤中進行的，一盤“法式羊排”，一邊放土豆泥，旁倚羊排，另一邊配煮青豆，加几片番茄便成。色彩上對比鮮明，但在滋味上各种原料互不相干、調和，各是各的味，簡單明了。
中國則是一种美性飲食觀念。人們在品嘗菜肴時，往往會說這盤菜“好吃”，那道菜“不好吃”﹔然而若要進一步問一下什么叫“好吃”，為什么“好吃”，“好吃”在哪里，恐怕就不容易說清楚了。這說明，中國人對飲食追求的是一种難以言傳的“意境”，即使用人們通常所說的“色、香、味、形、器”來把這种“境界”具体化，恐怕仍然是很難涵蓋得了的。
中國飲食之所以有其獨特的魅力，關鍵就在于它的味。而美味的產生，在于調和，要使食物的本味，加熱以后的熟味，加上配料和輔料的味以及調料的調和之味，交織融合協調在一起，使之互相補充，互助滲透，水乳交融，你中有我，我中有你。這正如張起鈞先生在《烹調原理》中，對上海菜“咸篤鮮”描述的那樣﹕“雖是火腿、冬筍、鮮肉三味并陳，可是在煮好之后，鮮肉中早有火腿与筍的味道，火腿与筍也都各已含有其它兩种因素，而整個說起來，又共同形成一种含有三种而又超乎三种以上的鮮湯。”中國烹飪講究的調和之美，是中國烹飪藝術的精要之處。菜點的形和色是外在的東西，而味卻是內在的東西，重內在而不刻意修飾外表，重菜肴的味而不過分展露菜肴的形和色，這正是中國美性飲食觀的最重要的表現。
中國飲食的美性追求顯然壓倒了理性，這种飲食觀与中國傳統的哲學思想也是吻合的。作為東方哲學代表的中國哲學，其顯著特點是宏觀、直觀、模糊及不可捉摸。中國菜的制作方法是調和鼎鼐，最終是要調和出一种美好的滋味。這一切講究的就是分寸，就是整体的配合。它包含了中國哲學丰富的辯証法思想，一切以菜的味的美好、諧調為度，度以內的千變万化就決定了中國菜的丰富和富于變化，決定了中國菜菜系的特點乃至每位廚師的特點。
中西飲食對象及方式的差异
凡飲食都离不開菜。在中國“菜”為形聲字，与植物有關。据西方的植物學者的調查，中國人吃的菜蔬有６００多种，比西方多六倍。實際上，在中國人的菜肴里，素菜是平常食品，葷菜只有在節假日或生活水平較高時，才進入平常的飲食結构，所以自古便有“菜食”之說，《國語‧楚語》﹕“庶人食菜，祀以魚”，是說平民一般以菜食為主，魚肉只有在祭祀時才可以吃到。菜食在平常的飲食結构中占主導地位。
中國人的以植物為主菜，与佛教徒的鼓吹有著千縷万絲的聯系。他們視動物為“生靈”，而植物則“無靈”，所以，主張素食主義。
西方人好像沒有這么好的習慣，他們秉承著游牧民族、航海民族的文化血統，以漁獵、養殖為主，以采集、种植為輔，葷食較多，吃、穿、用都取之于動物，連西藥也是從動物身上攝取提煉而成的。
西方人在介紹自己國家的飲食特點時，覺得比中國更重視營養的合理搭配，有較為發達的食品工業，如罐頭、快餐等，雖口味千篇一律，但節省時間，且營養良好，故他們國家的人身体普遍比中國人健壯﹕高個、長腿、寬大的肩、發達的肌肉﹔而中國人則顯得身材瘦小、肩窄腿短、色黃質弱。西方人以中西食物的差异來判定雙方飲食營養的优劣是沒有道理的。孫中山先生對飲食文化有深刻的研究和精辟的論述。他在《建國方略》中，詳述了中西飲食現象的差异，并且得出結論﹕“中國常人所飲者為清茶，所食者為淡飯，而加以蔬菜、豆腐。此等之食料，為今日衛生家所考得為最有益于養生者也。故中國窮鄉僻壤之人，飲食不及酒肉者，常多上壽。又中國人口之繁昌，与乎中國人拒疾疫之力常大者，亦未嘗非飲食之暗合衛生有以致之也。”他還說﹕“中國素食者必食豆腐。夫豆腐者，實植物中之肉料也。此物有肉料之功，而無肉料之毒，故中國全國皆素食，也習慣為常，而無待學者之提倡矣。歐美之人所飲者濁酒，所食者腥膻，亦相習成風，故雖在前有科學之提倡，在后有重法之厲禁，如俄美等國之厲行酒禁，而一時亦不能轉移之也。”
孫氏之言科學地道出了中國飲食之利及西方飲食之弊。有人根据中西方飲食對象的明顯差异這一特點，把中國人稱為植物性格，西方人稱為動物性格。反映在文化行為方面的，西方人喜歡冒險、開拓、沖突﹔而中國人則安土重遷，固本守己。按照美國民俗學家露絲‧本尼迪克特的“文化模式”理論，中國人的文化性格頗近似于古典世界的阿波羅式，而西方人的文化性格則類同于現代世界的浮士德式。的确，西方人如美國人在開發西部時，他們把整個家產往車上一拋，就在隆隆的輜重聲中走出去了。而中國人則時時刻刻記挂著“家”和“根”，盡管提倡青年人要四海為家，但在海外數十年的華人，末了還是拄著拐杖來大陸尋根問宗。這种葉落歸根的觀念，人文精神，不能不說是和中國人飲食積淀相通合，它使中華民族那么地富有凝聚力，讓中國的民俗那么地富有人情味。
中西方的飲食方式有很大不同，這种差异對民族性格也有影響。在中國，任何一個宴席，不管是什么目的，都只會有一种形式，就是大家團團圍坐，共享一席。筵席要用圓桌，這就從形式上造成了一种團結、禮貌、共趣的气氛。美味佳肴放在一桌人的中心，它既是一桌人欣賞、品嘗的對象，又是一桌人感情交流的媒介物。人們相互敬酒、相互讓菜、勸菜，在美好的事物面前，体現了人們之間相互尊重、禮讓的美德。雖然從衛生的角度看，這种飲食方式有明顯的不足之處，但它符合我們民族“大團圓”的普遍心態，反映了中國古典哲學中“和”這個范疇對后代思想的影響，便于集体的情感交流，因而至今難以改革。
西式飲宴上，食品和酒盡管非常重要，但實際上那是作為陪襯。宴會的核心在于交誼，通過与鄰座客人之間的交談，達到交誼的目的。如果將宴會的交誼性与舞蹈相類比，那么可以說，中式宴席好比是集体舞，而西式宴會好比是男女的交誼舞。由此可見，中式宴會和西式宴會交誼的目的都很明顯，只不過中式宴會更多地体現在全席的交誼，而西式宴會多体現于相鄰賓客之間的交誼。
与中國飲食方式的差异更為明顯的是西方流行的自助餐。此法是將所有食物一一陳列出來，大家各取所需，不必固定在位子上吃，走動自由，這种方式便于個人之間的情感交流，不必將所有的話擺在桌面上，也表現了西方人對個性、對自我的尊重。但各吃各的，互不相扰，缺少中國人聊歡共樂的情調。有人想把自助餐納入中國的飲食文化，這是行不通的。張起鈞先生在《烹調原理》中道明了其中的原由﹕“第一、自助餐与飲茶不同，飲茶是把剛出鍋的東西送到你面前請你選用，而自助餐則是大批做好陳列在那里，等你來時早就涼了。中國菜就要趁熱吃，那落了滾了，還吃什么。第二、自助餐只能做些硬菜、實惠菜。然后才可大塊小塊地供你取用。而那些最代表中國烹調藝術的，嬌嫩、清淡的菜，無法在此亮相。第三、自助餐只能做大鍋炖、大鍋熬的菜，任何精巧點的菜頂多一鍋炒兩份，哪里能一下做几十人份的堆在那里﹖因此勢必不會好吃，談不到滋味。在這种情形下，很明顯的若采用自助餐，勢必否定了中國的烹調藝術。”中國人是要通過同桌共食來表現和睦、團圓的气氛，而自助餐卻打破了圍坐歡飲的格局，將個人的獨立、自主提到首位，這与中國傳統的大家庭大一統的文化模式是背道而馳的。
