Deciphering A Meal 4c4up

Deciphering a Meal Author(s): Mary Douglas Source: Daedalus, Vol. 101, No. 1, Myth, Symbol, and Culture (Winter, 1972), pp. 61-81 Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024058 . Accessed: 29/01/2011 15:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/.jsp. JSTOR's and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please [email protected].

The MIT Press and American Academy of Arts & Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Daedalus.

http://www.jstor.org

MARY

DOUGLAS

a Meal

Deciphering

If language

is a code, where answer: expect the

is the precoded is The question message? a In these words is phrased ques linguist a if food is a code, where is tioning popular analogy.1 But try it this way: the precoded on we are the home Here, message? anthropologist's ground, able to improve the A code affords a set posing of the question. general of for as a If is food treated code, possibilities sending particular messages. the messages it encodes will be found in the pattern of social relations be is about different inclus ing expressed. The message degrees of hierarchy, ion and exclusion, boundaries across the boundaries. and transactions Like as well as a sex, the taking of food has a social component, biological one.2 Food therefore encode social events. To say this is to categories echo Roland Barthes3 on the sartorial of social events. His book, encoding la is de about about code-breaking mode, Syst?me primarily methodology, and code-making taken as a subject in itself. The next step for the de of this to a is tool take series of social velopment up conceptual particular events and see how are coded. This will involve a close understand they a microscale social system. I shall therefore start the exercise ing of by the main a food at used a analyzing categories particular point in time in our social home. case The humble and trivial will system, particular open the discussion of more exalted examples. at home, Sometimes to the I ask, "Would hoping simplify cooking, to like have for mean a I you just soup supper tonight? good thick soup? instead of supper. It's late and you must be a minute hungry. It won't take to

to

serve."

when

Then

an

argument

nowhere.

starts:

"Let's

are

have

soup

now,

and

supper

be more work. you ready." "No no, to serve two meals would But if you like, the soup and fill up with why not start with pudding?" "Good heavens! What sort of a meal is that? A and an end and no beginning middle." "Oh, all right then, have the soup as it's there, and I'll do a Welsh rarebit as well." When rarebit, pud they have eaten soup, Welsh a and cheese: "What lot of do you make such elaborate ding, plates. Why to argue that by suppers?" They proceed taking thought I could satisfy the full requirements of a meal with a single, copious dish. Several rounds of this conversation have given me a interest in the and practical categories 61

MARY DOUGLAS

62 of food.

meanings in our

I needed

to know what

defines

the category

of a meal

home.

source

L?vi be Claude will obviously enlightenment of his Myth the Cooked and the other volumes But this is which discuss food categories and table manners. ologiques4 a us in two he takes leave He fails only beginning. major respects. First, and are of the small-scale the codification social relations which generate he sustained by it. Here and there his feet touch solid ground, but mostly mean is in rarefied space where he expects to find universal food orbiting a common is to all mankind. He ings panhuman looking for precoded, in to the criti the thus of and himself food, message exposing language in the quoted cism implicit Second, he relies entirely linguist's question. on the resources of he Therefore affords no technique for binary analysis. a in set the relative of the value that local emerge assessing binary pairs The

Strauss's

first The

Raw

for

and

technical his Worse than clumsy, apparatus produces expressions. or cannot be validated. which Yea, nay, he and Roman Jakobson meanings But even if the in a sonnet of Baudelaire's.5 may be right on the meanings to al theirs and Riffaterre's between able had been poet himself judge was one same to closer that of the work6 and ternative say interpretation to his the other, he would be more than likely to agree that all thought are there. This is fair for literary criticism, but when we these meanings it is are and the "science of the concrete,"7 coding, talking of grammar, not enough. of

the in a particular used the food categories family analyzing are not start must others and with those categories analysis why particular which the food mean the social boundaries employed. We will discover to an the which values encode binary pairs according by ings approach the in a series. Between and the last nightcap, breakfast their position and Sunday, food of the day comes in an ordered pattern. Between Monday of there is the is patterned Then the food of the week sequence again. to of life the and fast year, say nothing cycle days through holidays In other words, the binary or other con and weddings. feasts, birthdays, links relations. The chain which trasts must be seen in their syntagmatic some dis L?vi-Strauss its of each element them together gives meaning. The in his earlier cusses the syntagmatic relation book, Savage Mind, but uses it static analysis of classification systems (particularly only for the to of a much more dynamic It is capable of proper names). application axes of syn as Michael has shown. On the two food categories, Halliday and set, call it what you chain and choice, and sequence tagm paradigm, are all can be will, he has shown how food elements ranged until they for either in grammatical ed , or down to the last lexical item. For

yield

like Eating, an analogy

is patterned talking, form. with linguistic

and

activity, Being

an

the

analogy,

menu be made may daily in relevance; it is limited

to its

DECIPHERING A MEAL is to

purpose

throw

light

and

on,

suggest

relating these to an activity which ready

63 the

of,

problems

of grammar

categories

by

is familiar and for much of which a terminology

to hand.

of a framework of categories for the description of eating might

The presentation as

proceed

follows:

Daily menu

Units:

Meal Course

Helping Mouthful Unit: Daily Menu Elements

of primary

structure

E, M,

S

L,

"main,"

("early,"

"light,"

"snack") structures

Primary

of

Exponents classes

these

of unit

elements

(primary

"meal")

EML EMLS (conflated as EML(S)) E: 1 (breakfast) M :2 (dinner) L: ^

Secondary

structures

Exponents tems

of of

elements

secondary

classes

secondary

of

(sys unit

"meal")

ELaSaM La:3.1 Lb: 3.2 L0 :3.3 Sa

System

of

ing

to the

Unit: Meal,

of unit

sub-classes

rank

of

the

:4.1

see

secondary

ELaM EMLbSb EMSaLc (lunch) (high tea) (supper) (afternoon

tea)

