Last saved by: Elsayed Ahmed

LK
1.  Who are Rachel Laudan and Jayeeta Sharma?  What are their research backgrounds and what other works have they written? 
Rachel Laudan is currently a senior research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin. According to her CV, she has held numerous positions as a professor of both history and science since 1974. With regard to research, Laudan appears to have a diverse field of study, but primarily for her historical research she focuses on intellectual history and food history publishing and co-publishing works like Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science, Scientific Change: Philosophical Models and Historical Research, and The Food of Paradise: Exploring Hawaii’s Culinary Heritage (https://utexas.academia.edu/RachelLaudan/CurriculumVitae).
Jayeeta Sharma is currently an Associate Professor of history at the University of Toronto. Much of her research is an interesting mixture of Imperialist history and East-Asian history which employs a methodological blend of labor, gender, race, and food studies. Sharma has also published another work titled Empire’s Garden: Assam and the Making of India (https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/hcs/jayeeta-sharma).
 
2.  What is the relationship between food (and its production, circulation, and consumption) and imperialism, according to both Laudan and Sharma?  Tease out this complex relationship using evidence from both readings.  What insights can we glean about imperialism through time through the lens of food?  What types of primary sources did Laudan use, in particular, to craft her arguments?
The relationship between food and imperialism, according to Laudan and Sharma is a rather complex topic. From my understanding based on both of these readings, the general connection is that the developments of empire and food are inextricably linked as food has shaped perceptions of socio-economic class, religious, and national identity; which evolved rapidly alongside its technological counterparts during periods of industrialization. Sharma tells us about the significance of certain food products during the imperialist periods by highlighting the relationship between economic growth and decreasing food prices which was brought about by industrial development (Sharma 248). Though Sharma discusses the means which increased production, it appears that her assessment focuses on the producer and consumer relationship as it pertains to citizens of these imperialist countries and fails to account for the role that foreign consumerism played in imperialist expansion. For Laudan, this trend extends to empires beyond the modern era. Laudan traces how grain foods brought about centralized populations which would develop into civilizations. Central to this change was the ability to cook foodstuffs which allowed for a broader range of consumable goods (Laudan 11-12). The ability to amass food products would increase the ability for centralized authorities to amass armies, but in the early stages of development, deployment range was still limited by the preservability of food and technology that allowed for portable food production (Ibid., 36). However, food during this period began to establish philosophical and dietary trends, spreading and establishing cross cultural interactions as religious groups began to spread and evolve. Of course, the relationship between religion and food would play an essential role in establishing the dietary trends of empires before the subsequent developments of nationalism, as religion played a key unifying element among peoples with diverse regional traditions (think about the identity of Europe. Originally there was no “Europe” as we know it, but rather it was known as Christendom, and as colonial empires started to compete with one another and religious ideologies clashed, nationalism started to gain traction as a unifying element for inter-European wars. For more information on this topic see Malcom Muggeridge’s The End of Christendom).  Thus, from Laudan and Sharma’s works we can see that food is an essential element not just to the development of empires, but to the development of civilization itself. Furthermore, Laudan’s perception of cooking being a form of technology makes me wonder about if there are distinctions between organic and inorganic technology that humans use. If so, an organic approach to technology might provide an extensive and fascinating scope of analysis to global history. Lastly, Laudan’s work is heavily dependent upon secondary source material, which is to be expected when tackling numerous topics across a massive chronological period. Furthermore, many of her primary documents like The Book of Dishes, The Rule of Saint Benedict, and Cato’s De Agricultura are translated, which again, due to the scope of this work, is to be expected. Furthermore, many of these sources are geared towards, health, science, and technology; fields familiar to Laudan.
 
3. How did the production, circulation, and consumption of food help to fortify imperial regimes?  Conversely, how did the production, circulation, and consumption of food help to de-stabilize imperial regimes?  Provide examples from both Laudan and Sharma. 