中西飲食歸屬及性質的差异
飲食觀念的不同，使西方飲食傾向科學、理性，中國飲食傾向于藝術、感性。在飲食不發達的時代，這兩种傾向都只有一個目的度命充飢。而到了飲食文化充分發展之后，這种不同的傾向就表現在目的上了﹕前者發展為在營養學上的考慮，后者則表現為對味道的講究。
烹調出自飲食，飲食原來是一個旨在維持生命的營養，因此，西方飲食的著重點僅僅是原始飲食實用性的延伸。中國飲食對味的偏重，就把飲食推向藝術的領域。孟子說﹕“口之于味有同嗜焉”，這一“嗜”字，就點出營養發展到藝術的關鍵，而這嗜正是來自味了。在中國，吃，遠不是為了飽，為了營養，有時吃飽了，還要吃，這是超負荷的飲食。何故﹖說好听點，是欣賞烹調的藝術﹔說不好听點，是不胜其“味美”的誘惑，是在盡情進行味覺享受。這在西方理性飲食觀看來，不僅是浪費，而且危害人体。其實，中醫也反對暴飲暴食，主張“飲食有節”﹔但中醫的辯証法又告訴人們，偶爾的“超負荷”，只要吃得舒服，也可以吸收、儲存。气功師在不吃不喝的情況下精神飽滿，雖体重下降，而對人体無損，便是對這种儲存的消耗。中醫還主張冬天加強營養，也是為了儲存以保來年的精力旺盛。中國人的這种觀點比西方一味反對超負荷飲食的主張更為辯証，更接近于科學的真理，且已受到數千年中醫實踐的檢驗。
從更高的層次講，只注重營養，食物味道千篇一律，食之如嚼蜡，這就把飲食看成是生存的手段，只是更為合理的果腹充飢，而不是享受。心理學家斯賓諾莎說過﹕“欲望不是別的，恰恰是人的本質。”人類對美味的渴求，是人的本質的充分反映。在味覺的享受過程中，涌動著一股勃發的生命沖力。生命，不應該是一种桎梏，一种欲望的壓抑，不應用絕對的理性來規范人的一切行為。就飲食而言，不能為了“科學”、“營養”而將一些美味排斥于餐桌之外。只有美味的東西，才能滿足人們的食欲，進而給人帶來身心的愉悅。中國人的飲食從古至今表現為感性對理性的超越，致使中國飲食文化充溢著想象力和創造性。中國飲食活動中的感性是升華了的感性，滲透了理性的感性，是生命本質的實現。另外，味覺享受本是人類為之奮斗追求的主要目標之一，因此，中國飲食的藝術化符合人類歷史發展的進程，比西方飲食的科學化更進步。正如張起鈞先生在《烹調原理》中說的﹕“美國總算是空前富足的社會了，但到今天為止，本質上還是在‘食物充飢’的階段，距离進入藝術境界，仍有一段距离。”在中國，飲食早已超越了維持生存的作用，它的目的不僅是為了獲得肉体的存在，而且是為了滿足人的精神對于快感的需求。它是人們積极地充實人生的表現，和美術、音樂、文學等等有著同等的提高人生境界的意義。
中國飲食傾向于藝術性，所謂藝術境界，其實也就是一种完成了由必然王國到自由王國的飛躍才獲得的境界。它的特點就是隨意性。比如同樣一只菜肴，由于地區、季節、對象、作用、等級等的不同，可以在操作上作不同的處理。拿紅燒魚來說，冬天的色宜深些，口味宜重些，夏天則色和味均應清淡些﹔對于江浙一帶的人來說，紅燒魚的調味中可加糖，如面對川湘顧客，則應多放辣。可見离開了隨意性，就沒有中國烹飪的變化多端，就會失去中國烹飪的獨特魅力。而在西方，一道菜在不同的地區不同的季節面對不同的食者，皆為同一味道，毫無變化。即令是最高貴的宴席，也不過是餐具考究，布置華貴而已，菜仍舊一個樣。再說原料。西方人認為菜肴是充飢的，所以專吃大塊肉、整塊雞等“硬菜”。而中國的菜肴是“吃味”的，所以中國烹調在用料上也顯出极大的隨意性﹕許多西方人視為棄物的東西，在中國都是极好的原料，外國廚師無法處理的東西，一到中國廚師手里，就可以化腐朽為神奇。足見中國飲食在用料方面的隨意性之廣博。
再如技巧，一個优秀的廚師，固然要能做复雜繁瑣的大菜，但就是面對簡單的原料和佐料也往往能信手制出可口的美味，這是技巧的隨意性。表面上看，菜譜似乎是科學的，西方人總是拿著菜譜去買菜，制作菜肴，但相比起來，就顯得机械了，在复雜的具体情況面前往往是無能為力的。當然這种机械的科學仍不失為科學，但卻是原始的科學，不徹底的科學。中國烹調講究藝術性，千變万化之中卻符合科學的要求，可以說是一种超越科學的科學。西方食品的營養成份一目了然和絕少藝術氛圍的特點，明顯地區別于中國飲食的藝術境界。
中西方飲食性質的差异，与它們各自的生活方式及生活節奏是吻合的。在西方，流水線上的重复作業，實行計件工資制，生活節奏急促，人們有意無意地受到机械的兩分法影響，信奉“工作時工作，游戲時游戲”的原則。生活的机械性導致了飲食的單一性或對飲食的單一熟視無睹，頓頓牛排土豆，土豆牛排，單調重复的飲食与其工作一樣，以完成“件”數為目的，自然無興趣、滋味可言。中國則不然，“游戲中有工作，工作中有游戲”的生活方式在飲食中也顯現出來。街上賣燒餅的師傅，揉面時喜歡用 面杖有節奏地敲打案板﹔廚師在炒菜時，敲打馬勺，注意烹炒的節奏感。這些自然不會對工作有什么便利，但卻增加了勞動者的工作趣味，只有在這种气氛中工作才會有積极意義，才會有中國菜的創造性和藝術性。
Comments Feed: http://www.liangkuai.cn/feed.asp?q=comment&id=39
引用地址: http://www.liangkuai.cn/trackback.asp?id=39
Lines and Circles, West and East
NOTHING IN THE WORLD IS ABSOLUTE. Everything is relative, cultural difference being no exception. Culture, as the total pattern of human behavior and its products, oversteps geographical limits and historical conditions in many ways, and it is characterized by its strong penetrativeness and fusibility.
