In Deciphering a Meal by Mary Douglas, she offers an animal taxonomy for the explanation of the Hebrew dietary laws while recognizing and relating the information we already know about the ancient Hebrews. When it comes to animal classification, each society corresponds the animal kingdom categories and values with categories of marriageable persons. The rules used to categorize animals also corresponds to the patterns of rules governing human relations. Each are made equivalents of one another by reasons of analogous restrictions.
Firstly, in the Jewish religion there are three rules governing the common meal about meat: "(1) the rejection of certain animals kinds as unfit for the table, (2) of those admitted as edible, the separation of the meat from the blood before cooking, (3) the total separation of milk from meat, which involves the minute specialization of utensils" (Douglas). When it comes to classifying animals, they are classified according to degrees of holiness. "At the bottom end of the scale some animals are abominable, not to be touched or eaten. Others are fit for the table, but not for the altar. None that are fit for the altar are not edible and vice versa, none that are not edible are sacrificeable" (Douglas). This grading is coordinated with land, air, and water creatures and falls into three spheres. This rigid classification assigns living creatures to one of the three spheres, on behavioral basis, and certain morphological criteria that are associated with the animals from each sphere. Any living organism that falls outside these classification is to be not touched or eaten or else it is seen as defilement and you may not enter the temple. Therefore anomalous creatures are unfit for altar and table which is the Mosaic code. This code requires looking at the other rules classifying humans and there animals.
The rules which the Israelites obey as part of the Covenant between God and Abraham apply to their animals as well. There are analogies between the temple and the living body and between the classification of animals according to the holiness and the rules which set up the analogy of the holy temple. All fall related with the body's purity and self-same forms of impurity. When looking at these rules and their patterns in a straight perspective the same repetition of metronomes appear that the author found to be the key to the full meaning of the categories of food in a home. However Douglas expresses that many of the rules of purification and much of their meaning had been greatly forgotten. So then she asks why have the three rules governing the Jewish meal persist? She concludes with a universal meaning. Dietary rues are divided between edible and inedible. They bound the area of structured relations, and within that area rules apply, but outside it, anything goes. The ordered system of a meal is represented by all the ordered systems associated with it and the boundaries which it is enclosed.
Summary of The Abominable Pig
In "The Abominable Pig" by Marvin Harris, he focuses on answering this question: Why did the Lord of the ancient Israelites forbid his people to savor pork or even touch a pig alive or dead? He starts out by giving many valid reasons why pigs should not be rendered as abominable. Pigs posse the greatest potential for efficiently changing plants into flesh, they convert the most energy in its feed to meat, and there pound gained to pound of feed eaten ratio is the most economically efficient compared to other livestock. "The whole essence of the pig is the production of meat for human nourishment and delectation" (Harris). So why is the pig the only one who must suffer the disapproval of Allah? Harris then goes on and looks at multiple theories and explanations that arise new questions, comparisons, and answers that lead to the understanding of the abominable pig.
First the Maimonide's public health theory. The association between trichinosis and undercooked pork. But with that theory one must consider that there are diseases that other livestock are associated with as well, so that cannot be the main reason for the abominable pig. Next the formula for distinguishing good-to-eat flesh from forbidden flesh from the Old Testament. This formula does not include any dirty habits or unhealthy meat. Instead it is focused in anatomical and physiological features of the animal that are good to eat. Leviticus 11:1 says, "Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven footed and chews the cud among animals, you may eat." The pig only satisfies one part if this formula, the divided hoof, but does not chew cud. Jahweh, the creator of the formula, wanted edible animals to be cud chewers because they were the kinds of herbivores which thrive best on diets high in cellulose, for example grasses and straw. Such animals were cattle, sheep, and goats. Their ability to digest cellulose was crucial to the relationship between animals and the humans of the Middle East. Pigs could not digest a diet high in cellulose. They had to compete for the same food that the humans ate. Such things like wheat, maize, potatoes, soybeans, or anything low in cellulose.
But there is more to the ban on pork than the pigs inability to digest plants high in cellulose. This brings a new focal topic that Harris focuses on. The pigs ability of not being able to adapt well to the climate and ecology of the Middle East. He explains that the pigs body has a heat regulated system that is ill suited for hot and dry climates like that of the Middle East. They do not sweat and use wallowing in mud as a way to cool themselves off. If there is no mud, then they turn to their own feces and urine to avoid heat stroke. Which adds to the unclean bias of a pig and its relation to its abominable status. Along with this, deforestation was in full swing and human population was on the rise. This eliminated the pig's ecological niche and created a greater premium for raising cattle, sheep, or goats, and a greater penalty for pig husbandry. Yet another reason that could aid to the overall answer to Harris' main question.
Then Harris' looks at the split hoof part of the Leviticus formula and asks what about other animals that follow the same pattern as a pig, such as a camel. They are not seen as abominable. Allah does not disapprove of them. So again, why just the pig?
In conclusion, Harris states that the recurrence of pig aversions in several different Middle Eastern cultures strongly supports the view that the Israelites ban was a response to recurrent practical conditions, cost/benefit advantages, ecological and economical conditions embodying thousands of years of collective wisdom and practical experience. There is no one reason. It is the combination of all reasons stated through out Harris' article.
Compare
Both these essays are related with the culture and the people of the Middle East. They tie into religious practices and history while answering questions and relating to food. Even though their focal points and thesis is not the same they both contain information that can be used together to form a better overall understanding of the Middle Eastern cultures, lifestyle, everyday choices that are made.
No comments:
Post a Comment