Summary and Comparison

Summary of Deciphering a Meal

The article “Deciphering a Meal”, by Mary Douglas offers an explanation of Hebrew dietary laws through animal taxonomy. This explanation incorporates information previously known about ancient Hebrews. The values of marriageable persons directly correspond with the categories of the animal kingdom. The rules the Hebrew’s use to categorize animals relates with the rules of governing human relations. There are restrictions for both that are similar and to be strictly enforced to be pure.


Douglas focuses on the three rules about the common meal. These rules are about the categories of meat. First, only certain animal kinds are fit for the table. Second, the kinds deemed edible requires the separation of blood from meat before cooking for the table. Third, the meat must be completely separated from milk. This final rule requires the use of specialized utensils. The first rule is ultimately the classification of animals which is based on degrees of holiness. The very least holy are at the bottom and considered abominable. Edible animals are fit for the table and alter. No animal that is abominable shall be eaten or sacrificed. The grading is also classified accordingly with air, water, and land. Any living animal that falls outside of classification is not to be touched or eaten or defilement occurs and you are not allowed to enter the temple. This is the Mosaic code. The code requires comparing humans and their animals.


The rules Israelites obey are forced upon their animals also. Several analogies exist between the temple, the body, and the classification of animals. All these classifications and rules are based upon the sense of purity and holiness. Douglas has noticed that these three rules prevail yet other rules of purification and their meaning have been forgotten. She wonders why these rules persist and determines a universal meaning. Food is divided by edible and inedible bounding relations. Inside all rules must be followed but outside anything goes.



Summary of The Abominable Pig

The main focus of the article, “The Abominable Pig” by Marvin Harris is why do lords of religions forbid the consumption of pork. He uses similarities of other acceptable animals to discredit the reasons why the pig is considered abominable. Pigs have the greatest potential for changing plants into flesh. They also reproduce faster than the desirable cow. Harris determines that the whole purpose of the existence of pigs is for human nourishment and delectation.



One common theory that pigs are considered abominable is the relation from undercooked pork with trichinosis. However, Harris rejects this theory with two examples. The lords should have created a rule that no one should eat undercooked pork. For that risk only exists when the meat is not fully done. The second is that trichinosis is far less dangerous than anthrax a disease found in cattle, sheep, and goats. Yet these animals are deemed edible. The next point Harris stresses is the formula for edible foods found in Leviticus. “Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven footed and chew the cud among animals, you may eat.” The rational Harris finds behind this formula is that these animals are ruminants and thrive best on diets high in cellulose. These diets will not deplete the dietary supplements of humans.



Next Harris examines the practicality of pigs in the Middle East. Pigs do not sweat they must have shade and clean mud to survive. In the Middle East it is very difficult to find these resources, especially when the people are traveling long distances across the deserts. Not only did the pigs compete for food sources with the humans but they were difficult to raise for nomadic people. The cost of raising pigs was too steep and inconvenient. Harris examines the other ruminants. Milk can be used from cattle, sheep, and goats. These animals thrive on grass and they can transport people and possessions. Pigs are useless compared to these animals. Harris decided this law was invented with the best intentions in mind for the welfare of the people of the Middle East. Finally, Harris examines the formula against camels. The camels do not fit the equation but are not deem abominable.



Ultimately, Harris states the pig aversion is response to recurrent practical conditions, cost/benefit advantages, ecological and economical conditions. The aversion is a combination of all the reasons stated throughout Harris’ article. Harris was able to find a combination of acceptable reasons where rabbi and followers lacked. No longer shall the aversion be blamed on “cleanliness”.


Comparison

Both these articles examine culture and people of the Middle East with food habits and perceptions. The logic uses history and religion to answer basic peculiar food laws. They have different thesis and subjects. One examines the three rules of meals and the other the aversion to pig. However, they use their understanding and knowledge of the cultures and lifestyles of the Middle Eastern people to support the claims they make.