METHODOLOGY AND BACKGROUND

Since state parties are responsible for heritage nomination proposals in the UNESCO system, this article relies mainly on Japanese government documents, policy statements, and other official materials related to washoku’s inscription as its primary text sources. The official minutes of all of the meetings conducted by the government for nomination purposes constitute the main corpus, supplemented by information from other documents distributed and discussed during these meetings.^{Footnote 2} These texts are further complemented with data from the field notes of the author who was granted permission to attend all of the meetings as an observer and was provided copies of all distributed documents, not all of which were released online and made publicly available. Consequently, the method of exposition in this article approaches studies in institutional ethnography, such as Valdimar Hafstein’s research that utilized statements from official meetings—in his case, within UNESCO—as the material and basis for discussing the implications of the list system for intangible heritage.^{Footnote 3}

As an anthropological study on Japanese food as heritage, this article joins the ranks of a small but growing number of works that have reflected on the impact of the heritagization process on the food culture of communities and nations, such as Ronda Brulotte and Alvin Starkman on the selection and de-selection of food traditions for heritage designation in the context of Mexican cuisine as well as Susan Terrio on specific foods and their proponents—in this case, French chocolate and chocolatiers—that aim to gain the prestige, as perceived, afforded by UNESCO’s heritage designation.^{Footnote 4} As an anthropological work concerning the heritagization process of a nation’s food, however, this article particularly approaches the work of Jean-Louis Tornatore on France’s “gastronomic meal of the French,” in which he revealed and discussed the untidy politics and contradictions surrounding French food heritage ambitions that nonetheless resulted in designation.^{Footnote 5}

Although the nomination process for washoku was detailed and analyzed in previous research by Voltaire Cang and briefly discussed by Atsuko Ichijo and Ronald Ranta,^{Footnote 6} this article expands on these earlier works with its discussion on the underpinnings of critical decisions made throughout the nomination process in Japan, particularly the reasons for, and the effects of, the choice of washoku to represent Japanese food heritage. This article also builds on previous studies with its focus on the consequences of washoku’s inscription, including the implications of the heritagization of Japanese food culture and its raison d’être in the context of food heritage, aspects that were hardly discussed earlier, if at all.

All of the meetings for the nomination of Japanese food were held in the offices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) in Tokyo. Although nominations for an UNESCO heritage inscription, including those for world heritage, are the purview of the Agency for Cultural Affairs (Bunkacho) under Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Technology (MEXT), an exception was made for MAFF ostensibly because of its role as the overseer of the nation’s food system and supply. The proposal for nomination had also been broached initially to MAFF by the Japanese Culinary Academy, a Kyoto-based organization of food professionals, and its supporters. MAFF later endorsed the proposal to the central government, which subsequently reverted the administration of the nomination process back to the ministry.

MAFF thereby convened a committee composed of representatives from its office and other related government ministries and agencies, including Bunkacho in an advisory capacity, as well as officials from food and drink associations and industries, food scholars, and other academics in Japan. The committee was chaired by Isao Kumakura, an academic and scholar of the way of tea (or “tea ceremony”) tradition and Japanese food culture. Committee members included Yoshihiro Murata, Japanese Culinary Academy chairman and prominent chef/restaurateur based in Kyoto; Yukio Hattori, chef/restaurateur and head of one of Japan’s largest culinary schools based in Tokyo; and Yoshiki Tsuji, another chef/restaurateur and head of another prominent culinary school based in Osaka. All three restaurateurs, as well as Kumakura, are well-known media personalities in Japan. All of them are male, as was the composition of the whole committee.

The committee did have two female members, but they were present only as token representatives from the Diet, being parliamentary secretaries assigned to MAFF and MEXT. Although they delivered opening remarks at committee meetings, they did not take part in the deliberations for the nomination.^{Footnote 7} Nevertheless, it was this MAFF-convened committee that determined the final contents of the nomination documents formally submitted to UNESCO. After successful inscription in 2013, MAFF has also been in charge of promoting washoku as UNESCO intangible heritage through programs within and outside Japan.