The advancement of the globalized economy and the rapidity and ease of modern communication, transportation, and mass media have resulted in an ever increasing exchange between cultures, unprecedented in scale, scope, and speed. Consequently, an increase in universality and a reduction in difference between cultures is an inevitable trend. It is no surprise to see phenomena characteristic of one culture existing in another. As a result, some people even fear that the world will become a dull place when all the different nationalities behave exactly alike.
Nevertheless, the “cultural sediment” formed through long-range accumulation is not to be easily removed, and the cultural tradition handed down from generation to generation shows great consistency and continuity. The cultures of different regions and nations still have their own distinctive peculiarities, and therefore significance still needs to be attached to the study of the individualities of different cultures against the background of their universality.
By and large, linearity and circularity can be used to indicate the major difference between Western and Chinese cultures. “Western culture” here is a general term, putting aside its interior regional diversities in order to contrast it with Chinese culture. A circle is a round enclosure. A line is a narrow continuous mark. The contrast between the linearity of Western culture and the circularity of Chinese culture embodies itself in such aspects as worldview, core value, outlook on time, and mode of thinking.
Worldview: Linear Division and Circular Enclosure
A line divides an area while a circle encloses one. As far as worldviews are concerned, Western linearity is displayed in the general belief that the Universe is divided into two opposites with a clear-cut demarcation line drawn between the two: man and nature, subject and object, mind and matter, the divine and the secular. Chinese circularity manifests itself in the prevailing viewpoint of combining the two opposites and enclosing them. Although opposites are acknowledged in both cultures, Western culture emphasizes their coexistence and opposition, whereas Chinese culture stresses their interdependence and integration.
The linear nature of the Western worldview can be traced back to such ancient Greek philosophers as Thales, Heracleitus, Plato, and Aristotle. They all advocate dividing the world into two opposing parts: element and soul, reality and reason, matter and form. Their theories laid the foundation for the further development of the one-dividing-into-two view adopted by Western culture. Archimedes said more than two thousand years ago, “Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the earth.” A proverb says, “Nature is conquered by obeying her.” Conquering or obeying, human beings in the West consider Nature as their opposite.
Christianity holds that God creates human beings and human beings sin against God. Throughout the Bible the theme of the redemption of mankind is developed. There exists a clear division between God and humanity. Later hypotheses like those of Descartes and Hegel consolidated the theoretical basis though they introduced different notions, such as matter and mind and real object and absolute spirit. The dividing worldview is the starting point of Western culture’s exploring and transforming Nature and explains the rapid development of science and technology in the West.
The circular Chinese worldview originates from the notion of Tao in the proposition “Tao consists of Yin and Yang” in the Book of Changes (about 600 BC). Lao-tzu, who lived about 500 years before Christ, further enunciated the concept of Tao in chapter 42 of his Tao Te Ching: “Tao gave birth to the One; the One gave birth successively to two things, three things, up to ten thousand. These ten thousand creatures cannot turn their backs to the shade (Yin) without having the sun (Yang) on their bellies, and it is on this blending of the breaths (both Yin and Yang) that their harmony depends” (Arthur Maley’s translation). It is obviously the One, the blending, and the harmony that are emphasized in the explanation of Tao.
Two centuries after Lao-tzu, Chuang-tzu (369 –286 BC) used orderly philosophic discussion rather than poetic intuition to clarify the concept of Tao. He believed in “the One reality which is all men, gods, and things: complete, all-embracing, and the whole; it is an all-embracing unity from which nothing can be separated” (Gardener Murphy’s translation). When it comes to the relationship between humanity and Nature, he proposes that “the perfect man has no self because he has transcended the finite and identified himself with the universe.” Thus the concept that human beings are part of Nature is rooted in the minds of the Chinese people. Dong Zhongshu (179 –104 BC), a philosopher of the West Han dynasty, again developed the Oneness worldview. He assumed that “the energy of heaven and earth is a unified one. It consists of Yin and Yang and manifests itself in four seasons and five elements.”
A number of Chinese expressions mirror the idea of identifying human beings with Nature rather than separating them. Here are some examples:
Nature affects human affairs and human behavior finds response in Nature (Tian ren ganying).
The law of Nature and the feelings of humanity are in unison (Tian li ren qing).
Nature accords with human wishes (Tian cong ren yuan).
Nature is angry and people are resentful (Tian nu ren yuan).
Nature’s will brings about human affinity (Tian yi ren yuan).
Nature and humankind turn to one. (Tian yu ren gui).
The Chinese character “tian” is translated as “Nature” in the above expressions, although “tian” carries a wider sense than the English word. “Tian” (Nature) and “ren” (human) always react to and comply with each other. They can never be separated. The Oneness worldview also finds expression in Chinese poems:
Flowers smile on the happy occasion.
Birds sing with the joyful congregation.
(Wang Wei)
Trees sway in a mournful gale.
Waves surge like hill and dale.
(Cao Zhi)
Catkins scattered by wind, my motherland is being disintegrated.
Rain striking duckweed, I sink against the tide, broken-hearted.
(Wen Tianxiang)
As the above lines show, things in Nature like flowers, birds, trees, waves, wind, and rain all respond to such human feelings as happiness, sadness, anger, and sorrow. Humanity and Nature blend into a harmonious identity.
Core Value: Linear Individuality and Circular Integrity
A line is a point moving continuously onward, whereas a circle is a centripetal ring. In terms of core value, Western linearity is embodied in the priority given to developing individual potentialities, realizing individual objectives, and seeking individual interests; Chinese circularity is embodied in the importance attached to harmonizing community relationships, actualizing community objectives, and safeguarding community interests.
For most Westerners, individualism is undoubtedly a positive core value. In fact, the social systems of various Western nations, and especially the United States, are based on “rugged individualism,” as described by Herbert Hoover in 1928. The pursuit of individual rights and interests is considered utterly legitimate. Self-actualization and the maximal realization of individual potential are supreme aims in life. It is fully justified for individuals to protect their private interests when they are in conflict with those of the community or the state. Weight is given to the individual rather than to the community, as Margaret Thatcher said in a speech in 1987: “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women.” Westerners prefer to discipline themselves rather than be disciplined by others. They take pride in their independence and their right to make their own decisions. They go their own way, not caring much about what others might think about their doings.
In Western culture, an individual is like an independent point, moving forward continuously in a self-chosen direction, forming a line of self-fulfillment. If different people’s lines run parallel, they will each smoothly attain their own aims in life. As one American professor put it: “You are selfish and I am selfish, but you don’t stand in my way and I don’t stand in your way. We are both selfish, and we are both happy.”
However, if two lines intersect, the stronger line must cut off the other one in order to keep moving on itself, thus conforming to the law of the survival of the fittest. Guided by linear competition-oriented value, everyone seeks independence and self-reliance, and everyone feels insecure and makes unremitting efforts. The linear road of an individual’s life is made and extended by the individual’s own feet, and success is achieved through individual effort.
Chinese culture, on the other hand, takes circular integrity as the basis of its value. An individual is incorporated into the integrity of the whole. The center of the circle represents the community’s interests and serves as the common objective of all its individual members. The individual exists in the community and finds the meaning of his existence through it. An individual in isolation has no meaningful existence.
