Structuralism and Poststructuralism in the Anthropological Analysis of Food - Essay Example

? Structuralism & Post-Structuralism An Anthropological Analysis of Food Submitted [Pick the Structuralism and post-structuralism are the anthropological approaches that help in understanding cultural behaviours and their relevance in a universal frame of reference. These two approaches also play a key role in defining how food and culinary art defines various cultures and how extended network of rituals, norms and values are affected by the dietary laws in a particular society. Structuralism in food anthropology helps in understanding existence of a global and uniform frame of reference of cooking and eating, through which various cultures are related to each other, post-structuralism asserts that a fixed frame of reference cannot be used for understanding dietary practices of different cultures. Furthermore, an underlying framework cannot remain constant since it is susceptible of transformation under external stimuli. Both structuralism and post-structuralism tend to provide a theoretical framework that can help in understanding how cultures are affected by their food and cooking practices but post-structuralism provides a relatively flexible approach that accepts human influence and effects of historic events on culture. In order to understand the nature and behaviour of food with the help of structuralism, it is important to analyze the framework of this approach. Structuralism is an inspired phenomena hailing from Gestalt psychology. Gestalt’s theory attempts to find out a rationale ground of how human mind works and derives patterns out of random or unobvious events. This approach further explains that events, individuals or objects having same attributes tend to form an alliance and stay together. Similarly, structuralism is an approach through which human behaviour can be analyzed with the help of different frame of references networked together. This network of relationships helps in identifying the actual position of a norm, ritual or an object in human life. Through this framework, early linguists and anthropologists tend to identify the signs showing common indications. Therefore, structuralism became synonymous with semiology. These semiotics or doctrines of semiology helped the literary thinkers to deduct common patterns from folk tales that helped in understanding relations of cultures to each other and their further evolution along with rationales of various norms and traditions. Although this approach was a result of literary research performed by Ferdinand de Saussure and Vladimir Propp however it was given a broader definition in 1960s by Claude Levi-Strauss. Levi-Strauss used this approach to analyze human patterns of kinship and myths. This research was further extended by various others such as Mary Douglas. Levi-Strauss performed his further research to identify the reasons for existence of similar myths present in different cultures. He explained that no myth has a value in its singular form and in order to have a meaning; it is supposed to have a certain place in myth’s network or structure. Hence, myths exists universally and they are source of resolutions to social conflicts. Along with myths, rituals and traditions, food and activities related to it play a vital role in understanding relationships existing between cultures. Levi-Strauss (1966, 1970) helped in identifying common patterns among different cultures and segregated the manner of culinary art of cooking in three fundamental categories i.e. boiling, roasting and steaming. These fundamental cooking principles indicated that through norms and methods adopted by a group of people, a meaning is produced in a culture which is reproduced and evolved through other peripheral practices. Activities as diverse as food preparations and existence of millions of recipes concluded that there were some common factors underlying in these cultures and they indicated a particular pattern of kinship that is known to different groups and individuals existing in a society, operating at unconscious level within the minds of these individuals. In The Culinary Triangle, Levi-Strauss (1966) provided three distinguished modes of cooking and related them to perceptions and beliefs borne by the people in these cultures. These cooking methods are expected to be applicable universally although they may not be used by the people of different cultures in the same manner. With the help of these cooking procedures, Levi-Strauss has attempted to relate cooking with the culture and nature of people. According to him, few cultures opt for boiling as it requires use of utensils and it is a civilized manner of cooking with roasting perceived as ancient form of cooking due to its direct exposure to heat or flame (Carroll, 1978). On the other hand, some culture view roasting as part of festival celebrations and perceive cooking boiling or use of water in food preparation associated to normal activities of daily life. Another cooking method is smoking which does not involve water or direct exposure to heat. These basic differences between fundamental mannerisms of cooking illustrate that Levi-Strauss has used few binary points that would indicate the cooking techniques in multiple cultures. These directives include closeness/distance and rapid/ slow cooking. Although Levi-Strauss has often referred boiling as roasting due to tender nature of food, however several