JAPANESE FOOD AS INTANGIBLE HERITAGE

As one of the countries that pioneered the establishment of the intangible heritage system in UNESCO, Japan has assiduously had its traditions inscribed in the Representative List year after year. Before washoku, all Japanese heritage in the Representative List were officially designated “important intangible cultural properties” under Japan’s own heritage system. Washoku was an exception; it had come from nowhere, as Japanese food was not represented, much less formally designated, in any of Japan’s official lists of cultural properties. Before Japanese food was considered for inscription, Japan also had a select list of 12 nationally designated intangible cultural properties that it was preparing to nominate to UNESCO, ranked according to priority.^{Footnote 8} Japanese food was not on this pending shortlist either. Nonetheless, Japan set all 12 traditions aside, as well as hundreds of other non-pending, but otherwise officially designated, intangible cultural properties, to pursue the nomination for Japanese food.

Washoku is a peculiar entry for Japan in the Representative List for another reason. While each Japanese tradition is limited in range and scope, being practiced in specific regions (such as the Gion Festival in Kyoto) or by a specified group of practitioners (like in Noh and Kabuki Theaters), Japanese food, as described by the nomination committee from the very beginning, is a social practice that involves the entire Japanese nation. In the final version of the dossier submitted to UNESCO, washoku is defined as intangible heritage for which “[t]he community concerned … consists of all Japanese. This includes families, local communities, grassroots groups, schoolteachers, cooking instructors and craftsmen.”^{Footnote 9}

ROAD TO INSCRIPTION: NOMINATION IN THE EARLY STAGES

Japanese food’s road to inscription formally began with the creation of the aforementioned committee in 2011 under the auspices of MAFF; they would formally meet four times from July to November of that year. Its official name was Nihon shoku bunka no sekai mukei isan tōroku ni muketa kentōkai, which literally translates into Exploratory Committee for the Inscription of Japanese Food Culture as World Intangible Heritage (Exploratory Committee).^{Footnote 10} The phrase “sekai mukei isan” (world intangible heritage) in the committee’s name belies the unfamiliarity, perhaps misconception, among its members and MAFF, concerning the heritage system in place in UNESCO; although there is a World Heritage List for natural and cultural sites or “tangible” heritage, there is no system for “world intangible heritage.” The Representative List for intangible heritage, under which French and Mexican food traditions were previously inscribed, is independent from the World Heritage List and is frequently considered its counterpart.

The absence of a world intangible heritage system did not prevent the Exploratory Committee members and other government officials from declaring otherwise. In remarks that opened the first meeting, the MAFF parliamentary secretary mentioned that “while the cuisines of France and the Mediterranean have already been registered as World Heritage, Japanese food, not only its ingredients, is excellent culture in itself [and deserving of heritage status].”^{Footnote 11} Following the opening speeches, the committee chairman himself declared the main purpose of the meetings to be “to deliberate on the content of [the nomination for] inscription of Japanese food culture as World Intangible Heritage with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), Bunkacho, the Japan Tourism Agency [and others].”^{Footnote 12}

The stated motives for pursuing the nomination were likewise incorrect and incompatible with the aims outlined in the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity (CSICH) that established the intangible heritage system in UNESCO.^{Footnote 13} For instance, the MAFF parliamentary secretary in her opening speech also emphasized “the role successful inscription of Japanese food could play in helping Japan’s food producers,” especially since “the recent nuclear accidents have caused great damage to [their] reputations,” in reference to the consequences of the East Japanese earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power plant calamities that befell Japan a few months earlier.^{Footnote 14}

The same sentiments were expressed by other members of the Exploratory Committee, such as in the following comment from culinary school head Hattori: “Because of damaged reputations from the earthquake, tsunami, and then nuclear disasters, … Japanese food exporters abroad have rejected many [Japanese food products]. This [nomination] is a good chance and if inscription is successful, then Japan’s presence in the world will be reasserted through Japanese cuisine.”^{Footnote 15} Although the CSICH contains provisions that are often interpretable in a wide variety of ways, it certainly does not stipulate heritage inscription for the purposes of rehabilitating reputations or economies damaged by natural or man-made disasters, except for traditions identified in its Urgent Safeguarding List. Neither does it encourage nations to assert the preeminence of their culture over that of others, at least on its face.

