"The Abominable Pig" Summary
In “The Abominable Pig”, American anthropologist Marvin Harris demystifies the Jew and Moslem’s traditional gastronomic aversion to pork. Pork, prolific and energy efficient, produces more meat than most other animals. So why has this animal been entirely forbidden from most religions? Harris suggests it is not fear of filth, illness, or the unknown that promotes the disinclination towards the pig, but rather economical, environmental, and political incentives.
One previous misconception characterized by the Old Testament is that pigs are filthy and that those who consume it are filthy, too. However, their “filth” only reflected how the pigs were raised in that their lack of sweat glands coerced them (in the extreme heat of the Middle East) to bathe in their own excrement. What about the other animals, like chickens, goats, or dogs, who were as dirty or dirtier? Harris contends that it is not fear of filth that caused the prohibition of pigs, but a deeper-rooted motive. A second reason claimed by religious authorities was that pig is unhealthy and “unwholesome”. While they maintained a weak excuse as to why pork should be avoided, their rationale was justified when it was discovered eating undercooked pork would lead to trichinosis. However, this obstacle could easily be overcome by thoroughly cooking the meat. Why then, was pork specifically prohibited in the Koran and Old Testament?
Anthropologist Mary Douglas declares pork was avoided for the fact it was not what people were used to, that it was “out of place”. Yet pork may only have been out of place because of Leviticus taxonomy. While it is true that Israelites never herded many pigs, Harris contends Leviticus taxonomy is the way it is because of three reasons. For one, avoiding pig is economically well reasoned. Because pigs shared the same diet as humans, they had a negative net output. Ruminants were a better alternative in that they could digest grass and straw, which humans could not. This is why densely populated areas disliked pork because only rich people could afford feeding the pig. What’s more, pigs, solely used for their meat, are essentially useless without being able to be milked, used for clothing, or used for pulling plows.
Second, the environment did not favor pigs. Human behavior created an environment increasingly benevolent towards ruminants. Pigs needed forests and cooler weather to survive, but since the goat was more favored, forests were depleted and replaced with grazing land for ruminants.
Lastly, pigs were prohibited to allow for the growth of religious influence. Knowing that prohibiting pigs would help the people, people began to put more trust in the religion. For instance, Islam couldn’t enforce laws where pig cultivation was big, creating a “geographic limit” to areas that were hot and dry. Likewise, Christian areas are more densely forested because they are allowed to eat pork, indicating religious spread.
All in all, the ban on pigs worked because it complied with previous popular practices that worked economically and environmentally, a ban that would never have grown to be averted on dietary laws alone. As Harris puts it, people needed a “taxonomic principle connecting traditional preference and avoidance into a comprehensive cognitive and theological system”. Ultimately, Harris' resourceful explanation of food behavior in religion urges people to question traditional eating habits instead of just faithfully obeying.
Summary of "Deciphering a Meal"
Mary Douglas, an anthropologist, argues in Deciphering a Meal, that animal taxonomy is analogous to the social structures that govern the people who follow it. She creates precise tables representing Hebrew classifications of edible and inedible food and relates it to the different levels of holiness and integrity discernible in religion and society. Ultimately, Mary Douglas attempts to discover the rationale behind the many rules of animal taxonomy.
To begin with, Douglas connects sex with food. In marriage, the mixing of peoples was not accepted, and even considered “villainous” if one married outside one’s community. This symbol of “dirt and promiscuity” was one that projected itself unto the dog, an animal unfit for the table. Likewise, the abominable pig is unfit to eat for this same reason. While the pig eats carrion and fails to chew cud, what also distinguishes pig from being fit is the fact that non-Israelites eat it. So supposedly, by consuming pork, one engages in a miniscule representation of exogamy.
This sense of excluding impurity also extends to descent. For instance, those who are first born are only allowed to serve the temple and are given a certain authority. Correspondingly, the first born of flocks and herds are fit for the altar. For those just conceived, the afterbirth is prohibited because it represents youth and the unity between mother and offspring. As one can see, descent insinuates the degree of holiness and purity. Other examples of the taxonomy’s religious likeness include the fact that work animals must regard the Sabbath and animals that consume carrion are defiling because “blood belongs to God alone” since “there is life in blood.”
In conclusion, Mary Douglas offers a structural analysis of food taxonomy. She reiterates the notion that the social values ruling human connections translate into daily life, including what we eat. All in all, the essence of Mary Douglas’ argument is, “the ordered system which is a meal represents all the ordered systems associated with it."
Comparison
Animal taxonomy and dietary behaviors has long been a subject of inquiry and discussion. Anthropologists Mary Douglas and Marvin Harris both set out to answer questions concerning the aversion of specific animals - such as pigs - in Semitic religions, but do so in different manners. While both give a concrete response as to why these animal taxonomies are prevalent in Semitic religion, their approach and findings differ considerably.
To start, both Douglas and Harris focus on the systems founding the taxonomy. However, the systems each focus on is different. Douglas is more abstract in her analysis, as she focuses on the principles that structure the society. She offers tables and images representing the religious system of morals and purity. Harris, on the other hand, shapes his argument on economical, political, and environmental systems, an area outside the sphere of metaphysics. Harris’ argument relies on the basis that taxonomy is based on incentives revolving around these systems.
Subsequently, these approaches extracted different reasons why the animal taxonomy is as it is. For Douglas, because the structure translates onto the taxonomy, the classifications reflect the behaviors of the society, as well as the degrees of holiness. For Harris, the taxonomy is as it is because ultimately, religious authorities wanted to expand their influence by dietary laws, laws that would help instill a sense of security and trust through its assistance.
These differences in taxonomy justification are established in their explanations of the aversion to pig. Douglas relates the prohibition to sex, stating that eating a pig was considered defilement, a form of exogamy. For the simple fact that the pig was different (since it was eaten by non-Israelites), eating the pig was like the mixing of persons in matrimony, and therefore must not be eaten. All the same, Harris concludes that the pig’s alienation lies in its taxonomy, so the taxonomy in general should be questioned. He claims the taxonomy is as it is based upon traditional aversion to the pig in that pigs were not economically and environmentally ideal for cultivation. Pigs priced higher despite their efficiency because their environment did not provide the best conditions for them.
In conclusion, Harris and Douglas both bring tenable arguments to the table ;) . While Harris and Douglas both differ in their approaches and findings, they both focus on the systems – though different – that underlie the animal taxonomy governing many diets.
No comments:
Post a Comment