I suppose it really depends on what empire we examine within the context of “imperialism”. If we are to limit ourselves to modern imperialism, I believe we run the chance of missing examinations of early logistical developments which would be harkened back to military strategists which would shape the military revolution in Europe during the seventeenth-century (For further information on this topic I recommend reading Geoffrey Parker’s The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500-1800. For a later discussion on the means of which later principles of limited warfare would be overcome by logistic strategies see John Churchill, the 1st duke of Marlborough’s strategy employed at the Battle of Blenheim I recommend John Keegan’s A History of Warfare). Specifically, for Rome, Laudan notes how access to a greater quantity and quality of food allowed for the Romans to use their “well-fed foot soldiers, officers, and animals” to achieve victory. Technologically, the rotary grindstone allowed for the mobile conversion of raw material into edible food products on the field (Ibid.,75-77). This relationship between foodstuffs and military expansion is perhaps one of the most fascinating elements I have seen thus far, as it implies a minimally examined element of military history. Just as Laudan discusses, Vegetius did not the importance of supply and troop conduct (though Vegetius is noted for his own conservative writings and is more reflective of the old way of Roman War. Vegetius is writing all of this during a time of Roman military decline. For more information see: Flavius Begetius Renatus’ De Re Militari) (Ibid.,76). However, there are elements of modern imperialism which provide an ample examination of the role that food plays in the stability and growth of imperialist regimes. One of the most convincing examples provided by Laudan was in her discussion of the impact of food on the British Royal Navy. It is here that Laudan discusses the how changes in diet allowed for longer durations at sea and citrus had counteracted the rather detrimental scurvy which in turn increased the duration and quality of naval expeditions (Ibid.,242). At home, bread was deemed an essential element of control. For many nations with imperialist interests during the eighteenth century, bread was essential in controlling the behavior and population of the destitute within their society. However, as the populations within these empires grew, stability became contingent upon an alternative and cheap source of food that would serve in place of or in addition to bread (Ibid.,244-245).  Looking to the socio-political implications of imperialism and food, Sharma provides a rather brief but extensive examination into the more theoretical aspects of this relationship. For Sharma, this relationship develops itself early on as a means of contextualizing exotic foods from far reaches of the empire into something inherent within the centralized state rather than a foreign element (Sharma, 243). Furthermore, Sharma notes that this relationship allowed for British forces abroad to exchange exotic goods with those they encountered, which she believes brought about foreign assimilation through the dependency theory (Ibid.,244-245). An example provided by Sharma which I found rather perplexing is the dependency theory of imperialism and the Plains Indians dependency on the United States due to the decline in their primary sustenance the buffalo. General scholarship of this period suggests that this was a period of U.S. colonialism rather than imperialism, however evidence such as this coupled with other forms of expansion and resistance suggests that this in fact could be a period of American technological imperialist expansion (Ibid.,245, 249). Thus, what both authors have demonstrated in their discussion is that whether it be control of its own citizens or foreign territories, the imperialist state’s power hinged on its ability to increase or restrict the availability of food to the people under its dominion.    
 
4. What does Laudan mean when she says, "Just as food and cooking defined social status, they also served as symbols of social status and political relations" (44)?  Provide examples from different time periods.  Would Sharma agree with Laudan that food and cooking helped define social status in colonial regimes?  Why or why not?