Nationalism, however, did pervade Japan’s motives for inscription and gave it a sense of urgency; this was fueled not only by the successful inscriptions of Mexican and French food traditions earlier but also, in particular, by the nomination of South Korea that year (2011) for the “royal cuisine of the Joseon Dynasty.” From the outset, the Exploratory Committee gave undue attention to South Korea’s nomination: “We must draft our nomination as soon as possible, in a form that would most easily pass,” mentioned Kyoto restaurateur Murata. Again referring to the recent series of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear calamities, he emphasized that “Japan is in need of bright news, but if [the royal cuisine of] South Korea would be successfully inscribed [later in the year], then the Japanese people will become even sadder.” He continued with a comment that “[i]f South Korean court cuisine were to be recognized as cultural heritage, South Korea would probably declare that South Korean cuisine was recognized by the world as world cuisine. … In Europe today, Japanese cuisine is being overwhelmed by South Korean cuisine.”^{Footnote 16} These statements received many nods and comments of agreement from the members of the Exploratory Committee.

Japan’s active rivalry with South Korea, not only in the political and economic arenas but also in cultural matters, is expressed in these statements, even as they also underscore the culinary nationalism involved in Japan’s pursuit of heritage status for its food.^{Footnote 17} The nationalistic bent of the Exploratory Committee is not surprising, however, since the desire for inscription inevitably entails a strong belief in the nation’s food as deserving of the honor especially in comparison to other national cuisines. Throughout the meetings, Japanese food was consistently described as “excellent” (subarashii) and superior to other food traditions; there was no questioning of its worthiness for heritage inscription.

Comparisons between Japanese food tradition and the inscriptions of the “gastronomic meal of the French” (“gastronomic meal”), “traditional Mexican cuisine,” and the “Mediterranean diet” were subsequently made. However, only the “gastronomic meal” received the committee’s close scrutiny, since France’s nomination dossier was the only one translated into the Japanese language. The translated dossier was distributed to all committee members and observers, including this author; the translation was very detailed and comprehensive since the French application contained “important portions for the Committee to consider in the actual application [for Japanese food],” as its translator (and government official) explained.^{Footnote 18} He did not translate Mexico’s and the Mediterranean countries’ dossiers due to time constraints, he added. Thus, the latter inscriptions were effectively excluded from consideration, and, from this point on, France’s “gastronomic meal” became the sole frame of reference for the Exploratory Committee.

France’s nomination documents were discussed in detail, which made the Exploratory Committee realize the enormity of the task before them and prompted the chairman to say that “this nomination form that France submitted is something that the Committee would also have to draft [for Japanese food]. This is going to be difficult work.”^{Footnote 19} Nonetheless, the committee formed a consensus that henceforth Japan would model its nomination after the “gastronomic meal.”

The Exploratory Committee took particular note of France’s definition of its food culture. As the French did with gastronomy, Japan would base its own definition on the idea of food as “a social practice that marked important occasions in individual and community life.” Japanese food would be delineated as heritage that concerned all Japanese, like the case for gastronomy in France, which “involved the whole French citizenry.” Japan would also aim for wide public support for the nomination; with a sense of awe, the committee noted: “[I]n a 2009 annual survey of eating habits in France, 95.2 percent of French people thought that gastronomy was part of their cultural heritage and identity, and 98.7 percent thought that gastronomy had to be preserved.”^{Footnote 20}

Although irrelevant to the agenda, some members could not resist claiming the superiority of Japanese food over its French counterpart, to wit: “Japanese cuisine, as in [the formal meal of] kaiseki would have 65 different ingredients amounting to one thousand kilo calories, while French cuisine with only 23 ingredients totals 2,500 kilo calories. Our food culture is something we can proudly proclaim to the world.”^{Footnote 21} Nevertheless, the nomination for Japanese food would defer to French precedent. At the close of the first meeting, the Exploratory Committee agreed to “produce a draft that would follow the well-ordered example of the French as [they] continue with the discussions.”^{Footnote 22}

Indeed, the deference to France was underscored by a fact-finding trip to Paris in between the second and third committee meetings, which was hurriedly arranged for the purpose of seeking advice from “France’s Ministries of Agriculture and Culture, local governments, food and heritage cultural committees” on Japan’s nomination and “to hear about the process of inscription [of French gastronomy], their difficulties and points of emphasis [in the nomination].”^{Footnote 23} Organized by MAFF, the delegation included several Exploratory Committee members and officials from MOFA. As discussed below, the trip was to impact Japan’s nomination in a significant way.