More than two thousand years ago, Confucius advocated that “a public spirit should rule everything under the sun and a gentleman should put others’ interests above his own.” An ancient Chinese would consider it the primary aim in life “to cultivate his own moral character, put family affairs in order, administer state affairs well, and pacify the whole world.” It is evident that the interests of the small circle (family), the intermediate circle (state), and the large circle (world) come above one’s own, and one has to cultivate one’s own moral character and to exert oneself in order to achieve the goal of serving the community’s interests. A couplet from a Ming dynasty academy of classical learning says, “The sounds of wind, rain, and reading each come into my ears; the affairs of family, state, and world are all kept in my mind.” Fan Zhongyan, a Song dynasty poet, expressed his desire “to show concern over state affairs before others and enjoy comforts after them.”
It has been a widely accepted motto that “everyone has a share of responsibility for the fate of his country.” In present-day China, prioritizing community interests remains the mainstream value, in spite of the importation of different values from other cultures. Jean Brick, as an outsider who has come inside for some time, has observed the circular group-oriented Chinese value with keen cross-cultural awareness. She says in her book China, “Private interests are vested in the group, that is in the family or in the community, and not in the individual. True self-fulfillment for the individual lies in fulfilling social responsibilities to the greatest extent possible. In fact, the establishment of harmonious social relations is seen as an absolute necessity, without which any development is impossible.”
Outlook on Time: Linear Extension and Circular Rotation
A line extends and a circle rotates. Western culture looks upon time as the extension of a line going ceaselessly forward and never returning, and therefore holds the future in high regard and plans for it. In contrast Chinese culture thinks of time as the rotation of a circle, going repeatedly round and round, day in and day out, and thus cherishes and reveres the past.
The linear outlook on time finds reflection in many Western literary works. Men of letters compare time to “the devourer of everything” (Ovid, 15 AD), “the subtle thief of youth” (Milton, 1645), and a “winged chariot hurrying near” (Marvel, 1681). Shakespeare in 1601 described time as “most brisk and giddy-paced.” As Jia Yuxin says, “Time is viewed in Western culture as an unceasing one-way movement. It means marching, flowing, and flying. It resembles the river, the waterfall, and the torrent.” Edward T. Hall points out that nobody in the Western world can escape the iron-handed control of unidirectional time. The linear view of time is also evidenced in such proverbs as “Time lost is never found again” and “Time and tide wait for no man.”
As time is regarded as something moving on in one direction and never coming back, Westerners have a strong sense of the shortage of time, which quickens their pace of life and makes them habitually look ahead, having their eyes on the future. People are used to writing in their calendars what is to be done in the future and focus much of their attention on planning for it. They tend to defy authorities and enjoy blazing new trails rather than following the beaten track. It might be said that the linear view encourages bold exploration and promotes scientific creation.
The Chinese circular outlook on time is also revealed in literary writings and proverbs. The flight of time is compared in classical writings to the movement of a shuttle (suo), which flits back and forth in a weaving loom. Qu Yuan (about 270 BC), a patriotic poet of the Warring States Period, writes in his masterpiece The Lament, “The sun alternates with the moon; autumn returns after spring soon.” Time is looked upon not as a never returning, one-way movement, but as a back-and-forth rotation like the endless cycle of the seasons. It is true that time goes quickly, but it comes back soon as the sun and moon do. The circular view results in a sense of the abundance of time and thus doing things in an unhurried manner.
People believe that loss can be made up for as time rotates. This belief is expressed in a line from The Biography of Feng Yi written in the East Han dynasty, “What is lost at sunrise can be regained at sunset.” Although people also sigh over “time waiting for no one” (Tao Yuanming, Jin dynasty) and feel “regret for the negligent loss of time” (Han Yu, Tang dynasty), yet they expect “the favor of the time cycle and the change from bad to good luck.” The unhurried and leisurely manner is so appreciated that advice is given and farewell remarks are made by frequently using the phrases “go (eat, play, watch, discuss, do something) slowly” or “take your time.” The road sign “slow down, look around, and then cross” can be found at crossroads everywhere in China.
The view of time as a cycle often directs people’s attention to the past. People keep diaries to record what has been done in the past instead of listing what is to be done in the future. They tend to look back, value past experience, respect authorities, and follow established practice. Confucius advises people “to engage in introspection every day on three points.” He means that everyone should constantly reflect on his own past behavior and try to find out whether he has done anything unfaithful and dishonest or has shunned his studies. It might be surmised that the circular view motivates self-examination and contributes to social stability.
Mode of Thinking: Linear Dissection and Circular Synthesis
With regard to modes of thinking, people nurtured in Western culture tend to dissect things into parts and analyze their relationships. On the other hand, people brought up in Chinese culture are likely to synthesize parts and examine the whole. Linear dissection contributes to the development of logical thinking by abstract reasoning, whereas circular synthesis helps a person to think in terms of images and to gain intuitive insight.
Analytical thinking prevails in Western culture. People are good at classifying things and arranging them systematically. Encyclopedic works appeared long ago and taxonomy was advanced early. Animals, plants, and objects are clearly divided, subdivided, and further divided according to their similarities, differences, and relationships. If you glance at the title, subtitles, and topic sentences of each paragraph of an article, you instantly know its content. When a speech is made, the audience can easily get the message by following the cohesive connectors signaling time relationships, like “first,” “second,” “next,” and “finally” and so on, and words signaling logical relationships, such as “because,” “however,” “actually,” and “supposing.”
Experimental analysis has long been used as the major method of scientific research. Doctors of Western medicine treat their patients by examining parts of the body through tests and X rays before making a diagnosis. Linear dissection is related to abstraction. Qian Xuesen says, “Abstractive thinking seems to be linear or branch-like.” Westerners are relatively stronger in making use of concepts for logical judgment and reasoning. Abstraction is synonymous with precision and clarity, and that may help to explain why more theoretical works on science and technology have been produced in the West.
The synthetic mode of thinking holds sway in Chinese culture. People are accustomed to observing and judging things as an enclosed whole. Analysis is not rejected, but synthesis predominates. There was no encyclopedia of the Western kind in ancient China. Leishu, a kind of reference book that comes closest to an encyclopedia, is a set of political, social, and ethical data dealt with in a circular way with “emperor” as the center. It does not take into account the essential nature of the included items and their fundamental differences. When writing an article, a classical writer would attach great importance to the unity and harmony of the whole piece, giving much attention to the correspondence between introduction and conclusion and the natural transition from one point to another, rather than the clear-cut division between different sections.
A doctor of Chinese medicine diagnoses a patient’s disease by first looking at the patient’s complexion and tongue for its coating, feeling the pulse and eliciting complaints, in order to form a correct judgment of the patient’s general physical condition. The Chinese doctor tries to get at the root of the trouble and effect a permanent cure rather than apply a palliative remedy. Incidentally, Chinese people eat an apple by peeling it around and reserving the whole before biting, whereas Westerners tend to divide the apple into parts.
