Food as religion

[Carrot Top]

In my own case of fairly earnest discussion of the topic, the definition of the word "religion" that was in my mind was the fourth one listed in The American Heritage Dictionary:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

Perhaps with a bit of my own overtone added of "something that would give a meaning (of sorts) to life".

Edited July 12, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[jackal10]

A religion is a system of beliefs that provides moral guidance, explains the physical and metaphysical nature of our existence, and generally, provides hope for an afterlife.

Food gives purpose (where and what is the next meal), and sustenance to life, and the pursuit of food has shaped mankind. Arguably the pursuit of enough food and drink to survive, (in developed society in the form of money or power) provides meaning and motivation.

As for the physical and metaphysical nature of our existance some argue that the discovery of cooking was the key, which in turn allowed the utilisation of of a wider range of foods, discover agriculture, and allowed mankind to evolve to be the dominant species.

Hope for an afterlife? Some live on in the dishes they discovered or were named after them. More prosaically, my atoms will be recyled and eaten by other organisms.

Edited July 12, 2005 by jackal10 (log)

[Corinna Dunne]

Do you think perhaps, Jack, that the current and burgeoning interest among people that live the US, (and perhaps in Britain too). . .both places where food has not traditionally held such interest as opposed to some other cultures and places. . .do you think this interest has become a sort of substitute for the traditional religions that have supposedly lost followers?

←

Perhaps this point is key: that our interest in food has become a substitute for religion, and has filled a void, not that it is a religion in the true sense of the word.

Regarding lobster and religion, there actually is a close link this side of the Atlantic. It was traditional in Ireland (where most of the population is Catholic) to eat fish on Friday and even though this is not required by the Church any more, there are still some people who uphold the tradition. So for some of the older members of the population, fish is seen as penance. And a few generations back, lobster was viewed as among the least desirable of the Friday options and was regarded as a poor man's food. I'm not sure why this was (probably because it is more labour intensive to eat as opposed to the bottom feeder issue). But the knock-on effect of the close link between fish and penance means that as a nation, our interest in fish is only starting to flourish now that most of the shackles have been caste off and left behind.

As an aside, there is plenty of Irish lobster landed on our shores during the summer months... but most of it gets exported to France!

[Milagai]

That food has godlike qualities is demonstrated in that many cultures have had or, in some cases, still do have their specific gods of food.  By various names, Inari, Tonachatechuhtli, Haumia-tikitiki, Ugajin, Daikokuten and Ru are all considered in one culture in another to fulfill that role.

Of course, the actual worship of food might be thought to be akin to gluttony and in every religion that I know of that is considered sinning against God or the gods as the case may be.

Me, I adore food.  The day I start to worship it is the day I'll finally buy my Lambhorgini.  Well….at least if my banker allows that much of an overdraft.

←

The Hindu equivalent: Annapoorna (the goddess of abundant food)

and actual food is quasi worshipped in some ceremonies at times

(e.g. pongal at the Pongal harvest festival).

What about the food-religion concepts of prasad, and of communion wafers/wine,

etc.

Milagai

[Culinista]

One thing I've also noticed is that people who grow up in traditionally religious households but reject religion as adults very often sublimate their religious dietary practices into quasi-religious food behaviors: you take someone who grew up in a kosher household but no longer observes the laws of kashruth and I can guarantee you that person has a significantly higher percentage chance than the general population of subscribing to one or another variety of rigorous dietary regimen.

←

I would suspect quite the opposite to be true. If I had had such tight restrictions in my youth, I would opt for the most *trefah and permissable of options ...Ham and oysters and all types of shrimp .. cheeseburgers, etc. all of which I had missed in my upbringing.

but I may be completely off-base in my assumptions ...

* Forbidden food is called trefah

←

I was raised fundamentalist Protestant in the Jell-O salad South--at Bob Jones University, no less--and I make my living from being a no-holds-barred hedonist. Maybe that's what not being allowed to wear jeans, watch TV, or go to the movies until I was 18 will do.

I'm in the middle of Jeremy Iggers' "The Garden of Eating: Food, Sex, and the Hunger for Meaning." I don't agree with all of his arguments, but he has some interesting analyses of the way sexual repression has been replaced by food anxiety, drawing a correlation between the sexual revolution and the post-Julia Child foodie revolution: "Child offered us a bite of tarte Tatin and...we looked at our Jell-O molds, tuna casseroles, and Hostess Twinkies and recoiled in shame."

