|
|
CHAPTER
I: INTRODUCTION
Prologue
The study of food culture has been subject to increasing attention in
anthropology.[1]
Hindu food culture has received particular attention, as the hierarchical
caste system and its compartmentalization of society is reflected in the
food habits, in the rules concerning purity and pollution, and with whom,
according to custom, one may or may not eat what. Major works have been
published by Eichinger Ferro-Luzzi, Dumont , Freed, Harper, Mayer, Marriot
and Wiser.[2] Eichinger
Ferro-Luzzi has described and analyzed food in south Indian ritual and
found that food offerings constitute a kind of language for addressing
the Gods. Mayer and Freed account systematically for who may or may not
eat what with whom, in certain Hindu villages. Marriot has studied the
transactional aspects of food in Hindu culture, pointing out how certain
groups of castes are givers, while others are receivers. Harper has researched
ritual pollution as an “integrator” of caste and religion
in a Karnataka village and points out the significance of “respect
pollution,” e.g., how the acceptance of polluting foods marks ritual
subordination. Wiser extensively documents the food culture of a north
Indian Hindu village. Dumont constructed a matrix table, based on Mayer’s
data, which graphically showed the relations between caste and acceptance
of food and drink.[3]
Indeed, presently it appears that every respectable field monograph on
Hindu villages will have parts dedicated to the relationship between caste
and food. There are also a number of studies on food in ancient India
which show that considerable change has taken place over time; for example,
the cow, now taboo as food, was once sacrificed and eaten.[4]
In the Nepalese field Paul-Ortner has analyzed food as a key-symbol among
the Sherpa of Solu; Stone has inquired into food, hierarchy, and illness
among Brahmans of the Trisul area; and Czarnecka has also related food
to hierarchy in the same area, creating yet another of the by now classic
matrixes on who, according to custom, may or may not eat what with whom.[5]
There are also scattered references on food culture in many works dealing
with Nepalese tribes and castes, and there are a number of works dealing
with Newari food culture. The latter will be examined in chapter III.
top
The
Purpose of the Dissertation
The purpose of this dissertation is to explore certain aspects of the
symbolic significance of food in Newari society. I shall analyze the significance
of certain foods and certain customs immediately associated with food
in relation to the most important elements of Newar social structure.
Thus, the purpose of the dissertation is two-fold: i) to distill the meanings
(significations) of various foods in interactive contexts, and ii) to
analyze the relationships of these foods and customs to the social structure
of the Newars in order to understand their significance in the social
context.[6]
The word
symbol is of Greek origin. Symbolon means contract, token, insignia, and
a means of identification. “In its original meaning the symbol represented
and communicated a coherent greater whole by means of a part.”(Encyclopaedia
Britannica 1974, vol. 17, p. 900) In this dissertation I adopt the following
operational definition of symbol: a symbol is anything which “serves
as a vehicle for a conception — the conception is the symbol’s
meaning.”[7]
Elements
of Social Structure
With the term element of social structure[8]
I denote one of the categories that together make up the social fabric.
The definitions of the elements discussed in this dissertation are emic:
i.e., I have followed the Newars’ own classifications of caste (jati),
kin, and other social categories of importance. The following elements
of the social structure have been selected for study: caste ( jati ),
house(hold) ( chey ), patrilineage (phuki ), married daughters (mhayemaca
), affines (jilajan ), religious associations (guthis ), and the village
elders (thakali ) and headmen (nayemha ). The elements may in some instances
be divided into sub-categories; for instance, a household may consist
of several nuclear families. Such sub-categories have been included in
the discourse under the title where they seemed to have most relevance.
top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]
See, for instance: Lévi-Strauss 1969, Douglas 1975 and 1976, Tambiah
1969, Jacobson-Widding 1981.
[2]
Eichinger Ferro-Luzzi 1977a and 1977b, Mayer 1960, Marriot 1976, Wisers
1955, Dumont 1972, Freed 1970, Harper 1964.
[3]
The above mentioned authors have worked in different parts of India, and
as regional variations are great I will not attempt to evaluate the validity
or reliability of their results. These are particularistic, and (at best)
valid for the particular caste or region that has been studied; i.e.,
testing a proposition based upon research on the Karnataka Brahmins on
the Newars of Nepal would constitute a grave “ecological fallacy.”
Neither do I intend to compare Newars to other Hindus; though perhaps
this work may be used as a basis for such a pursuit. Here, it will be
sufficient to say that if there is a common denominator with regard to
food culture, shared by most Hindu populations and reported by many anthropologists,
it is that food customs symbolize and demarcate hierarchical relationships.
[4]
See, for instance, Prakash 1961.
[5]
Paul-Ortner 1970, Stone 1977, Czarnecka 1984.
[6]
Signification is defined by Gregor as the “public meaning of a sign
or sign-complex; its denotations covers all utterances which can, in principle,
meet public evidence conditions.”(1971:380) However, as consistently
using the term would be cumbersome, I have frequently used various synonyms,
particularly for its verb form signify: e.g., mark, express, convey message,
mean, etc. Significance on the other hand is defined as the “private
and consequently variable meaning of a sign or a sign complex.”(Ibid.)
[7]
This definition has been obtained from Geertz 1966:5 and an addition to
it has been made by Paul-Ortner 1970:1. The latter had quoted the former
adding the first emphasized part which is not within quotation marks.
Geertz here is based upon Suzanne Langer 1960 Philosophy in a New Key
(Penguin 1948), and other works by her.
[8] Here I have followed Fürer-Haimendorf’s
(1956) usage.
top
|
|