The synthetic mode of thinking is closely associated with intuition and thinking in terms of images, and it is synonymous with implicitness and fuzziness. As Rudolf Fleisch puts it, the Chinese “formed the habit of expressing ideas by metaphors, similes and allegories, in short, by every known device for making a thing plain by comparing it with something else.” An apprentice learns cooking not by following recipes with precise quantitative descriptions, but by intuitively acquiring his master’s technique after repeated imitations. A Chinese painter seeks close resemblance in spirit instead of accurate likeness in appearance. A Buddhist monk rarely makes or attends religious speeches with clear-cut viewpoints about virtues and vices, but he practices transcendental meditation and seeks intuitive insight. In fact, intuitive feeling and fuzzy beauty are held in great esteem in almost all forms of Chinese art, such as poetry, drama, and painting. As Shen Xiaolong says, “This is a circular dialectic mode of thinking with a strong plastic, flexible, and stochastic nature.”
Conclusion
The linearity-versus-circularity diffe
营养与美味
由于中西哲学思想的不同，西方人于饮食重科学，重科学即讲求营养，故西方饮食以营养为最高准则，进食有如为一生物的机器添加燃料，特别讲求食物的营养成分，蛋白质、脂肪、碳水化合物、维生素及各类无机元素的含量是否搭配合宜，卡路里的供给是否恰到好处，以及这些营养成分是否能为进食者充分吸收，有无其他副作用。这些问题都是烹调中的大学问，而菜肴的色、香、味如何，则是次一等的要求。即或在西方首屈一指的饮食大国——法国，其饮食文化虽然在很多方面与我们近似，但一接触到营养问题，双方便拉开了距离。
中国五味调和的烹调术旨在追求美味，其加工过程中的热油炸和长时间的文火攻，都会使菜肴的营养成分被破坏。法国烹调虽亦追求美味，但同时总不忘“营养”这一大前提，一味舍营养而求美味是他们所不取的。尤其是20世纪60年代出现的现代烹调思潮，特别强调养生、减肥，从而追求清淡少油，强调采用新鲜原料，强调在烹调过程中保持原有的营养成分和原有的味道，所以蔬菜基本上都是生吃。所以说西方饮食之重营养是带有普遍性的。
平心而论，谈到营养问题也触及到中国饮食的最大弱点。尽管我们讲究食疗、食补、食养，重视以饮食来养生强身，但我们的烹调术却以追求美味为第一性要求，致使许多营养成分损失于加工过程中。近年来我国厨师参加世界烹调大赛，人家端上一个菜营养成分开列得一清二楚，我们则拿不出这份材料。经人提问，亦瞠目结舌不知所云，大大地吃了哑巴亏！
我们从来都是把追求美味奉为进食的首要目的。民间有句俗话：“民以食为天，食以味为先”。虽然人们在赞誉美食时，总爱说“色香味俱佳”，但那是由于我们感受色香味的感觉器官“眼、鼻、口”的上下排列顺序如此。人们内心之于“色、香、味”，从来都是“味”字“挂帅”的。
由于中国人极端重视味道，以至中国的某些菜仅仅是味道的载体，例如公认的名贵菜海参、鱼唇、鱼翅、熊掌、驼峰，其主要成分都是与廉价的肉皮相仿的动物胶，本身并无美味，全靠用鲜汤去喂它，喂饱了它，再用它来喂人。这不就是地地道道的味道载体了吗﹖
中国人重视味道，也反映在日常言谈之中，如家庭宴客，一俟主要菜肴端上台面，主人常自谦地说：“菜烧得不好，不一定合您的口味。”他绝不会说：“菜的营养价值不高，卡路里不够。”
西方烹调讲究营养而忽视味道，至少是不以味觉享受为首要目的。他们以冷饮佐餐，冰镇的冷酒还要再加冰块，而舌表面遍布的味觉神经一经冰镇，便大大丧失品味的灵敏度，渐至不能辨味；那带血的牛排与大白鱼、大白肉，生吃的蔬菜，白水煮豆子、煮土豆，虽有“味”而不入“道”，凡此种种都反映了西方人对味觉的忽视。他们拒绝使用味精，更足以证明此辈皆属不知味之人，非“知味观”之座上客也！
基于对营养的重视，西方人多生吃蔬菜，不仅西红柿、黄瓜、生菜生吃，就是洋白菜、洋葱、绿菜花（西兰花）也都生吃。因而他们的“沙拉”有如一盘兔饲料，使我们难以接受。现代中国人也讲营养保健，也知道青菜一经加热，维生素将被破坏，因而我们主张用旺火爆炒。这虽然也使维生素的含量下降，但不会完全损失，可味道却比兔饲料好吃得多。因而中国的现代烹调术旨在追求营养与味道兼顾下的最佳平衡，这当然也属于一种“中庸之道”。
机械性与趣味性
由于西方菜肴制作之规范化，烹调成为一种机械性的工作。肯德基老头炸鸡既要按方配料；油的温度，炸鸡的时间，也都要严格依规范行事，因而厨师的工作就成为一种极其单调的机械性工作，他有如自动化装配线上的一名工人，甚至可由一机器人来代行其职。再者，西方人进食的目的首在摄取营养，只要营养够标准，其他尽可宽容，因而今日土豆牛排，明日牛排土豆，厨师在食客一无苛求极其宽容的态度下，每日重复着机械性的工作，当然无趣味可言。
在中国，烹调是一种艺术，一如女作家三毛在《沙漠中的饭店》一文中说的：“我一向对做家事十分痛恨，但对煮菜却是十分有兴趣，几只洋葱，几片肉，一炒变出一个菜来，我很欣赏这种艺术。”做菜既是一门艺术，它便与其他艺术一样，体现着严密性与即兴性的统一，所以烹调在中国一直以极强烈的趣味性，甚至还带有一定的游戏性，吸引着以饮食为人生之至乐的中国人。
