Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
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
accounted
terms, 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
63
the
of,
problems
of grammar
categories
by
to hand.
The presentation
as
proceed
follows:
Daily menu
Units:
Meal
Course
Helping
Mouthful
Unit: Daily Menu
Elements
of primary
structure
E, M,
L,
"main,"
("early,"
"light,"
"snack")
structures
Primary
of
Exponents
classes
these
of unit
elements
(primary
"meal")
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
Passing
to the
Unit: Meal,
of unit
sub-classes
rank
of
the
:4.1
see
secondary
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,
"savoury")
("first,"
"second,"
"main,"
structures
Primary
S, M, W,
"sweet,"
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*)
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
terms
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
accounts
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
Class:
Course,
Elements
entr?e
of primary
structure
J, T,
Primary structures
Exponents of these elements (primary
classes of unit "helping") T:
structures
Secondary
("joint,"
(various,
secondary
Exponents
terns
of secondary elements
of
"helping")
secondary
classes
of
Ta
"staple,"
"adjunct")
(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
meal
as at M
so on,
made
in
structure
vegetable*)
(root vegetable*)
or
in grammatical
for either
until everything
is accounted
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.
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
given
case.
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
MARY DOUGLAS
68
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,
fish,
little
sent
they
garlic,
the chicken
over
poured
once
men
of
could
find
some
the
oil
surrounded
were
quartermaster's
three
eggs,
and
saucepan
staff
and
in
ordnance
six cray
four
tomatoes,
. . . the dish was
served
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
between
categories
DECIPHERING A MEAL
69
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.
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 terms the common meal of the Israelites was a kind of
classical
boundless
poem.
Of
We
the Israelite
space. To quote
enclose
boundless
space
in a
be
square-foot
said that
it enclosed
of paper;
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
account 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 admit the force of their
for the present purpose,
reproach.
happy
an account 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
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
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.
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)
(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.
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
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
members
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
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
the analogy
between
altar
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
contact 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
contact
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
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
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
encroached
that
load of meaning.
as a
to
this,
interpret
Remembering
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 contact 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
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
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
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
passage
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
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
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:
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.
Bulmer,
"Why
the
Among
Taxonomy
An
of Pollution
of Concepts
Analysis
and
Taboo
1966).
Is
the
Karam
a
Not
Cassowary
Guinea
of the New
Bird?
of
Problem
Man,
Highlands,"
Zoological
new
ser.,
(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
Essays
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:
1971),
p. 64.
on Poetry
(London: Andre