It is rather fascinating to consider the relationship between food and political and social theory. For Laudan, we can trace this relationship as it develops in stages chronologically from socio-religious, socio-political, religious-political, socio-economic, and lastly nationalist. Starting off, the basis of “civilization” had to be established, which Laudan notes, appears around grain communities which allowed for the development of centralized populations which contextualized their abundance of food in a socio-religious fashion (Laudan, 16). For example, Laudan tells us that the people of the Shang dynasty protested the seizure of their millet by King T’ang and his military entourage. The T’ang in response reasoned with the people on religious grounds, stating that the “gods and ancestors” would provide them with good tidings and protection from those “barbarians” which “eat neither grain nor food cooked with fire” (Ibid., 16-18). Though no date is provided for the creation of this account, by the time of its creation, food had already developed itself as an identifying element. Thus, from this we see that the people’s loyalty was less to the King of the dynasty and more to the gods and their ancestors, however the King appears to serve as a medium between heaven and earth, the one socially worthy to provide sacrifice on behalf of  the people to the gods; and it is the cooking of food and consumption of grain which designated the civilized from “barbarians”. This interpretation would evolve during the next stage of culinary development which was brought about by the introduction of “imperial cuisine”, marking the transition from civilizations and dynasties, to a period of expansive empires. With the emergence of the Han dynasty and its political philosophy based on Confucian virtue, Laudan notes the expansive palate of the elite in society, however for those within its realm, the food of the masses was focused more on nourishment (Ibid., 87). The Han dynasty was engrained within imperial doctrine which emphasized the role of the imperial sacrifice which connected government, society, and food.  However, Laudan informs the reader that Taoism, a competing philosophy to Confucianism, “abstained from grains and thus society” (Ibid., 88-89). However, one issue with this is that Laudan fails to acknowledge that this wave of Taoism was not the traditional Taoism in a sense, but a reinvigorated approach historically known as Neo-Taoism (For more information see: Wing-Tsit Chan’s A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963) PP. 314-335).  Looking beyond this, Laudan does note that political advisors during the Han dynasty acknowledged the importance of the availability of food and political stability by maintaining social stability and thus implemented measures to regulate the prices of foodstuffs (Laudan., 92-93). This of course lacks the dominion that would be demonstrated by empires of the later centuries which granted the sovereign total hegemony over their realm. Looking from ancient empires to pre-modern empires, the Ottoman empire is a rather fascinating point of examination. For the Ottomans, Laudan tells us that a treatise which outlines kingly conduct discusses the rank and file of the Sultan’s kitchen, and the symbolic importance associated with the Sultan’s generosity (Ibid.,159). However, one of the more prevalent examples which demonstrates the symbolic association of food and status would manifest itself within the globalized communities of the modern imperialist powers. Perhaps the most compelling example is found in Laudan’s discussion of the “bread-and-beef theory”. The diet of “bread and beef” after the high imperialist era and on the eve of the twentieth century, many British intellectuals began to question if there was a relationship between their diet and their success as an empire. According to Laudan, this theory was compelling enough that intellectuals from other nations, most likely with western educations of their own, argued that their country; be it China, India, Japan, or any other country which was unfortunate enough to find itself within the reach of imperialist tendrils argued that their people should adopt a similar diet so that they might combat these foreign encroachers (Ibid.,251-252). In fact, this dietary trend, according to Laudan, would shape global perceptions of those in the West, most notably the English and the United States. Laudan tells us that to these nations “those who did not eat bread and beef were frequently viewed as second-class citizens or even not as citizens at all.” As Laudan notes, even Japan during the Meji restoration found themselves immolating to a degree the western conception of beef. Furthermore, beef had come to shape “intellectual” opinions of masculinity and was used as a means to identify race by emphasizing the inferiority of other cuisines. This would extend to the degree that beef and bread would become a sign of citizenship, and failing to conform to these standards left one subject to ridicule (Ibid., 256-257). For Sharma, the materialist association between exotic food stuffs and social status was inextricably linked. One of the most striking examples provided by Sharma is in her discussion of the symbolic relationship of pineapples of “King-pine” served by King Charles II to the French ambassador as a demonstration of “English dominion over contested Caribbean islands” (Sharma, 243).  
 
5. From Laudan:  What role did critics and "counter cuisines" play in the evolution of culinary philosophy and practice? Check out 206 and 207-208, in particular.
According to Laudan, culinary practice in the mid-1600s took a drastic shift away from “spices and sugar from savory dishes” and added to their dietary trends “new fat-based sauces, many thickened with flour.” Such shifts, Laudan notes, are marked by ideological changes within society which coupled religion, politics, and nutritional theory to yield a new step in the socio-economic relations of cuisine. At the heart of this was the transitions brought about by the protestant reformation which critiqued Catholic concepts of salvation and rule, and instead proposed “republican, liberal, and national alternatives” (Laudan, 207).   From this, Laudan discusses the emergence of the “middling republic cuisine” which served as a bridge between the high cuisine and low cuisine which would subsequently serve as a precursor to modern European cuisines (Ibid., 208). For Laudan, the emergence of “middling cuisine” is divided into preindustrial cuisine and postindustrial cuisine, both of which had their own critiques, ideologies, and solutions. As mentioned prior, preindustrial “middling” cuisine was brought about by socio-religious changes within Europe. Middling cuisine was known for its availability and Laudan suggests, provides a secondary expression of equality and independence (Ibid., 208). Some of the major components of the period addressed by Laudan note the mass diaspora of peoples due to the Thirty Years’ War and the subsequent ideological turbulence which would question the presupposed notions of the relationship between the church and leader. This specifically sought to provide an alternative from the culinary philosophy employed by the Catholic Church, on the basis of Martin Luther’s argument that questioned religious concerns with things such as dress and food (Ibid., 210). Next, the meals generally associated with Catholic mass transitioned to family meals. This in turn resulted in the transition of identity from socio-religious status to a more national focused rhetoric, which placed moral and social constraints on its population by shifting their duty to the state, whilst noting the importance of family banquets. Lastly, Laudan notes the shift from cosmic theorization, which had dominated the ideological discussion of food, to one imbedded within the “natural world” which emphasized the relationship between chemical components and nutrition (Ibid., 210-211).

6. Laudan hints at the gendered nature of "high" and "humble" cuisines and how the evolution of cuisine impacted gender role expectations and ideals of masculinity and femininity. How did gender factor into the relationship between colonizers and the colonized in imperial settings?  Would Sharma agree with Laudan on this?
Thinking in terms of gender will be a new methodological approach which I have yet to use, but I will endeavor to do my best in this regard. Luckily, there are moments that Laudan makes the connection between cuisine and gender relatively clear. As Laudan notes, early developments of things such as meat in alcohol in “high cuisines” became an indicator of power and masculine prowess. An example provided by the author notes the significance of this food stuff in Chinese sacrificial banquets which was “designed to showcase the power of the monarch and his nobles and to increase their physical strength.” Humble cuisines in turn, generally were meatless and demonstrated qualities such as “intelligence and spirituality” (Laudan, 103). Laudan also notes the sexualized connotations of food stuffs present within the Qur’an which she claims that the various rivers of things such as water, milk, wine, and honey were equated to various elements of the human body. For example, Laudan compares milk to “breasts and semen and new life” as well as wine as “blood and hot, powerful male thighs” (Ibid.,136). Admittedly I know very little about such claims, but perhaps one of my peers is more familiar with sexuality and food stuffs can enlighten me on Laudan’s claim. Outside of this, elements of masculinity and femininity can be identified within Laudan’s discussion of Mesoamerican culinary philosophy. As Laudan notes, “Cooking maize was women’s work” and was the most difficult work associated with this food. As a result, the metate became symbolically associated with womanhood. Interestingly enough, Laudan notes that “Old women who had fulfilled their duty to the state and the gods could get drunk with impunity. For others, doing so was punishable by death.” However, Laudan is not clear as to what this “duty” may be, but an assessment of the symbolic understanding of drunkenness as it was perceived by Mesoamericans might shed some light on this discussion (Ibid., 95-96). Sharma provides us with some rather fascinating elements of the relationship between gender and particular food items. For example, Sharma discusses how tea in Britain, was originally perceived as and associated with “upper-class feminine domesticity” and coffee became associated with “masculine sociability” (Sharma, 244-245). However, Sharma goes on to note that as abundance and affordability increased, the gendered association with certain food products became more ambiguous (Ibid., 250).    