趣味的烹调在中国是有传统的，出土的汉画像《庖厨图》，就很像一个大杂技团演出的场面。杜甫《丽人行》中“弯刀缕切空纷纶”的诗句，提到的这种刀背上系了许多铃铛的刀，据说当年唐代的厨师可以用它一边切菜一边奏出丁冬的乐曲。可惜这种刀和操刀的技巧都已失传了。
涮羊肉以及与之相类似的四川麻辣火锅、广东海鲜火锅之所以广泛受人喜爱，一在其鲜嫩热，吃起来自在，二也在它把烹调的主要部分移到了餐桌上，让人们边吃边体验这趣味的烹调。又如西安的羊肉泡馍，硬邦邦的馍，要客人自己动手掰成碎块，似乎这要比厨师切碎的吃起来更香些。北京风味“烤肉季”的烤肉之所以令人失望，令人感叹今不如昔，也正在于它把自己动手改成了“君子动口不动手”。这一改，改得兴味索然，吃着那么不是味儿，这都是不懂得中国的趣味烹调，瞎指挥出的悲剧如此追求烹调中的乐趣，在西方厨师是绝对不为的。西方人的信条是“工作时工作，游戏时游戏”，从他们那种机械论的两分法看来，工作中的游戏是失职，游戏中工作是赔本的买卖，都是“吾不为也”而对于崇尚融会贯通的中国人来说，“工作中有游戏，游戏中有工作”，方是人间正道。
烹调一直为中国人视为极大的乐趣，并以从事这一工作为充实人生的积极表现。有道是“上有天堂，下有厨房”，烹调之于中国，简直与音乐、舞蹈、诗歌、绘画一样，拥有提高人生境界的伟大意义。
分别与和合
台湾国学大师钱穆先生在《现代中国学术论衡》一书的序言中说：“文化异，斯学术亦异。中国重和合，西方重分别。”此一文化特征，亦体现于中西饮食文化之中。西菜中除少数汤菜，如俄式红菜汤（罗宋汤），是以多种荤素原料集一锅而熬之外，正菜中鱼就是鱼，鸡就是鸡，蜗牛就是蜗牛，牡蛎就是牡蛎。所谓“土豆烧牛肉”，不过是烧好的牛肉佐以煮熟的土豆，绝非集土豆牛肉于一锅而烧之。即使是调味的作料，如番茄酱、芥末糊、柠檬汁、辣酱油，也都是现吃现加。以上种种都体现了“西方重分别”。
中国人一向以“和”与“合”为最美妙的境界，音乐上讲究“和乐”、“唱和”，医学上主张“身和”、“气和”。我们更希望国家政治实现“政通人和”。而我们称夫妇成婚为“合卺”，称美好的婚姻为“天作之合”；当我们表示崇敬之心时，更以双手“合十”为礼，而当一切美好的事物凑集在一起时，我们将其称誉为“珠联璧合”。
中国烹调的核心是“五味调和”即《文子·上德篇》所称之“水火相憎，鼎鬲其间，五味以和”。《吕氏春秋·本味篇》称赞“五味以和”是“鼎中之变，精妙微纤，口弗能言，志弗能喻”。
中国的“五味调和论”是由“本味论”、“气味阴阳论”、“时序论”、“适口论”所组成。就是说，要在重视烹调原料自然之味的基础上进行“五味调和”，要用阴阳五行的基本规律指导这一调和，调和要合乎时序，又要注意时令，调和的最终结果要味美适口。所以中国菜几乎每个菜都要用两种以上的原料和多种调料来调和烹制。即或是家常菜，一般也是荤素搭配来调和烹制的，如韭黄炒肉丝、肉片炒蒜苗、腐竹焖肉、芹菜炒豆腐干……而此等原料若西厨烹制，则奶汁肉丝外加白水煮韭黄，或炸猪排佐以清水煮蒜苗，中国食客见如此中菜西做，自然是“哭不得笑不得”而那地道的西菜，更是一块牛排佐以两枚土豆、三片番茄、四叶生菜，彼此虽共处一盘之中，但却“各自为政”，互不干扰。只待食至腹中，方能调和一起。
中国人把做菜称之为“烹调”，这意味着我们历来将烹与调合为一体。西方原来有烹无调，现在虽说也有了调，但仍属前后分立的两道工序。
在食仪上，西方奉行分餐制。首先是各点各的菜，想吃什么点什么，这也表现了西方对个性的尊重。及至上菜后，人各一盘各吃各的，各自随意添加调料，一道菜吃完后再吃第二道菜，前后两道菜绝不混吃。中餐则一桌人团团围坐合吃一桌菜，冷拼热炒沙锅火锅摆满桌面，就餐者东吃一嘴西吃一嘴，几道菜同时下肚，这都与西餐的食仪截然不同，都体现了“分别”与“和合”的中西文化的根本差异。
规范与随意
西方人于饮食强调科学与营养，故烹调的全过程都严格按照科学规范行事，牛排的味道从纽约到旧金山毫无二致，牛排的配菜也只是番茄、土豆、生菜有限的几种。再者，规范化的烹调要求调料的添加量精确到克，烹调时间精确到秒。此外1995年第一期《海外文摘》刊载的《吃在荷兰》一文中还描述了“荷兰人家的厨房备有天平、液体量杯、定时器、刻度锅，调料架上排着整齐大小划一的几十种调味料瓶，就像个化学试验室。”
中国的烹调与之截然不同，不仅各大菜系都有自己的风味与特色，就是同一菜系的同一个菜，其所用的配菜与各种调料的匹配，也会依厨师的个人特点有所不同。就是同一厨师做同一个菜，虽有其一己之成法，但也会依不同季节、不同场合，用餐人的不同身份，加以调整（如冬季味浓郁，夏季味清淡，婚宴须色彩鲜艳，丧宴忌红色；穷汉杀馋应浓油厚汁，老饕会餐宜新鲜别致）。此外还会因厨师自己临场情绪的变化，做出某种即兴的发挥。因此，中国烹调不仅不讲求精确到秒与克的规范化，而且还特别强调随意性。
对食品加工的随意性，首先导致了中国菜谱篇幅的一再扩大：原料的多样，刀工的多样，调料的多样，烹调方法的多样，再加以交叉组合，一种原料便可做成数种以至十数种、数十种菜肴。譬如最常用的原料鸡，到了粤菜大厨师手中，做出数十道以至上百道菜式都不在话下。其他原料也是如此。因而在盛产某种原料的地方，常常能以这一种原料做出成桌的酒席，如北京的“全鸭席”，延边的“全狗席”，广东的“全鱼席”、“全蚝席”，长沙李和胜的“全牛席”，北京一些清真饭馆的“全羊席”以及北京砂锅居的“全猪席”，比比皆体现了中国烹调的随意性派生出琳琅满目的菜式。
台灣張起鈞教授著有《烹調原理》一書，他在序言中說﹕“古語說‘飲食男女人之大欲存焉’，若以這個標准來論，西方文化（特別是近代美國式的文化）可說是男女文化，而中國則是一种飲食文化。”從宏觀而言，這一判斷是有道理的。因文化傳統的緣故，西方人的人生傾向明顯偏于男女關系，人生大量的時間及精力投注于這一方面，這在漢民族是難以理解的。因為漢民族對于男女關系理解的褊狹，僅僅把它看作是單純的性關系，而在傳統文化中把性隱蔽化、神秘化，性被蒙上一層濃厚的羞恥和倫理色彩，對于現實的性，便只能接受生理的理解，視為淫邪。“男女之大防”，將男女關系与性關系等同起來，所以對性的認識也是膚淺的。而且這一切都還只能“盡在不言中”，說出來便有悖禮教，認為道德淪喪了。由于對性的回避、排斥，中國人把人生精力傾泄導向于飲食，這樣，不僅導致了烹調藝術的高度發展，而且賦予飲食以丰富的文化內涵。