He cites a study that single women today feel less guilt about sleeping with a married man than they do about being seduced by Haagen-Dazs, and he points out that "sinful" these days is most often used to refer to dessert. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that food rather than religion has become the central battleground of personal moral conflict. Look at all the wrangling about dietary evils (salt, cholesterol, fat, MSG, Jell-O, carbs) and the politics.

When it comes to both religious and gastronomic dogma, I'm an avowed agnostic. I've always questioned authority--my sanity would not have survived otherwise. Take, for example, farmed vs. wild salmon. Yes, most salmon farms are horribly crowded and pose serious environmental problems--well documented elsewhere. However, I don't think domesticated salmon have to be so different from domesticated chicken. I visited a salmon farm in Norway last month, and it looked just like my uncle's Tyson-like chicken farm in Japan. I even tasted some of the fish food. It tasted like bonito flakes.

But why couldn't a premium farm-raised salmon--less crowded, raised on natural feed--not be the gastronomic equivalent of a Bresse chicken? People don't think wild turkey is automatically better than domestic--in fact, most people have to learn to like the taste of wild game. In May, I was served a wild salmon from the Loire at L'Ambroisie. (Important note: we did not order the salmon since it was not on the menu--the restaurant had only the one. The chef thought it would please us.) It was a very curious fish--very pale, even for a wild salmon, almost a ghost of a salmon. I was interested in having the new experience and it was of course perfectly prepared, but I could not say it was the best salmon I ever had. The fish had swum many, many miles more than other salmon and was at the last extremes of exhaustion, not to mention lean and delicate. I could also have said flabby and tasteless and still be right. Honestly, there is also something to be said for a fat fish custom fed for full flavor and harvested in the prime of life.

However, taste aside, was it right to eat something so rare? Did it have a chance to spawn after going so far? I have a friend who does not consider a 3-star experience good unless it features something rare. Is depleting the already perilous wild stock even further better for the environment?

I eat anything as long as my own moral conscience allows, and I think that's par for the course in modern smorgasbord Western ethics in general. Foie gras yes, beluga not any more.

As for foam eaters, I've often been called a food snob for my more extravagant flings and championing of modern foods. However, I do think there are at least two kinds of foodies: those that eat for pleasure, and those that eat for status. Iggers points out (not entirely accurately) that once everybody in America ate pretty much the same thing, but after the foodie revolution, there grew a class divide between those that still eat Jell-O and those who have recoiled in shame.

Frankly, life is too short for pointless shame. Eat what gives you joy is my personal creedo.

[Carrot Top]

... study that single women today feel less guilt about sleeping with a married man than they do about being seduced by Haagen-Dazs, and he points out that "sinful" these days is most often used to refer to dessert. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that food rather than religion has become the central battleground of personal moral conflict. Look at all the wrangling about dietary evils (salt, cholesterol, fat, MSG, Jell-O, carbs) and the politics.

Interesting perception, Culinista.

It made me wonder for a moment to what extent the facts of what are currently considered to be popular as manners (so to speak) in any given society affects the behavior of people in terms of what they consider "evil".

Today, in the US, we do not talk about religion a lot in public, for it can quickly become difficult (and adversarial, too, as such a subject does). It is definitely not "politically correct". Yet I have not noticed any of this fear or reluctance to talk about religion in friends from Europe or other places. They are generally eager to do so. (Please note, when I use the words "to talk about" I mean in a general sort of way during daily life between acquaintances. Public discussion by the press and politicians is a very active thing here, but that is media chatter. . .it is not always the same thing as talking with the guy at the checkout counter or on the airplane. . .)

In the past, different things have been considered "unmannerly". Probably someone like Rogov could give many excellent examples of this, and back it up with research. The only one that comes to my mind is how, in the Victorian era in England, food was generally not something one would discuss (it was unmannerly) but social networks and family "substance" or lack of it was. As a result, good and evil were carried as points based on these things. Food. . .was sort of a "nothing" in terms of carrying good or evil.

How does this affect the ways of being, and particularly of eating and enjoyment? And how does it affect the ways in which people consider "evil" . . .the content of the word as played out in real life? Do certain subject become more endowed with public potential for good or evil simply because other subjects have moved to the wayside in public discussion for one reason or another? And do the subjects which have moved to the wayside somehow lose public potential as carriers for good or evil?