NOMINATION PROCESS: FROM JAPANESE FOOD CULTURE, TO KAISEKI, TO WASHOKU

Washoku was not the formal name initially given to the heritage element Japan sought to have inscribed. Although the word “washoku” was uttered many times in the discussions of the Exploratory Committee, according to its common usage in the Japanese language, it is simply a word meaning “Japanese food.” From the beginning, the Exploratory Committee had planned to produce a proposal specifically for “Japanese food culture” (nihon shoku bunka), as indicated in the committee’s formal name. MAFF had a draft proposal prepared in advance, which was presented to the first Exploratory Committee meeting for comments and corrections. The initial proposal described Japanese food culture as being “based on nature’s bounty, since the Japanese archipelago stretches narrowly but long from north to south, with diverse regions and the four seasons, forming a rice-based diet that takes advantage of the diverse climate with diverse ingredients and food items, which is its most distinguishing characteristic.”^{Footnote 24} Into this initial description were added details like “fermented food, umami taste, healthy balance, and cultural expressions” such as the way of tea tradition and other similar “sacred/extraordinary” (hare) cultural elements.^{Footnote 25} The allusions to diversity and emphasis on cultural elements in the draft was an explicit nod to the definition of intangible heritage in the CSICH.

After feedback from the Exploratory Committee, this early definition was streamlined at the second meeting, with Japanese food culture delineated into “four major characteristics of Japanese cuisine which have been refined and condensed into the kaiseki meal format.”^{Footnote 26} These characteristics were identified as: (1) the use of a wide variety of fresh ingredients from nature’s bounty; (2) the creation of healthy, balanced, rice-based meals; (3) the significance of fermentation and the umami taste principle, such as pickles and sake production; and (4) the importance of cuisine in annual events and rituals in the life of the community. The Japanese culinary tradition of kaiseki was specifically identified as embodying all four characteristics in their most sophisticated form.^{Footnote 27} The idea of using kaiseki to represent Japanese food culture was originally proposed to the Exploratory Committee by the Kyoto local government, which at that time was considering the designation of Kyoto kaiseki cuisine as an important intangible cultural property of the Kyoto prefecture. Kyoto officials already had a completed a dossier on kaiseki cuisine, which they offered to the Exploratory Committee on this occasion for the latter’s reference. (Kyoto kaiseki cuisine officially became an important intangible cultural property for Kyoto in 2013.)

Kyoto’s dossier, a copy of which was also provided to this author, was drafted under the auspices of the Japanese Culinary Academy, the Kyoto-based organization mentioned above. Although Murata is its current and founding chairman, his name was not mentioned during the discussion of Kyoto’s dossier. Murata also limited himself from making any remarks, either to avoid drawing attention to himself or invoking charges of conflict of interest. Nevertheless, Kyoto’s proposal had kaiseki as the centerpiece, and, as if to emphasize its intent, the cover page of the document showed a full-color photograph of a kaiseki (restaurant) meal. This proposal might lead the cynic to conclude that personal and professional, as well as economic, concerns may have motivated Murata and the Japanese Culinary Academy to pursue heritage designation for kaiseki to Kyoto and, subsequently, to the national government. Be that as it may, Murata has been described as possessing a “concern over the perceived decline in national identity” in the context of Japanese food tradition, which primarily underscored his efforts so far.^{Footnote 28}

Not only was Kyoto’s proposal complete, but it was also detailed and convincingly portrayed kaiseki as the “refined and condensed form [of cuisine] that fully incorporates the characteristics of Japanese cuisine in general.”^{Footnote 29} This idea particularly appealed to the Exploratory Committee; it was unanimously approved and appropriated for use in the description of Japanese food culture for the UNESCO nomination. Indeed, the idea of kaiseki as the quintessential Japanese meal is a common notion in Japan; in a recent Internet survey, the Japanese identified kaiseki as one of the most representative Japanese foods, second only to sushi.^{Footnote 30} Similar opinions have also been expressed by many writers on Japanese food culture in and outside Japan.^{Footnote 31}