Sb :4.2 (nightcap) E : 1.1 (English breakfast) 1.2 (continental breakfast)

"meal"

"meal,"

names available; 3)(no i 4 ? classes

we

will

follow

the

through

class

"dinner:"

Class: dinner

Elements

of primary

structure

F,

Z

"savoury")

("first,"

"second,"

"main,"

MW MWZ MZW FMW FMWZ

structures

Primary

S, M, W, "sweet,"

FMZW FSMW FSMWZFSMZW of

Exponents classes

of unit

elements

(primary

"course")

structures

Secondary Exponents tems

these

of secondary of

"course")

secondary

elements classes

of

(sys unit

(conflated as (F(S)MW(Z)) F : 1 (antipasta) S: 2 (fish) M :3 (entr?e) W: 4 (dessert) Z: 5 (cheese*) (various,

involving

Fa..d,

Ma>b, Wa.o)

Fa : 1.1 Fb: 1.2 Fc: 1.3 Fd: 1.4 Ma: 3.1 Mb:3.2 Wa:4.1 Wb:4.2 Wc

:4.3

secondary

(soup) (hors d'oeuvres) (fruit) (fruit juice) (meat dish) (poultry dish) (fruit*) (pudding) (ice

cream*)

elements

is

MARY DOUGLAS

64 of sub-classes

Systems

of unit

"course"

1.11

Fa:

(clear

soup*)

1.12 (thick soup*) S: 2.01 (grilled fish*) 2.02 (fried fish*) 2.03 (poached fish*) Wb: 4.21 (streamed pudding*) 4.22 (milk pudding*) systems

Exponential

operating

in meal

: grapefruit/melon

Fc

structure

Fd: grapefruit tomato

juice/

juice/pineapple

juice

Ma: beef/mutton/pork Mb: chicken/turkey/duck/goose At

the

dish"

rank

system structures ing." have

of the "course," the primary dish." of these Each "poultry are whose formal items.

and

of

the

The

class

as

exponents

class "entr?e" the

those "entr?e," also displays (various

"entr?e" has classes "meat secondary a grammatical carries classes secondary s for simple But this system only one member of the unit made up of only "help class

two

structures, of the)

compound classes

secondary

whose classes

additional "cereal"

elements and

"vege

table." We will glance briefly at these: Unit:

Class:

Course, Elements

entr?e

of primary

structure

J, T,

Primary structures Exponents of these elements (primary classes of unit "helping") T: structures

Secondary

A

("t,"

(various, secondary

Exponents terns

of secondary elements

of

"helping")

secondary

classes

of

Ta

"staple,"

"adjunct")

J JT JA JTA (conflated as J((T)(A)) J : 1 (flesh) 2 (cereal) A: 3 (vegetable) others? involving?among elements Ja>b, Ta,b, Aa>b)

(sys-

Ja : 1.1 (meat

unit

Jb:

1.2

\systems

(poultry)

: 2.1 (potato) Tb: 2.2 (rice) Aa

: 3.1

Ab: 3.2

(green

j

meal

as at M

so on,

made

in

structure

vegetable*)

(root vegetable*)

or in grammatical for either until everything is ed systems down has proceeded items up of lexical (marked *). The presentation is mutual determination is presupposed there but shunting scale, throughout: to the gastronomic all units, down the "mouthful."8 morpheme,

And

)

in classes the

rank

among

advances the analysis of our family eating patterns. considerably it how tedious the exhaustive shows be, First, analysis would long and of even to read. It would be more to observe and record. Our model taxing not a less be should for microscopic thoroughness ethnographic example in exotic lands. In exact than that by anthropologists working practiced in com are India social distinctions by distinctions invariably accompanied im and categories of edible and inedible foods. Louis Dumont's mensality on Homo discusses the Indian work Hierarchicus, culture, purity portant de He gives praise to Adrian Mayer's of food as an index of hierarchy. in and social categories food categories tailed study of the relation between This

DECIPHERING A MEAL

65

themselves castes group India.9 Here twenty-three same of the the of ordinary food for provision pipe, according castes share common meals, of food for feasts. Higher and the provision twelve and sixteen almost all castes except four. Between the pipe with cloth must be in some cases a different castes smoke together, though it comes to the pipe and the lips of the smoker. When between placed in the a which Castes is subtler their food, enjoy power required. analysis or it. receive are not eat whom from they they fussy about what village as to are whom both Middle restrictive, they range castes extraordinarily will accept food from and what they will eat. Invited to family ceremonies more relaxed castes they puritanically and more ritually by the powerful their share of the food raw and retire to cook it insist on being given to follow this example and to in their own homes.10 If I were themselves be greater. of food from our home my task would include all transmission to be con in which drink is given For certainly we too know situations sumed in the homes of the recipient. There are some kinds of service for is half or even a whole it seems that the only possible which recognition Indian research in mind, standards the the high of bottle of whiskey. With our in now to identify the relevant categories of food I try home. versus drinks. are meals food categories two major contrasted The of course, food can be these categories, Both are social events. Outside of the lexical item Then we taken for private nourishment. speak only itself: "Have an apple. Get a glass of milk. Are there any sweets?" If likely But no negative to interfere with the next meal, such eating is disapproved. other indices This and before drinks. condemns attitude suggest eating that meals rank higher. contrast with drinks in the relation between solids and liquids. Meals are a mixture drinks of solid foods accompanied Meals by liquids. With a

the

village

reverse

in Central to the use

holds.