Something to muse about.

Food, is one of the few wide-open subjects left for ardent personal verbal discussion here in the US, without any potential for being considered "politically incorrect". One can say what they want, be as passionate as they want, and be considered not only mannerly but stylish and in the vogue, too.

Edited July 15, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[Carrot Top]

Well, okay. . .here's another question. It's a bit off the original path Jack set us on here, but so what else is new.

Why is the food at church suppers in "this day and age" so absolutely dreadful?

Is it due to a sinking lack of faith in Whomever/Whatever has supposedly produced the bounty, so that the act of preparing a covered dish to take to a church supper has merely become a time-consuming burden rather than a homage?

Or is it just the receding lack of interest in taking the time to prepare fresh foods rather than open a can of Campbell's soup and pour it over some other glop. . .and the subsequent lack of cooking skills that are then available?

Or is it just that cans and boxes are more easily found and cooked? Or is it money? Or is it that people somehow think these covered dish nightmares are appreciated, though at the end of the day you will rarely see one single dish scraped clean?

Why?

Sorry. . .just a mite bit cranky over this, I am. . .having grown up reading and hearing of the wonders of church suppers then actually, finally, having met the real thing.

[Culinista]

I've been to more than my share of church suppers, and I'd say they are a dead-on barometer for the state of cooking in America.

First of all, they are not uniformly awful. There are a few churches in the south that are justly famous for their barbecue and fried chicken suppers, oyster roasts, or gumbo. And I here do have to quibble with Carrot Top's assertion that political correctness does not apply to food and state that I am not trying to reinforce the fried chicken and watermelon racial stereotype of African Americans. I am merely talking about isolated examples, whose numbers are unfortunately dwindling.

The chicken soup casserole phenomenon is simply a reflection of what people cook. Church suppers are always semi-demi competitive, and people tend to make their best "company food." Those casseroles are what people think will impress and please their co-congregationalists.

Iggers also makes the point that the post-Julia food revolution has separated America into two food classes, the "liberated" and anxious foodies and the Spam and Jello crowd they've left behind. If we combine it with Jackal's proposal, maybe the explanation for why church suppers are not foodie destinations is that the gastronauts have split off and formed their own denomination

I heard that Abe Opincar used to write restaurant-style reviews of houses of worship, including their refreshments, for the San Diego Reader. That would be a hoot to read.

[jackal10]

Dammit I'm going to have to get and read Iggers...

Pzrt of this is the search for certainty. Its one of the things that drives religion, but also drives "expert" books, sex and DIY manuals, and programs like Julia. If Julia says it must be so, then so it must be,

Maybe the schism is between free thinkers and those who need to be told. If the minister likes chicken soup casseroles, then that is a driving factor, A pity, since the church (and no doubt other religions) used to have a fine food tradition. A religion that invented Benedictine and Chartreuse can't be wholly bad.

[Daniel Rogov]

After reading each of the posts, several intentionally disjointed comments and several implied questions

(a) The gods of food may be worshipped but I do not believe there is a single case where food per se has been worshipped. Adored, enjoyed, yes....but not worshiped.

(b) When food does take on a sacramental purpose it is not the edible material per se that is attributed holiness but the meaning attributed to the food at that moment

© Discussing food in public or even being seen to eat in public has been a taboo at several times and in several places during the course of history. During periods of famine in the Trobriand Islands for example it was forbidden by law, in fact punishable by death, to eat with anyone in presence except members of one's immediate family and even then the mouth had to be covered with the hand while one ate. During the period of the Directoire in France, it was considered proper to eat nothing more than bread in public. Restaurants did not close during that time but diners were all situated in private rooms so that others could not observe them eating.

(d) Regardless of what directions we take it is essential to realize that fewer than 5% of the population of the world has ever spent more than the equivalent of US5.00 for a single meal and that to the vast majority of the population of the world (!!) food is still perceived as a question of sustenance and not of pleasure.

(e) That those people of any faith who maintain dietary restrictions as part of their faith do so (regardless of their level of conscious awareness of this) as much for social/sociological/anthropological/historical/aesthetic reasons as much as of questions directly related to faith

(f) Even absolute heathens, agnostics, whatever observe dietary restrictions. Most Americans for example would find dining on still live fish or snakes quite revolting; many in India judge people like me as barbarians because we eat beef; etc, etc......