culture perceive it differently and forms a foundation of their cooking techniques. Hence, what is raw (roasted), cooked and rotted varies from culture to culture. Although Levi-Strauss provided a universal framework but it appears to have excluded other methods of cooking such as saute, frying, braising and grilling etc. Through this analysis, it appears that Levi-Strauss (1966, 1970) was correct in assuming that the fundamental methods of cooking remain the same universally without any relevance to a particular culture however how these cultures respond to these methods or include them in their daily lives vary depending on other systems of life. This focus on cultural values is extended by the work of Mary Douglas’s “Deciphering a Meal”. In this article, Douglas (1972) attempted to provide rationale behind Hebrew dietary laws and other cultural norms that existed. Levi-Strauss used a culinary triangle to illustrate how cooking methods reflected the ideologies of other cultures; similarly Douglas used animals’ treatment in Hebrew culture to provide rationale for other rituals. Douglas (1966) defined how different responses to meals and drinks vary with culture and how they reflect relationships and kinships in societies i.e. drinks are for friends whereas meals are for family and relatives. Douglas further identified analogies between the nature of meals i.e. single dish or three-course meal, on the basis of event i.e. Christmas, Sunday brunches or daily lunch) and person being served. This argument is further strengthened by classification of animals and seafood that is fit for eating purpose. For the sake of this argument, examples of Hebrews using domestic animals for eating, is used. Also, the first born animals are fit for pious individuals whereas others are for social consumption (Perez, 2011). Hence, three classification of animals was founded that could be served at altar, table or were abominable. Touching or eating abominable food is forbidden while participating in any normal or religious activity. Hence, the frame work of food draws strict restrictions from social behaviours and laid down cultural boundaries. Repetition between purity and unholiness with reference to different classification of animals point towards the prevailing social structures. These analogies between human behaviour and animal use are implied, however consistent repetition enforces a sound framework that different cultures follow and abomination in food is reflected in other cultural norms while basic structure remaining the same. Structuralism defines the basic framework through which analogies between different cultures can be defined with relation to dietary traditions. The arguments have been strengthen by the work of Levi-Strauss and Douglas. However, it is important to note that Levi-Strauss does not recognized the existence of other form of cooking and importance of peripheral information or traditions in defining value of the fundamentals. Also, structuralists neglected the importance of cultural transformation and results of mixed breeding. This approach neglects the importance of history in defining any culture or norm whereas it is evident that historical events transformed the way of upcoming nations. Thanksgiving dinner is one of the simplest examples illustrating how one historical event changed the way Christianity perceives family suppers. This approach further denies the existence of human individuality. Where anthropology as well psychology accepts the differences in cognitive mechanisms of humans, structuralism ignores this fundamental concept. Although this notion can be supported by an argument that underlying assumption working in unconscious part of human minds remain constant but different responses of individuals from the same culture to similar external stimuli contradicts with this assumption. In addition to that independent acts of individuals are neglected in this approach for the sake of uniformity. Best like and dislikes in terms of food, variations in recipes as a result of experiments are considered as insignificant events. Furthermore, this approach ignores the dynamic nature of cultures that is susceptible to transformation. Although the arguments given by Levi-Strauss (1966) and Douglas (1972) mange to provide symmetry in the behaviour of a cultural and hidden norms but the claim regarding universality, self-sufficiency or a pre-determined structure of food anthropology is rejected by post-structuralism. Where structuralism accepts the presence of unconscious self which determines rituals and values, post-structurialist approach indicates that experiences determine the perception and identity of any activity and these experiences further result in transformation of culture. Post-structuralism accepts various doctrines of structurialist approach while remaining critique of its fixed nature. Despite its anti-humanist approach, it fails to identify a binary system of unified meanings and gives transformation, deference and processing more value. Therefore, it accepts the derivation of multiple meanings from single linguistics. Like structuralism, post-structuralism also attempts to derive meanings out of rituals and traditions related to culinary art in different cultures. This approach claims that instead of considering that a certain ritual or method of cooking produces a single universal meaning, it should be accepted that every individual has a tendency of giving his own