The term kaiseki thus came to be used in the formal name of the heritage to be nominated. In all of the draft proposals thereafter, the working title was the lengthy “Kaiseki wo chūshin to shita dokutoku na dentōteki nihon shoku bunka,” which literally means “unique and traditional Japanese food culture centered on kaiseki.” Revisions on the definition were to be made again at the third meeting after the fact-finding delegation’s return from France. Aside from information on the procedural changes within UNESCO’s heritage inscription system, the delegation mainly reported on France’s reaction to, and advice for, Japan’s nomination. According to the delegation, French government officials and food industry representatives were fully supportive of Japan’s inscription bid, telling the Japanese group that “Japanese cuisine was unique and without parallel in the world, that its techniques for cutting ingredients, food arrangement, aesthetics … [and so on] made it more than worthy for pursuing the application, as everyone said. This was without flattery.”^{Footnote 32} There was a palpable sense of relief among the members of the Exploratory Committee upon hearing this report. The emphasis on the French officials praising Japan’s draft “without flattery” appeared to reassure the committee on France’s sincerity. Along with their approval, however, the French also offered advice on refining the contents of Japan’s nomination in three particular areas to increase its chances for inscription:

1. (1) that Japanese food culture must be clearly shown “to be important for the Japanese people and that it has been transmitted through generations while constantly being developed and sustained;”

2. (2) that “due to the character of UNESCO with its non-elitist, ethnological way of thinking, the contents must show that [Japanese food culture] is to be preserved for the benefit of a wide, general public; and

3. (3) that Japanese food culture as heritage must not be touted as “a means for commercialism or as a source of revenue, which is prohibited.”^{Footnote 33}

The Exploratory Committee took the French advice to heart and discussed making the necessary changes to Japan’s nomination. Thus, in accordance with the perceived “ethnological” bent of UNESCO, kaiseki’s well-known status as expensive haute cuisine was not to be emphasized as such but, rather, as “food into which the best qualities of home and regional cooking are consolidated.” That is, kaiseki would be depicted less as an exclusive and expensive form of Japanese dining, which it actually is, and more as “food that mothers would make when welcoming guests into the home with styles that vary according to region since the characteristics of each region’s cuisine are fully incorporated in its version of kaiseki,” which is a debatable description, though not likely to draw objections from non-Japanese people (read: UNESCO) who are unfamiliar with the Japanese food tradition.^{Footnote 34}

However, everything would change at the last minute. A few days before the final meeting of the Exploratory Committee in Japan on 4 November 2011, UNESCO’s own evaluation committee—then named the Subsidiary Body—which had met a week before on 26 October, announced its recommendations on the nominations submitted by state parties for intangible heritage inscription that year. (These recommendations would be formally evaluated and announced at the sixth session of the Intergovernmental Committee meeting in Bali, Indonesia, a few weeks later.) South Korea’s proposal for the royal cuisine of the Jeoson Dynasty, which Japan had given attention to and had assumed would be granted heritage status by UNESCO, was recommended by the Subsidiary Body for “referral” back to the state party. In the UNESCO system, the “referral” of the nomination means the suspension of inscription, usually due to insufficient information that UNESCO’s evaluation body deems vital in considering the tradition as worthy of heritage status. (In many cases, a referral results in the state party withdrawing its nomination altogether.)^{Footnote 35}

Inevitably, at the final meeting of the Exploratory Committee in Japan a few days after the Subsidiary Body’s decision, South Korea’s royal cuisine became the first major item for discussion in the agenda. At the start of the meeting, the committee was briefed by a government official on “two nominations on cuisine that concern us in particular,” which were South Korea’s royal cuisine and Turkey’s ceremonial Keşkek food tradition.^{Footnote 36} In contrast to the royal cuisine, Keşkek had been recommended for inscription. The official reported on UNESCO’s decision for the royal cuisine in detail, explaining that South Korea was asked to provide more information concerning how the tradition is recreated by its stakeholders and how it contributes to further awareness of intangible heritage in the world, including its role in providing a sense of identity. (South Korea would later withdraw its nomination.)^{Footnote 37}

Despite the official’s substantial report, the Exploratory Committee in Japan produced its own interpretation of the events. At first, the chairman expressed his thoughts that were seconded by committee members and formed the collective reaction on UNESCO’s decision: “What is rather shocking is the fact that South Korea’s royal cuisine, which we thought would be inscribed without any problem, is now a pending issue. Why that happened is something for us to consider as we proceed with our application.”^{Footnote 38} The faces of the committee members did show different degrees of shock at the fate of the royal cuisine, especially Murata and Hattori, who were among the most vocal and convinced—as well as sounding threatened—regarding South Korea’s success. The chairman then declared the presumed reasons for UNESCO’s decision: “When we think about why South Korea’s royal cuisine has become a pending case, it could be because royal cuisine is limited in scope [the community concerned is small], and it is high culture, which made UNESCO doubt its merits as world intangible heritage. We can assume that much.”^{Footnote 39}

These are erroneous presumptions that significantly diverged from the Subsidiary Body’s actual decision. Although its recommendations may have implied the limited scope of the royal cuisine, nothing in the Subsidiary Body’s formal decision mentioned the cuisine as elitist or “high culture.” However, the Exploratory Committee thought otherwise and began to worry about the implications for kaiseki, which is dining culture of the highest order and the most sophisticated form of cuisine in Japan today. As an earlier article has explained, the committee “wrongly concluded that …‘high culture’ did not qualify for heritage listing; it was lost to them that not a few of the Japanese cultural forms already inscribed [in UNESCO] are elite cultural practices that represent ‘high culture’ in contemporary Japan.”^{Footnote 40}

The Exploratory Committee realized they had “a problem to deal with seriously, as the first page of the application documents indicates the formal name, Unique and traditional Japanese food culture centered on kaiseki.”^{Footnote 41} Although the committee had taken pains to emphasize kaiseki’s influence on home cooking and its regional diversity in their definition, these did not alter kaiseki’s image of elaborateness and exclusivity; on the contrary, it brought attention to kaiseki’s spot at the pinnacle of dining culture in Japan. This “high-class” image would be problematic within the so-called “ethnological” and mass appeal character of UNESCO, as they remembered being told by the French.

The term “kaiseki” in the formal name therefore needed to be removed. Reverting simply to “Japanese food culture” was considered, but it occurred to the Exploratory Committee that using a term in the native language to name the heritage could be advantageous in the nomination process, as they surmised from the successful inscription of Turkey’s Keşkek food tradition. The chairman then suggested the word “washoku.” As in the term “Keşkek,” his suggestion was to use “washoku” as is—that is, in the original Japanese but rendered in the Roman alphabet. In the words of the chairman, “[e]veryone will say that no one knows about washoku. But no one knows Keşkek, either. As for washoku’s meaning, we can write it out as ‘washoku, semi-colon, Japanese food culture’ or ‘washoku, equal sign, Japanese food culture’ [to explain the meaning].”^{Footnote 42} Although “washoku” is an everyday term in the Japanese language, the Exploratory Committee was aware of its anonymity outside Japan. At the same time, it realized that washoku’s literal and generic meaning as “Japanese food” made the term pliable and convenient. As the chairman noted:

In one stroke, washoku solved the “high-culture” problem attached to kaiseki and fixed the issue concerning the limitedness of scope that was the bane of South Korea’s royal cuisine since washoku comprised every kind of “Japanese” food.

