The Star Travels — Globalisation, Translation, and Cultural Friction
When the Michelin star left France, it did not merely cross borders; it crossed cultural grammars.
Within France and much of Western Europe, Michelin’s judgments unfolded inside a shared culinary imagination. The idea of a restaurant as a distinct public institution, the figure of the chef as an authorial presence, the progression of courses, and the privileging of technique were broadly understood—even if passionately debated.
Global expansion disrupted this equilibrium. The star now had to speak across histories shaped by different climates, economies, religions, and relationships to food itself. The central question quietly shifted from How good is this food? to something far more delicate: How does one translate excellence without flattening difference?
Europe Beyond France: Familiarity with Variation
Even within Europe, Michelin encountered subtle resistance.
In Italy and Spain, food cultures historically privileged regional identity and emotional continuity over codified refinement. The best meals were often rustic, familial, and fiercely local. Michelin’s presence initially favoured restaurants that aligned with French-inflected notions of polish, sometimes overlooking trattorias and tapas bars whose greatness lay in repetition rather than innovation.
Over time, Michelin adjusted—recognising that excellence could take quieter forms. Still, the process revealed a key truth: standards travel more easily between cousins than strangers. Cultural proximity eased translation, but did not eliminate tension.
The United States: Pluralism and Performance
The United States posed a different challenge altogether.
American dining culture is plural, experimental, and entrepreneurial. It is shaped as much by immigration and reinvention as by tradition. When Michelin arrived in New York in 2005, it entered a city already crowded with critics, rankings, and awards. Authority was fragmented; prestige was contested.
Initially, Michelin gravitated toward fine dining restaurants that mirrored European structures—tasting menus, formal service, identifiable chefs. Over time, however, it began acknowledging distinctly American expressions of excellence: barbecue, regional cuisines, and more informal formats.
Yet here, too, Michelin subtly reshaped aspiration. Restaurants adapted menus, pricing, and even aesthetics to align with star potential. The guide did not merely reflect American dining culture; it participated in its evolution, nudging it toward global legibility.
The star became both a recognition and a performance.
Japan: Recognition Without Resistance
Japan remains Michelin’s most fascinating and instructive encounter.
When the Tokyo guide was released in 2007, awarding more stars than Paris, global astonishment followed. Yet within Japan, the response was notably restrained. Japanese chefs did not suddenly cook differently. They had been pursuing perfection long before Michelin arrived.
This was because Japanese culinary culture already shared key values with Michelin’s evaluative framework: discipline, apprenticeship, seasonality, and devotion to craft. Sushi counters, ramen shops, and kaiseki restaurants operated within internal hierarchies of excellence that were rigorous and unforgiving.
In Japan, Michelin did not impose order—it recognised an existing one.
And yet, even here, the star altered perception. What had once been local mastery became global spectacle. Intimate counters acquired international pilgrimages. Silence turned into attention.
Recognition always carries consequence.
Southeast Asia: Expanding the Frame, Selectively
Southeast Asia tested Michelin’s elasticity.
The awarding of stars to hawker stalls in Singapore and Bangkok was widely hailed as a radical gesture—an acknowledgment that excellence need not be draped in linen. It suggested that mastery could emerge from repetition, focus, and memory rather than luxury.
But this inclusivity had limits.
Only certain kinds of street food—those marked by consistency, specialisation, and individual authorship—could be recognised. The vast universe of informal, collective, improvisational food cultures remained largely outside Michelin’s field of vision.
What Michelin could see, it rewarded. What resisted stabilisation, it passed over.
The Structural Cost of Global Standards
At this stage, a pattern becomes clear.
For a global system to function, it must reduce complexity. To compare a ramen shop in Fukuoka, a bistro in Paris, and a restaurant in New York, Michelin must abstract food from its full social life. It must privilege what is transferable: technique, balance, consistency.
What is lost in translation are precisely those elements that make food deeply human: rituals, memories, collective authorship, sacred timing, emotional inheritance.
This loss is not a moral failure. It is the price of comparability.
Michelin tells us how well something is done. It remains largely silent on why it matters to those who eat it.
Authority That Shapes, Not Just Judges
Perhaps the most important realisation is this: Michelin does not merely evaluate food cultures—it reshapes them. Where it arrives, new aspirations emerge. Kitchens recalibrate. Diners reorient expectations. Local excellence seeks global validation.
This is neither wholly benign nor wholly corrosive. It is simply the reality of cultural power exercised quietly, through symbols rather than commands.
Preparing the Ground for India
By the time Michelin approaches India, it carries with it this entire history of translation, adaptation, and selective vision. It arrives not as a neutral observer, but as a system shaped by its encounters—some harmonious, some strained.
The question is no longer whether Michelin can recognise excellence.
The question is whether excellence, in all its civilisational density, wishes to be recognised in this way at all.
That question, complex and unresolved, leads us naturally to the final part of this essay.
scribo ad LX 