雖然飲食文化在西方不夠發達，不能典型地反映其文化的特點，但這种不發達本身也是一种文化發展的結果，所以對中西飲食文化的具体比較仍有意義。
兩种不同的飲食观念
誰也不會否認，西方是一种理性飲食觀念，不論食物的色、香、味、形如何，而營養一定要得到保証，講究一天要攝取多少熱量、維生素、蛋白質等等。即便口味千篇一律，甚至比起中國的美味佳肴來，簡直單調得如同嚼蜡，但理智告訴他﹕一定要吃下去，因為有營養。說得不好听，就像給机器加油一樣。
這一飲食觀念同西方整個哲學体系是相适應的。形而上學是西方哲學的主要特點。西方哲學所研究的對象為事物之理，事物之理常為形上學理，形上學理互相連貫，便結成形上哲學。這一哲學給西方文化帶來生机，使之在自然科學上、心理學上、方法論上實現了突飛猛進的發展。但在另一些方面，這种哲學主張大大地起了阻礙作用，如飲食文化，就不可避免地落后了，到處打上了方法論中的形
而上學痕跡。在宴席上，可以講究餐具，講究用料，講究服務，講究菜之原料的形、色方面的搭配﹔但不管怎么豪華高檔，從洛杉磯到紐約，牛排都只有一种味道，毫無藝術可言。而且作為菜肴，雞就是雞，牛排就是牛排，縱然有搭配，那也是在盤中進行的，一盤“法式羊排”，一邊放土豆泥，旁倚羊排，另一邊配煮青豆，加几片番茄便成。色彩上對比鮮明，但在滋味上各种原料互不相干、調和，各是各的味，簡單明了。
中國則是一种美性飲食觀念。人們在品嘗菜肴時，往往會說這盤菜“好吃”，那道菜“不好吃”﹔然而若要進一步問一下什么叫“好吃”，為什么“好吃”，“好吃”在哪里，恐怕就不容易說清楚了。這說明，中國人對飲食追求的是一种難以言傳的“意境”，即使用人們通常所說的“色、香、味、形、器”來把這种“境界”具体化，恐怕仍然是很難涵蓋得了的。
中國飲食之所以有其獨特的魅力，關鍵就在于它的味。而美味的產生，在于調和，要使食物的本味，加熱以后的熟味，加上配料和輔料的味以及調料的調和之味，交織融合協調在一起，使之互相補充，互助滲透，水乳交融，你中有我，我中有你。這正如張起鈞先生在《烹調原理》中，對上海菜“咸篤鮮”描述的那樣﹕“雖是火腿、冬筍、鮮肉三味并陳，可是在煮好之后，鮮肉中早有火腿与筍的味道，火腿与筍也都各已含有其它兩种因素，而整個說起來，又共同形成一种含有三种而又超乎三种以上的鮮湯。”中國烹飪講究的調和之美，是中國烹飪藝術的精要之處。菜點的形和色是外在的東西，而味卻是內在的東西，重內在而不刻意修飾外表，重菜肴的味而不過分展露菜肴的形和色，這正是中國美性飲食觀的最重要的表現。
中國飲食的美性追求顯然壓倒了理性，這种飲食觀与中國傳統的哲學思想也是吻合的。作為東方哲學代表的中國哲學，其顯著特點是宏觀、直觀、模糊及不可捉摸。中國菜的制作方法是調和鼎鼐，最終是要調和出一种美好的滋味。這一切講究的就是分寸，就是整体的配合。它包含了中國哲學丰富的辯証法思想，一切以菜的味的美好、諧調為度，度以內的千變万化就決定了中國菜的丰富和富于變化，決定了中國菜菜系的特點乃至每位廚師的特點。
中西飲食對象及方式的差异
凡飲食都离不開菜。在中國“菜”為形聲字，与植物有關。据西方的植物學者的調查，中國人吃的菜蔬有６００多种，比西方多六倍。實際上，在中國人的菜肴里，素菜是平常食品，葷菜只有在節假日或生活水平較高時，才進入平常的飲食結构，所以自古便有“菜食”之說，《國語‧楚語》﹕“庶人食菜，祀以魚”，是說平民一般以菜食為主，魚肉只有在祭祀時才可以吃到。菜食在平常的飲食結构中占主導地位。
中國人的以植物為主菜，与佛教徒的鼓吹有著千縷万絲的聯系。他們視動物為“生靈”，而植物則“無靈”，所以，主張素食主義。
西方人好像沒有這么好的習慣，他們秉承著游牧民族、航海民族的文化血統，以漁獵、養殖為主，以采集、种植為輔，葷食較多，吃、穿、用都取之于動物，連西藥也是從動物身上攝取提煉而成的。
西方人在介紹自己國家的飲食特點時，覺得比中國更重視營養的合理搭配，有較為發達的食品工業，如罐頭、快餐等，雖口味千篇一律，但節省時間，且營養良好，故他們國家的人身体普遍比中國人健壯﹕高個、長腿、寬大的肩、發達的肌肉﹔而中國人則顯得身材瘦小、肩窄腿短、色黃質弱。西方人以中西食物的差异來判定雙方飲食營養的优劣是沒有道理的。孫中山先生對飲食文化有深刻的研究和精辟的論述。他在《建國方略》中，詳述了中西飲食現象的差异，并且得出結論﹕“中國常人所飲者為清茶，所食者為淡飯，而加以蔬菜、豆腐。此等之食料，為今日衛生家所考得為最有益于養生者也。故中國窮鄉僻壤之人，飲食不及酒肉者，常多上壽。又中國人口之繁昌，与乎中國人拒疾疫之力常大者，亦未嘗非飲食之暗合衛生有以致之也。”他還說﹕“中國素食者必食豆腐。夫豆腐者，實植物中之肉料也。此物有肉料之功，而無肉料之毒，故中國全國皆素食，也習慣為常，而無待學者之提倡矣。歐美之人所飲者濁酒，所食者腥膻，亦相習成風，故雖在前有科學之提倡，在后有重法之厲禁，如俄美等國之厲行酒禁，而一時亦不能轉移之也。”
孫氏之言科學地道出了中國飲食之利及西方飲食之弊。有人根据中西方飲食對象的明顯差异這一特點，把中國人稱為植物性格，西方人稱為動物性格。反映在文化行為方面的，西方人喜歡冒險、開拓、沖突﹔而中國人則安土重遷，固本守己。按照美國民俗學家露絲‧本尼迪克特的“文化模式”理論，中國人的文化性格頗近似于古典世界的阿波羅式，而西方人的文化性格則類同于現代世界的浮士德式。的确，西方人如美國人在開發西部時，他們把整個家產往車上一拋，就在隆隆的輜重聲中走出去了。而中國人則時時刻刻記挂著“家”和“根”，盡管提倡青年人要四海為家，但在海外數十年的華人，末了還是拄著拐杖來大陸尋根問宗。這种葉落歸根的觀念，人文精神，不能不說是和中國人飲食積淀相通合，它使中華民族那么地富有凝聚力，讓中國的民俗那么地富有人情味。
中西方的飲食方式有很大不同，這种差异對民族性格也有影響。在中國，任何一個宴席，不管是什么目的，都只會有一种形式，就是大家團團圍坐，共享一席。筵席要用圓桌，這就從形式上造成了一种團結、禮貌、共趣的气氛。美味佳肴放在一桌人的中心，它既是一桌人欣賞、品嘗的對象，又是一桌人感情交流的媒介物。人們相互敬酒、相互讓菜、勸菜，在美好的事物面前，体現了人們之間相互尊重、禮讓的美德。雖然從衛生的角度看，這种飲食方式有明顯的不足之處，但它符合我們民族“大團圓”的普遍心態，反映了中國古典哲學中“和”這個范疇對后代思想的影響，便于集体的情感交流，因而至今難以改革。
西式飲宴上，食品和酒盡管非常重要，但實際上那是作為陪襯。宴會的核心在于交誼，通過与鄰座客人之間的交談，達到交誼的目的。如果將宴會的交誼性与舞蹈相類比，那么可以說，中式宴席好比是集体舞，而西式宴會好比是男女的交誼舞。由此可見，中式宴會和西式宴會交誼的目的都很明顯，只不過中式宴會更多地体現在全席的交誼，而西式宴會多体現于相鄰賓客之間的交誼。