Washoku was subsequently endorsed by everyone in the Exploratory Committee. Murata, who had pushed for kaiseki conceded that “changing the term [into washoku] is good. That way, it will go through [the evaluation process] easily and be more readily inscribed.”^{Footnote 45} The adviser from Bunkacho, who himself participated in previous intangible heritage nomination procedures for Japan, also gave his approval for the rewording: “As a term that corresponds to Keşkek in Turkey’s case, as a technique, the use of washoku in the Japanese language has potential [for successful inscription].”^{Footnote 46} Washoku it was to be. Comparing the definition of Japan’s washoku to that of France’s “gastronomic meal” in the official nomination forms, one would immediately see the similarity in structure and wording of both texts.^{Footnote 47} In some portions, the definition for washoku nearly quotes the “gastronomic meal” verbatim. Both begin by similarly emphasizing the role of each food culture as a social practice, seguing into specific cultural references found in the food tradition, then ending with identical descriptions about how food knowledge and skills are passed along the generations and their role in social cohesion and identity. The two nations’ definitions of their food heritage are so much alike that “[i]n UNESCO’s Representative List at least, French and Japanese culinary traditions have become each other’s mirror, and the diversity these two contrasting food cultures represent is hardly evident.”^{Footnote 48}

The similarities do not end with the said texts. Several photographs for washoku provided by Japan for UNESCO’s website are also identical to those of the “gastronomic meal.” Some images indeed mirror each other; two show a large group of people (businessmen for washoku and a large family in the French version) dining together and seated at long tables, the camera positioned at the same angle. There are also similar photographs of chefs instructing young schoolchildren as well as identical images depicting families around the dinner table.^{Footnote 49} Japan closely modeled its nomination of Japanese food culture after France’s “gastronomic meal,” perhaps too closely for comfort. It was a successful strategy, especially as it resulted in heritage inscription. In addition, Japan’s nomination dossier earned express praise from UNESCO. At the 2013 Intergovernmental Committee meeting that formally announced washoku’s inscription, the Subsidiary Body that evaluated Japan’s application identified it as one of five other “well-prepared nominations that might serve as models and sources of inspiration for other States Parties.”^{Footnote 50}

It could not have been otherwise. The Exploratory Committee in Japan had been meticulous in its work and was determined to produce a nomination that was patterned on what it deemed to be a “well-ordered” French application. The resolve to follow French precedent was further strengthened at the final meeting when the result for South Korea’s royal cuisine was known. Japan realized then that “what succeeded the first time [that is, France’s application] would not be considered an exception to the rule, as that would be awkward [for UNESCO]. There can’t be any double standard, and we are only doing what had already been done the first time.”^{Footnote 51} In short, as long as Japan exactly followed the French example, there was no reason for its nomination to fail.

WASHOKU AFTER NOMINATION AND INSCRIPTION

MAFF spearheaded publicity campaigns for washoku after it submitted the formal application to UNESCO. It organized symposia and public events promoting the nomination and produced posters, leaflets, and booklets in Japanese, English, and other languages that were distributed in Japan and through embassies and government offices abroad.^{Footnote 52} The booklets especially are packed with information and glossy photographs that explain Japanese food culture from its history and philosophy to ingredients, dining etiquette, social functions, and regional diversity.

The publicity materials, especially those in the Japanese language, teach basic concepts about Japanese food culture, such as its oft-emphasized close relationship to the seasons and its flavor principles. As such, they all give the impression that the Japanese people are being reeducated in, if not reintroduced to, their own national food tradition. Stereotypical concepts such as the centrality of rice to the Japanese diet and washoku’s benefits to health are also emphasized in the material, as is the description of the so-called basic structure of the Japanese meal consisting of rice, miso (fermented soybean) soup, pickles, and side dishes. The basic Japanese meal pattern is particularly reiterated, illustrated in almost all of the covers of the booklets and explained through images and diagrams in their contents, emphasizing the notion that washoku is symbolized by this specific meal structure.

UNESCO’s formal announcement of washoku’s inscription made the headlines of all major national newspapers in Japan and was reported as “breaking news” by broadcast news media on television, radio, and on the Internet. Many news outlets announced that washoku had become “world intangible cultural heritage,” perhaps on cue from the formal name of the Exploratory Committee. The Japan News, the English-language daily published by Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan’s most widely circulated daily newspaper, went further and posted the misleading headline: “Washoku makes world heritage list.”^{Footnote 53} “World” intangible heritage or not, washoku’s inscription mobilized Japanese food’s proponents in Japan. MAFF, with the support of its Exploratory Committee, immediately launched different initiatives for the promotion of washoku. For instance, the Washoku Association of Japan was established in December 2014 “for the purpose of preserving washoku as inscribed in UNESCO in the appropriate manner and promoting its continuity and transmission.”^{Footnote 54} The majority of the association’s directors were actively involved in the Exploratory Committee; its chairman, Isao Kumakura, is the same chairman of the committee. For the time being, though, the association’s activities have been limited to sponsoring symposia and disseminating information about washoku through publications and online material.