A

complex

series

of

syntagmatic

associations

governs

can in a meal, and connects the meals the elements through the day. One at breakfast I haven't had breakfast say: "It can't be lunchtime. yet," and in their sequence tend to itself cereals come before bacon and eggs. Meals sometimes "come for cocktails, have named categories: be named. Drinks are not named come for coffee, come for tea," but many events: "What is no structuring of drinks into shall we have?" There about a drink? What are not invested with any in their order necessity early, main, light. They into first, second, is event Nor the called structured drinks ing. internally sweet. On the contrary, it is to stick with the same kind of main, approved to at count is and drinks all The drink, impolite. judgment "It is too early for alcohol" would be both rare and likely to be contested. The same lack is found in the solid foods are of structure drinks. accompanying They in can eaten units discrete be served which with usually cold, tidily fingers. No order governs the choice of solids. When the children were small and tea was a meal, bread and butter cake scones, scones preceded preceded

MARY DOUGLAS

66 and

sweet

biscuits. But now that the adult-child contrast no longer dom in this tea has been demoted a from necessary family, place in the an of to meals weekend drinks daily sequence among irregular appearance and no rules govern the solids. accompanying Meals utensil require the use of at least one mouth-entering properly ones. A spoon on drinks are limited to per head, whereas mouth-touching a saucer is for a stirring, not sucking. Meals require a table, seating order, on movement restriction and on alternative is no ques There occupations. a meal. Even at tion of for the breakfast, knitting during Sunday reaching a is over. on that the meal is its meal The frame newspapers signal puts the one The which rules off and order kind social of gathering. hedge are reflected in the rules which interaction control the internal ordering of the meal and their solids may all be sweet. But a meal itself. Drinks is not a meal if it is all in the bland-sweet-sour A meal dimensions. incorporates a number of contrasts, hot and cold, bland and and semi liquid spiced, and an cereals, vegetables, liquid, and various textures. It also incorporates on the imal proteins. Criticism fastens in of these elements easily ordering inates

a

given

case.

in our food system should be elucidated the meanings by I cut it short by drawing observation. conclusions intuitively are for ac from the social categories which emerge. Drinks strangers, are and for close hon Meals workmen, friends, quaintances, family, family. is the line between in of the system ored guests. The grand operator we we at at know and distance. meals drinks. Those also know timacy The meal expresses close friendship. Those we only know at drinks we know matters to us (and there is no less intimately. So long as this boundary reason to suppose it will the between drinks always matter) boundary are has There meals and smaller thresholds and half-way meaning. points. a meal) contrast within The entirely cold meal (since it omits a major a seem never to So those friends who have would be such modifier. had a our in hot meal to of intimacy home have presumably another threshold cross. The recent of the barbecue and of more elaborately popularity events which act as and structured cocktail between intimacy bridges our model a common one. is distance that of suggests categories feeding It can be drawn as in 1. Thus far we can go on the basis of binary figure and the number of classes and subclasses. But we are left with oppositions a the general which must be raised whenever question correspondence a structure is found between structure social and of symbols by the given it is expressed, that is, the question of consciousness. which Those who a meal's the of constituted reject vehemently being by soup possibility or cake and fruit, are and pudding, that they are certainly not conscious a share-drinks and share-meals-too. between sustaining thereby boundary at the very idea. It would to trace would be shocked be simplistic They to the social categories direct the food categories and leave they embrace Obviously much closer

DECIPHERING A MEAL

Figure

it at figure the meaning

1. Social

1. Evidently of the meal.

universe

(a)

share

drinks;

67

(b)

share meals

too.

a small are part of only some in the other family system

the external

boundaries

Somewhere

else

the internal structuring. cognitive activity is generating can go much We further toward discovering the intensity of meanings in social life and their anchorage to the sequence of meals. by attending For the week's menu has its climax at lunch. the Sunday By contrasting structure of a new with lunch lunches emerges. Sunday weekday principle lunches tend to have a tripartite structure, one element stressed Weekday or more unstressed two a main for elements, accompanied by example course and cold But dishes. two main lunch has courses, ing Sunday each of which is patterned like the weekday first course, fish lunch?say, or meat two and second course, pud (stressed) (unstressed), vegetables cream and biscuits Christmas lunch has (stressed), (unstressed). ding three courses, each on the same tripartite model. re Here we stop and alize that the reverse in sense. be are read the Meals ordered analogy may in scale of and grandeur the week and the year. importance through meanest The meal structure the of the smallest, metonymically figures unit and of each the meal the whole meal? grandest, grand figures again or the meanest meal. The created by these repetitive perspective analogies invests the individual meal with additional Here we have the meaning. we were the intensifier of the selection prin principle seeking, meaning, A in meal the of meal only insofar as it carries this ciple. stays category structure which allows the part to recall the whole. Hence the outcry to be called a meal. against allowing the sequence of soup and pudding As to the social dimension, to even the ission in simplest meal our into the of solid corporates guest unwittingly pattern Sunday dinners,

MARY DOUGLAS

68

and the gamut of life cycle celebrations. Whereas the sharing Christmases, of drinks of of the lack the central the item, (note structuring, fluidity the small, contrast only too solids) expresses unsticky accompanying by and impermanence of simpler and less intimate so clearly the detachment cial bonds. reveal a restrictive relations between meals up, syntagmatic Summing as such, as a minor or which the meal is identified patterning by graded as or a event its and then bad of of class, major specimen judged good its kind. A system of the process of recognition upholds repeated analogies and grading. Thus we can broach the questions of interpretation which a itself leaves untouched. The features which binary analysis by single as a meal in our need to before qualifying copious dish would display like those of the famous be something home would chicken Marengo served to Napoleon after his victory over the Austrians. on

who,

Bonaparte,

the

of

day

a battle,

ate

nothing

until

after

it was

over,

had

gone forward with his general staff and was a long way from his supply wagon. to prepare dinner for him. Seeing his enemies put to flight, he asked Dunand

