Summary of “The Abominable Pig”:
In “The Abominable Pig”, American anthropologist Marvin Harris searches for the underlying answer of why some religions forbid any physical contact with pork. Harris begins his argument by providing valid reasoning as to why this species should not be destined as a taboo. Pigs produce more meat than most other animals because they possess the greatest potential for changing plants into flesh. Pigs, additionally, gain one pound to every pound of food consumed, topping them off as the most efficient compared to other species. Harris continues on by looking at multiple theories and explanations that bare possible answers in the mystery of why the pig is considered an abominable species for several religions.
To begin, Harris defies the common answer to this issue. He argues that this animal is not shunned due to fear of filth or illness but rather issues that revolve around economical, environmental, and political motivations. This brings Harris to Maimonide's public health theory. This theory researches the correlation between trichinosis and undercooked pork. The problem, however, with this specific theory is that almost all meat-producing species can be associated with some form of disease. Harris then jumps to the formula for distinguishing good-to-eat flesh from forbidden flesh by using specifics from the Old Testament. This formula lacks information of animals that are forbidden. Rather, it solely focuses on the features of species are edible. In conclusion of this particular theory, the pig only satisfies the section of this formula that states species with a divided hoof must chew a cud. This rule was created because species who do chew their cud are known as herbivores that survive on high cellulose diets (cellulose is found in grass, hay, and straw). Therefore, species such as cattle, sheep, and goats all qualify as meats that are good to eat.
This public health theory leads us to a new crucial topic that Harris expands on. Pigs are not able to adjust to their living environment with much efficiency. Specifically, pigs are unable to efficiently adapt to the climate and ecology of the Middle East. As Harris explains, a pig’s body internal temperature system is competent for hot, dry climates. They do not sweat have sweat gland and are forced to use the dreaded technique of lounging in mud as a way to cool themselves. Often time, when there is a lack of mud, pigs will use their own feces and urine as an alternative. This strategy often aides in the fight that pigs are an abominable species. However, Harris begins to challenge the theory of animals with a divided hoof that do not chew their cud as being unclean and impure. Harris brings the camel into play. The camel, like the pig, does not chew a cud but does have a split hoof. Why, then, is the camel not qualified as an abdominal specie?
In conclusion, Harris states that evidence does not support the theory that the pig is abdominal due to possible illnesses and the fact that they are ‘unclean’. Evidence points to other reasons that are based on the economy. All in all, the recurrence of loathing the pig in several Middle Eastern cultures strongly supports the analysis that the Israelites ban on the pig was a reaction to recurrent practical conditions, cost advantages, ecological and economical conditions, and other such benefits.
Summary of “Deciphering a Meal”:
Anthropologist Mary Douglas, in “Deciphering a Meal”, offers an animal nomenclature for the explanation of the Hebrew dietary laws while analyzing and corresponding the information we already know about the ancient Hebrews. In this piece, she argues that animal taxonomy is directly correlated with the social structures of that preside over the people who follow it. When it comes to animal taxonomy, “each society projects on to the animal kingdom categories and values which corresponds to their categories of marriageable persons”. The rules are used to categorize animals based on the patterns of rules governing human relations. Douglas creates precise tables that represent Hebrew classifications of edible and inedible food. She then connects these to the different levels of holiness and integrity discernible in religion and society.
To begin her argument, Douglas connects sex with food. In marriage, the intermixing of people was not accepted. For example, marrying outside of one’s community was a symbol of ‘dirt and promiscuity’. By participating in this sin, one is demoting themselves to the level of a dog. The dog is a symbol of an animal that is unfit to join a dinner table. This corresponds with the specie of the abominable pig. It is taboo to consume pork for similar reasons. Pigs consume carrion, do not chew a cud, and often wallows in feces, thus being classified as unclean and impure. The system of demoting a person who engages in wrongful marriage is similar to the ideas of the abominable pig.
This idea is proved again in the classification for religious temples. Children who are first born are the only ones that are allowed to serve the temple. They are given certain authority due to this reason. Likewise, 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. Descent now classifies the degree of holiness and purity that a person of animal is. Another example proving this theory is the fact that animals must regard the restrictions of Sabbath if they are going to be classified as working animals. Douglas continues to develop other testimonies that prove the classification of humans directly corresponds with the classification of animals.
Overall, Mary Douglas offers a structural analysis of food taxonomy by examining the evidence that connects classification rules of humans to the classification rules of animals. She reiterates the notion that the social values that rule human connections translate into daily life, including what we eat. In conclusion, the essence of Douglas’ argument is, “the ordered system which is a meal represents all the ordered systems associated with it."
Compare:
Ideas of animal taxonomy and particular dietary behaviors have always been prone to contrasting opinions. In “The Abominable Pig” and “Deciphering a Meal”, authors and anthropologists Marvin Harris and Mary Douglas both attempt to argue their opinions concerning the distaste of specific species. Both of these pieces are based on people and cultures of the Middle East and the relationships of religion and food. The authors develop on the idea of what makes species unfit for consumption but go about this task in contrasting ways. Although the authors are producing two different points, they both bring specific cultural and religious examples to prove their argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment