"The Abominable Pig"
In "The Abominable Pig" Marvin Harris argues that the aversion to pork is irrational considering that pigs can quickly and efficiently convert the plants they eat into flesh. So then why, Harris questions, do some religions forbid their followers to eat pork? Harris explores this question by examining what the Bible has to say about pigs, as well as the scientific evidence behind this reasoning. The book of Leviticus states that pigs are "unclean to you...everyone who touches them shall be unclean" (Lev. 11:24). Pigs were forbidden because ultimately their food and living habits were filthy and loathsome. Yet Harris makes sure to point out that there are no diseases linked to eating pork. Every domestic animal poses a potential health risk. So the Rabbi Maimonides's public health theory of pork (stating that pork meat was not good for you) and the theory of trichinosis (disease of undercooked pork) were not supportive scientific reasons for not eating pigs. Other meats gave disease and were fatal like anthrax transmitted by cattle, sheep and goats.
Instead the Bible gives a formula for animals that can be eaten. These consist of animals that are cud-chewing and have a parting of the hoofs. Pigs were seen to be anatomically "out of place" because they did not have these characteristics. Leviticus uses these "out of place" characteristics to make the pig seem bad to eat since these reasons have no real scientific evidence. Also, both of these characteristics must be used since some cud-chewers, like the camel, were banned. The rule concerning the parting of the hoofs had to be added so that some cud-chewers were not eaten.
Harris is able to show that not all systems are perfect however, or easy to explain since no one knows the authors of Leviticus or what they were thinking at the time. Harris is able to show the ecological and economical reasons why pigs were abominable. First off, pigs were expensive to feed and not very useful compared to other animals. They also constantly needed to keep cool since they have no sweat glands. They did this by rolling in mud, and if mud was not available they would use their own feces. Pigs were therefore impractical in the deserts of the middle east. Religions with pork aversions were thus based on the nutritional and ecological welfare of the followers at this time. The rules have managed to stay alive today even when scientific evidence can prove the pig to be an excellent source of meat.
"Deciphering a Meal"
In "Deciphering a Meal" Mary Douglas reflects on new research and methodology of the ancient Hebrews in order to show that their ethnographic evidence is not too meager when suggesting a rational pattern for the Mosaic rejection of certain animals. Douglas argues that there is plenty of information on the ancient Hebrews. It's just a matter of recognizing and relating what is known.
For the Jewish religion there are rules that have persisted over time explaining which foods are allowed to be eaten. These rules are related to social concerns of Hebrews and have stood the test of time as they are seen today as a way of life. Douglas explores the three rules of meat and the classifications that accompany each. First, certain animal kinds must be rejected (based on rules found in Bible). Second, edible meats must be drained of blood before cooking and third, the milk of the meat must also be separated. These rules are all based on the holiness of the food and in turn the holiness of the person consuming the animal. Boundaries were made so that one could maintain their holiness.
These boundaries can be seen in figures, which Douglas is able to use to explain these rules more clearly. In one such graph she classifies animals on the degree of their holiness. This is based on three types of animals depending on their habitat (land, air, or water) and whether they are abominable, fit for the table or just fit for the altar. In the three types of animal there are further rules for animal consumption. For example, land animals that have parted hoofs and "chew the cud" are fit for table. This system of classifying animals makes it easy to divide what is edible and not edible. Breaking the rules were seen as a sin and the consequence of such an act was not be able to enter the temple. The Israelites valued purity and if you ate unholy animals you were seen to be dirty like the animal you ate. One must be pure to enter the temple. These rules hold distinct meaning for Hebrews even today. Many of the rules in the religion are based on remaining pure and unmixed. The separation of blood and milk from meat shows this. Ultimately controlling what goes into the body is still important to the Hebrews in maintaining a pure lifestyle fit to enter the temple.
Comparison
Both "The Abominable Pig" and "Deciphering a Meal" ask questions concerning food habits and give information and the facts they know to conclude their decided answers. The information seen in both articles is consistent with explaining the rules of consumption seen in the Bible and still followed today by certain religions. Harris asked why religions chose not to eat pig meat and then found economical and ecological reasons to add to the what the Bible said. Douglas, however, explored the meaning behind the Israelites three rules of meat. Unlike Harris who used just used data and scientific reasoning, Douglas used figures to better clarify the rules of consumption. Both Harris and Douglas use the Bible as a source and even the same rules of "eating pure animals." They both show how these rules are followed out today and thus still important to certain religions.
No comments:
Post a Comment