The

at

master-chef

search

of

on a tin plate, sauce

All

provisions. a small hen,

a

fish,

little

sent they garlic,

the chicken over

poured

once

men

of

could

find

some

the

oil

surrounded

were

quartermaster's three eggs,

and

a

saucepan

staff

and

in

ordnance

six cray four tomatoes, . . . the dish was served

by the fried eggs and crayfish, with

the

it.11

similar scav been many more excellent meals following But only this one has of those campaigns. enging after the many victories In my opinion the tradi become famous. the reason is that it combines courses of a French feast all tional soup, fish, egg, and meat celebratory in a plat unique. to serve anything worthy of the name of supper in one dish If I wish structure of a meal. Vegetable it must preserve the minimum soup so long as it had noodles and grated cheese would do, or poached eggs on toast is A (when A is the with parsley. Now I know the formula. A proper meal stressed main course) plus 2B (when B is an unstressed course). Both A and a is the stressed in small, a + 2b, when B contain each the same structure, lunch is A; Sunday item in a course. A weekday item and b the unstressed are A + 2B. Drinks and birthdays lunch is 2A; Christmas, Easter, by must

There

contrast

are

have

unstructured.

at the hub of the categories we have placed ourselves understand of the a home and its a small world, The precoded message neighborhood. a series of social events. Our is the boundary of food categories system to indi to costs in time and work reference only oblique example made structure fits squarely involved. But unless the symbolic cate the concerns the analysis has only begun. to some demonstrable social consideration, To

For

the fit between

between

categories

and the boundaries the medium's symbolic boundaries is its only possible The fit may validation. of people

DECIPHERING A MEAL

69

to show some such match levels, but without being able and the remains of subjective. ing, arbitrary symbols analysis uses sym a that now arises is the degree to which The question family are available social system. Ob from the wider structures which bolic reeks of the culture of a certain segment of the mid this example viously should be is in The family's idea of what a meal dle classes of London.

be

at different

Yet cuisine bourgeoise. the Steak House and by the French a version The French different traditions. herein of synthesis implied the is dominated of wines. The cheese plat of the grand meal sequence by a ter is the divide between of individual crescendo savory dishes mounting Individual coffee. scale of sweet ones ending with and a descending course can the melon stand alone. dishes in the French sequence Compare restaurant In the first, the half in a London restaurant. and a Bordeaux castor sugar (a to be dusted with powdered slice is expected ginger and a a of and with + 2b) or decorated orange cherry crystallized wedge is served with no embellishment (a + 2b). In the second, half a melon not a formula that and juices. A + 2B is obviously but its own perfume our one in environment. It our current is that social but family invented, with even its structure the cocktail the of latter, governs canap?. The cereal base, its meat or cheese middle section, its sauce or pickle topping, a mock meal, a minute metonym of and its mixture of colors, suggests in the French pattern is more Whereas meals middle-class general. English the cheese course divides A1 like: C1 + B1 + Ax/A2 + B2 + C2, when main It would be completely A2 from main sweet). (the (the savory dish) a to for either structure in hazard the this of essay meaning against spirit out to the meal its quasi-environmental families form. French reaching it it and interact with environment structure of their cultural develop out and find another their intentions. families reach to according English own social purposes. Americans, and which Chinese, they adapt to their environments afford an ambient Since these cultural others do likewise. fluenced

by

is

but not and intensifying, of differentiating capable symbols, a we to to cannot further stable social anchored base, interpret proceed them. At this point the analysis stops. But the problems which cannot be an can the cultural universe is unbounded, be swered here, where usefully stream

referred

of

to a more

closed

environment.

sum up, the meaning is found in a system of repeated of a meal of the other meals; the meaning carries of Each meal something analogies. structures others in its own social event which is a structured each meal in is set by the range incorporated image. The upper limit of its meaning allows which its series. The recognition member of the most important to be classed and with the others depends each member upon the graded to them all. The cognitive which demands that a structure common energy in the meal look like a meal and not like a drink is performing culinary in it distin that it performs the same exercise medium First, language. To

MARY DOUGLAS

70

it from disorder. it uses it, and separates order, bounds Second, guishes means in a the of number of limited economy expression by allowing only structures. Third, it imposes a rank scale upon the structures. of repetition the repeated formal analogies the meanings that are Fourth, multiply carried down any one of them by the power of the most By these weighty. are enriched. There is no single point in the four methods the meanings or real mean rank scale, high or low, which the basic meaning provides in the ex has the meaning of its structure realized ing. Each exemplar at other levels. amples we are led to a more From for the comparison coding appropriate a meal, as a poem treat that To the versification. meal of is, interpretation a more I turn to the serious example than I have used hitherto. requires Lu Mosaic For the rules. meal, Chi, a third by dietary Jewish governed some in Chinese traffics between the world way century poet, poetry and Earth in a cage of and mankind. The poet is one who "traps Heaven form."12 On these the common meal of the Israelites was a kind of classical boundless

poem.

Of

We

table, too, it could Lu Chi again:

the Israelite

space. To quote enclose

boundless

space

in a

be

square-foot

said that

it enclosed

of paper;

pour out deluge from the inch-space of the heart.13 But the analogy it is slows down at Lu Chi's last line. For at first glance a kind of not certain that the meal can be a is medium. The meal tragic poem, but by a very limited analogy. The cook may not be able to express a can say. the powerful poet things We

a rational In Purity and Danger14 I suggested for the Mosaic pattern certain animal kinds. Bulmer of has very justly reproached rejection Ralph me for an animal for the explanation of the Hebrew taxonomy offering to must I laws. The claimed discern remain, he argued, dietary principles at a subjective of the could and arbitrary unless take level, they dimensions of thought and activity of the Hebrews concerned.15 multiple same short criticisms S. J. Tambiah of the has made effective similarly own in Both from their have field work my approach.16 coming provided In of how the task be conducted. another should examples distinguished to pay tribute to the importance I But of their research. publication hope I am to it the force of their for the present purpose, reproach. happy an of an It was even against the whole spirit of my book to offer did not show the context of social rela ordered system of thought which tions in which the categories had meaning. let me down Ralph Bulmer that evidence the the an concerning gently by supposing ethnographic was too meager. reflection on this new research cient Hebrews However, out of hand. We has led me to reject that suggestion and methodology plenty about the ancient and relate what we know.

know

Hebrews.

