Brittany Balsiger

"The Culinary Triagle"
In “The Culinary Triangle,” Claude Levi-Strauss argue that like language, there are many contradictions between the way food is cooked and nature and culture. Strauss starts off with language to bring us to the fact that like language, there is no society that does not cook in some form or another, some of its foods. He then breaks down the categories of food to “the raw, the cooked, and the rotted.” Strauss then claims that “raw” is in a category all its own with cooked and rotted on either side and claims the ‘cooked’ is a cultural process and ‘rotted’ is a natural one. In other words, cooked and rotted oppose one another. He then clarifies that a society must determine for itself what each of the three categories will mean. He goes back to language to state that like in language, there are certain facets in each of the three categories. Focusing on the cooking category, Strauss then subdivides it into boiling and roasting. Roasting as defined by Strauss is “directly exposed to the fire” and boiled is “doubly mediated, by the water in which it is immersed, and by the receptacle that holds both water and food.” He argues then that roasted requires no ‘utensils’ and boiled does so boiled is civilized and roasted is more related to nature. Roasted is associated with raw because it is not uniformly cooked and either burns, leaves white, or turns red and is therefore unpredictable like nature. Boiling however, cooks all the way through. Boiled is associated with rotted because it is an ‘even’ process and becomes more ‘tough.’ He then argues that another difference is that to be boiled is to be cooked in a receptacle and to be roasted is to be cooked from the outside. Societies then further complicate the difference between the two by one using boiled food for the family and roasted for guests and the other uses roasted for everyday and boiled for special occasions. Boiled and roasted can be further subdivided by masculinity and femininity. Strauss then argues that boiled and roasted can signify class and rank in some societies. Roasted can be further defined to simulate death and boiled as life, each culture having their own beliefs. To roast requires no skill but to boil is something that must be learned, further signifying culture. He then goes on to say that while the terms roasted and boiled have been integrated into the categories of raw, cooked, and rotted, one must also take into account to smoke. Smoking is similar to roasted in that is uses a flame, yet it is as far away from it as possible and smoking is like boiling in that it uses a utensil however, that utensil is destroyed not kept and cherished as in the case of boiling. All the categories within ‘cooked’ have contradictions within themselves. In the end, Strauss concludes that when all the factors are taken into account when it comes to food (the religious, economic, sociological, etc) then each society has developed its’ own ‘language’ that will be full of contradictions.


"Deciphering a Meal"
In “Deciphering a Meal” by Mary Douglas, she argues that the dietary laws of the Hebrews, which have been applied to their lives, should only be kept as dietary laws and not rules to follow in ones’ actual life. Douglas begins her argument by clarifying the Hebrew dietary laws. She starts by questioning why the laws have remained the same for centuries. The three laws the Hebrew have about meat are then listed. Douglas then clarifies what animals fall into which category. There are four classifications which are abominable; fit for the table not the alter; fit for the alter, can’t eat; can eat, not fit for the alter. Then she explains that how the categories are broken down by animals of the land, air, and water. She then clarifies what animals in each group are considered edible and what ones are considered abominations and not edible. After clarifying what can and cannot be eaten, Douglas then points out what the definition of abomination would be which is, any animal not fitting in the required rules. She then claims that the rules which define the diet are applied to human life. Like the firstborn work animals so is the firstborn c\child ‘sacred.’ Like with the out casting of animals which have spilt blood, so to the out casting of humans which have spilt blood. Purity of the table is then related to purity of a person. Perfect physical form is then what is to be expected and accepted. She then states that the dietary rules are similar to why the Israelites believe they have claim to the land. She states that is the dietary rules were kept strictly dietary there would be no problems, but the problem is that the dietary rules have been applied to life. She shows how the rules that govern the people have stemmed from the dietary rules. In conclusion, Douglas states that “the ordered system which is a meal represents all the ordered systems associated with it.”


Comparison
Both articles start off by what they are arguing (as do most all). They then take the complicated idea they are arguing and break it down piece by piece so that the reader may understand. Both go into great detail about their topics so as to hopefully not leave the reader behind. They then tie it all back together to show how food and cooking styles and dietary systems, apply to society.