| RELIGIOUS RITES |
|
| 4 THE CONCEPT AND FORMS OF RITUAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like all other biologically and
physically necessary things and acts, food
and eating are always surrounded by social regulations that prescribe what may
or may not be ingested under particular social conditions. These prescriptions
and proscriptions are sometimes religious; often they are secular; frequently,
they are both. This section surveys the variety of laws and customs pertaining
to food materials and the art of eating in human societies from earliest times
to the present. It will be seen that behaviour in respect to food--whether
religious, secular, or both--is institutionalized behaviour and is not separate
or apart from organizations of social relations. |
|
|
By an institution is meant here a stable
grouping of persons whose activities are designed to meet specific challenges or
problems, whose behaviour is governed by implicit or explicit rules and
expectations of each other and who regularly use special paraphernalia and
symbols in these activities. Social
institutions are the frames within which man spends every living moment.
This survey explores the institutional contexts in which dietary laws and food
customs are cast in different societies; the attempt will also be made to show
that customs surrounding food are among the principal means by which human
groups maintain their distinctiveness and help provide their members with a
sense of identity. |
|
|
Other points of view about food customs
cover a wide range. What may be labelled an ecological approach suggests that
food taboos among a group's
members prevent over-utilization of particular foods to maintain a stable
equilibrium in the habitat. Recently, investigators of such customs have been
exploring the hypothesis that they provide an adaptive distribution of protein
and other nutrients so that these may be evenly distributed in a group over a
long period instead of being consumed at one time of the year. The ecological
approach also suggests that many food taboos are directed against women to
maintain a low population level; this seems to be an adaptive necessity in
groups at the lowest technological levels, in which there is a precarious
balance between population and available resources. |
|
|
There are also psychological approaches
to food customs. Psychoanalytic writers speculate that food symbolizes sexuality
or identity because it is the first mode of contact between an infant and its
mother. This point of view is most clearly exemplified in ideas that attitudes
toward food, established early in life, tend to shape attitudes toward money and
other forms of wealth and retentiveness or generosity. According to Claude
Lévi-Strauss, a French anthropologist, the categories represented
in food taboos enable people to order their perceptions of the world in
accordance with the principle of polarities that govern the structure of the
mind. Thus, they aid in maintaining such dichotomies as those between nature and
culture or between man and animal. |
|
|
|
|
|
There are no universal food customs or
dietary laws. Nor are food customs and dietary laws confined to either
preliterate ("primitive") or advanced cultures; such regulations are
found at all stages of development. Nevertheless, different types of regulations
in respect to food are characteristic of groups at different levels of cultural
or socio-technological development. |
|
|
Each society has attached symbolic value
to different foods. These symbolizations define what may or may not be eaten and
what is desirable to eat at different times and in different places. In most
cases, such cultural values bear little relationship to nutritive factors. As a
result, they often seem difficult to explain. Moreover, dietary customs and laws
are resistant to rational argument and change. For example, experts from health
and nutritional agencies find it difficult to persuade mothers to give cow's
milk to children in societies in which it is looked upon as undesirable. Such
customs and laws also prevent people from adopting alternative foods during
periods of shortage. During and after World War II, some Indians
refused to eat Western wheat and rioted and died rather than accept it. (see
also religious
symbolism) |
|
|
|
|
|
Cutting across dietary laws and customs
is the more general association of food and drink with those social interactions
that are considered important by the group. In many societies the phrase
"We eat together" is used by a man to describe his friendly
relationship with another from a distant village, suggesting that even though
they are not neighbours or kinsmen they trust one another and refrain from
practicing sorcery against each other. Among the Nyakyusa of Tanzania, "for
conversation to flow merrily and discussion to be profound, there must be . . .
'the wherewithal for good fellowship,' that is, food and drink--and very great
stress is laid on sharing these." In Old
Testament times, almost every pact, or covenant, was sealed with a common
meal; eating together made the parties as though members of the same family or
clan. Conversely, refusal to eat with someone was a mark of anger and a symbol
of ruptured fellowship. Eating salt with one's companions meant that one was
bound to them in loyalty; references to this are found in the New
Testament. |
|
|
Such sentiments, however, are not
confined to tribal or ancient cultures. In Israeli kibbutzim
(communal settlements), the communal dining room is a keystone institution, and
commensality is one of the hallmarks of kibbutz life. The decline of communal
eating and the increasing frequency of refrigerators, cooking paraphernalia, and
private dining in kibbutz homes is regarded by some observers as a sign of the
imminent demise of kibbutzim. In many U.S. communes there is a single facility
for cooking and dining. Dinners must be taken communally;
private dining is taken as a signal that one is ready to leave the group. |
|
|
The provision of food and drink, if not
actual feasting, is characteristic of rites
of passage--i.e., rites marking events such as birth, initiation ceremonies,
marriage, and death--in almost all traditional cultures and in some modern
nontraditional groups as well. The reason for this is that these events are
regarded as being of importance not only to the individual and his family but
also to the group as a whole because each event bears in one way or other on the
group's continuity. (see also initiation
rite) |
|
|
Furthermore, food and drink are almost
universally associated with hospitality. In most cultures, there are explicit or
implicit rules that food or drink be offered to guests, and there are usually
standards prescribing which foods and drinks are appropriate. Reciprocally,
these sets of rules also assert that guests are obligated to accept proffered
food and drink and that failure to do so is insulting. In many societies, there
are prescribed ritual exchanges of food when friends meet. Food is thus one of
the most widespread material expressions of social relationships in human
society. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is extraordinarily rare for cultures
to condone gluttony, the conventional exaggerations of the eating behaviour of
the ancient Roman elite notwithstanding. Most people cannot afford to be
gluttons. There are more examples of the other extreme, asceticism, though these
too are infrequent. |
|
|
A clear-cut example of gastronomic
asceticism is provided by Indians of the U.S.