The

problem

is how

to recognize

DECIPHERING A MEAL

71

are far apart, in in history, and geography, in civilization. Their local fauna are entirely different. these Surprisingly, two one common. so of animal in have Each classification analyses thing on cor to the animal and values which ciety projects categories kingdom of marriageable persons. The social categories respond to their categories of descent and affinity dominate their natural categories. The good Thailand sex is to it: disordered, son-in-law knows his place and displaced keeps to and the odium transferred domestic of dirt the reprobated dog, symbol and promiscuity. From the dog to the otter, the transfer of odium is dou as wild, bled in strength. This amphibian But they class counterpart-dog. to the wild domain it is apt to leave its sphere at flood instead of keeping time and to about in their watery fields. The ideas they attach to paddle are incest carried forward from the dog to the otter, the image of the ut son-in-law. For the Karam the social focus is upon the strained terly wrong relations between affines and cousins. A wide rules range of manmade sustain the categories of a natural world which mirrors these anxieties. In the Thailand and Karam studies, a strong analogy between bed and board lies unmistakably beneath the system of classifying animals. The pattern in to the patterns of rules which animals form of categorize correspond rules governing human relations. Sexual and gastronomic consummation are made of one another by reasons of analogous restrictions equivalents to each. to the classifications of applied Looking back from these examples we seek in vain a statement, a similar as Leviticus of however oblique, sex. a very sociation between between eating and strong analogy Only table and altar stares us in the face. On reflection, the Israe should why sex with to associate lites have had a similar concern food? Unlike the New

other

Guinea

two

womenfolk. paternal

was

and Thailand

no rule they had examples, requiring were On the contrary, allowed they

first

cousins.

E.

R.

Leach

has

reminded

them

to

to marry us

how

exchange their

strongly

their parallel

exogamy

at the top political each tribe of level,17 and within was even must We seek 36). endogamy ened (Deuteronomy elsewhere for their dominant turn At this to I the preoccupations. point rules governing in the Jewish the common meal as prescribed It religion. is particularly same over that these rules have remained the interesting centuries. Therefore, if these categories to social con express a relevance cerns we must concerns some those to in have remained form alive. expect are: The three rules about meat the certain of animal (1) rejection kinds as unfit for the table (Leviticus 11), (2) of those itted as edible, the separation of the meat from blood before (Leviticus 17:10), cooking of milk from meat, which involves the minute (3) the total separation of utensils (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). specialization I start with the classification of animals whose I claim to rationality have discerned. to will summarize the First, Diagrams argument. help animals are classified to of holiness (see figure 2). At according degrees Israel

disapproved

MARY DOUGLAS

72

WATER

AIR

LAND

TABLE

ALTAR Figure

2. Degrees

ABOMINABLE

of holiness.

are abominable, not to be the bottom end of the scale some animals or are not eaten. Others fit for the table, but for the altar. None touched that are fit for the altar are not edible and vice versa, none that are not are coordinated for The criteria for this grading edible are sacrificeable. we with the the three spheres of land, air, and water. simplest, Starting find the sets as in figure 3. to be fit for the table, must have fins and scales Water creatures, worms and 13:9-12; Deuteronomy 14:19). Creeping (Leviticus swarming are or on water not the in fit the for if the table land, snakes, they go creatures "The term swarming 14:19; Leviticus 11:41-43). (Deuteronomy

Figure 3. Denizens (x)

abominable:

of the water

swarming.

(a) insufficient criteria for (b);

(b) fit for table;

DECIPHERING A MEAL

73

( sh?re? ) denotes appear in swarms and is applied both living things which to those which teem in the waters and 1:20; Leviticus 11:10) (Genesis swarm on the to those which ani the land smaller ground, including insects."18 Nothing from this sphere is fit for the mals, reptiles and creeping altar. The Hebrews and these did domesticated animals sanctified only an not include fish. "When any one of you to it brings offering Jehovah, or shall be a domestic taken from the either from the herd flock" animal, and others sacrificed wild beasts, as S. R. (Leviticus 1:2). But, Assyrians out. Driver and H. A. White point Air creatures sets: set into more (see figure 4) are divided complex on the earth and 11: (a), those which (Leviticus 12), having fly hop wings and two legs, contains two subsets, one of which contains the named and not fit for the table, and the rest of the birds (b), birds, abominable fit for the table. From this latter subset a sub-subset (c) is drawn, which is suitable for the altar?turtledove and pigeon 14; 5:7-8) (Leviticus and the sparrow Two sets of denizens of (Leviticus 14:49-53). separate the air are abominable, creatures untouchable (f), which have the wrong number of limbs for their habitat, four legs instead of two (Leviticus and (x), the swarming insects we have already noted in the water 9:20), 14:19 ). (Deuteronomy The largest class of land creatures (a) (see figure 5) walk or hop on four legs. From this set of the land with those with parted quadrupeds, as fit for the table hoofs and which chew the cud (b) are distinguished and of this set a subset consists of 11:3; Deuteronomy 14:4-6) (Leviticus herds and flocks (c). Of these the first born (d) are to the domesticated

Figure 4. Denizens of the air (a) fly and hop: wings and two legs; (b) fit for table; (c)

fit for altar;

(f)

abominable:

insufficient

criteria

for

(a);

(x)

abominable:

swarming.