meaning to a certain custom. It further states that instead of considering fundamental food cooking model a foundation of peripheral systems of life, an opposite relationship should be considered. Barths’ contribution in explaining the meanings reflected in food’s anthropology cannot be undermined. Barths who was originally a structurialist accepted the presence of collateral meanings of same words. For this purpose, he suggested that political, social and cultural associations provide meaning to a certain activity or object. Instead of considering food and its cooking process as the signifier, post-structuralism identifies the possibility of denotation or personal meaning. By coining a concept of meta-language, Barths (1993) accepted the existence of myths. He further argues that myths acts as icons that make history or historical events as a natural course of action that becomes acceptable by receivers. Similarly in societies, where animals are considered as inferior species and human dominion is well-accepted, eating meat is a norm. According to Barths, ““Wine is a part of society because it provides a basis not only for a morality but also for an environment; it is an ornament in the slightest ceremonials of French daily life, from the snack to the feast, from the conversation at the local cafe to the speech at a formal dinner (Barths, 1993, p.59).” He further extended this argument by discussing the importance of Steak for French people. According to him, Steak is part of French culture, it is a unified likeness of millions and when they don’t have access to it, it results in nostalgia. In fact, Steak is a symbol of nationalization and bears a patriotic value. Thus, other than nutritional value, steak has a sentimental value for French nation. This intake of meat in the form of steak further legitimizes the myths about human dominion over animals and supremacy. Barths’ argument of meta-language is further extended by Richard Wilk. Wilk sheds light on the existence of cultural reforms that have taken place in the history and elaborates the effects of these changes over food. Wilk (1999) states that traditional Belizean food is an outcome of cultural invasions due to international trade, slavery and migration. Furthermore, tourism and colonization also played their roles in transforming the Belizean culture. Where it is accepted that culinary practices are deeply rooted in the heritage of the land and history of the nations and economies. Amalgamation of cultures has an effect on dietary traditions. Another example has been shared by Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay (2004). Mukhopadhyay (2004) defined how several tastes were excluded from Bengali palate due to as a result of westernization. He further explained the role of subordinates in the hegemonies of power by using the term “subaltern”. Advocates of structuralism criticize post-structuralism for its relative and flexibility. It is argued that post-structuralism introduces linguistic complications and shuns the existence of global traditional values. Furthermore, it is also criticized for taking inconsistent, individual and marginal events in account due to which a uniform framework is difficult to define along with being irretrievably problematic to define. Lack of consistency and knowledge grounds, susceptibility to relativism, illusory simplicity, denial to absolutes, ethical differences are some of the criticism made on post-structuralism. Careful comparative analysis of structuralism and post-structuralism would reveal that both show relevance to anthropology of food and its relativity to cultural aspects of different regions and nations. However, as compared to structuralism, post-structuralism is a relatively flexible approach that allows presence of different norms and values, creating a network of peripheral traditions and major rituals resulting in dependencies on each other. In a true sense, post-structuralism recognizes structuralism and its fixed doctrines however it introduces an element of human unpredictability in it that makes this model relatively more acceptable. Additionally, it accepts the presence of discourse in history of various cultures and welcomes the possibility of cultural invasion in historical events. While comparing the dietary rituals, post-structuralism offers a flexible and more acceptable approach. References Barthes, R., 1993. Mythologies. London: Vintage.  Carroll, M., 1978. The Savage Bind: Levi Strauss Myth analysis and Anglophone Social Science. The Pacific sociological Review, 21(4). Douglas, M., 1972. Deciphering a meal. Available at: http://etnologija.etnoinfolab.org/dokumenti/82/2/2009/douglas_1520.pdf [Accessed 2 January 2013] Douglas, M., 1966. Purity and Danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo, London: Routledge. Levi-Strauss, C., 1970. The Raw and the Cooked: Introduction to a Science of Mythology, London: Jonathan Cape. Levi-Strauss, C., 1966. The culinary triangle. Partisan Review, 33, pp.586-95.  Mukhopadhyay, B., 2004. 'Between Elite Hysteria and Subaltern Carnivalesque: The Politics of Street food in the City of Calcutta', South Asia Research, 24(1), pp.37-50. Perez, E., 2011.Cooking for the Gods: sensuous ethnography, sensory knowledge and the kitchen in Lumaci tradition. In Religion, 41(4), pp. 665-683. Wilk R.,1999. ‘ Real Belizean Food": Building Local Identity in the Transnational Caribbean’. American Anthropologist, 101(2), pp.244–255.  Read More