Northeast, such as the Micmac, Montagnais, and Ojibwa. It was an ideal among
them to eat sparingly. Preparation for this attitude began in early childhood
with short fasts of a day or two, culminating in the puberty fast; the latter
lasted about 10 days, during which time the child was isolated in a tiny wigwam
without food or water. The puberty fast also had important religious
significance. During the fast, the child had to supplicate the deities for a
vision (easily induced under such conditions), which came in the form of a
supernatural figure, usually in animal shape; this was to become his guardian
spirit. (see also fasting) |
|
|
Rules pertaining to drink are even more
varied. Tribal groups throughout the world (except in Oceania and most of North
America) knew alcohol; in each case, this led to the adoption of rules
concerning its use. |
|
|
Although a high intake of alcohol always
has physiological effects, people's comportment is determined more by what their
society tells them is the way to behave when consuming alcohol than by its toxic
effects. In many societies, drinking is an established part of the total round
of social activities. Robert McC. Netting, a U.S. anthropologist,
observed that the Kofyar of northern Nigeria "make, drink, talk, and think
about beer." All social relations among them are accompanied by its
consumption, and fines are levied in beer payments. Ostracism takes the form of
exclusion from beer drinking; they "certainly believe that man's way to god
is with beer in hand." Their beer, however, is weak in alcoholic content
and is quite nutritious, and they rarely consume European beer and never
distilled liquor. Among Central and South American peasants, men are allowed or
required to drink themselves into a state of stupefaction during religious
celebrations (fiestas); though this drinking is frequent and heavy, it does not
appear to result in addiction. Representative of the other extreme are the Hopi
and other Indian tribes of the U.S. Southwest who have banned all alcoholic
beverages (and almost all narcotics), asserting that these substances threaten
their way of life. (see also alcohol
consumption , American Indian) |
|
|
Most cultures, however, prescribe
moderation in drinking. In ancient Mesopotamia,
beer played an important role in temple services and in the economy; but the code
of Hammurabi--the monument of law named after the king of
Babylon--strictly regulated tavern keepers and servants (these places were
supposed to be avoided by the social elite). Similar patterns obtained in
ancient Egypt. The ancient Greeks sought to attribute their intellectual and
material culture to the introduction of vine and olive growing. The use of wine
was quite general in biblical times; it belonged to the category of
indispensable provisions listed in the Old Testament in the Book of Judges
(chapter 13) and the First Book of Samuel (chapters 16 and 25). Wine was no less
important in New Testament times; in Revelation to John (chapter 6) it is said
that only wine and oil are to be protected from the apocalyptic famine. Wine is
also frequently used in biblical imagery. In both Testaments, however, wine is
both praised and condemned. (see also
Greece, ancient) |
|
|
|
|
|
The most widespread symbolic use of food
is in connection with religious behaviour. In fact, eating and drinking are
minimal elements in most religious behaviour and experience, whether in eating, sacrifice,
or communion. According to many anthropologists, there are essentially two
reasons for this. First, religion is one of the systems of thought and action by
which the members of a group express their cohesiveness and identity. Implicitly
or explicitly, the members of every cultural group assert that its unity and
distinctiveness derive from the deity or deities associated with it. Religion is
a tie that binds. But no symbolic activity in human society stands alone and
without material representation. Like all other symbolizations of institutional
relationships, those of religion must also have substantial form. Food and
drink--and their ingestion--are among the most important substances of religion. |
|
|
The second reason, closely related to
the foregoing, is that one element of dogma in every religion is the definition
of polluting, or supernaturally dangerous, objects or personal states. Just as
there is no objective or scientific connection between the nutritive qualities
of different foods and the symbolic values attached to them, there is no
objective relationship between an object or a personal state and its definition
as polluting. Cultures vary in the objects and states that are defined as
defiling, such as saliva, sneezing, menstruation, killing an enemy in warfare, a
corpse, parturition, but cutting across these is the belief held in every
religion that there are foods and drinks that are polluting or defiling. (see
also pollution) |
|
|
As Mary
Douglas, a British anthropologist, has suggested in her analysis of the
religiously sanctioned food taboos in Leviticus (chapter 11) and Deuteronomy
(chapter 14), Purity
and Dangerconcepts
of pollution and defilement are among the means used by preliterate or tribal
societies to maintain their separateness, boundedness, and exclusivity; thus,
these concepts and rules contribute strongly to the sense of identity--the
social badges--that people derive from participation in the institutions of
their firmly bounded or encapsulated groups. More concretely, when a person
proclaims his affiliation with and allegiance to a particular group that he
regards as his self-contained universe and beyond whose margins he sees danger,
threat, and alienation, he simultaneously invokes--explicitly or implicitly--the
many badges of his social identity; these include the totem (i.e.,
the emblem of a family or clan) that he may not eat, the foods that are
regarded as defiling, the drinks that he must avoid, the sacred meals in which
he participates, and the other rituals associated with his exclusive group. He
thereby asserts his separateness from people in all other groups--usually
referred to in pejorative terms--and his identification with the members of his
own group. Food customs are not always formalized, however; they are sometimes
cast in terms of preference. Americans, for example, unless they are members of
ethnic or religious groups that have their own dietary laws, often shun the
"exotic" foods of alien cultures; but these avoidances are not phrased
in religious or other institutional terms. |
|
|
|
|
|
Although there are dietary laws and
customs in all societies, groups differ in this regard in two important ways: in
the range or extent of foods that are defined as polluting or tabooed and in
conceptualizations of the consequences resulting from violations of these laws
and customs. In comparing societies, however, it must be remembered that the
range of variability among them is so great that it would be necessary to list
hundreds of societies and their customs to get a complete and detailed picture
of their food customs and laws. For purposes of both economy and conceptual
coherence it is necessary to group societies into levels, or stages, of social
and technological development and to compare these; in this approach, individual
societies are regarded as special or particular exemplary cases of the general
class of the level of development in which the groups are found or classed. |
|
|
|
|
|
The earliest cultural level that
anthropologists know about is generally referred to as hunting-gathering.
Hunter-gatherers are always nomadic, and they live in a variety of environments.
Some, as in sub-Saharan Africa and India, are beneficent environments; others,
such as those of the Arctic or North American deserts, are harsh and dangerous.
Encampments of hunter-gatherers are usually small (generally fewer than 60
persons) and are constantly splitting up and recombining. An important rule
among almost all hunter-gatherers is that every person physically present in a
camp is automatically entitled to an equal share of meat brought into the group
whether or not he has participated in the hunt; this rule does not usually
extend to vegetables or fruits and nuts. (see also
hunting and gathering society,
American Indian) |
|
|
It may be thought that hunter-gatherers
who live in habitats of scarcity and in which hunting is dangerous would try to
make maximum use of all potentially available food; they are, however, also
characterized by customs and beliefs that proscribe certain foods or at least
limit their consumption. Many Alaskan Eskimo
groups, for instance, make a sharp distinction between land and sea products;
the Eskimo believe that products of the two spheres should be kept separate,
maintaining that land and sea animals are repulsive to each other and should not
be brought together. Thus, for example, before hunting caribou (a spring
activity), a man must clean his body of all the seal grease that has accumulated
during the winter; similarly, before whaling in April, the individual's body
must be washed to get rid of the scent of caribou. Weapons used for hunting
caribou should not be used at sea; implements used at sea, however, may be used
to hunt caribou. If these rules are violated, the hunter or whaler will be
unsuccessful in his food quest; the consequences of this, of course, can be
dire. (see also purification rite) |
|
|
In addition, the Eskimo observe food
taboos in connection with critical periods of the individual's life and
development. Among the most outstanding of these are the food taboos that a
woman is subject to for four or five days after giving birth. She may not eat
raw meat or blood and is restricted to those foods that are believed to have
beneficial effects on the child. For example, it is felt that she should eat
ducks' wings to make her child a good runner or paddler. Because the Eskimo are
often beset by food shortages, they sometimes have to eat forbidden foods. In
such cases, there are several things that a person can do to neutralize the
taboo. He first rubs the forbidden food over his body and then hangs the meat
outside and allows it to drain. Another act that is regarded as particularly
efficacious is to stuff a mitten into the collar of his parka with the hand side
facing outward; it is believed that the harmful effects of the taboo food go
into the mitten and travel away from him. (see also
women) |
|
|
There are, of course, other food
avoidances observed by the Eskimo, but these examples will suffice to illustrate
the basic principles of dietary customs and laws among hunter-gatherers. First,
the taboos are always thought to have magical consequences for the individual;
observing them will assure health and strength, violating them will result in
illness and weakness for the person or, in the case of a parturient mother, for
her child. Second, food taboos are generally associated with critical periods
during the life cycle, as in pregnancy, menses, illness, or dangerous hunts.
Third--and this is true of almost all societies, not only those of
hunter-gatherers--in every group's system of thought there are categories or
types of foods that are regarded as dangerous, defiling, or undesirable. At
first glance, these rules and customs seem arbitrary and capricious, but
evidence is accumulating that there are rational elements in them. Although it
would be difficult in the present stage of knowledge to apply this principle to
every dietary taboo or custom in every society, it seems that prohibitions are
placed on those foods that are the most difficult and dangerous to procure.
Sometimes, however, these foods are also highly prized. |
|
|
|
|
|
With the development of corporate kin
groups in social history, largely (but not exclusively) as an accompaniment of
horticultural cultivation, a significant change occurred in the role of food in
institutional life. Underlying the development of corporate kin groups was the
development of the notion of exclusive rights to territory claimed by a group of
kinsmen. This exclusive territoriality was probably designed, in large measure,
to protect investments of time and effort in particular plots. The solidarity
and sense of kin-group exclusiveness implicit in a corporate kin group grew out
of kin-group ownership of the land and the individual's reliance on
interhousehold cooperation in his productive activities. Such groups quickly
evolve insignia, rules, and symbols that represent their ideals of exclusivity
and inalienability of social relations; food plays an important role in this.
Hence, taboos are thought to have consequences for the group as a whole rather
than for the individual alone. |
|
|
Another significant accompaniment of the
development of corporate kin groups is the elaboration of initiatory rites,
which mark an individual's transition from childhood to full membership in his
community or kin group; they confer citizenship in the fullest sense of the
term. Such events are celebrated by feasts,
reciprocal exchanges of food, and food taboos, in addition to the ceremonial
rituals themselves. Preparations for these feasts sometimes occupy the group for
several months, especially when it is necessary to acquire from relatives and
friends the animals that will be slaughtered and eaten, because it is rare for
one family, or even one village, to own enough animals for a proper feast. They
lay the groundwork for one of the basic rules of the group into which the
individual is being initiated, namely, that the distribution of food (and
interhousehold cooperation in its acquisition) is one of the most significant
ways in which he and the members of the group are knit together. |
|
|
Feasting is also an integral element of
religious assemblages and ritual in these societies, as are offerings to
deities, whether spirits or ancestors. Because one of the main purposes of
religious activity is to symbolize the solidarity of the group, food is used as
a material representation of this cohesiveness. Additionally, it is believed in
almost all tribal societies, whether or not they are characterized by corporate
groupings, that all plant and animal foodstuffs are made available to man
through the beneficence of the gods. Man's relationship with the deities in
tribal societies is always, in part, an economic one involving the deities'
provision of food. A gift from the gods must be balanced by a reciprocal gift to
them from their adherents. In prayer, men thank their deities for these gifts;
in sacrifice and offerings, they offer gifts to their deities. |
|
|
|
|
|
The next major social and political
developments in human history are the appearance of institutions in which
political and economic power is exercised by a single person (or group) over
many communities. Often referred to as chiefdoms by anthropologists, this
development signalled a process evident today throughout the world, namely, the
steady growth of centralized power and authority at the expense of local and
autonomous groupings. |
|
|
Political authority in chiefdoms is
inseparable from economic power, including the right by rulers to exact tribute
and taxation. One of the principal economic activities of the heads of chiefdoms
is to stimulate the production of economic surpluses, which they then
redistribute among their subjects on different types of occasions, such as
feasts in the celebration of religious ceremonies and rites of passage of
members of chiefly families, and during periods of famine. The accumulation of
these surpluses requires conservation policies. Because techniques of food
preservation were poorly developed in preliterate chiefdoms, the heads of
chiefdoms often adopted the policy of placing taboos--often phrased in religious
terms--on different crops or areas where food could be gathered or hunted,
forbidding the consumption of such foods until the prohibitions were lifted.
These taboos, however, were not exclusively for the purpose of conservation;
they were also occasionally designed to underwrite higher standards of living
for the chiefs themselves. For instance, in some Polynesian societies, as in Samoa,
fishermen were required to obey a taboo that a portion of their catch must be
given to the chief. The penalties for violating such taboos were supernaturally
produced illness or other misfortunes. (see also wealth and income,
distribution of) |
|
|
|
|
|
As societies became increasingly
complex, heterogeneous, and divided along lines of caste, class, and ethnic
affiliation, their dietary customs became correspondingly less uniform because
they mirrored these divisions and inequalities. Although these distinctive
customs are almost always placed in the context of religious belief and
practice, according to many anthropologists, the dietary observances in everyday
behaviour are primarily shaped by economic and social considerations; moreover,
observances at the village level rarely correspond directly to formal
prescriptions and proscriptions. |
|
|
The dietary laws and customs of complex
nations and of the world's major religions, which developed as institutional
parts of complex nations, are always based on the prior assumption of social
stratification, traditional privilege, and social, familial, and moral
lines that cannot be crossed. Taboos and other regulations in connection with
food are incompatible with the idea of an open society. Nevertheless, complex
nations were characterized by caste organizations that, in almost all cases,
religion helped to legitimate. Caste
systems, in addition to their other characteristics, are supported by deeply
felt fears of pollution or contamination as a result of unguarded contact of the
more "pure" with those who are less "pure." |
|
|
Although there is no doubt that the
development of caste is linked to some form of occupational separation in a
society, which, in turn, leads to the development of ideas concerning the
separation of unclean persons from the ordinary or of the ordinary from the
superpure, there is considerable controversy over the origins of caste systems.
Regardless of the origins, however, the separation of castes is always mirrored
in rules for eating that, when breached, represent a threat to the social order
and to the individual's sense of identity. There is also a question among
scholars whether or not caste is unique to India. Nevertheless, in Japan as well
as India, eating together implies social and ritual equality, as it does in the
United States, where, unlike Japan and India, food-related caste behaviour has
not been institutionalized in religion (largely because of the U.S. history of
religious freedom, which has promoted religious diversity). In India and Japan a
person who cooks for another and serves his food must be equal or superior in
rank to the recipient of the food; only in this way can the latter avoid
pollution. By contrast, in the caste system of the United States before the
civil-rights movement, a black might cook and serve food to, but not eat with,
whites. Violation of these eating taboos constitutes defiance of caste, and
observance of the etiquette is evidence of the acceptance of caste. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the best known illustration of
the idea that the dietary laws and customs of a complex nation and its religion
are based on the prior assumption of social stratification or, at least, of a
sense of separateness, is provided by Judaism as spelled out in the Mosaic
Law in the Old Testament books of Leviticus (chapter 11) and Deuteronomy
(chapter 14). Prohibited foods may not be consumed in any form: all animals--and
the products of animals--that do not chew the cud and do not have cloven hoofs (e.g.,
pigs, horses); fish without fins and scales; the blood of any animal;
shellfish (e.g., clams, oysters, shrimp, crabs) and all other living creatures
that creep; and those fowl enumerated in the Bible (e.g., vultures, hawks, owls, herons). All foods outside these
categories may be eaten. (see also
Hebraic law, kosher) |
|
|
|
|
|
Mary
Douglas has offered probably the most cogent and
widely accepted interpretation of these laws in her book Purity
and DangerShe
suggests that these notions of defilement are rules of separation; they
symbolize and help maintain the biblical notion of the separateness of the
Hebrews from other societies. A central element in her interpretation is that
each of the injunctions is prefaced by the command to be holy and that it is the
distinction between holiness and abomination that enables these restrictions to
make sense. "Holiness means keeping distinct the categories of creation. It
therefore involves correct definition, discrimination, and order." The
Mosaic dietary laws exemplify holiness in this sense. The ancient Hebrews were
pastoralists, and cloven-hoofed and cud-chewing hoofed animals are proper food
for such people; hence, Douglas maintains, they became part of the social order
and were domesticated as slaves. Pigs and camels do not meet the criteria of
animals that are fit for pastoralists. As a result, they are excluded from the
realm of propriety. Douglas notes that there is remarkable consistency in Mosaic
dietary laws. The Bible "allots to each element its proper kind of animal
life. In the firmament two-legged fowls fly with wings. In the water scaly fish
swim with fins. On the earth four-legged animals hop, jump, or walk. Any class
of creatures which is not equipped for the right kind of locomotion in its
element is contrary to holiness." People who eat food that is "out of
place," as it were, such as four-footed creatures that fly, are themselves
unclean and are prohibited from approaching the Temple. |
|
|
There is, however, another dimension to
Old Testament food customs. In addition to expressing their separateness as a
nation--membership in which was ascribed by birthright--Israelite food customs
also mirrored their internal divisions, which were castelike and were inherited.
Though the rules of separation referred primarily to the priests, they also
affected the rest of the population. The priest's inherent separateness from
ordinary men was symbolized by the prescription that he must avoid uncleanness
more than anyone else. He must not drink wine or strong drink, and he must wash
his hands and feet before the Temple service. Explicit in Old Testament
prescriptions is that an offering sanctifies anyone who touches it; therefore,
often the priests alone were permitted to consume it. (see also
priesthood) |
|
|
These rules symbolizing the priestly
group's castelike separateness also validated a system of taxation benefitting
them, couched in terms of offerings, sacrifice, first-fruit ceremonies, and
tithes. The religious rationalization of taxation is illustrated in the Old
Testament by the first-fruits ceremony. Fruit trees were said to live their own
life, and they were to remain untrimmed for three years after they were planted.
But their fruits could not be enjoyed immediately: God must be given his share
in the first-fruit ceremonies. These first fruits represent the whole, and the
entire power of the harvest--which is God's--is concentrated in them. Sacrifice
is centred around the idea of the first-fruits offering. Its rationalization was
that everything belonged to God; the central point in the sacrifice is the
sanctification of the offering, surrendering it to God. Its most immediate
purpose was to serve as a form of taxation to the priests; only they were
considered holy enough to take possession of it. (see also
agriculture) |
|
|
|
|
|
After the exile of the Jews from
Palestine following the conquest by Rome in the 1st century AD, a remarkable
elaboration in their dietary laws occurred, probably as a result of the Jews'
attempts to maintain their separateness from nations into whose midst they were
thrust. Many customs evolved that have taken on the force of law for those Jews
who have sought to maintain a traditional way of life. For example, the Bible
does not prescribe ritual slaughter of animals, yet this practice has taken on
the same compulsion as the taboo on pigs and camels; a permitted food (e.g.,
cattle, chicken) that has not been ritually slaughtered is now regarded to
be as defiling as pork. Similarly, one of the hallmarks of the Passover
holiday in Judaism is the eschewal of all foods containing leaven, the
consumption only of foods that have been designated as "kosher for
Passover," and the use of special sets of utensils that have not been used
during the rest of the year. But these, too, are postbiblical customs that have
been given the force of law; the Bible prescribes nothing more than eating
unleavened bread during the Passover season. |
|
|
Further elaborations on the Mosaic Law
in regard to food can be observed in the dietary customs of certain groups of
modern Jews in their daily lives. In the pre-World War II eastern European
Jewish community (or shtetl),
behaviour in regard to food not only included the biblical prescriptions and
proscriptions but, in many ways, resembled the behaviour of people in the
corporate communities of tribal societies. The major life crises were celebrated
by feasts or other uses of food. Wine and other foods were integral parts of
circumcision ceremonies and of a boys' attainment of ritual majority (Bar
Mitzwa). Weddings were also celebrated with huge feasts that required weeks, if
not months, of preparation, and guests were seated at the wedding feast
according to their social rank. Following the wedding celebration, grain was
sprinkled on the couple's heads, apparently to promote fertility. Those who
visited mourners were to eat hardboiled eggs or other circular food because
roundness symbolizes mourning. |
|
|
Aside from the daily requirements of
following the Mosaic dietary laws, which apply to everyone, the heaviest burden
for maintaining these observances falls on the women;
their ritual and secular statuses are always inferior to the men's. It is the
task of the housewife to be sure that meat and dairy foods are not mixed, that
ritually slaughtered meat is not blemished, and that cooking equipment and
dishes and utensils for meat and dairy are rigidly separated. The only personal
states of ritual pollution relating to food in shtetl
culture also refer only to women. For instance, a woman who has not been
ritually cleansed after her menses must not make or touch pickles, wine, or beet
soup. If she violates this customary rule, it is believed that these foods will
spoil. |
|
|
A further illustration of the idea that
dietary rules and customs are inextricably associated with the maintenance of
group separateness is provided by one sect of Jews in the United States, those
who refer to themselves as Hasidim (Pious Ones). These people live in
self-contained enclaves; most of them are immigrants from the shtetl.
In addition to preserving their distinctiveness from surrounding non-Jewish
communities, they are equally devoted to preserving their distinctiveness vis-à-vis
other Jews; no matter what their degrees of piety, the latter are regarded by Hasidim
as nonreligious. (see also Hasidism) |
|
|
This is clearly reflected in their
behaviour in regard to food. The Hasidim assert that the larger Jewish
community (and its rabbis) do not meet Hasidic standards and
qualifications in the manufacture, preparation, handling, and sale of food; even
non-Hasidic ritual slaughterers are classed with assimilated Jews who do
not observe dietary laws at all. Hence, their food products are regarded as
forbidden, and Hasidim consider only their own products as permissible
for consumption. Even neutral foods, such as vegetables, are defined as
nonkosher if handled by a non-Hasid since there is always the suspicion
that it may come into contact with nonkosher--and thus contaminating--matter.
Thus, for instance, only milk that they designate as "Jewish" can be
used; only noodles prepared by someone from the Hasidic community may be
consumed because there is the suspicion that eggs with a drop of blood (which
are forbidden) may have been used in the noodles' preparation; only approved
sugar may be used; and even paper bags that hold food come under these
restrictions because only a member of the community is above the suspicion that
forbidden matter has been included in the glue that is used in manufacturing the
bags. |
|
|
The extremity of Hasidic
strictures with regard to food has to be viewed in the context of their setting
in the United States and not only in the light of their Jewish sources. The Hasidim
regard the growing secularization of U.S. life as the greatest threat to the
perpetuation of the ancient tradition of Judaism; their extremism is the wall
they have erected to stave off this danger of threatened assimilation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Until relatively recently, the
separatism of U.S. Negroes was underwritten by an intricate combination of law
and custom. The attempt of the United States government to achieve an
integration of blacks and whites in daily social, economic, and political life
was viewed by some Negroes as a threat to their social identity. Ideologies
designed to legitimate the maintenance of their social identity began to
develop, especially after the desegregation decision of the Supreme Court in
1954, the most notable of which is known as the Nation of Islam (the Black
Muslims). In their attempt to separate themselves from the larger aggregate of
U.S. Negroes, as well as from the rest of U.S. society, the Black Muslims sought
to develop a separate social identity by adopting a set of symbols to which they
attached particular meanings. A person's membership in the group not only
depended on assuming a Muslim name but also on eating certain foods and avoiding
others, including alcohol and tobacco. Forbidden foods include meats and fish
proscribed by the Bible and Qur`an and also more than a dozen vegetables
that were staples in the slave diet. |
|
|
|
|
|
Islamic dietary laws--as spelled
out in the Qur`an--also
illustrate their relationship to the establishment of a sense of social identity
and separateness. Muhammad,
the founder of Islam, was among other things a political leader who
welded a nation out of the mutually warring tribes of Arabia. His religious
ideology legitimated the unification of these autonomous tribes and his own
paramount rule over them. The main religious tenets of Islam were derived
from Judaism and early Christianity, and it is clear from the Qur`an that
Islam was intended to encompass all aspects of life. |
|
|
Muhammad apparently knew more
about Judaism than about Christianity, and many of his strictures in the Qur`an
were explicit in establishing distinctions between Arabs and Jews. This is
evident in his dietary regulations, which borrow heavily from Mosaic Law.
Specifically, Muhammad proscribed for Muslims the flesh of animals that
are found dead, blood, swine's flesh, and food that had been offered or
sacrificed to idols. The most radical departure of Qur`anic from Mosaic
dietary laws was in connection with intoxicating beverages. Though Jews frown
upon alcoholic beverages, they do not forbid them, and wine is an important
element in many rituals and feasts; Muhammad, however, absolutely forbade
any such beverages. |
|
|
Specific departures from Mosaic and
Christian dietary rules notwithstanding, Islam represents a more
fundamental removal from all other major religions: what is polluting,
forbidden, and enjoined for one person in Islam applies equally to all.
Islam's sharpest contrast in this regard is to the religions of India.
This difference is highlighted by the fact that Muslims of all social statuses
in an Indian village eat freely with each other, worship in the same mosques,
and participate in ceremonies together. |
|
|
|
|
|
Christianity did not develop elaborate
dietary rules and customs. This probably grew out of the controversy between the
Judaizing and Hellenizing branches of the church during the earliest years of
Christianity over whether or not to observe Mosaic food laws. The Council of
Jerusalem settled on the formula that meat offered to idols, blood, and things
strangled must be abstained from, thus freeing the Gentiles in all other
respects from the law. The apostle Paul's position on the matter, however, was
that "nothing is unclean in itself"; and it was thus that the New
Testament repudiated the entire body of laws of purity, especially those
pertaining to food. Jesus is said to have declared that defilement could not be
caused by any external agent. The apostle Peter's vision of the sheet lowered
from heaven and containing all types of animals that the divine voice pronounced
clean and fit for food provided the church with a mandate to abandon the Old
Testament food laws. |
|
|
Food, however, in terms of the Last
Supper and the Eucharist,
plays an important role in Christianity. As told by the early Christians, Jesus
foresaw his death and performed a simple ceremony during a last meal to bring
home the significance of his death to the Twelve: he broke a loaf into pieces
and gave it to them saying, "Take this, it is my body." After they had
eaten, he took the cup of wine and said, "This is my blood." |
|
|
During the 1st century AD, Christian
communities developed into self-contained units with an organized life of their
own. When they were beginning to see themselves as a church, they held two
separate kinds of services: (1) meetings on the model of the synagogue that were
open to inquirers and believers and consisted of readings from the Jewish
scriptures and (2) agapeor "love feasts," for believers only. The latter was an evening
meal in which the participants shared and during which a brief ceremony,
recalling the Last Supper, commemorated the Crucifixion. This was also a
thanksgiving ceremony; the Greek name for it was eucharist, meaning "the giving of thanks." This common
meal gradually became impracticable as the Christian communities grew larger,
and the Lord's Supper was thereafter observed at the conclusion of the public
portion of the scripture service; the unbaptized withdrew so that the baptized
could celebrate together. |
|
|
Thus, from the very inception of
Christianity, food and beverage has symbolized that religious experience is not
purely personal but also communal. Moreover, differences in interpretation of
the Lord's Supper have provided some of the contrasts among the major Christian
churches. The opposing views of Roman Catholics and Protestants over whether the
Eucharist bread is changed in substance or is a symbol of the flesh of Christ is
an example of the role of food as a representation of religious differences
within Christianity. (see also communal
meal, religious symbolism) |
|
|
The rituals of the Eucharist provide the
clearest examples in the Christian churches or confessions of the relationship
between social stratification and food behaviour. Christianity, unlike Judaism
or Hinduism and other Asian religions, was never tied to a caste system;
correspondingly, it repudiated the entire body of purity-pollution laws of the
Old Testament. Christianity was, however, part of the early European social
system that was based on clear-cut separations of social classes. Religious food
customs in Christianity, most notably in the Eucharist, reflect this. |
|
|
The first Christian churches developed
alongside the most rigid social stratification in European history, with
elaborate notions of class authority and superiority and subordination. The
separation of those in authority from the masses of ordinary people is mirrored
in the Roman eucharistic ritual in which the sacrament's celebrant--the
officiating priest--partook of the bread and wine first and then served only the
bread to those of the faithful who wished it. |
|
|
With the Reformation during the 16th
century, which was (among other things) an overthrow of the traditional social
order, a slight but important change in the eucharistic ritual was introduced,
reflecting the weakening--but not the abandonment--of stratification and its
attendant hierarchies of authority. In many Protestant confessions the
officiating minister also partook of the bread and wine first, then served it to
the congregation. In the Presbyterian ritual, the minister partook first and
then served it to the elders who then served the people. Although this continued
to reflect a system of stratification, it was a radical departure from the Roman
rule that only the officiating priest could serve everyone. These rules for both
Roman Catholics and Protestants
are gradually changing in the 20th century. (see also priesthood) |
|
|
Until relatively recently, the most
notable dietary law in Christianity was the Roman Catholic prescription to
abstain from eating meat on Friday. This ban was lifted as part of the
modernization of Roman Catholicism that was begun during the reign of Pope John
XXIII. In Roman Catholic abstinence meat is forbidden, but there is no
restriction on the amount of food eaten; fasting
means that the quantity of food is also restricted. Historically, there have
been several categories of fasts. The 40 days of Lent
have traditionally been a period of mortification, including practices of fast
and abstinence; the rules, however, have been greatly modified in recent years.
Ember Days--a Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday at each of the four seasons--seem
to be survivals of full weekly fasts formerly practiced four times a year.
Vigils are single fast days that have been observed before certain feast days
and other festivals. Rogation Days
are the three days before Ascension Day and are marked by a fast preparatory to
that festival; they seem to have been introduced after an earthquake about 470
as penitential rogations, or processions, for supplication. (see also
Ember Day and Ember Week) |
|
|
Also important in the Christian complex
of fasting is that associated with monastic life. Mortification is seen as
essential to the practice of asceticism, and, in many rules of monastic life,
fasting is regarded as one of the most efficient exercises of mortification.
(see also monasticism) |
|
|
|
|
|
It is in the religions of India
that one can most clearly observe the principles outlined above concerning the
relationship between dietary laws and customs and the existence of social
stratification, traditional privilege, and social, familial, and moral lines
that cannot be crossed. Hinduism
provides the best example, although the same principles also obtain in the
religions of Jainism and Sikhism. |
|
|
Food observances help to define caste
ranking: Brahmins are the
highest caste because they eat only those foods prepared in the finest manner (pakka);
everyone else takes inferior (kacca)
food. Pakka food is the only kind that can be offered in feasts to gods,
to guests of high status, and to persons who provide honorific services. Food is
regarded as pakka if it contains ghee
(clarified butter), which is a very costly fat and which is believed to promote
health and virility. Kacca is defined
as inferior because it contains no ghee; it is used as ordinary family fare or
as daily payment for servants and artisans. When food serves as payment for
services (e.g., barbering), the
quality of the food depends on the relative ranks of the parties to the
transaction; the person making the payment gives inferior food, such as coarser
bread, to a lower ranking person performing the service. Performance of a
service denotes that a person is ready to accept some kind of food, and giving
food denotes an expectation that a service will be performed. Members of
subordinate castes pick up the dirty plates of members of superior castes, as at
village feasts. Food left on plates after eating is defined as garbage (jutha);
it is felt to have been polluted by the eater's saliva. This garbage may be
handled in the family by a person whose status is lower than the eater's, such
as a wife. Such food may be fed to domestic animals; among humans outside the
family it can only be given to members of the lowest castes, such as sweepers.
The highest Brahmins do not accept any cooked food from members of any other
caste, but uncooked food may be received from or handled by members of any
caste. Nor will such Brahmins accept water across caste lines. Cow's milk is
ritually pure and cannot be defiled, but a Brahmin will not accept milk from an
untouchable--a member of the lowest caste groups--lest it has been diluted with
water. |
|
|
Water
is easily defiled, but, if it is running in a stream or standing in a reservoir,
it is not polluted even by an untouchable in it. Water in a well or container,
however, is defiled by direct or indirect contact with a person of low caste.
Thus, a ritually observant Brahmin will not allow a low-caste person to draw
water from his well, although this rule is lapsing, possibly because of the
introduction of plumbing and the removal of water from the list of scarce
resources. |
|
|
In the general Hindu system of
purity-pollution, meats are graded as to their relative amount of pollution.
Eggs are the least and beef the most defiling; but the highest caste Brahmins
avoid all meat products absolutely. Also, certain strong foods (e.g.,
onions and garlic) are thought to be inappropriate to Brahminical status.
Alcohol too is prohibited; it is not considered polluting in itself, but the
prohibition seems related to the Brahminical value of self-control. Alcohol's
manufacture and trade is confined to members of lower castes. |
|
|
People who eat at each other's feasts
hold equal rank. People who eat at every house in a village occupy a very low
status, and refusal to take food from another constitutes a claim to higher
caste rank. More generally, givers of food outrank receivers. This, however, is
a definition of collective, not of individual, rank. If a member of one caste
gives food to a member of a second, all members of the first caste are regarded
as higher than a third, even if there is no direct transaction between the first
and third castes. Thus, the behaviour of every person in a village has
consequences for the entire village. |
|
|
In actual practice, however, there is
not an automatic enactment of these formal rules in village life; instead, they
vary considerably according to local conditions. For instance, one of the formal
rules of Hindu religious caste organization is that vegetarians outrank meat
eaters, because contact with killed animals is regarded as polluting.
Nevertheless, McKim Marriott, a U.S. anthropologist who has investigated village
caste relationships, has found instances in which meat eaters outrank
vegetarians. He concludes from his observations that it is caste rank--mostly in
terms of the kinds of work that people in different castes do--that determines
purity and pollution. In daily social relations this sometimes means that a
caste of sufficiently high status may not be demeaned by receiving food from a
lower caste if the latter is not too far below and if the proper food and
vessels are used. |
|
|
Status is rarely immutable over long
stretches of time. In most societies, people who occupy low status try to
exploit every opportunity to improve their position, and, Marriott found, Indian
villagers are no exception. Because food in this culture is one of the principal
indices of rank, it is used as a pawn in manoeuvres for social mobility.
Specifically, members of a low caste will try to gain dominance over persons in
another by feeding them, although the latter cannot be too far above the
upwardly mobile group. There is no direct way of forcing a higher group to
accept food; one of the techniques most often used is for the lower caste to
threaten to withhold services unless a heretofore slightly higher caste receives
food from the former. Such mobility, as noted earlier, affects not only the two
castes concerned but also all other groups in the village, and the manoeuvring
involves everyone in the community. (see also social status) |
|
|
Marriott's emphasis on occupation (and,
therefore, rank) as the determinant of food customs has not been accepted by all
students of Indian society. He continues to leave some aspects of caste
behaviour unexplained, such as the extreme statuses of Brahmins and
untouchables, to say nothing of the existence of the total caste system itself
and the mechanisms by which it is maintained. These problems have yet to be
worked out. In any case, there can be no doubt that concepts of pollution and
purity in regard to food in India, as everywhere else, are governed by a
systematic set of rules analogous to a language's grammar and that applications
of the rules are logical and consistent within the grammatical framework.
Observations of daily village life do not contradict this concept of the
codification of food rules; they only suggest that earlier "grammars"
may have been too narrowly conceived. |
|
|
|
|
|
Buddhism is, perhaps, the most difficult
religion to discuss in terms of dietary laws and customs because it does not
have any unity; its tradition has a complex history, and individual believers
are characterized by varied faiths. Though Buddhism originated in India, it also
diffused to--and had a great impact on--Ceylon, Tibet, China, and Japan. In each
case, it was reshaped to conform with local conditions, especially those of
social stratification. For example, most of the countries of Southeast Asia have
caste systems in which there are outcastes or untouchables; Buddhism has been
important in supporting such systems. Specifically, untouchability and the
occupation of butchering animals tend to go together both in Buddhism and in
many of the countries of Southeast Asia. But Burma,
where Buddhism is the dominant religion, is an exception; having no caste
system, Burmese society has not made butchering a basis of untouchability. |
|
|
Buddhism developed its own class
distinctions, most notably between the monastic elite and the lay devotees. The
social and political ethic of the laity was based on a merit-making ethic that
was geared primarily to the urban mercantile and artisan classes. Thus, Buddhism
claimed from its inception to be a Middle View (Madhymika), opposed
equally to the extremes of sensuousness and indulgence and of
self-mortification. This Middle View was exemplified in the "five
precepts": no killing, stealing, lying, adultery, or drinking of alcoholic
beverages. These precepts were translated into an ethic of moderation in diet. A
person must allay his hunger so that he may practice the religious life.
Buddhism holds that man is weak and helpless by himself; thus it sees the
purpose of religious action as bringing a return from the deities. Deriving from
this is the practice of holding ritual vegetarian feasts for large numbers of
monks, a noble patron, or for the benefit of a departed soul to promote health
and longevity. Another Buddhist custom is the issuing of a prohibition against
killing animals to end a drought or to speed the recovery of a sick emperor.
According to the Vedic treatise the Shatapatha
Brahmanafood, when enclosed in the body, is linked to the body by means of
the vital airs. The essence of food is invisible. Food is the highest of all
things that can be swallowed, and food and breath are both gods. (see also
Madhyamika) |
|
|
The prohibition of killing animals is
more stringent in Buddhism than the injunction against eating them. Buddhism
allows pure flesh to be eaten if it has not been procured for eating purposes or
if the eater has not supposed it to be. The sin is upon the slayer, not the
eater. This notion has been used in India and Japan to justify the outcasting or
untouchability of butchers. |
|
|
|
|
|
China is an example of the proposition
offered above that religion alone does not give rise to eating rules; instead,
religion serves to legitimate customary patterns of behaviour and social
relations that emerge out of economic (especially occupational) and political
relationships. Although China was under strong Buddhist influence, the Chinese
never developed the institution of untouchability or outcaste. Indeed, Buddhism
did not really penetrate China until after the beginning of the 2nd century AD;
during the previous century, Buddhism was confined to foreigners in the northern
commercial cities. |
|
|
Before 200 BC (the approximate beginning
of the Han dynasty), Chinese culture was based on a rather elaborate system of social
stratification in which mobility was rare and difficult. It was, in other
words, a relatively closed social system, if not feudal. During this time, there
were restrictions on the consumption of food: beef, mutton, and pork were to be
eaten by an emperor; beef by feudal lords; mutton by high-ranking state
ministers; pork by lower ministers; fish by generals; and vegetables by
commoners (who probably could not afford meat or fish anyway). Officials, in
fact, were known as "meat eaters," and it was generally only the aged
commoners who were allowed to eat meat. |
|
|
During this time, military affairs and
sacrifices were considered the two most important things in the state. Sacrifice
was inseparable from veneration of the ancestors, and almost no ceremonies were
conducted without sacrifice and offerings. These ceremonies were integral
features of daily life and, as a result, foodstuffs became associated with the
moral code that was based on maintaining fixed social and political
relationships. God and ancestors were often referred to as those "who are
sacrificed to," and disobedience to them was believed to result
automatically in catastrophe. Ceremonies marking important personal transitions
(e.g., initiation to adulthood and
marriage) were held in the ancestral temple and were accompanied by feasts and
sacrifices to the ancestors. (see also ancestor worship,
initiation rite) |
|
|
Ancestral veneration and the ethos of
religiously validated legitimate authority remained as integral features of
Chinese culture until the most recent years. Religious belief and observance
notwithstanding, however, Chinese culture underwent a drastic change with the
establishment of the Han dynasty.
Most notably, the social class system was opened up--at least ideally--by the
adoption of the principle of recruitment for public office; in later dynasties,
this was expanded into the well-known system of written examinations, of grading
officeholders by merit, and other features of the famous Chinese civil service.
Correlated with the removal of the barriers to social mobility and establishment
of the principle of ideally open recruitment to the civil service, the pre-Han
food restrictions disappeared. This was also the time of Buddhism's greatest
thrusts into Chinese thought and life. |
|
|
Food continued to occupy an important
social and religious place in villages, at least until the establishment of the
People's Republic of China. For instance, marriage ceremonies traditionally last
four days; the highlight of each day's celebration is a feast or sacrifice to
the ancestors, sometimes both. Feasts and sacrifices are also important features
of funerals, some of which are marked by two feasts in one day. These ceremonial
occasions often work considerable economic hardship on families, forcing many of
them into debt. (Y.A.C.) (see
also passage
rite) |
|
|
|
|
|
Japan and Korea
exhibit many of the same characteristics with respect to food customs as India,
though with much less elaboration, and thereby the same relationships to
Buddhism, though in an opposite direction. These relationships to Buddhism are
also highlighted by contrasting Japan and Korea with China. Whereas post-Han
China placed emphasis on achieved status and on personal superiority rather than
on considerations of race or blood as a basis of social position, Japan and
Korea (and also Tibet) established and continued a system of hereditary status
and outcasting. As in India, therefore, the Japanese and Koreans considered
pollution to be a hereditary taint; Buddhism played a major role in the
legitimation of this ideology. (see also
Japanese religion) |
|
|
Outcastes in Japan traditionally were
referred to pejoratively as eta(literally, "pollution abundant"). The accepted usage now
is burakumin (meaning "hamlet
people"), although this term has also taken on pejorative connotations.
They are discriminated against in employment and intermarriage, live rurally or
in slum conditions, have the lowest educational levels in the nation, and often
suffer from malnutrition. In the past they were required to wear special
clothing, slippers, and hairstyles; to stay away from other households; to
remain in their own hovels at night; and to prostrate themselves before
higher-caste people. |
|
|
The history of the Japanese caste system
in respect to food customs gives important clues to its origin. Among the
ancient Japanese, meat was included in the diet, and the flesh of animals,
fishes, and birds was offered to the gods as sacrifice.
The flesh of ox, horse, dog, monkey, and fowl was prohibited, but that of deer,
rabbit, and pig was not. During the 8th century AD the Japanese began to depend
mostly upon plant rather than animal foods. In Japan's limited territory, it is
understandable that cattle were raised for plowing and other agricultural work
rather than for meat and milk. In 741 a law was passed forbidding the killing of
cattle and horses, the latter being necessary for military as well as productive
purposes. This provided a conducive atmosphere for Buddhist influences in the
6th and 7th centuries (primarily from China and Korea) that stressed the
abhorrence and ritual impurity of blood and death. |
|
|
Buddhism, however, was only one of
several sources of outcasting slaughterers and butchers. During the 8th century,
Shinto--the only indigenous
religion of Japan--began to stress concepts of uncleanness as things that are
displeasing to the gods: wounds, disease, death, menstruation, and childbirth;
and this too contributed strongly to the development of eta
status. It was apparently about this time that the belief developed in Japan
that a person's association with blood and death changed his nature; this
contamination not only carried over to a man's descendants but was thought to be
communicable. It was apparently also at this time that Japanese cuisine began to
favour fish (especially raw fish) as a staple source of protein. |
|
|
Important in this connection is that
occupational specialization began to flourish in Japan during the 9th and 10th
centuries; by this time, Buddhism was widespread in Japan. Traditional
occupational roles became spheres of monopoly; in the face of competition from
economically specialized groups who forced them out, people dealing with
slaughtering, butchering, and tanning began to form guilds. This was
rationalized by Buddhist and Shinto ideas that occupations associated with
animal slaughter and processing (confined to eta)
should be separated from the general body of commoner and slave occupations. |
|
|
During the Heian
period (794-1185), communities whose members were engaged in occupations
related to death and animal products were forced outside the normal society, and
they thus came to form the main body of outcastes in Japan. Increasingly, the
latter were outcasted and considered untouchable, a pattern that reached its
heights in the Tokugawa period (1603-1867). By the 17th century, the idea
developed--supported by Shinto and Buddhism--that eating the flesh of all
animals caused pollution for
100 days. After the mid-19th century, though, largely because of the emerging
influence of Western cultural habits, meat consumption began to be more
widespread in Japan, and among some Japanese the consumption of beef became
associated with progress and enlightenment. |
|
|
Soon after the Meiji Restoration
(1868) the caste system and the legal discrimination against the eta were abolished. Outcasting, however, dies slowly. Though the
egalitarian ideologies of modern industrialization are incompatible with caste,
outcasting tends to remain in Japan and, alongside it, some of the food customs
associated with the caste system. As in India, eating together (along with
marriage and social visiting) between untouchables and members of normal society
is disdained. In many parts of Japan, especially in traditional villages, the
diet remained largely vegetarian until after World War II, when the consumption
of meat and other Western dietary practices rapidly increased. Even the
consumption of milk, which had been considered unclean, became common. (Y.A.C./Ed.)
(see also alcohol
consumption ) |
|
| |
|
|