74 MARY DOUGLAS

Figure 5. Denizens of the land (a )Walk or hop with four legs; (b ) fit for table; ( c ) domestic (a);

herds

(g)

and

abominable:

be offered

to the priests and chew

the hoof

part those which

flocks; (d) insufficient

fit

for

criteria

abominable: altar; (f) for (b); (x) abominable:

insufficient

criteria

for

swarming.

the set (b) which 24:33). Outside (Deuteronomy are sets beasts: the cud of abominable three (g) one or the the other but not both of the required

have either the wrong number of limbs, two hands features; (f) those with physical 11:27 and 29:31); instead of four legs (Leviticus crawl (x) those which their bellies (Leviticus 11:41-44). upon cate The which thus appears the different between isomorphism as abominable us to animal the of of classed gories interpret meaning helps abomination.

Those

creatures

which

inhabit

a

given

range,

water,

air,

or

land, but do not show all the criteria for (a) or (b) in that range are creatures The creeping, do not show cri abominable. teeming crawling, to any class, but cut across them all. teria for allocation to It assigns Here we have a very rigid classification. living creatures on a behavioral one of three certain and selects basis, spheres, morpho are found most in the animals commonly logical criteria that inhabiting are anomalous, It rejects creatures which in each whether living sphere. two spheres, or having of of another between features defining or features. Any falls out sphere, lacking defining living being which or it is not to eaten. is to be To touch side this classification be touched can be summed forbids entry to the temple. Thus it defiled and defilement are unfit for altar and table. creatures up fairly by saying that anomalous is not of the Mosaic code. In other societies anomaly This is a peculiarity so treated. Indeed, in some, the anomalous creature is treated as always and is specially fit for the altar (as the Lele pango the source of blessing a or as as the to be treated as an honorable noble beast, lin), adversary,

A MEAL

DECIPHERING

75

Karam

treat the cassowary. of Since in the Mosaic code every degree we one way or the other for in animals has holiness edibility, implications must follow further the other rules humans and animals. Again classifying a I summarize First, note that a category long argument with diagrams. some humans which their animals from from others, also divides divides to God others. Israelites descended from Abraham and bound by the are Covenant all other between God and Abraham from distinguished as of the Cove and similarly the rules which Israelites obey part peoples nant to the their animals The rule womb that 6). (see opener apply figure or first born is consecrated to to divine service applies firstlings of the flocks

and herds

Sabbath

observance

analogy by which other quadrupeds and table.

indefinite

by

develops who

are consecrated

of all Israel

3:12

Since L?vites first born

and the rule of (Exodus 22:29-30; Deuteronomy 24:23) to work The is extended animals (Exodus 20:10). are to other humans as their livestock are to Israelites stages

the analogy

between

altar

to the temple service represent the there is an analogy between

and 40)

(Numbers human the Israelites, all of whom Among firstlings. are nec some the the and of Covenant observance Law, prosper through man or woman at issue time. No with of seed any given essarily unclean or blood, or with forbidden or with an animal classed as unclean, or an in the unsacralized who has shed blood been involved ani killing of mal 18), or who has sinned morally 20) can enter (Leviticus (Leviticus a blemish the temple. Nor can one with 23) enter the (Deuteronomy or eat the flesh of sacrifice or peace (Leviticus 8:20). offerings temple are selected The L?vites from all the Israelites. They rep by pure descent resent the first born of Israel. They and purify the un judge the cleanness are without who of Israelites L?vites cleanness 13, 14). Only (Leviticus blemish and with without death can (Leviticus 21:17-23) bodily enter the Holy of Holies. Thus we can present these rules as sets in figures 7 and 8. The analogy and animals between humans is very clear. So is the analogy created by these rules between the temple and the living the Further between classification of animals ac appear body. analogies the

animal

and

to holiness set up the (figure 2) and the rules which cording analogy of its holier and holier inner sanctuaries, the holy temple with and on the other hand between the temple's holiness and the body's purity and the Under Human Nonhuman

Figure

6.

the Covenant

Israelites

others

their

others

Analogy

livestock

between

humans

and nonhumans.

76 MARY DOUGLAS

7. The

Figure blemish;

(e)

Figure blemish;

(e)

Israelites

consecrated

8. Their

to

livestock

consecrated

to

(c) temple (c) temple

under service, under service,

the

Covenant; first born.

the

covenant; first born.

(d)

fit

for

temple

sacrifice:

no

(d)

fit

for

temple

sacrifice:

no

of each to be defiled by the self-same forms of impurity. This a has been is the tradition which of Judeo-Christian analogy living part in its interpretation words of New of Testament allusions. The unfaltering over the the Last their meaning from looking backward Supper have to the future in which centuries the analogy had held good and forward . . . this is celebrations "This is my body of that meal. (Luke my blood" Here and the Mark the meal 22:19-20; 14:22-24; Matthew 26:26-28). to stand for one sacrificial victim, the table and the altar are made explicitly capacity

another.

in a straight perspective, each one we same and the the others, get looking to to the the be full repetition meaning key of the categories of food in the home. By itself the body and its rules can that the temple can carry by itself with load of meanings carry the whole are its rules. The and consistent. What then repetitions entirely overlap are these we are in a maze Between the the and body meanings? temple is its social counterpart? of religious back to my Turning thought. What meats we are in a much better position of forbidden the original analysis to assess intensity and social relevance. For the metonymical patternings a are in chorus with are too obvious to ignore. At every moment they At the of impurity. about the value of purity and the rejection message in question is the level of a general the purity taxonomy of living beings creatures abomin teeming purity of the categories. Creeping, swarming, taxonomic At the the of the boundaries. level individual ably destroy is the The broken, impurity specimen. imperfect, bleeding living being is known boundaries made of the by valuing sanctity cognitive integrity of Lay

these rules and their patternings to all forward and backward that we found of metonyms