 
7. From Laudan:  How did the rise of "the religions of salvation" beginning in the 3rd century BCE transform ancient imperial high cuisine, and how did that transformation impact the role of food in marking social status?
For Laudan, much of her examination of the “religions of salvation” emphasizes the changes brought about by Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity since these religions were adopted by a state. Thus, with the chronological restrictions of “3rd century BCE” and being a “religion of salvation” this thereby streamlines our examinations to the influence of Buddhism on “the role of food in making social status”.  Though one could examine the culinary traditions transferred from Judaism to Christianity, the subsequent ideological convergence and culinary distinctions still places Christianity and Islam lay outside of the scope of this examination, however both of these religions follow similar trends as Buddhism (Laudan, 167). According to Laudan, these religious practices continued two important elements of “ancient culinary philosophy” specifically the relationship between food, person, and cosmos; and the “the principle of hierarchy”. Specifically focusing on social status, which Laudan invokes the phrase “If you are a king, eat like a king, and if you are a peasant, eat like a peasant…and if you are a holy man, eat like a holy man” (Laudan 104). Specifically, for Buddhism, Laudan notes the second wave of Buddhism out of India which entered China in the 3rd century BCE purported a different culinary philosophy, distinct from the high cuisine of the Han dynasty. The separation between “high” and “humble” cuisines of the Han elite and the Buddhist monks was rather drastic, as the elite’s dietary trends emphasized “wheat noodles, lamb and mutton, and fermented condiments” where as the Buddhist monks abstained from meat consumption and sacrifice to the spirits and ancestors was still the responsibility of the state (Ibid., 102, 118). The later introduction of things like tea and tofu were contextualized to fit with certain elements of Buddhist culinary philosophy. Furthermore, one could speculate as to what degree Buddhism influenced the cuisine of the poorer classes, given that in times of need Buddhist monasteries were a place of charity, and visitors could often find themselves exposed to tea and Buddhist cuisine (Ibid., 123).    
 
8. From Laudan:  What were the economic and social causes and effects of the advent of "middling" cuisine in the modern era?  Does Sharma speak to this argument?  If so, how?
(talk about modern middling cuisine start 297)
I suppose for this question it is subjective to what we consider the “modern era”. For Laudan, the “modern era” is marked at the turn of the nineteenth century; coming to a crescendo between 1880 and 1914 (Laudan, 248). For Laudan, a drastic population growth, coupled with economic prosperity allowed for an increase in those who could enjoy “middling Anglo cuisine” by the mid to late nineteenth century (Ibid., 250). Emerging from this is the varying degrees of the middle class brought about by technological advancements which promoted mass consumerism. As Laudan notes, the salaried classes served as a point between high and humble cuisines. However, this class was not without its struggle. Unable to enjoy a similar life of that of the higher social strata bourgeoisie, the philosophy which this socio-economic class, according to Laudan, emphasized the ideology of “thrift, respectability, and the safety of the food they purchased” (Ibid., 252-253). Subsequently, developments of restaurants, commercialization and branding of foodstuffs, and technological improvements in transportation and preservation cut the costs of food stuffs allowing for broader availability. (Ibid., 257, 263-264). For the “urban working class”, cuisine was designed to strengthen the body of the worker rather than the luxurious tastes of the classes above them. This desired function was far from the reality of the situation, as Laudan notes, that military officials realized many of their conscripts were not fit for service due to their inadequate diet and subsequent health (Ibid., 268-269). According to Laudan, the working class “wanted cheap, quick food, not home-prepared meals that took hours to cook, needed expensive fuel, and required more pantry and kitchen space than most of them had in their tiny living quarters” (Ibid., 271). However, certain items previously deemed a luxury like tea and sugar were made available to the working class, which Laudan notes, resulted in a “more egalitarian culinary philosophy of modern cuisines” (Ibid., 276-277). For Sharma, the notion of “middling cuisine” is not addressed as a stand-alone topic, but rather this discussion appears to be incorporated into her materialist assessment. For example, Sharma notes the economic importance of meat as it became readily available for the working classes and its importance in the daily lives of the consumerist. With an abundance of both material goods and consumers, “middling cuisine” brought about the presence of commercial “grocery firms”. (Sharma 249-250)      
 
9. How do Laudan and Sharma's works overlap with Jurafsky's Language of Food?  What similar themes, methodologies, sources, and/or arguments do these works share, if any?  How does bringing these works into conversation with one another broaden our perspectives of the role of food in history?