Two new international culinary competitions, the Sushi World Cup and the Washoku World Challenge, were also launched in 2013 through MAFF support and have been held every year since. The administrative bodies of both competitions routinely invoke washoku’s heritage inscription as they delineate their positions through their organizational statements^{Footnote 55} and comments to media.^{Footnote 56} Exploratory Committee members, especially Murata and Hattori, are actively involved in these competitions as well. The Sushi World Cup brings to Japan sushi chefs from different parts of the world who compete in two designated categories for sushi making, Edomae (basic Edo-style) sushi and “creative” sushi. The competitors are judged not only on the taste and appearance of their sushi but also on knife techniques and preparation methods, especially hygiene practices. The contest organizers maintain that hygienic management is an essential sushi-making skill that may only be imparted by Japan: “Knowledge of hygiene and quality of ingredients go hand in hand in Japan, the original home of sushi.”^{Footnote 57}

The Washoku World Challenge is a similar contest, also funded by MAFF, which invites non-Japanese chefs working in Japanese restaurants or cooking schools in or outside Japan to compete at the final contest in Tokyo. The finalists are chosen from a pool of applicants who are screened according to the degree of “‘Japanese-ness,’ perfection, [and] originality” of their food and their “attitude towards washoku.” At the finals, they prepare their dishes for a panel that judges them on a range of criteria “based on cooking technique and the degree of perfection of the dishes.”^{Footnote 58}

MAFF has launched many other promotional schemes. There is the Special Goodwill Ambassador to Spread Japanese Food Culture program from 2015 that appoints a celebrity who “will enchant the world with ‘washoku’ through a variety of media and events.” Along with the special goodwill ambassador are other Japanese food experts and professionals appointed as goodwill ambassadors to spread Japanese food culture who assist in providing “sincere advice to those involved in Japanese food culture outside the nation, as well as effective and appropriate advice on how to make ‘washoku’ more well-known.”^{Footnote 59} In early 2016, two new certification schemes were also launched together by MAFF. One is tentatively called the Certification of Japanese Food and Ingredient Supporter Stores Overseas program, which certifies both restaurants and food shops outside Japan that “actively” use Japan-sourced food products and alcoholic beverages.^{Footnote 60} The other scheme is called, also provisionally, the Certification of Cooking Skills for Japanese Cuisine in Foreign Countries, with the aim to “certify foreign chefs of Japanese cuisine whose knowledge and cooking skills regarding Japanese cuisine have reached a certain level so that they may train chefs who wish to prepare Japanese cuisine with the appropriate knowledge and skills.”^{Footnote 61} The chefs are evaluated on their preparation and cooking techniques and knowledge in Japanese cuisine as well as etiquette, food service, hygiene management, and other criteria.^{Footnote 62} Chefs who pass evaluation are given certificates and an official seal decorated with cherry blossoms and the words “Authentic Japanese Cuisine” and “Taste of Japan” that may be displayed in their establishments.

The former scheme obviously has the economic interests of Japan’s food producers in mind, while the latter appears to be nothing more than an “authentication” program for non-Japanese chefs of washoku. MAFF explicitly states that the program had to be established because “in Japanese restaurants located overseas, there are some cases wherein chefs without appropriate knowledge and skills regarding Japanese cuisine engage in preparing meals.”^{Footnote 63} With this scheme, MAFF seems intent on reviving its former Japanese restaurant authentication program in 2006 that had to be rescinded after it was dubbed the “sushi police” by foreign media and widely criticized in Japan and abroad.^{Footnote 64} As a new scheme, the success of this particular certification program still remains to be seen. Nonetheless, MAFF and other Japanese food proponents seem to have acquired renewed vigor on account of the heritage status of washoku. They have also gained legitimacy, at least in their perception, to act as guardians of Japanese food culture, to the extent that they are motivated to certify washoku’s “authenticity” both in and outside Japan.