DECIPHERING

A MEAL

77

the physical forms. The perfect physical point to the perfectly specimens turn bounded and in their And these altar, sanctuary. temple, point to the hard-won and hard-to-defend Land. of the Promised territorial boundaries are not here This is not reduetionism. to We the rules dietary reducing concern. we are are But how any political consistently showing they a theme that has been celebrated in the in the celebrating temple cult and whole history of Israel since the first Covenant with Abraham and the first sacrifice of Noah. in his analysis of the has re of Solomon, Edmund Leach, genealogy a us minded of the political problems besetting people who claim by pure to own a territory that others held and others descent and pure religion continually boundaries

upon.19 Israel is the boundary and that gives them their historic is not difficult the orthodox meal

encroached

that

all the other

load of meaning. as a to this, interpret ing we certain first the of The animal have rule, kinds, poem. rejection mostly dealt with. But the identity of the list of named abominable birds is still a it is written: In the Mishnah "The characteristics of birds are not question. celebrate

stated, but the Sages have said, every bird that seizes its prey (to tread or attack with claws) is unclean."20 The idea that the unclean birds were were an because unclean and they image of human pr?dation predators, so that it has homicide, interpretations easily fits the later Hellenicizing to the late Professor S. Hooke been (in a personal suspect. According once tried out the idea that the Professor R. S. Driver communication), names were Hebrew of the screeches and calls of the birds. onomatopoeic an of He diverted learned divines with ingenious vocal exercises assembly I have not traced the and Hebrew ornithology combining scholarship. But following I have been record of this meeting. the method of analysis seems very it the traditional that is sufficient, idea using, likely predatory common its the rule with second the governing considering compatibility meal.

to the second rule, meat for the table must be drained of its According to God alone, for blood. No man eats flesh with blood in it. Blood belongs to all the life is in the blood. This rule relates the meal systematically rules which exclude from the temple on grounds of with or respon Since the animal kinds which defy the sibility for bloodshed. perfect class ification of nature are defiling both as food and for entry to the temple, it is a structural of the general analogy between repetition body and temple to eat rule that the eating of blood defiles. Thus the birds and beasts which are same carrion (undrained to of blood) the be defil likely by reasoning the unclean birds as preda ing. In my analysis, the Mishnah's identifying tors is convincing. Here we come to a watershed two kinds of defilement. When between the there

classifications are several

of

any metaphysical it does points where

are on nature, scheme imposed as the classifications not fit. So long

78

MARY

DOUGLAS

to bite into in in pure and are not expected daily life metaphysics no the form of rules of behavior, arises. But if the unity of God problem into a rule of life, head is to be related to the unity of Israel and made defies the the difficulties start. First there are the creatures whose behavior remain

It is relatively them by rejection and easy to deal with there are the difficulties that arise from our biological to the holiness condition. of God in the perfec It is all very well worship tion of his creation. But the Israelites must be nourished and must repro to eat their flocks and herds for a pastoral duce. It is impossible people It is impossible the bodily without completeness they respect. damaging to renew Israel without of blood and sexual fluids. These prob emission to the and sometimes by consecration lems are met sometimes by avoidance a meat act is of blood from ritual which figures the temple. The draining a at the altar. Meat creature is thus transformed from sacrifice bloody living into a food item. rigid classification. avoidance. Second

to the third rule, the separation of meat and milk, it honors the pro is human and animal parturition functions. The analogy between on the as the Mishnah in its comment of shows always edibility implied, dam: if the afterbirth had emerged found in the slaughtered the afterbirth as food; "it is a token of young in a woman in part, it is forbidden and a this third rule honors the Hebrew token of young in a beast."21 Likewise As

creative

and her initial unity with her offspring. In I return to the researches of Tambiah and Bulmer. In conclusion or is sexual relations, each case a concern with disapproved, approved In the case and Karam animal classifications. reflected on to the Thailand seem to be with concern would the integrity of of Israel the dominant out how over and But Edmund Leach has territorial boundaries. pointed were over again with the threat to Israel's holy calling concerned they and foreign wives led to with outsiders. Foreign husbands from marriages So sex is not omitted from the meanings false gods and political defections. in the common meal. But the question is different. In the other cases the women. arose from rules about In this case the con exchanging problems women. cern is to insist on not exchanging I can now suggest an answer to Ralph Bulmer's question about Perhaps tells us that the pig was an un the abhorrence of the pig. "Dr. Douglas an it was a taxonomic clean beast to the Hebrew quite simply because as the Old Testament normal because like the domes says, omaly, literally imlike other cloven-footed tic animals it has a cloven hoof, whereas beasts, it does not chew the cud. And she pours a certain amount of scorn on the commentators of the last 2,000 years who have taken alternative views to the creature's attention etc." Dr. Bulmer and drawn habits, feeding to reverse the argument and to say that the other be tempted would an as are exercise elaborate for rationalizing animals part of prohibited rea there were probably multiple of a beast for which "the prohibition

mother

DECIPHERING A MEAL

79

seem for avoiding. It would fair, on the limited evidence equally was status to taxonomic that the accorded anomalous available, argue pig as to argue that it was unclean it was unclean because of its because the taxonomic and with anomalous status."22 On more mature reflection, sons

own research, see that the to the Israelites I can now pig help of his status equivalent to that of the otter could have had a special taxonomic in Thailand. It carries the odium of multiple First it pollutes pollution. it it defies the classification of ungulates. be because Second, pollutes as cause it eats carrion. Third, it is it reared because food (and pollutes as An non-Israelites. Israelite who betrothed prime pork) by presumably a to be offered a feast of pork. By these have liable been foreigner might comes to represent the utterly form of sexual stages it disapproved plausibly now can trace a to odium all the that this We and carry mating implies. between the food rules and the other rules against mix general analogy tures: "Thou shalt not make to cattle with beasts of any other thy gender not "Thou kind" (Leviticus shalt with beast" 19:19). (Levit any copulate as much as any poem, summarizes icus 18:23). The common meal, decoded, a stern, tragic religion. so much are left the of why, when else had been forgot We question the three rules and their meaning, of purification do they still What meal have meanings persisted. Jewish governing are from their as social context? It encode, unmoored original they partly are aware of encroachment a seem that whenever and dan would people as a vivid serve into the rules what would ger, dietary goes controlling body at risk. But here I am, analogy of the corpus of their cultural categories a own to universal free of strictures, my meaning, contrary suggesting sense one is to the which make whenever social context, likely particular same situation to with is perceived. We have come full-circle 1, figure is weak, the inner one its two concentric circles. The outside boundary the Mosaic summarizing dietray rules strong. Right through the diagrams at (b). Abominations the focus was upon the integrity of the boundary lie outside that of the water are those finless and scaleless creatures which in air the this less Abominations of appear clearly light because boundary. as to widest circle from forbidden birds had be shown the the unidentified are is it drawn. If that which be granted the edible selection they predators, then they can be shown as a small subset in the unlisted set, that is as ten23 about