与中國飲食方式的差异更為明顯的是西方流行的自助餐。此法是將所有食物一一陳列出來，大家各取所需，不必固定在位子上吃，走動自由，這种方式便于個人之間的情感交流，不必將所有的話擺在桌面上，也表現了西方人對個性、對自我的尊重。但各吃各的，互不相扰，缺少中國人聊歡共樂的情調。有人想把自助餐納入中國的飲食文化，這是行不通的。張起鈞先生在《烹調原理》中道明了其中的原由﹕“第一、自助餐与飲茶不同，飲茶是把剛出鍋的東西送到你面前請你選用，而自助餐則是大批做好陳列在那里，等你來時早就涼了。中國菜就要趁熱吃，那落了滾了，還吃什么。第二、自助餐只能做些硬菜、實惠菜。然后才可大塊小塊地供你取用。而那些最代表中國烹調藝術的，嬌嫩、清淡的菜，無法在此亮相。第三、自助餐只能做大鍋炖、大鍋熬的菜，任何精巧點的菜頂多一鍋炒兩份，哪里能一下做几十人份的堆在那里﹖因此勢必不會好吃，談不到滋味。在這种情形下，很明顯的若采用自助餐，勢必否定了中國的烹調藝術。”中國人是要通過同桌共食來表現和睦、團圓的气氛，而自助餐卻打破了圍坐歡飲的格局，將個人的獨立、自主提到首位，這与中國傳統的大家庭大一統的文化模式是背道而馳的。
中西飲食歸屬及性質的差异
飲食觀念的不同，使西方飲食傾向科學、理性，中國飲食傾向于藝術、感性。在飲食不發達的時代，這兩种傾向都只有一個目的度命充飢。而到了飲食文化充分發展之后，這种不同的傾向就表現在目的上了﹕前者發展為在營養學上的考慮，后者則表現為對味道的講究。
烹調出自飲食，飲食原來是一個旨在維持生命的營養，因此，西方飲食的著重點僅僅是原始飲食實用性的延伸。中國飲食對味的偏重，就把飲食推向藝術的領域。孟子說﹕“口之于味有同嗜焉”，這一“嗜”字，就點出營養發展到藝術的關鍵，而這嗜正是來自味了。在中國，吃，遠不是為了飽，為了營養，有時吃飽了，還要吃，這是超負荷的飲食。何故﹖說好听點，是欣賞烹調的藝術﹔說不好听點，是不胜其“味美”的誘惑，是在盡情進行味覺享受。這在西方理性飲食觀看來，不僅是浪費，而且危害人体。其實，中醫也反對暴飲暴食，主張“飲食有節”﹔但中醫的辯証法又告訴人們，偶爾的“超負荷”，只要吃得舒服，也可以吸收、儲存。气功師在不吃不喝的情況下精神飽滿，雖体重下降，而對人体無損，便是對這种儲存的消耗。中醫還主張冬天加強營養，也是為了儲存以保來年的精力旺盛。中國人的這种觀點比西方一味反對超負荷飲食的主張更為辯証，更接近于科學的真理，且已受到數千年中醫實踐的檢驗。
從更高的層次講，只注重營養，食物味道千篇一律，食之如嚼蜡，這就把飲食看成是生存的手段，只是更為合理的果腹充飢，而不是享受。心理學家斯賓諾莎說過﹕“欲望不是別的，恰恰是人的本質。”人類對美味的渴求，是人的本質的充分反映。在味覺的享受過程中，涌動著一股勃發的生命沖力。生命，不應該是一种桎梏，一种欲望的壓抑，不應用絕對的理性來規范人的一切行為。就飲食而言，不能為了“科學”、“營養”而將一些美味排斥于餐桌之外。只有美味的東西，才能滿足人們的食欲，進而給人帶來身心的愉悅。中國人的飲食從古至今表現為感性對理性的超越，致使中國飲食文化充溢著想象力和創造性。中國飲食活動中的感性是升華了的感性，滲透了理性的感性，是生命本質的實現。另外，味覺享受本是人類為之奮斗追求的主要目標之一，因此，中國飲食的藝術化符合人類歷史發展的進程，比西方飲食的科學化更進步。正如張起鈞先生在《烹調原理》中說的﹕“美國總算是空前富足的社會了，但到今天為止，本質上還是在‘食物充飢’的階段，距离進入藝術境界，仍有一段距离。”在中國，飲食早已超越了維持生存的作用，它的目的不僅是為了獲得肉体的存在，而且是為了滿足人的精神對于快感的需求。它是人們積极地充實人生的表現，和美術、音樂、文學等等有著同等的提高人生境界的意義。
中國飲食傾向于藝術性，所謂藝術境界，其實也就是一种完成了由必然王國到自由王國的飛躍才獲得的境界。它的特點就是隨意性。比如同樣一只菜肴，由于地區、季節、對象、作用、等級等的不同，可以在操作上作不同的處理。拿紅燒魚來說，冬天的色宜深些，口味宜重些，夏天則色和味均應清淡些﹔對于江浙一帶的人來說，紅燒魚的調味中可加糖，如面對川湘顧客，則應多放辣。可見离開了隨意性，就沒有中國烹飪的變化多端，就會失去中國烹飪的獨特魅力。而在西方，一道菜在不同的地區不同的季節面對不同的食者，皆為同一味道，毫無變化。即令是最高貴的宴席，也不過是餐具考究，布置華貴而已，菜仍舊一個樣。再說原料。西方人認為菜肴是充飢的，所以專吃大塊肉、整塊雞等“硬菜”。而中國的菜肴是“吃味”的，所以中國烹調在用料上也顯出极大的隨意性﹕許多西方人視為棄物的東西，在中國都是极好的原料，外國廚師無法處理的東西，一到中國廚師手里，就可以化腐朽為神奇。足見中國飲食在用料方面的隨意性之廣博。
再如技巧，一個优秀的廚師，固然要能做复雜繁瑣的大菜，但就是面對簡單的原料和佐料也往往能信手制出可口的美味，這是技巧的隨意性。表面上看，菜譜似乎是科學的，西方人總是拿著菜譜去買菜，制作菜肴，但相比起來，就顯得机械了，在复雜的具体情況面前往往是無能為力的。當然這种机械的科學仍不失為科學，但卻是原始的科學，不徹底的科學。中國烹調講究藝術性，千變万化之中卻符合科學的要求，可以說是一种超越科學的科學。西方食品的營養成份一目了然和絕少藝術氛圍的特點，明顯地區別于中國飲食的藝術境界。
中西方飲食性質的差异，与它們各自的生活方式及生活節奏是吻合的。在西方，流水線上的重复作業，實行計件工資制，生活節奏急促，人們有意無意地受到机械的兩分法影響，信奉“工作時工作，游戲時游戲”的原則。生活的机械性導致了飲食的單一性或對飲食的單一熟視無睹，頓頓牛排土豆，土豆牛排，單調重复的飲食与其工作一樣，以完成“件”數為目的，自然無興趣、滋味可言。中國則不然，“游戲中有工作，工作中有游戲”的生活方式在飲食中也顯現出來。街上賣燒餅的師傅，揉面時喜歡用 面杖有節奏地敲打案板﹔廚師在炒菜時，敲打馬勺，注意烹炒的節奏感。這些自然不會對工作有什么便利，但卻增加了勞動者的工作趣味，只有在這种气氛中工作才會有積极意義，才會有中國菜的創造性和藝術性。
[最后编辑为liangkuai, at 2006-04-12 16:50:24]
Comments Feed: http://www.liangkuai.cn/feed.asp?q=comment&id=39
引用地址: http://www.liangkuai.cn/trackback.asp?id=39