Admittedly, it is rather difficult to identify the overlapping methodologies, as both Laudan and Sharma are professional historians, and to find even the greatest stretch to connect their methodologies would be too generous to Jurafsky’s erudition. The only overlap between the two that is worth mentioning appears in both their general argument for the role of food and history and source usage. Though all three authors recognize the importance that food played in imperialist expansion and identity, the major point of contingency arises in Jurafsky’s inaccurate source usage (For the extensive argument pertaining to Jurafsky’s source usage see last post). With that in mind, Laudan provides a more accurate representation and assessment of historical fiction. For example, when Laudan uses the Epic of Gilgamesh, this source is interpreted within its historical context, noting that it had been “revised and modified over thousands of years of Mesopotamian history” (Laudan., 21). Thus, when we read this, we are informed that this does not tell us about a specific period in Mesopotamian history, but rather this transcends numerous years and that from this, we can infer the presence of religious sacrifice, and culinary practices as it was made during this specific translation. Furthermore, Laudan goes on to use Homeric tales, religious and philosophical writings, and ancient scientific works to tell us of the intellectual theories relevant to their publication (Ibid., 42-43).
 
10. Finally, tell us three things you learned that surprised you in this forum’s readings, two questions you have about what you’ve read, and one way the readings have changed/challenged/broadened your perspectives.
Some of the surprising elements from the works of Laudan and Sharma focus primarily on the cross-cultural culinary diffusions between religions and state and then state and empire. For example, Laudan tells us of the role that Buddhism played in transmitting Indian culinary philosophy into China, and how this resulted in a growth of Chinese dietary innovation through the addition of tea and tofu (Laudan 119).  Next, with regard to Laudan, is the relationship between urbanization and the industrialization of food processing. At first, when I was thinking of the industrialization and food, I theorized that food, though abundant, would in fact be riddled with a number of contaminants due to the lack of regulations and would in turn harm the health of its consumers, however Laudan presents this process in a different light. As Laudan notes, industrialization had allowed for a cut in the costs of foodstuffs, and transportation networks allowed the bringing of exotic foodstuffs directly into the home of urban and rural populations of an industrial nation (Ibid., 276). For Sharma, her discussion about Dole and pineapples really took an approach which I have not considered when I look at branding on my food products. For example, Sharma notes that Dole pineapple combined various elements of industrial cuisine which included product preservation, mechanization, business management, and product transportation (Sharma, 247-248). Her discussion coupled with some of the elements of Laudan have pushed me to think about technology as something other than an extension of the state apparatus, or could it be the case that food is merely an extension of the state? Definitely some food for thought. The questions posed by the aforementioned examination are as follows: What role did advancements in Jewish medicine and culinary knowledge impact French perceptions and distrust during the Black Death in Savoy and Strasbourg during the years 1348-1350? and to what degree did the Viking colonization and long-distance trade influence their culinary tastes? Did this philosophy and exchange of goods accompany those who left the mainland and settled in places like Iceland, Greenland, Shetlands, Orkneys, Scotland, North-East England, Ireland, and Normandy? What role might this have played in shaping culinary traditions of these regions?