Amy Foss- The Abominable Pig and The Culinary Triangle

“The Abominable Pig”

In “The Abominable Pig”, Marvin Harris questions why the Israelites have forbade pigs from their diet. Pigs were deemed “unclean” because of their unclean habits. However it is not because they are an unclean animal that they have these habits, rather it is because they are not able to sweat. In order to avoid a heat stroke, pigs will cover themselves in mud or anything to cool their body temperature. They will even resort to laying in their own urine and feces if need be. However Harris points out that they are not the only animal with unclean habits so it is a complete contradiction that they are the only ones that are abominated.

Religious texts state that one may only eat an animal that chews the cud and is of split hoof. This excludes the pig from diets. Pigs are only good for meat. They eat what humans eat and cannot eat grass or straw, which ruminants could digest grass and straw which make them a better alternative. Pigs also cannot be used for clothing or to pull a plow, which make them far less efficient than ruminates. Harris argues that all of these reasons made pigs unfit compared to the ruminants.

The environment of these places was also not suitable for pigs. Pigs do best in a cool forested area, while the areas that these practices started were dry and hot. Deforestation took place to make grass lands for the ruminants to graze in, which made it hard for people to raise pigs because of the conditions. In the end Harris concludes that there is no better explanation for the pig aversion than cost/benefit advantages and ecological and economical conditions. Harris argues that the pig aversion should no longer be blamed on “cleanliness”.

“The Culinary Triangle”

Claude Levi-Strauss discusses in “The Culinary Triangle” the cultural impact of cooking by the culinary triangle. In this triangle the three points are the raw food, the cooked food and the rotten food. Strauss also states that the three cooking modes in the triangle are; boiling, cooked and rotten. These are all based on either nature or culture. In this article he compares the three cooking models.

In some cultures boiling food is a sign of culture because it uses utensils and receptacles, whereas roasting is a sign of nature. Strauss said that boiled represents ‘endo-cuisine’ rotten and concave, family and woman. When roasted represents ‘exo-cuisine’ raw and convex, guest and man. Some cultures favor roasting over boiling, boiling conserves the meat while roasting ruins the meat. While smoked takes up a side on the triangle it is not really viewed as its own category but a subcategory for roasted foods. However it serves on the triangle as a base for the other subcategories.

Strauss argues that cooking is like its own language, it is interpreted by different social groups in different ways. Just because boiling food is viewed by one society in a certain way doesn’t mean it is being viewed by another society in the same way. Actually it will most likely be viewed in a completely different light. It is also discussed that how society prepares their food is a direct translation to how they are socially structured.

Comparison

I found some similarities in both pieces “The Abominable Pig” and “The Culinary Triangle”. Both authors emphasize the importance of culture and how it directly effects how we eat. How a society is socially structured directly affects a societies dietary patterns or how they prepare food, which was discussed in both articles. Certain rules such as Religious texts that state that one may only eat an animal that chews the cud and is of split hoof, or beliefs such as cooking is like its own language demonstrate that each society has its own values that will directly reflect their societies structure.