the

rules

the

eat blood. They would of the air not fit for table because they at (b) in the same the boundary then be seen to threaten explicit way as among the denizens it.We of the land the circle (g) threatens should more positive this essay without therefore not conclude saying something In the one case it divides edible from about what this boundary encloses. than a negative inedible. But it is more barrier of exclusion. In all the cases we have seen, it bounds the area of structured relations. Within that

denizens

area

rules

apply.

Outside

it, anything

goes.

Following

the argument

we

MARY DOUGLAS

80 have

established

by which

share

a common

structure,

each we

level of meaning

can

the others which

realizes the

that

say

fairly

ordered

which

system

is a meal

it. Hence all the ordered the represents systems associated with or confuse a threat to weaken arousal of that To power strong category. take our analysis of the culinary medium further we should study what the A the that about from Fuller's age poets say Roy they adopt. disciplines to lectures helps the flash of recognition and confidence which explain an ordered is He Allen said: welcomes who "Formal T?te, pattern. quoting structure of poetic order, the assurance to the is the primary versification that the poet is in control of the disorder reader and to the poet himself both outside him and within his own mind."24 The rules of the menu are not in themselves more or less trivial than the rules of verse I am valuable thanks

a

to which

poet

to Professor

grateful

submits. Bernstein

Basil

suggestions are due to my

to Professor

and

some for criticisms, son for working James

I have

of which

and

out

the Venn

M. not

A.

been

K.

used

diagrams

for

Halliday to meet.

able

in this

My article.

References A.

1. Michael

K.

of

"Categories

Halliday,

the Theory

of Grammar,"

Journal

Word,

of

the Linguistic Circle of New York, 17 (1961), 241-291. on

2. The

discussion between anthropologists continuing in. the understanding facts social of kinship of food categories. understanding and

3. Roland

Barthes,

4.

L?vi-Strauss, I (London:

Claude thology,

I. Le Cru giques: table (Paris: Pion, 5. Roman L'Homme, 6. Michael Les

Riffaterre,

Poetic

Structures:

French

Studies

8. Halliday,

10.

Louis M.

"Describing Yale Structuralism,

C.

Routledge,

Dumont, Sainsbury pp. 86-89.

1966),

of Caste

Mayer,

"Les

Mind The (London: Savage of Chicago 1962, Press, 1966).

"Categories

(London:

Editions

L?vi-Strauss,

University

9. Adrian

(Paris:

relation is

between

biological to the relevant

fully

1967).

Seuil,

to a Science The Raw and the Cooked: Introduction of My in French series is The whole 1970). Jonathan Cape, Mytholo aux cendres, et le cuit, II. Du Miel III. de des mani?res L'Origine 1964-1968).

L?vi-Strauss,

Chicago:

la mode

and Claude Jakobson 2 (1962), 5-21.

Chats,"

7. Claude

de

Syst?me

the

categories

the Theory and

Kinship

of Grammar," in Central

Two 36

de

Chats

and

Charles

Approaches 37 (1987). and

Heidenfeld

Baudelaire,"

to Baudelaire's

Nicholson,

1966;

277-279.

pp. India:

A

Its

Village

and

Its

Implications,

French

ed.,

Region

1960).

Homo (London:

Hierarchicus: Weidenfeld

The

Caste

& Nicholson,

System

and 1970;

trans.

Gallimard,

DECIPHERING A MEAL 11.

under

See

12. A. MacLeish, 13.

Larousse

"Marengo," Poetry

Gastronomique

and

Experience

and

Danger:

81 1961).

(Hamlyn,

(London:

Head,

Bodley

1960),

4.

p.

Ibid.

14. Mary Douglas, Purity (London: Routledge, 15. Ralph

Bulmer,

"Why the Among

Taxonomy

An

of Pollution

of Concepts

Analysis

and

Taboo

1966). Is

the

Karam

a Not Cassowary Guinea of the New

A

Bird?

of

Problem Man,

Highlands,"

Zoological new ser.,

2

(1967), 5-25. 16. S. J. Tambiah, "Animals Are Good to Think and Good to Prohibit," Ethnology, (1969), 423-459. 17. E.

R.

"The

Leach,

of

Legitimacy

Genesis

Solomon,"

as

Myth

and

Other

7

Essays

(London: Jonathan Cape, 1969). 18.

S. R. Driver

19.

Leach,

20.

H.

Ibid.,

22.

Bulmer,

23.

Moses

H.

A. White,

The

Polychrome

Bible,

Leviticus,

v.l.fn.

13.

of Solomon."

"Legitimacy

The

trans,

Danby,

21.

and

Mishnah

(London:

Oxford

University

Press,

1933),

p.

324.

p. 520. "Why

Is the Cassowary Guide

Maimonides,

Not for

the

a Bird?"

p. 21.

Perplexed,

trans.

M.

Friedlander

(London:

Routledge, 1904; first ed., 1881). 24. Roy Fuller, Owls Deutsch,

1971),

and Artificers: Oxford Lectures

p. 64.

on Poetry

(London: Andre