(g) Dining (not food but dining) can indeed be inspirational. It is not, however a source of worship. A passion perhaps, but not a religion. Perhaps more to be compared to the inspirational impact passed on by any art form. I have met many people who rave about (e.g.) Tournedos Rossini but I have never met anyone who worshiped either Rossini, tournedos or tournedos Rossini.

And that's why sometimes I refer to my writings as "Rogov's Ramblings"

Edited July 17, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[godito]

Daniel. I agree with most of what you said. Points a and f hit it home for me... peaope in India are starving (and I don't just mean they're very hungry) yet they won't touch the cows that roam freely in the streets

as for

Regardless of what directions we take it is essential to realize that fewer than 5% of the population of the world has ever spent more than the equivalent of US5.00 for a single meal and that to the vast majority of the population of the world (!!) food is still perceived as a question of sustenance and not of pleasure.

yes. But let's not confuse enjoyable with religion (I know this was not your intention, but I can see how people migh confuse the two... you know, "how was your meal at Per Se" "Soo good, it was a religious experience". Eating only the vegetables you get as charity (like sonme buddhist or a couple of extreme catholic sects) is closer to a religious experience. And it's only enjoyable if you understand how thankful they are for the meal earth has given them and the pain it causes them to eat. They don't enjoy food, they enjoy the act of eating (because it's life) Ok, this is hard to read. I'm not making any sense. But it all sounded so pretty in my head!

I guess I'm trying to say that food is not religion, it's only a part of it. And as good as food is, religions doesn`t see it as an enjoyable experience. Am I wrong? Is there somebody here with a deeper knowledge? I'm getting curious.

[jackal10]

The point I was originally trying to make is that food has indeed for some, in western secular society, replaced religion, and many of the structures (in some case literal buildings), societal myths, fanaticism, received beliefs and energy apply to food as they did formerly to religion.

[Daniel Rogov]

Godito, Hi.....

Your points, especially about the Budhist monk begging for his (or her, as there are an increasing number of Budhist women in public search of Nirvana) daily bread, struck home...... I agree that although food itself is not to be worshipped, the quiet reverence with which some receive their daily bread can indeed inspire a feeling of "nearer my God to thee" (that of course couched in the terminology of whatever religion or belief system is appropriate), the thought of one's daily sustenance indeed bringing one closer to one's God, gods or life itself. A point that many of us in the Western world tend to forget in our abundance.

I recall many years ago travelling in India and stopping with my companions on route for a rather luxurious out-of-doors meal (not a picnic but a meal en plein air as that was when hunger struck us). Two monks approached us and we invited them to join us. They did but they accepted only one slice of bread and the smallest bit of jam each. Their calm but absolute joy in sharing with us was an experience (culinary and philosophical) that I will carry with me forever.

I recall as well almost as many years ago being approached by a "bum" on New York City's Bowery who asked me for a dollar "for something to eat". When he approached I was frankly angry, for had he asked me for a dollar for a bottle of wine I would have given it to him but did not appreciate what I perceived as his subtrefuge. As a form of "revenge" I invited him to join me for lunch. To my surprise, he accepted my invitation.

We went into a diner not far from 14th Street and I realized that he was truly hungry and asked him to please, order whatever it was that he wanted. He ordered food worth precisely $1.00 explaining that that was what he asked for and that was what he would take. I almost pleaded with him to order whatever it was that struck his fancy but was moved deeply by his integrity and refusal to eat more than a single dollar's worth of food. I recall that he and I ate bean soup and then something called "turkey croquettes with cream sauce" and thn a cup of coffree. I have rarely appreciated a meal more. After we had eaten I wanted very much to give him twenty dollars but he shook my hand warmly, thanked me and refused. I asked him his name. He smiled warmly at me (he was at least thirty years older than I) and said that names were not important.

Perhaps that is the form that my own religion takes? Perhaps one day I will know the answer to that question. I do know however that the two monks and that "bum" are as important a part of my personal history as any of the chefs, critics, intellectuals, artists or others that I have met as I have made my way on this too often too sad and simultaneously small planet we share.

Forgive a truly "corny note" but to steal a line from Dickens: "God bless us, every one"

Edited July 17, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[cdh]

The point I was originally trying to make is that food has indeed for some, in western secular society, replaced religion, and many of the structures (in some case literal buildings), societal myths, fanaticism, received beliefs and energy apply to food as they did formerly to religion.

←

You're right that there is a tradition of dogmatic received knowledge amongst food lovers today, but I doubt that you'll find the fanaticism and zealotry that spilled so much blood over the past 1500 years in our midst. Let's hope it stays that way.

[Carrot Top]

Maybe the schism is between free thinkers and those who need to be told. If the minister likes chicken soup casseroles, then that is a driving factor,

←

One of the difficulties in sorting all this out (ha, ha, we're not looking for certainty about all this, are we?! ) is that there are differences is both the criteria for what one would call a "foodie" and in what "religion" is, to different people.

Then of course there is the nature of religion itself, which, as it (supposedly) deals with mysteries, can not be pinned down in ways.

And as it deals with the sacred, there are parts of it which are sacred to those who embrace it. And sacred is sacred. Sacred is something that one just doesn't mess with.

(Please do not infer that there is any "tone" at all in this last paragraph, whomever reads it. There is no attitude in these words. . .)

The quote above, looking at the subject as a possible "schism between free thinkers and those who need to be told" is tossing the subject around to look at it in yet another different light. And in ways it may be true, just as so many of the comments people have made so far have been true, too.

It is an exploration of the subject made by focusing on the individual person rather than on the cultural happenings that affect this idea.

And in a blanket statement form, it sure can seem quite true. The original post was asking for "why do some people follow (this that or the other thing) rather than decide for themselves".

But taken a bit further, I can see where this statement might break down in terms of validity. For people are mutable and constantly changing, and for different reasons.

The person who rejects the food "ways" they grew up with, as in someone who did not choose to keep Kosher after leaving home, may be doing so with a very well thought through reason for doing so. . .or they may be doing so just because they need to break away from their families traditions in order to find and feel something that is their own, and solely their own. Or they might do so from no real thought process at all, but just from an angry rebellion.

Is the person who rejects something merely out of an emotional defiant response to be included in the "free thinker" category? Or are they to be included more in the "those who need to be told" category. . .

It seems to me that the drive of this particular person (at that point in time) would be coming more from the "need to be told" area. It does not seem that thinking is involved.

Then there is the fact that people change through life, and are rather flighty in terms of pinning down "what they are" themselves at any moment. The great thinker is not always the great thinker.. . .sometimes even the best thinkers do things that are not thought out well or completely. . .and sometimes "the one who follows what they have been told" can do the most unexpected things.

Sigh. Then there is the factor of the minister and the chicken soup glop. Is the person who brings this sort of thing to a church supper a follower (of the ministers somehow) or are they a follower (of the general way of jello-food culture that they live in) or are they just trying to get by without fuss in a situation where if they brought something "different", it might be rejected.

Flip that to the foodie side of things, it runs too. Try to bring a tuna casserole or bangers-and-mash to a group of foodies preparing for their monthly gourmet dinner and they might reject it (and the person that brings it as an extension!)

Well. What can I say. I am sure happy to have taken the time to write out all this nonsense that even I can not make too much structural sense of, and that surely I can not pin down to any reality!

So, can the "foodie" thing be clearly defined? It may indeed be a disparate collection of "thinkers" and "followers", but who can tell the difference?

[Culinista]

I've read a bit more of Iggers, and as far as I can make out, he argues that the breakdown of traditional (in this timeframe of American history, chicken soup casserole eating) communities and moral values has led to a "harsh new morality of the body." This new morality has replaced the spiritual and social functions of traditional religion.

To quote him: "Dieting is the new religion; it projects a vision of the person you can strive to become, offers symbols of good and evil, a daily ritual to achieve, and even, in the form of a Weight Watchers weigh-in, a confessional. And eating is the new sin. With every bite you take, you move farther away from the perfection tht you must achieve in order to reach the kingdom of heaven. And so the thrust of a great deal of food advertising is the selling of indulgences--the promise of foods that offer the pleasure of indulgence without the price."

Certainly food for thought in these anxious eating days. And maybe the cult of thinness won't lead to bloody Crusades, but I do know that they are taking a major spiritual and physical toll on practically every woman I know. In college, all my friends were purging or starving. Maybe in this case the diet religion is not about the sublime, but fat is the devil.

A side note: there is now a movement bringing together conservative Christians with the new cult of thinness, like "Thin for Him." And vegan animal activists have many of the evangelical hallmarks of Christian pro-lifers.

As for free thinkers vs. followers, the ranks of those who worship their bellies are full of people who mindlessly follow the dictates of food prophets, whether it's Atkins or the restaurant critic of the NY Times. I'm not sure free thinking is necessarily a distinguishing characteristic of your denomination. I know plenty of top academic free thinkers who are conservative Christians (computer scientist Don Knuth of Stanford, for example). And I know plenty of gastronomic evangelicals who would die rather than order a latte after noon. I think every system of values has its truly spiritual devotees as well as its mindless fanatics.

I do feel sorry for people who in good faith try to follow the ever-changing dictates of "nutritional science." Why are pronouncements from the nutritional Mount Horeb always contradicting themselves? Of the four basic food groups I grew up with, three are now on the evil list.

The other foodie followers are the food fashion victims--the ones that feel too superior now for the chicken casserole or tiramisu or chardonnay they loved a few years ago and may secretly still like. Many times I hear people reciting some authority's gastronomic dogma rather than trying to define their own ideas and tastes.

[Behemoth]

Well, okay. . .here's another question. It's a bit off the original path Jack set us on here, but so what else is new.

Why is the food at church suppers in "this day and age" so absolutely dreadful?

Is it due to a sinking lack of faith in Whomever/Whatever has supposedly produced the bounty, so that the act of preparing a covered dish to take to a church supper has merely become a time-consuming burden rather than a homage?

From my experience I think it might be more of a protestant denial of sensual pleasure sort of thing. (Ducking to avoid tomatoes...)

[Chris Amirault]

The point I was originally trying to make is that food has indeed for some, in western secular society, replaced religion, and many of the structures (in some case literal buildings), societal myths, fanaticism, received beliefs and energy apply to food as they did formerly to religion.

←

You're right that there is a tradition of dogmatic received knowledge amongst food lovers today, but I doubt that you'll find the fanaticism and zealotry that spilled so much blood over the past 1500 years in our midst. Let's hope it stays that way.

←

I dunno.... That foie gras thing in Chicago has had moments of resembling fanatical zealotry.

[Carrot Top]

I've read a bit more of Iggers, and as far as I can make out, he argues that the breakdown of traditional (in this timeframe of American history, chicken soup casserole eating) communities and moral values has led to a "harsh new morality of the body." This new morality has replaced the spiritual and social functions of traditional religion.

←

I am curious, Culinista, for the book sounds fascinating. What is Iggers background? Is he an academic, or a writer, or perhaps a sociologist?

[Carrot Top]

On the Kosher Questions thread,  I said

I was trying to make the not very good point, and maybe start a discussion that foodies subscribe to a set of beliefs (fresh = good, manufactured=bad; foam = good, starch based sauces= bad) that are in their way just as irrational and received beliefs as any based on religion.

They go to temples (called restaurants) to worship, and listen to prophets (media chefs), to have their beliefs re-inforced...There are sacred rituals (decanting wine with a candle, for example), and special festivals ( first seasonal foods and drinks)

Maybe this should be a seperate thread, if anyone wants to take it up

So, at the risk of offending several sacred cows (or perhaps in order to) here is the seperate thread. Its about irrational food beliefs, and the way some elevate food to religion rather than the foods of any particular religion; maybe its also about the the human need for received beliefs, either as religion or food (this is not just any burger, but a 100% Angus burger etc as one current advert has it), and how this need can be, and is exploited

←

Going back to Jack's original post, I think he has actually presented a "workable" thesis, and one that could be presented in a form that would make a valid argument, and perhaps even a true one. Certainly a cogent one.

It seems to me that the difficulty may lie in how "religion" is defined within the argument. It would have to be a definition that had enough authority to be credible to most readers.

I wonder if there is anyone out there practiced enough in Aristotolean Logic who could put this argument into a form that would work to meet the final criteria for a valid and true argument. I can not do it, for the practice of symbolic reasoning always makes me feel as if I've entered a topsy-turvy world somewhat like a Marx Brothers movie. Logic makes me feel as if the world is illogical, and I leave a bit of my sanity behind after attempting this sort of exercise.

I'd love to see one of you mathematical mind-types try your hand at this, it would be really interesting to see if the original point could be made.

[Ducky]

I make my living from being a no-holds-barred hedonist.

←

Well I just have to ask: What do you do for a living and where do I send my application?

[Culinista]

I make my living from being a no-holds-barred hedonist.

←

Well I just have to ask: What do you do for a living and where do I send my application?

←

Heh, like many here, I scribble about food and travel--general news when I must. I'm a specialist in high-end adventure eating.

Carrot Top, the jacket blurb says Jeremy Iggers writes about food, restaurants, and ethics for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and wrote another book on journalism and ethics. It does warn that he has a PhD in philosophy, which explains why I keep having vivid flashbacks of my own grad school seminars in modern lit. He quotes Foucault and Heidegger and uses words like "discourse" and "postmodern."

[ivan]

It's perfectly normal to have irrational beliefs about food. We all do.

Eating connects us to society like no other physical need. We don't need society to breathe, we can find shelter in any number of ways, and most of us can locate a source of water -- but we're pretty much helpless when it comes to food. Even early societies made food supply a communal effort. While some of us have the skills to survive as solitary hunter/gatherers, most of us, if we were cut off from society, would become malnourished and eventually perish.

This dependency we have is part of the glue that forms societies in the first place. If we didn't need each other to produce food, what would we need each other for? Even animals, those that hunt large prey, form societies in order to feed individuals. Today, without thinking about it, each of us trusts people we've never met to properly perform a series of complex and difficult tasks necessary to put food on our tables. It's no surprise that food has been ritualized since the very beginnings of society. The expectation that tonight, somehow, there will be dinner on the table is nothing less than a leap of faith.

Ever since we got kicked out of Paradise, food doesn't just grow on trees. Given the complexity of the modern food industry, it's a minor miracle whenever anything works the way it's supposed to. Why should I expect there to be a nice line-caught salmon in the fishmonger's case when I go shopping today? Why should I expect the salmon to be fresh? Or afordable? On a large scale, the laws of economics create trends, but there is no guarantee that good, fresh food will find its way to my particular table every night. The twisted path that salmon had to take between my Weber grill and the waters where it blissfully swam two days ago has thousands of links that could fail. The fact that they somehow don't is reason enough to thank Providence for our daily bread.

I don't ride on rollercoasters, and consider that a rational decision. If half the people I meet every day are imbeciles, or drunk, or drug-addled, why should I assume the guy who last tightened the bolts on that thing was some kind of clean-living brainiac? I assume, in fact, the opposite. So I don't ride on rollercoasters, and fly in airplanes only under protest. However, just recently I stood and watched a person I have never met before put together a tasty cheeseburger and hand it off to yet another complete stranger, who wrapped it and handed it to a third stranger, who handed it to me. And these three are just the very end of the long and complicated chain of humans, machines and animals that were involved in producing that tasty cheeseburger. Any one of those links in that chain could have introduced dangerous, even fatal bacteria or chemicals into the food. Even mischeif and malice could have come into play. Yet I promptly devoured that tasty cheeseburger without fear.

Now, that's irrational.

[fiftydollars]

Growing up in Mexico City tacos were my religion.

[Jonathan Day]

Jack, I wonder if part of what you're getting at is the prevalence of food shibboleths*. A shibboleth is a kind of password -- the story comes originally from the Bible, Judges 12.1-15. The Ephraimites and the Gileadites fight (the whole book is full of fighting, smiting and slaying); the Gileadites win and set up a blockade to catch the fleeing Ephraimites. They ask each person who passes to say the word "shibboleth", which means either "ear of corn", "stream" or "George W. Bush" depending on your views of Ancient Hebrew.

Anyway, the Ephraimites were unable to say 'sh', since there was no such sound in their language. They pronounced the word as 'sibboleth' and were thereby unmasked as the enemy and mowed down by the Gileadites.

There are lots of food shibboleths, designed to distinguish real from false foodies -- for example, three involving salt are

"I always use salt-packed anchovies, never tinned."

"I always salt meat before cooking it" (or the reverse)

"I always brine poultry" (or "I never brine poultry")

"Of course (name of restaurant) is just a tourist trap. I always go to (name of other restaurant)."

"Dried herbs are terrible, I only use fresh".

Et cetera.

As with the ancient Ephraimites, these food shibboleths are badges of identity.